Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background: Over 35 years ago, the Brundtland Report entitled Our Common Future shed light on the impacts of human behavior on the environment and raised global awareness about sustainability. Since then, sustainability has become a prominent issue influencing most spheres of life including outdoor education (OE). Purpose: This inquiry seeks to identify the necessary conditions for justifying OE travel to far-away places. Methodology: We investigated this question using practitioner inquiry and thematic analysis. Findings: The authors believe some far-away journeys can be justified and recommend that these journeys are guided by featuring learning objectives that are best learned in specific far-away places; maintaining strong connections to the students’ everyday lives; including high levels of student involvement in sustainability-related decisions; and through providing novel and unexpected experiences that are unlikely to occur locally. Finally, we believe there is a case to be made for longer rather than shorter journeys. Implications: We caution against developing a binary which pits local OE against journeys to far-away places. Rather, both local and far-away journeys have an important role to play in OE programs that aim to build a world that is more socially and environmentally just.

Keywords

practitioner inquiry sustainability place-based education environmental-education climate change

Introduction

It has been over 35 years since the Brundtland Report, entitled Our Common Future (Brundtland, 1987), shed light on the impacts of human behavior on the natural environment and raised global awareness about sustainability. Since then, sustainability has become a ubiquitous term and prominent issue that influences most spheres of life, including business, politics, and education. Outdoor education (OE) in higher education (HE) is no exception, with scholars questioning whether traditional OE journeys to far-away places (from here on simply referred to as journeys) using adventure, risk, and challenge in remote places to achieve personal growth outcomes are justifiable given the current sustainability crisis (Hill, 2012; Rawles, 2013; Roberts, 2018; Stonehouse, 2022). Central to their questioning is the need for OE to place “greater emphasis on human/nature relationships, place, social justice, and ecological perspectives” (Hill, 2012, p. 15); to reduce carbon footprints, particularly related to long-distance flying (Rawles, 2013); to expand its influence and inclusion by focusing on “local and everyday experiences” rather than traditional trip and expedition programs (Roberts, 2018, p. 20); and to be more willing to embrace sustainable practices and curricula (Stonehouse, 2022). Other writers claim that OE programs are well-suited to address environmental sustainability challenges (Wattchow & Brown, 2011), critical thinking regarding systems of privilege (Meerts-Brandsma et al., 2020), and long-held values and beliefs (Meerts-Brandsma et al., 2023). Fox and Thomas (2022) examine climate change in the literature on OE and finish with a quote from John Lewis: “If not us, then who? If not now, then when?” (p. 184).

As outdoor educators, Lewis’ (Fox & Thomas, 2022) question leads us to ask: “If it is us, then what must we do?.” In responding to “what must we do?,” there is a danger of adopting binary positions, which either advocate for maintaining the status quo of traditional trip and expedition programs or for reducing fossil fueled consumption from OE curriculum by adopting locally based programs. For OE academics and practitioners working in HE, our view is that this binary is unhelpful and we will argue that it should be replaced by more nuanced solutions that embrace many strengths of OE in HE while contributing to the creation of a more sustainable future for all.

We, the authors of this paper, are from four distinct regions of the world (Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Norway) and have all used both local and far-away journeys throughout our careers and see value in both. In addition, we have individually questioned the justifiability of journeys based on their associated carbon emissions. To address our concern, we participated in an initial knowledge exchange seminar (NIH, 2023) to explore two principal questions: (1) Are journeys to far-away places justifiable in a time of climate change? (2) If journeys to far-away places are justifiable, what are the key characteristics of these journeys? Based on this initial inquiry, we agreed that some OE journeys to far-away places can be justified. This led to our revised research aim of identifying the necessary conditions for justifying OE travel to far-away places. Not surprisingly, this was a difficult and complex task that required critically examining our personal and professional values, assumptions, and practices. Some might claim our inquiry is an effort to justify our past and present practices. We argue, however, that our insider status allowed for a robust practitioner inquiry process since our research questions arose from our shared practice. Indeed, this process challenged us to assess our commitment to personal and professional pedagogical and sustainability values and ask if those values are genuinely reflected in our teaching. This process was at times uncomfortable, as it exposed personal and professional contradictions (Asfeldt & Stonehouse, 2021; Sandri, 2022).

Sustainability is a complex issue that requires many compromises, and this inquiry does not seek to arrive at a universal recipe that resolves sustainability questions linked to OE journeys. Rather, this article seeks to contribute additional nuanced thinking and applications to the ongoing conversation regarding OE's role in HE.

Literature Review

What is Sustainability?

Climate change is among the greatest challenges currently facing our planet (Chen et al., 2022; IPCC, 2018; Sen et al., 2021) and it is critical to develop sustainable practices for the continued existence of human and nonhuman life. The Brundtland Report (Brundtland, 1987) introduced the concept of sustainable development and spurred the emergence of the three pillars of sustainability (social, economic, and environmental) and later the United Nations (UN, n.d.) 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) (Purvis et al., 2019). These pillars and the UN's (n.d.) goals remind us that the challenges of climate change are far more complex than addressing only the environmental aspects of the crisis. Indeed, attempts to define sustainability have revealed a contested landscape of cultural lenses, values, and divergent goals (Siegel et al., 2018).

Crucially, while our knowledge exchange exercise was initiated based on a shared concern about the carbon footprint of OE journeys, this narrow lens is too simple. The social, economic, cultural, and environmental threads of sustainability are tightly interwoven and elicit complex and challenging questions (UNESCO, 2018; Sen et al., 2021; Sterling, 2001) which demand a holistic and integrated view. Therefore, we needed a clearer understanding of the term “sustainability.”

Several researchers suggest a weakness in sustainability research lies in the ambiguous definitions of the word sustainability. For example, Salas-Zapata and Ortiz-Muñoz (2019), Lang et al. (2006), and Rosenberg et al. (2021) claim that much of the sustainability research does not include an operational definition of sustainability leading to poorly focused discussions and research. Understanding sustainability is further complicated by a variety of related terms, such as sustainable development (Brundtland, 1987), sustainability education, education for sustainability (Sandri, 2022), and education for sustainable development (UNESCO, 2018). In this paper, we adopt UNESCO's (2018) definition of education for sustainable development which “encourages changes in knowledge, skills, values and attitudes to enable a more sustainable and just society for all” (p. 7). Outdoor education has been critiqued for not paying sufficient attention to the complex, multilayered, transboundary nature of sustainability challenges (Fox & Thomas, 2022; Hill, 2012; Roberts, 2018; Stonehouse, 2022), yet others claim OE is well-suited to address some aspects of sustainability (Asfeldt et al., 2022; Hill, 2012; Meerts-Brandsma et al., 2020; Meerts-Brandsma et al., 2023; North et al., 2023a). Therefore, central to our adoption of this UNESCO definition is its acknowledgement that education for sustainability prepares young people for coping with, managing, and shaping current conditions characterized by change, uncertainty, risk, and complexity (Sterling, 2001). That is, we believe OE research and practice demonstrate how well-designed and delivered OE programs can “encourage changes in knowledge, skills, values and attitudes” (UNESCO, 2018, p. 7) that enable students to better manage change, uncertainty, risk, and complexity (Sterling, 2001), which are central to an environmental, social, and economically sustainable future.

Sustainability and HE

There is widespread acceptance that education generally, and HE specifically, has an important role to play in creating a sustainable future (Brundtland, 1987; Mokski et al., 2023; Sen et al., 2021; UNESCO, 2018; Žalėnienė & Pereira, 2021). For example, Brundtland (1987) recommends increased access to quality education as a means for improving global knowledge and skills that cut across traditional disciplinary boundaries. In addition, Žalėnienė & Pereira (2021) state that “[e]ducation is the driving force of establishing sustainability since it is one of the main communication vehicles and the basis for the ‘sustainability mindset’” (p. 100), while UNESCO (2018) points to HE as a means for changing values and attitudes, which in turn lead to changes in habits and patterns of living. Sen et al. (2021) identify HE as playing a key role through teaching, undertaking cutting edge climate change research, and role modeling how to achieve carbon neutrality. In addition, Mokski et al. (2023) highlight the importance of improving interdisciplinary teaching and learning to direct societal policy and empower future leaders to address the multitude of factors involved in a sustainable future. Paradoxically, although enhancing access to quality education is promoted as being central to tackling sustainability and climate change, some studies show a connection between increased levels of education, increased personal and national wealth, and a larger personal carbon footprint (Dütschke et al., 2022; Nevins et al., 2022). This irony further illustrates the complex nature of sustainability.

These complexities present educators with many challenging questions around what knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes must be taught, learned, and applied, in order to change the trajectory of the current climate crisis. However, it seems clear that education cannot continue espousing the same post-industrial knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes of the past, which have created our current sustainability crisis.

Intended learning outcomes of OE in HE commonly fall into five principal categories: gaining lifelong outdoor skills, personal and social development, social justice awareness, environmental education, and community- and place-based knowledge (Asfeldt & Hvenegaard, 2014; Beames, 2004; Hattie et al., 1997; Loeffler, 2021; Løvoll & Sæther, 2022; Mikaels & Asfeldt, 2017; Takano, 2010; Wattchow & Brown, 2011). However, these aims generally exist irrespective of whether programs take place locally or further afield. While OE learning outcomes increasingly include goals related to education for sustainability, as they should, we believe it is important to work toward achieving the above five intended learning outcomes in ways that are as sustainable as possible. Ideally, goals related to education for sustainability can be incorporated into OE programs, rather than exchanged for the many positive learning outcomes within the abovementioned five categories.

This inquiry was spurred by our own debates surrounding our traditional trip and expedition programs in our teaching and how they do or do not align with broadly accepted values of sustainability. The OE literature is long on arguments for reducing carbon emissions, but short on the practicalities of how to do this while maximizing student engagement and learning. This paper is thus an attempt to critically examine our work through a sustainability lens and provide some helpful guidelines for OE journeys, particularly to far-away places, that can be readily applied by those working in HE. As outdoor educators, we also need to recognize that no amount of change in OE will be sufficient to solve the global sustainability crisis including climate change. Therefore, in addition to examining and being open to change in OE in HE, we must also work to influence sustainability in HE more broadly.

Methodology

This project evolved from the Norwegian School of Sports Sciences (NIH) Outdoor Studies Forum (NIH, 2023), where “four panel members from varying backgrounds and cultural perspectives from around the world share[d] their expertise, reflections, and experiences with overnight trips and sustainability issues” (para 2). In preparation for the discussion, each of the four panel members presented a nine slide, 3-min Pecha Kucha presentation addressing the two initial research questions of the inquiry. The Pecha Kucha presentation style was created in 2003 by two architects in Tokyo, Japan. Their goal was to develop a “creative way to bring together fellow architects, exchange ideas, and showcase their work in concise, short-format design presentations” (Masterclass, 2021, para. 2). A conventional Pecha Kucha presentation comprises 20 slides that automatically advance every 20 s, for a total time of 6 min and 40 s. In Japanese, Pecha Kucha means “chit-chat.”

Three weeks later, our Pecha Kucha presentations were followed by a 1.5 h Zoom discussion which the Outdoor Studies Forum facilitators edited into a 34-min summary video which was subsequently posted on YouTube (NIH, 2023). Along with the four Pecha Kucha presentations, this video was the foundation for the email and Zoom discussions that followed. While the recorded video of the online debate was arguably a useful enough exercise in itself, there was room to more deeply interrogate our views. Therefore, we continued our investigation by immersing ourselves in a journey of practitioner inquiry.

Patterson (2023), speaking about education, describes practitioner inquiry as the intentional, systematic, and collaborative study of educational practices that arise from burning questions about, in this case, OE journeys to far-away places in HE. Practitioner inquiry is a process that enables the examination of practice within practitioners’ institutions and professional contexts (Menter et al., 2011) and was thus well-suited to further investigate our research question. According to Hatch (2012), educators decide “which elements of their practice they want to study, what questions they want to answer, and how they will collect data and analyze data to ﬁnd information that makes sense in their immediate surroundings” (p. vii). Patterson (2023) further describes practitioner inquiry as often leading to more questions than answers. However, a strength of practitioner inquiry is it allows questions to be refocused as data are collected and analyzed. Therefore, practitioner inquiry is a continual cycle of questions and reflection which Stacey (2019) describes as a “messy process” (p. 2) aimed at improving professional practice.

As with all forms of research, and perhaps especially practitioner inquiry where researchers examine their own practice, we employed several strategies to enhance the trustworthiness and credibility of our findings (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Creswell & Creswell, 2018). First, being a culturally and geographically diverse group of authors allowed us to confront a global problem with multiple perspectives and local examples. Second, the iterative nature of how we interrogated our data, and the findings afforded us an inherent method of investigator triangulation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Third, we acknowledge our bias. Specifically, we are a group of well-educated, middle-class academics who do not belong to any equity, diversity, or inclusivity-deserving groups. In addition, journeys, often in remote far-away places have been a central, though not exclusive, element of our teaching and research careers. Fourth, we committed to a deep and fulsome discussion where we openly challenged and questioned each other's ideas, which in turn enabled us to learn from each other and generate knowledge. And, finally, by making our discussion public, we remain open to critique by inviting others to join our practitioner inquiry process and further debate (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009).

This project, including handling of research data, was approved by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. The research participants, the authors of this paper, provided verbal, video-recorded informed consent.

Data Analysis

The data analysis followed an established method of analyzing online webinar material (see van Kraalingen et al., 2022). Each author did their own initial inductive thematic analysis of the webinar discussion. The first author collated these individual themes into seven principal themes, which were then presented to the other four authors for critique. The ensuing debate over email and Zoom led to four themes. However, during the paper writing process the analysis continued, and we split one of the final four themes into two themes, thus yielding the five themes presented here, which highlights the on-going iterative manner in which our data were interrogated. This approach to reducing data into key themes drew on an amalgam of processes outlined over the years by, for example Miles and Huberman (1994) and Braun and Clarke (2006).

Findings and Discussion

The thematic data analysis resulted in the emergence of five interrelated themes that we contend underpin sustainable OE journeys to far-away places: learning objectives, connections to everyday life, student involvement, novel and unexpected experiences, and get-out-and-stay-out. Each of the themes is located within germane literature and comes with suggestions for practice.

Learning Objectives

Identifying learning objectives as a helpful guide for creating any learning, let alone justifiable OE journeys, may appear obvious. This first theme concerns what Eisner (1985) considers the “explicit curriculum,” as outlined in official documents, such as syllabi and course descriptions.

There was consensus that justifiable journeys must be designed to meet specific learning objectives that cannot be met in nearby local places. Such learning objectives may include, for example, understanding how to live and travel within the more-than-human world (i.e., outdoor skills); learning how to live and thrive in small, interdependent communities (i.e., personal and social skill development); developing multiday or multiweek travel skills (i.e., safety and risk management; planning skills); or learning about place essential historical or natural features that can only be seen or directly experienced in that very location (see Mannion et al., 2011). However, given the interdisciplinary nature of OE and unique local and regional educational opportunities, learning objectives can be wide-ranging. Regardless, travel to any place—whether far-away or local—is ideally driven by intentional learning objectives.

Given the historical roots of OE are commonly linked to the use of adventure and outdoor journeys to support the British colonial agenda (Hill & Brown, 2014) through personal transformation (e.g., character development), it is important that we examine the extent to which our current learning objectives and traditional journeys remain relevant and valuable in a time of climate crisis and how they might be modified accordingly.

In addition to Hill's (2012) suggestions of aligning OE program values, resources use, and teaching and learning strategies in order to promote sustainability, we lean on Rawles’ (2013) encouragement to reduce carbon consumption of travel, particularly long-distance flights, and Roberts (2018) and Stonehouse's (2022) cautions against the promotion (knowingly or unknowingly) of the Romantic legacy of traditional expeditions. Thus, when deciding whether or not to include travel as a part of OE experiences, we encourage educators to ask: (1) What are the course learning objectives and can those objectives be met locally? If yes, teach locally. (2) If learning objectives are best achieved beyond local spaces, in what specific place(s) can that learning best be achieved? (3) What is the added value of teaching in a far-away place and what are the associated sustainability impacts and how can they be minimized? And (4), if one decides to travel to a far-away place to achieve specific learning outcomes, how can that experience be used as a pedagogical tool that enhances education for sustainable development, such as linking the impacts of travel to climate change? These questions reflect the view that education should prepare students for the future by empowering them to recognize and engage themselves as agents of change and influence (O’Brien, 2018) who can develop the competences necessary to shape a sustainable and just future.

Connected to the idea that travel must be driven by specific learning objectives, journeys can facilitate unique learning afforded by that specific place. Mannion et al. (2011) call this kind of education “place essential,” as it focuses precisely on the phenomena and affordances in that specific location, and not on a topic that can be taught as part of some kind of “place ambivalent” activity, which can take place anywhere or as Baker (2005) so aptly put it, “Any Woods.” Wattchow and Brown (2011) further emphasize that through journeying, we travel in specific places, not generic places, and to fully realize the benefits of being in other places, it is crucial to directly link learning to those places. By embracing a place essential (Mannion et al., 2011) or place-responsive pedagogy (Wattchow & Brown, 2011), there are opportunities to move beyond OE's tradition of presenting romantic and colonial constructs of nature as “remote, pristine, untouched, and devoid of human-beings” (Roberts, 2018, p. 23).

Lastly, OE programs often teach technical skills that are preparation for longer journeys in far-away places. This teaching is likely best done as close to home as possible in order to reduce the environmental impact of travel. Once technical outdoor skills are developed, students are more likely be more alert to the fullness of the holistic integrated nature of a more remote journey because they are more practised with the skill (e.g., canoeing, skiing, backpacking) and comfortable in the outdoor environment, and can then turn their attention and senses toward learning about the multilayered, nuanced knowledge of specific places (Mikaels & Asfeldt, 2017). At other times, travel is necessary to achieve ecological connectedness through skill development (Mullins, 2014), such as more challenging whitewater or a snow slope steep enough to practice realistic self-arresting with an ice ax, or social or cultural learning that is best gained in a specific location. In these examples, travel must be linked to learning objectives. Regularly reviewing course and program learning objectives is an important professional practice and an opportunity to explore how course and program learning objectives can be made more sustainability-focused. Ideally, these reviews guide where and how we travel with students.

Connections to Everyday Life

The second theme yielded by the analysis highlighted how learning gained from OE journeys—whether local or journey-based—should be linked and connected to students’ everyday lives and the challenges of the twenty-first century. That is, OE journeys must provide knowledge, skill, value and attitude changing experiences that students can take beyond the journey experience to more effectively work toward shaping a more sustainable and just society in their everyday lives. It is not enough to teach Leave No Trace backcountry skills and provide a fun, recreational experience without equipping students with the tools to adopt new values, habits, attitudes, and patterns of living in their everyday home environment. Indeed, the ideal OE journey experience encourages students to imagine a bold and hopeful future for themselves and society through being agents of change in all aspects of their lives. As one of the five authors stated during the initial post-Pecha Kucha conversation: “The trip is not just about the trip. Living in the Anthropocene involves thinking about sustainability every day.”

Wise et al. (2023) claim that our current ecological crisis “is nothing more than a crisis of relationship” and that “a practical way to change how we relate to our environment is to change our habits” (p. 238). Based on this assumption, justifiable OE journeys in a time of climate crisis shift the focus of the outdoor experience to include the development and transfer of nature connection habits and embodied relations to place. This presupposes the existence of outdoor educators who have the motivation, knowledge, and skills to enable students to re-examine their relationship with fellow humans and the more-than-human-world. Crucially, this involves people aligning their daily habits with pro-sustainability actions. A large part of this, according to Soron (2010), requires humans to let go of their long-established patterns of consumption, and OE journeys can provide powerful opportunities for re-examining these patterns.

Suggestions for linking OE journeys to everyday life include considering the available mode of travel options and calculating the carbon cost of each. Consciously evaluating how to travel sustainably is an opportunity for students to assess their daily transportation activities and the ways in which they might reduce those associated social, economic, and environmental costs. An additional option for reducing the carbon impact of travel is to purchase carbon offsets. Beyond purchasing, however, is the possibility of including a more tangible hands-on offset experience as a part of the academic course. This could involve having students’ plant trees rather than blindly buying their way out of the carbon-emitting consequences of their travel. We also encourage groups to contrast the carbon impacts of journeys to their everyday carbon emissions. For example, while we have no scientific evidence for this comparison, we have conducted informal assessments of the carbon emissions of a far-away journey to that of the group's everyday carbon emissions, and the carbon emissions of the OE journey appear to be very similar to that of everyday life over the same period of time. This comparison warrants further research.

Looking beyond travel, OE journeys offer opportunities to consider broader issues of sustainability, such as how we heat and power our homes, what we eat, what material belongings we really need, and how we think about our local spaces and the people who live (and have lived) there. In this manner, OE journeys become a new lens for recognizing issues of sustainability that are present, but perhaps unnoticed, in our everyday lives.

Student Involvement

A distinguishing difference between touristic or recreational travel and OE journeys is student agency and involvement. This was the third theme revealed by our analysis. In order to provide sustainably acceptable learning, we encourage instructors to intentionally involve students in planning and assessing the direct and indirect carbon footprint of OE journeys, as well as other sustainability impacts (social, economic, and environmental) they may have—both positive and negative. This can feature students making decisions related to modes of travel, types of equipment and clothing to use, food types and cooking methods, shelter choices, and bathroom facilities and practices. Involving students in these decisions increases the likelihood that students will link journey practices and choices with their everyday life practices and choices.

As Sen et al. (2021) point out, one way for HE practices to advance education for sustainability is to serve as role models for students. Increased student involvement in program design, implementation, and assessment can provide important concrete opportunities for students to have a central role in the complex and sometimes “painful decisions” (Brundtland, 1987) that are needed to “enable a more sustainable and just society for all” (UNESCO, 2018, p. 7). In the HE context, we often have the same students in a program for two to four years. This longer duration enables both local and journey-based experiences to be programmed in a purposefully sequenced manner, as opposed to other contexts where the expedition is a “one-off” experience that, too often, is inadequately connected to participants’ everyday lives (Brookes 2003; Brown, 2010).

Novel and Unexpected Experiences

The data reflect the shared belief that OE journeys to far-away places have several unique characteristics that enable them to be particularly powerful. Novel experiences refer to encounters that contrast with students’ everyday familiarities and understandings. Unexpected experiences feature a degree of uncertainty, as they cannot be planned or controlled by the educator and are generally less measurable than the intended learning outcomes of the explicit curriculum.

Purposeful OE journeys where students are immersed in novel places can provide valuable new experiences (Meerts-Brandsma et al., 2023; North et al., 2023b). Such journeys can serve to disrupt students’ daily routines and perspectives by allowing them to view themselves and their place in the world differently (Dyrdal & Løvoll, 2023). Through providing greater periods of uninterrupted, distraction-free time, these kinds of immersive experiences provide a profound contrast to most students’ harried and technology dominated lives (Harris, 2014) and create time and conditions for enhanced emotional engagement with the places, people, and situations where OE takes place (Løvoll, 2019). While these novel and contrasting experiences (e.g., unfamiliar environments and social settings; fewer technology distractions) are sometimes difficult and uncomfortable for students, there was consensus among us that they were often deeply inspiring and provided time, space, and new perspectives through which students could make sense of the complex nature of both the human and more-than-human world. Moreover, there was agreement that well designed and facilitated OE journeys allow students to be present, to wonder, to be creative, and learn to be flexible—all of which are attributes arguably needed for combatting climate change. While investigating children aged 9–13, Green (2017) claims “that children become vital stakeholders in Education for Sustainability through experiential, investigative, sensorial and place-oriented ways of learning, which inform how they build sustainability knowledge” (p. 151). Green's research examined a locally based program. However, the characteristics of experiential, investigative, sensorial, and place-oriented are also characteristics of well-designed journey programs. This points to program learning objectives and design being critical, regardless of whether programs are local or journey based. Building on Higgins and Nicol's (2002, p. 2) central question of “Why am I doing this activity with these individuals at this time?,” we propose that outdoor educators ask themselves “Why am I doing this activity with these students in this place at this time?.”

In addition to novel experiences, OE journeys often yield unexpected experiences that are less likely to emerge in shorter local journeys (Asfeldt & Beames, 2017; Krouwel, 2005). While it is unrealistic to create a learning objective that identifies the unexpected learning that will result from OE journeys, it is unlikely that this unexpected, serendipitous, and sometimes unexplainable learning will happen without the OE journey. Therefore, while some journey learning is unpredictable, there was consensus that the immersive interdependent group experience common in extended journeys to far-away places provide unique, unexpected, and worthwhile learning opportunities.

Outdoor education journeys also provide powerful social conditions for developing a strong sense of community. Lack of physical, face-to-face contact with others is a growing problem and one that was exacerbated during the COVID pandemic (Long et al., 2022; Quay et al., 2020). Outdoor education research has developed a significant body of literature demonstrating how the unique social conditions of immersive journey experiences can lead to participants’ personal and social development (Asfeldt & Takano, 2020; Asfeldt & Hvenegaard, 2014; Beames, 2004; Løvoll & Sæther, 2022; Takano, 2010; Ramírez & Allison, 2023), while creating a strong sense of community (Asfeldt et al., 2017; Breunig et al., 2010). Moreover, sensuous, social, and connected outdoor experiences during OE journeys create a basis for improving holistic understandings of our relationship with nature (Breivik, 2021) and thus equip students with a useful platform for living in a more sustainability-minded manner (Fasting & Høyem, 2022). Additionally, the broader education literature has identified creating positive social conditions and a sense of community among learners as having the capacity to enhance learning in all disciplines (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh et al., 2017).

Get Out and Stay Out

The fifth and final theme elicited by the data is called “get out and stay out.” This theme has two primary implications for our discussion on justifiable OE journeys: (1) maximizing learning for each carbon unit consumed and (2) reducing preparation and planning time per learning hour. For example, if a group drives two minivans for 3 hours to the starting point of a 3-day hiking trip, the carbon units burned per learning hour could be reduced by half by extending the hiking trip to 6 days. In addition, the preparation and planning time needed for a 3-day trip is only marginally less than for a 6-day trip. Each trip involves developing a risk management plan, ensuring students are adequately prepared with the proper gear and foundational outdoor skills, arranging transportation, and packing food. However, the time and effort to complete these pre-trip tasks and post-trip clean-up and evaluations will be similar for both a 3- and 6-day journey.

Getting out and staying out will, of course, present challenges, such as students’ time away from other academic courses, family responsibilities, students’ part-time jobs, and staff's other employment duties, and so on. Further, many university and college schedules are not structured to facilitate extended time away. However, longer journeys are possible, as seen in the careers of the authors of this paper who have been using OE journeys of two to three weeks throughout their careers and in a variety of post-secondary settings and institutions. There are many other examples of student travel in HE, such as in overseas service experiences and short-term study abroad programs (Chang et al., 2020; Niendorf & Alberts, 2017). While the challenges of longer journeys should not be dismissed, they are not always insurmountable.

An additional and intended benefit of journeys is how increased time brings opportunities for students to engage in reflective practices that contribute to forming a deeper understanding of the symbiotic relationship between the human and more-than-human worlds (Høyem, 2020). Overall, with more time, a wider set of learning objectives with greater depth and meaning is more likely to be achieved (Hattie et al., 1997; Løvoll & Sæther, 2022; Ramirez & Allison, 2023). Therefore, while at first glance it may seem counter intuitive, we argue that there is a strong rationale for fewer longer OE journeys, rather than many shorter ones.

Conclusions and Implications

This practitioner inquiry investigation has been fruitful. Nevertheless, many questions remain regarding sustainable OE journeys. One such question is the learning outcomes and lasting impacts of local OE experiences compared to those of more traditional trip and expedition experiences. We are also curious about the degree to which the carbon emissions associated with OE journeys are similar to the carbon costs of students’ everyday lives. For example, it could be that longer OE journeys result in a net reduction of carbon consumption over that time period. More broadly, while we encourage OE to lead the way on the sustainability agenda in HE, it would be helpful to consider the sustainability costs and benefits of HE such as those related to research travel; international student travel; study abroad programs; and the annual carbon costs of maintaining university facilities. While reducing the carbon impact of both local and far-away OE programs is important, a comprehensive review of HE institutions more broadly is an important collective step toward the academy operating in a more sustainable manner.

As a group of colleagues, we set out on this shared learning journey to identify the necessary conditions for justifying OE travel to far-away places. To suggest that we have identified a conclusive list of necessary conditions would be naive and dismissive of the complexity of this topic. Nevertheless, we believe justifiable OE journeys can take place beyond local spaces. In addition, the five themes that emerged from our inquiry can provide a helpful guide for developing a framework for considering how OE journey-based programs might contribute toward a more sustainable and just future. Importantly, OE journeys are likely most impactful when they are a component of a larger educational enterprise that enhances the development of knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that contribute to the achievement of a broad array of SDGs and which equip students with the tools to address the challenges of the twenty-first century. Therefore, in order for OE journeys to be justifiable, we recommend that outdoor educators design OE journeys to meet specific and sustainability-related learning objectives that cannot be met locally; ensure that journeys are linked and connected to students’ everyday lives and the challenges of the twenty-first century; enable students to become directly involved in planning, implementing, and evaluating their learning experiences; embrace the novel and unexpected nature of OE journeys; and consider how fewer, but longer, OE journeys be undertaken by getting out and staying out.

In these times of climate crisis, reducing carbon consumption by eliminating OE journeys may sometimes be appropriate. However, we contend that by adopting and adapting the five design recommendations presented here into our own unique professional contexts, some far-away OE journeys can continue to be unique and powerful experiences for students while also contributing to a sustainable future. Crucially, we caution against developing a binary that pits local OE against journeys to far-away places. Rather, we believe both local and far-away journeys have an important role to play in building a sustainable future. Most importantly, perhaps, is not whether a program takes place locally or far-away, but what knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes are developed and how they move us toward a more sustainable and just society for all.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Morten Asfeldt

Simon Beames

Chris North

Author Biographies

Morten Asfeldt is Professor of Physical Education, Augustana Faculty, University of Alberta, Canada where he has been teaching for over 30 years. His teaching includes the use of outdoor journeys by canoe, snowshoe, ski, foot and dogsled including many summer and winter journeys in the Canadian north. Morten has published widely in the field of outdoor, adventure, and experiential education.

Simon Beames is Professor of Friluftsliv at the Norwegian School of Sports Science. He is co-author of the books, Adventurous Learning, Adventure & Society, and Outdoor Learning across the Curriculum, and co-editor of the Routledge Handbook of Mobile Technology, Social Media and the Outdoors.

Jannicke Høyem is Associate Professor in outdoor education (friluftsliv) at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences. Her research interests include didactics for adults, practical knowledge, and human-nature relationships, amongst other things through place, quality of life, health, and sustainability. Høyem has extensive experience from working in the winter mountains and how this can be communicated and understood.

Chris North is Associate Professor in the School of Health Sciences at the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. His teaching background includes secondary and tertiary institutions in New Zealand and North America. Chris' research focus is on outdoor education, environmental education and initial teacher education.

Takako Takano is Professor in Faculty of Letters, Arts and Sciences, Waseda University, Tokyo. Her research interests include place and community-based education, experiential learning, nature experience and health, and sustainability education.

References

Asfeldt

Beames

(2017). Trusting the journey. Journal of Experiential Education, 40(1), 72–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916676101

Asfeldt

Hvenegaard

(2014). Perceived learning, critical elements and lasting impacts on university-based wilderness educational expeditions. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 14(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2013.789350

Asfeldt

Purc-Stephenson

Hvenegaard

(2017). Students’ perceptions of group journal writing as a tool for enhancing sense of community on wilderness educational expeditions. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 9(3), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.18666/jorel-2017-v9-i3-8362

Asfeldt

Purc-Stephenson

Zimmerman

(2022). Outdoor education in Canadian post-secondary education: Common philosophies, goals, and activities. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 25(3), 289–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-022-00102-4

Asfeldt

Stonehouse

(2021). On becoming a reflective practitioner. In Thomas

G. J.

Dyment

Prince

(Eds.), Outdoor environmental education in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 337–348). Springer International Publishing AG.

Asfeldt

Takano

(2020). Exploring the benefits of combined outdoor adventure education and dual-immersion short-term study abroad experiences. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 32(2), 12–33. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v32i2.466

Baker

(2005). Landfullness in adventure-based programming: Promoting reconnection to the land. Journal of Experiential Education, 27(3), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382590502700306

Beames

(2004). Critical elements of an expedition experience. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 4(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729670485200501

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

10.

Breivik

(2021). ‘Richness in ends, simpleness in means!’ on Arne Naess’s version of deep ecological Friluftsliv and its implications for outdoor activities. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy, 15(3), 417–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2020.1789719

11.

Breunig

M. C.

O’Connell

T. S.

Todd

Anderson

Young

(2010). The impact of outdoor pursuits on college students’ perceived sense of community. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(4), 551–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2010.11950218

12.

Brookes

(2003). A critique of Neo-Hahnian outdoor education theory. Part one: Challenges to the concept of “character building”. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 3(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729670385200241

13.

Brown

(2010). Transfer: Outdoor adventure education’s Achilles heel? Changing participation as a viable option. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 14(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03400892

14.

Brundtland

(1987). Report of the world commission on environment and development: Our common future. Oxford.

15.

Chang

Y. H.

Liu

R. L.

Y. C.

(2020). Overseas service-learning experiences and global perspective gains for college students in Taiwan. Journal of College Student Development, 61(3), 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2020.0032

16.

Chen

Msigwa

Yang

Osman

A. I.

Fawzy

Rooney

D. W.

Yap

P.-S.

(2022). Strategies to achieve a carbon neutral society: A review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 20(4), 2277–2310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-022-01435-8

17.

Chickering

A. W.

Gamson

Z. F.

(1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education (pp. 3–7). American Association of Higher Education Bulletin.

18.

Cochran-Smith

Lytle

S. L.

(2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.

19.

Creswell

(2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

20.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2000). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 1–28). Sage.

21.

Dütschke

Engel

Theis

Hanss

(2022). Car driving, air travel or more sustainable transport? Socio-psychological factors in everyday mobility and long-distance leisure travel. Travel Behaviour and Society, 28, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2022.03.002

22.

Dyrdal

G. M.

Løvoll

H. S.

(2023). Windjammer: Finding purpose and meaning on a tall ship adventure. Social Sciences, 12(8), 459. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12080459

23.

Eisner

E. W.

(1985). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Macmillan.

24.

Fasting

M. L.

Høyem

(2022). Freedom, joy and wonder as existential categories of childhood—reflections on experiences and memories of outdoor play. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2022.2066008

25.

Fox

Thomas

(2022). Is climate change the ‘elephant in the room’ for outdoor environmental education? Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 26(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-022-00119-9

26.

Green

(2017). ‘If there’s no sustainability our future will get wrecked’: Exploring children’s perspectives on sustainability. Childhood, 24(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568216649672

27.

Harris

(2014). The end of absence: Reclaiming what we’ve lost in a world of constant connection. HarperCollins.

28.

Hatch

J. A.

(2012). Teacher research in early childhood settings: Needed now more than ever. In Perry

Henderson

Meier

D. R.

(Eds.), Our inquiry, our practice: Undertaking, supporting, and learning from early childhood teacher research(ers) (pp. viii–ix). NAEYC.

29.

Hattie

Marsh

H. W.

Neill

J. T.

Richards

G. E.

(1997). Adventure education and outward bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543067001043

30.

Higgins

Nicol

(2002). Learning as adventure: Theory for practice. DfEs and Connexions Service.

31.

Hill

(2012). Developing approaches to outdoor education that promote sustainability education. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 16(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03400935

32.

Hill

Brown

(2014). Intersections between place, sustainability and transformative outdoor experiences. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 14(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2014.918843

33.

Høyem

(2020). Outdoor recreation and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 31, 100317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jort.2020.100317

34.

IPCC (2018). Summary for Policymakers. In Masson-Delmotte

Zhai

rtner

H.-O. P.

Roberts

Skea

Shukla

P. R.

Pirani

Moufouma-Okia

C. P.

Pidcock

Connors

Matthews

J. B. R.

Chen

Zhou

Gomis

M. I.

Lonnoy

Maycock

Tignor

Waterfield

(Eds.), Global warming of 1.5°C (pp. 3–24). Cambridge University. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001.

35.

Krouwel

(2005). The value of serendipitous learning. Part 1—A dawning critique of frontloading and metaphor in adventure education. Pathways: The Ontario Journal of Outdoor Education, 17(3), 28–32.

36.

Kuh

O’Donnell

Schneider

C. G.

(2017). HIPs at ten. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(5), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1366805

37.

Lang

Thomas

Wilson

(2006). Education for sustainability in Australian universities: Where is the action? Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 22(2), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0814062600001373

38.

Loeffler

T. A.

(2021). Diversity and inclusion in OEE. In Thomas

G. J.

Dyment

Prince

(Eds.), Outdoor environmental education in higher education: International perspectives (pp. 259–268). Springer International Publishing AG.

39.

Long

Patterson

Maxwell

Blake

Pérez

R. B.

Lewis

McCann

Riddell

Skivington

Wilson-Lowe

Mitchell

K. R.

(2022). COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on social relationships and health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 76(2), 128–132. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2021-216690

40.

Løvoll

H. S.

(2019). The inner feeling of glacier hiking: An exploratory study of “immersion” as it relates to flow, hedonia and eudaimonia. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 19(3), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/15022250.2019.1581084

41.

Løvoll

H. S.

Sæther

K. W.

(2022). Awe experiences, the sublime, and spiritual well-being in Arctic wilderness. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–15. https://doi.org//10.3389/fpsyg.2022.973922

42.

Mannion

Fenwick

Nugent

L’Anson

(2011). Teaching in nature. University of Stirling, Commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage. www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/476.pdf

43.

Masterclass (2021). How PeckaKucha works: Tips for PechaKucha presentations. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/pechakucha-explained

44.

Meerts-Brandsma

Lackey

N. Q.

Warner

R. P.

(2020). Unpacking systems of privilege: The opportunity of critical reflection in outdoor adventure education. Education Sciences, 10(11), 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10110318

45.

Meerts-Brandsma

Melton

Sibthorp

(2023). Experiential education programs: Fertile environments for identity formation. Journal of Experiential Education, 46(4), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259221146724

46.

Menter

Elliot

Hulme

Lewin

Lowden

(2011). A guide to practitioner research in education. Sage.

47.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

48.

Mikaels

Asfeldt

(2017). Becoming-crocus, becoming-river, becoming-bear: A relational materialist exploration of place(s). Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 20(2), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03401009

49.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.

50.

Mokski

Filho

W. L.

Sehnem

Guerra

J. B. S. O.

(2023). Education for sustainable development in higher education institutions: An approach for effective interdisciplinarity. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 24(1), 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-07-2021-0306

51.

Mullins

P. M.

(2014). A socio-environmental case for skill in outdoor adventure. Journal of Experiential Education, 37(2), 129–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825913498366

52.

Nevins

Allen

Watson

(2022). A path to decolonization? Reducing air travel and resource consumption in higher education. Travel Behaviour and Society, 26, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.09.012

53.

Niendorf

Alberts

(2017). Student cultural interaction in a short-term study abroad program. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 28(1), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08975930.2017.1316224

54.

NIH (2023). Sustainability and overnight trips in outdoor education. Norwegian School of Sports Sciences. https://www.nih.no/english/research/osf/content/sustainability-and-overnight-trips.html

55.

North

Berning

Karaka-Clarke

T. H.

Taff

B. D.

(2023a). Leave no trace and sustainability education: Taking a dialectical approach. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 15(1), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.18666/jorel-2023-11655

56.

North

Hill

Cosgriff

Watson

Irwin

Boyes

(2023b). Conceptualisations and implications of ‘newness’ in education outside the classroom. Cambridge Journal of Education, 53(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2022.2094893

57.

O ´Brien

(2018). Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation. Current Opinion in Sustainability, 31, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010

58.

Patterson

(2023). Practitioner inquiry. In Fleet

De Gioia

Papic

Patterson

(Eds.), Unlocking practitioner inquiry, growing professionally in early years education (pp. 15–28). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003245827-3

59.

Purvis

Mao

Robinson

(2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

60.

Quay

Gray

Thomas

Allen-Craig

Asfeldt

Andkjaer

, … & Foley

(2020). What future/s for outdoor and environmental education in a world that has contended with COVID-19? Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 23, 93–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-020-00059-2

61.

Ramírez

M.-J.

Allison

(2023). The perceived long-term influence of youth wilderness expeditions in participants’ lives. Journal of Experiential Education, 46(1), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259221096804

62.

Rawles

(2013). Outdoor adventure in a carbon-light era. In Pike

C. J.

Beames

(Eds.), Outdoor adventure and social theory (pp. 147–158). Routledge.

63.

Roberts

(2018). Re-placing outdoor education: Diversity, inclusion, and the microadventures of the everyday. Journal of Outdoor Recreation, Education, and Leadership, 10(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.18666/JOREL-2018-V10-I1-8152

64.

Rosenberg

Lynch

P. M.

Radmann

(2021). Sustainability comes to life: Nature-based adventure tourism in Norway. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.686459

65.

Salas-Zapata

W. A.

Ortiz-Muñoz

S. M.

(2019). Analysis of meanings of the concept of sustainability. Sustainable Development, 27(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1885

66.

Sandri

(2022). What do we mean by ‘pedagogy’ in sustainability education? Teaching in Higher Education, 27(1), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1699528

67.

Sen

Chau

H.-W.

Tariq

M. A. U. R.

Muttil

A. W. M.

(2021). Achieving sustainability and carbon neutrality in higher education institutions: A review. Sustainability, 14(1), 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010222

68.

Siegel

Cutter_Mackenzie-Knowles

Bellert

(2018). Still ‘minding the gap’ sixteen years later: (Re)storying pro-environmental behavior. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2018.32

69.

Soron

(2010). Sustainability, self-identify and the sociology of consumption. Sustainable Development, 18(3), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.457

70.

Stacey

(2019). Inquiry-based early learning environments: Creating, supporting and collaborating. Redleaf.

71.

Sterling

S. R.

(2001). Sustainable education: Re-visioning learning and change. Green Books.

72.

Stonehouse

(2022). Sustainable adventure? The necessary “transitioning” of outdoor adventure education. Journal of Sustainability Education, 26, ISSN: 2151–7452.

73.

Takano

(2010). A 20-year retrospective study of the impact of expeditions on Japanese participants. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 10(2), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2010.505707

74.

UNESCO (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. https://doi.org/10.54675/yelo2332.

75.

UN (n.d.) The 17 Goals. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals

76.

van Kraalingen

(2022). Theorizing technological mediation in the outdoor classroom. Postdigital Science and Education, 5, 754–776. https://doi-org/10.1007/s42438-022-00315-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00315-2

77.

Wattchow

Brown

(2011). A pedagogy of place: Outdoor education for a changing world. Monash University.

78.

Wise

Martin

Szolosi

Foreman

(2023). Habits of connection: From sustainability and saviorship to reciprocity and relationship. Journal of Experiential Education, 46(2), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/10538259221134876

79.

Žalėnienė

Pereira

(2021). Higher education for sustainability: A global perspective. Geography and Sustainability, 2(2), 99106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2021.05.001

Journeys to Far-Away Places: Wrestling with the Sustainability of Outdoor Education in Higher Education

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

What is Sustainability?

Sustainability and HE

Methodology

Data Analysis

Findings and Discussion

Learning Objectives

Connections to Everyday Life

Student Involvement

Novel and Unexpected Experiences

Get Out and Stay Out

Conclusions and Implications

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References