Concern for the environment has traditionally been associated with youth. Studies in the USA over the past twenty-five years have consistently shown that environmental concern declines with age (Buttel, 1979; Van Liere and Dunlap, 1980; Lowe, Pinhey and Grimes, 1980; Lowe and Pinhey, 1982; Honnold, 1981, 1984; Mohai and Twight, 1987; Arcury and Christianson, 1990). Just why this is so has been a matter of some dispute; the ‘aging’ hypothesis suggests that it is due to the socio-biological aging process; the ‘cohort’ hypothesis points to the differential influence of important historical events on birth cohorts, particularly in their formative years; and the “period” hypothesis proposes that both of these processes can be over-ridden as all age cohorts adapt to changing social, cultural and economic circumstances. Both the ‘cohort’ hypothesis (Mohai and Twight, 1987; Samdahl and Robertson, 1989) and the ‘period’ hypothesis (Honnald, 1984) have received some support.

A recent study in Australia (Blaikie, 1992) has offered some support for the ‘cohort’ hypothesis but has shown that the relationship between age and Ecological World View (environmental attitudes) is curvi-linear rather than linear. The strongest commitment to an Ecological World View (EWV) is to be found in a middle-aged cohort; younger cohorts hold a middle position and older cohorts have the lowest level of commitment. It would appear that this middle-aged cohort was influenced in its youth by the earlier wave of environmental concern in the 1970s, and it has either maintained this level of concern, or had it revived in the more recent wave. Today's younger generation has not reached this same level of concern, perhaps because of the differences in socio-economic climate between the 1970s and the present, and their greater susceptibility to the effects of the current recession.

Environmental education in New Zealand (NZ) was born out of the environmental movement during the 1960s and 1970s. During that time it became increasingly apparent that we needed to know more about ourselves, our surroundings and the interactions between these two. The central impulse of environmental education is to help develop people who are knowledgeable of, concerned about, and motivated to do something for, the environment. This involves being:

1. Knowledgeable about the physical, social and economic environment of which people are a part;

2. Concerned about environmental problems; and

3. Motivated to act responsibly in enhancing the quality of our environment as well as our life.

In NZ a common misconception held was that environmental education is the same as outdoor education. It is not. Environmental education is concerned with those aims listed above, whereas outdoor education is now taken to mean, and is officially called, ‘Education Outside the Classroom’. Obviously the two are neither synonymous nor mutually exclusive (Dowling 1986). In the school context, environmental education has traditionally been considered as any teaching about ‘the environment’. Today, however, it is being understood as a process which is multi-disciplinary in approach and for the environment at heart.

At the beginning of the last decade, Silver (1980, p.7) was able to write with assurance that ‘Behind our political and ideological disagreements…lies a crucial, common confidence in the educational process’, a confidence based on education's ability both to maintain the social, political and economic status quo and to change it. Over a decade later, and with our awareness of global environmental crises that those years have brought, the authors have become increasingly convinced of the practical fact that formal education in our society has functioned predominantly to maintain the social, political and economic conditions that have produced environmental crisis and is thereby severely hampered in its ability to make the changes necessary to stop the degradation of our planet, let alone improve its health.

Although we do not propose that the deteriorating state of the planet can be attributed to any single underlying cause, we would suggest that a generic term for many of these causes is the ‘culture of positivism’ (Giroux 1981, p.38) which, in Giroux's words, has a ‘limited focus on objectivity, efficiency, and technique …’. Gough too (1987, p.54) argues that Western industrial society's systems of education rest on ‘an epistemological paradigm’, a particular set of theories about how human beings gain knowledge of themselves and their world as well as the kinds of knowledge that are valued. According to Gough (1987, p.54), the kinds of knowledge which have dominated Western industrial education are those which have been structured by Western society's dominant form of theorising, namely: positivist, empirical science. The idea of a culture which is mechanistic and reductionist, which encourages human beings to dominate and control ‘nature’, and which looks for ever more sophisticated ‘technical fixes’ to overcome the tragic results of its own logic is reflected also throughout the ‘green’ literature. See, for instance, Bookchin (1986 and 1990), Fox (1990), Passmore (1980) and Young (1991). Ways in which this dominant culture adversely affects our relationship with our environment are documented in the same literature.

Among the most significant, controversial and difficult concepts for environmental educators and students alike to come to terms with are those of the anthropocentric (or totally human centred) view of the environment compared with the biocentric (or totally non-human centred) attitude to the environment. The concepts are significant because they represent profoundly different philosophical positions and also because they may have far reaching implications and, therefore, consequences in practice. Eckersley (1992, p.26) says:

They are controversial because both views have been said, by different authors, to be either totally disastrous or absolutely redeeming for the planet. For instance, in his recent authoritative and well received book Towards A Transpersonal Ecology, philosopher Warwick Fox writes (1990, p. 13)

and adds (1990, pp. 18-19) that it is

Yet Jeff Bennett, expressing the anthropocentric view in a volume entitled Reconciling Economics and the Environment, says that

(Bennett & Block 1991, p.272)

The children we teach in school now will spend most of their lives in the 21st century. Those leaving school in the 1990s will become the parents, voters, workers, business people and visionaries of tomorrow. If all education is for the future, where is the future in education? How are we preparing the students for those responsibilities? How are we helping them to think more critically and creatively about the future?

My argument is that as educators, and particularly as environmental educators, we need to engage in the task of ‘reclaiming the future’. I will illustrate this with reference to: i) the approaching millenium; ii) the need to educate more explicitly for the future; iii) the importance of being able to envision more just and sustainable futures; and iv) some thoughts on moving forwards.

When considering a topic as broad as research in environmental education it seems worthwhile, at the outset, to make some basic distinctions. First, establishing research priorities is not simply an empirical question. While it is undoubtedly useful to try to establish perceived needs and interests, and to consider them when establishing research priorities, this can only describe part of the task at hand. There are surely some logical requirements as well.

Second, a much more challenging task, it seems to me, is to more clearly understand the nature of the questions to which we seek answers. We must seek to distinguish between those research techniques which are more or less consistent with the nature of our task. Unfortunately, research in education generally, and in environmental education, in particular, has been hindered by a failure on the part of the research community to recognize the need for a more complete range of research perspectives than those customarily found, and by a failure to recognize the occasional and inevitable misapplications of technique which can occur when appropriate methodologies do not seem available.

With some misgivings about the scope of research in environmental education in mind, I am led to my concern: How do we go about furthering our understanding of concepts central to our field of study? In exploring this question I propose that conceptual analysis is an important research area. Further, I also argue that it is not simply an option, but rather a logical necessity if we are to establish greater coherence within environmental education and avoid unnecessary confusion (see for example: Barrow & Milburn, 1986; Scheffler, 1960; Soltis, 1978; and Wilson, 1969). Further, it is in the nature of this question that we find appeal for this particular approach to research.

One difficulty in conceptualising the scope of environmental education results from the tremendous breadth of environmental issues which need to be addressed. Environmental issues may be considered, for example, in terms of ‘an interlinked array of political, social, economic and biophysical environmental factors’ (O'Donoghue & McNaught 1991, p.391; see also Di Chiro 1987, p.25). This conception portrays environment as not just natural systems alone, but as ‘a human creation, a result of the way we use nature and its resources to satisfy our needs and wants’ (Fien 1993, p.3). These conceptual developments are consistent with the growing realisation that environmental issues cannot be understood, let alone addressed, in isolation from social and political values and lifestyle choices (Capra, 1982; Devall, 1988; Guha, 1989). Illustrating this thinking, Livingston (in Evernden 1993, p.xii) portrays environmental issues as analogous to the tips of icebergs: they are simply the visible portion of a much larger entity, where the ‘submerged mass constitutes the fundamental problem, that domain of unspoken assumptions which legitimates the behaviour which precipitates the state of affairs we designate as “the environmental crisis”’. Evernden (1993, p.xii) proposes that a consideration of environmental issues must begin with the recognition that their source ‘lies not without but within, not in industrial effluent but in assumptions so casually held as to be virtually invisible’. These interpretations of root causes of environmental issues have important implications for environmental education research and teaching practices.

This paper is based on David Selby's workshop ‘Animal Rights and Global Education’ presented at the Touch 92 conference of European environmental educators, 29 March - 4 April 1992, Loutra Sidirokastrou, Serres, Greece. The conference was organised by the Department of Primary Education, Aristotle's University of Thessaloniki.

During the 1970s and 1980s there has been a growing awareness of the environment. This has been particularly evident in the general community through:

• passing of environmental legislation;

• growth in status of environment groups;

• media coverage of environmental issues.

As a result the direction of formal education has been influenced. For example, through the Victorian State Conservation Strategy, the community has indicated the direction for tertiary institutions, where one of the objectives of this strategy is to:

Similarly, the Australian Government's Ecologically Sustainable Development process (ESD) has proposed the incorporation of ESD, in tertiary curricular (Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee, 1992).

Linke (1979) has described the development of environmental education curricula during the 1970s whereby consideration of aspects of the environment became more common. Most activity was noted to be in primary and secondary sectors, however, at tertiary level a range of subjects focussing on the environment were apparent, as were several courses which were specifically designed to provide training in environmental understanding.