Environmental projects of Jewish and Arab youth in Israel: the adult leaders' views

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by:On: 28 April 2011Access details: Access Details: Free AccessPublisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Environmental Education ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713416156

Environmental projects of Jewish and Arab youth in Israel: the adultleaders' viewsIris Alkahera; Tali Tala

a Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion - Israel Insistute of Technology,Haifa, Israel

Online publication date: 08 April 2011

To cite this Article Alkaher, Iris and Tal, Tali(2011) 'Environmental projects of Jewish and Arab youth in Israel: the adultleaders' views', Environmental Education Research, 17: 2, 235 — 259To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.532862URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.532862

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713416156

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2010.532862

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Environmental Education ResearchVol. 17, No. 2, April 2011, 235–259

ISSN 1350-4622 print/ISSN 1469-5871 online© 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13504622.2010.532862http://www.informaworld.com

Environmental projects of Jewish and Arab youth in Israel: the adult leaders’ views

Iris Alkaher* and Tali Tal

Department of Education in Technology and Science, Technion – Israel Insistute of Technology, Haifa, IsraelTaylor and FrancisCEER_A_532862.sgm(Received 22 February 2009; final version received 8 October 2010)10.1080/13504622.2010.532862Environmental Education Research1350-4622 (print)/1469-5871 (online)Original Article2011Taylor & [email protected]

Socio-environmental projects involving Arab and Jewish youth in Israel areuncommon. In this study, we interviewed 16 adult leaders of two projects thatwere carried out in the Galilee in northern Israel, to better understand the views ofthe leaders and their motives. The two projects focused on mutual environmentalissues and dealt with social, cultural, and political aspects with respect to theenvironmental context. The participants were teachers and principals of thestudents who participated in the projects and facilitators of two environmentalorganizations. We found diverse views with respect to environmental education,local environmental issues, and possible solutions. The Arab adults expressedstronger attachment to the local environment than the Jewish ones. The majorprojects’ goals according to the leaders included: (improving) knowledge,awareness, and environmental behavior of the students and their communities; anopportunity for taking part in community collaboration and action; an opportunityfor multicultural interaction; and meaningful long-term learning in the outdoors.Our findings highlight the importance of identifying the views of educators ofdiverse cultures in order to carry out future successful multicultural environmentalprojects. Our findings also suggest adopting critical pedagogy of place whiledesigning and implementing such projects in sensitive regions such as Israel.

Keywords: education for sustainability; multicultural environmental projects;socio-environmental projects; environmental views; sense of place

Introduction

The multicultural Israeli society consists of citizens of diverse nationalities, religiousorigins, and communities: 76% of the Israeli citizens are Jewish, 20% are Arabs, and4% are others (Central Bureau of Statistics 2009). The Jewish people are of variousorigins: European, North African, Middle Eastern, and recently even Ethiopian. TheArab population is diverse as well and consists of a Muslim majority, Christians, Druze,and (Muslim) Bedouins. In the background of this study is the Israeli–Palestinianconflict that affects the relationships between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel.

In some areas of the country, Arabs and Jews live in neighboring communities andjointly use many resources and services, which makes living together not only a polit-ical issue, but an everyday challenge as well. Environmental issues such as pollution

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]. Please note that the first author has nowmoved to Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and Arts, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Email:[email protected]

Downloaded At: 17:03 28 April 2011

236 I. Alkaher and T. Tal

and land use are good examples for such everyday issues that the different populationsneed to address. Other conflicting issues are disputes over declaration of natural parksversus further development of villages, planting forests in order to prevent un-supervised cultivation or maintaining land ownership, use of local water resources,and treatment of solid waste. These conflicts have been sources of tension betweengovernmental authorities, individuals, and communities in recent years (Tal 2009; Taland Alkaher 2010). These environmental issues are common everywhere the twodifferent Arab and Jewish populations interact, and resolving them requirescollaboration and trust.

The Galilee, in northern Israel, is a good example of diverse Jewish and Arabcommunities that share the same limited natural resources. In the particular projectsthat serve as the context for this study, two diverse communities were involved:Jewish and Bedouins. The Bedouins are former nomadic Muslim Arabs. Two distinctBedouin populations live today in Israel: one in the Galilee and the other in the south.The Bedouin adults involved in our study live in permanent villages established in thepast 60 years, but Bedouins have lived in temporary villages in the region for the past300 years. Thus, all of the Bedouin adults involved in our study grew up in the Galileeregion. The Bedouins involved in our study identified themselves as ‘Israeli BedouinArab’ citizens. Therefore, we used the terms ‘Bedouins’ and ‘Arabs’ to describe them.In contrast, most of the Jewish villages in the Galilee region which are involved in ourstudy are new. Only a few of them were established 70 years ago, at the foundation ofthe state, while most of them were established in the 1980s and later. Consequently,most of the Jewish adults involved in our study moved to the Galilee area as adultsand did not grow up there. In addition to the ethnic differences, the Jewish communi-ties were also of higher socioeconomic status (SES) than the Bedouins, whocommonly make the lowest SES among the Arab citizens of Israel. As a result ofdifferent needs, such SES differences between two communities most likely affect theways they view environmental problems (Gruenewald 2003; Taylor 1989).

Regardless of the political and environmental conflicts, the Galilee region isknown for a variety of collaborative efforts among Arab and Jewish adults and young-sters, aiming to improve the quality of life and increase respect and understandingamong the different communities. These efforts include formal and informal educa-tional collaborations between Arab and Jewish schools and municipalities in music,theater, science, and technology. Recent efforts to engage Arab and Jewish schools inlearning about local environmental issues in the Galilee are carried out by the TownsAssociation for Environmental Quality, Agan Beit Netofa, an agency located in theArab city of Sachnin which successfully works with schools, communities, andmunicipalities of the region (http://www.taeq.org).

The Galilee, with its diverse population, was the geopolitical context of the effortto bring Jewish and Arab youth to collaborate on environmental projects described inthis study that took place in two creeks in the region. The institutions that suggestedthese projects believed that raising environmental awareness, concern, and involve-ment would be beneficial to both Israeli Jews and Arabs. They also believed thatdiscussion of pertinent issues and acting together in the environmental arena for thebenefit of all communities would initiate other cultural and political actions.

These recent efforts are part of a suite of educational programs from the lastdecades that are being held extensively throughout Israel, to promote tolerant views,mutual recognition, and respectfulness among Jewish and Arab youth (Maoz 2004;Maoz et al. 2002). These Jewish–Arab encounters mainly focused on the cultural


Environmental Education Research 237

differences and the political conflicts, with the overall goal of developing strategiesfor coping with and bridging the gaps between Jewish and Arab citizens. Suchprojects, which serve as the context of this study, aim to bridge the gaps by allowingJewish and Arab citizens an opportunity to discuss common interests, focusing ontheir shared environment. Furthermore, we note that environmental activism, as wellas environmental education, is a preferred field of collaboration among communitiesaiming to improve the relationships between Jews and Arabs.

Given the complex sociocultural–political context, a suitable framework for suchprograms is that of environmental education that focuses on education for sustainabil-ity as will be discussed later. Although multicultural socio-environmental programscommonly engage students, in this study we focus on adults who plan, design, andlead such programs. Our work here examines their socio-environmental views andperspectives in the context of local projects and landscapes. We believe that identify-ing the views of educators of diverse cultures and backgrounds who are interacting insuch extended projects is important for the further development and enactment ofother multicultural socio-environmental programs. The two programs investigated arereferred to as ‘projects’ because this was the term used by the participants. The term‘socio-environmental project’ refers to extended projects that focus on conflicts thatencompass social and environmental dimensions, while ‘multicultural’ signifies thoselearning environments that bring together students and adults representing differentcultural or ethnic groups and who speak different languages.

Theoretical background

The main theoretical context of the study is environmental education (EE) that empha-sizes education for sustainability (EfS). We also note that ‘sense of place’ was an ideathat emerged while collecting and analyzing data regarding environmental views.Hence, this section will begin with a brief discussion of EE and EfS, followed by anexamination of the idea of sense of place.

The ideology of sustainable development that was introduced in the mid-1980s hasgradually influenced the EE movement and has become a common perspective sincethe 1990s (Sauvé 2005). Questions and concerns about whether the economic devel-opment aspect of human development trumps the social sustainable life aspect has ledsome educators and researchers commit to using merely one term – ‘education forsustainability’, the argument being that the educational focus should be on how indi-viduals and communities use and share natural and social resources in a just way, careabout local and global socio-environmental issues, and develop action skills anddispositions for citizenship, environmental justice, and intergenerational justice (e.g.Fien 1997; Huckle and Sterling 1996; Tilbury 1995). While some scholars argue thatthe terms can be used interchangeably or do not make such a distinction (Hopkins andMcKeown 2002; Smyth 1995), others, such as Lang (2004, 7), claim that the terms‘education for sustainable development (ESD)’ and ‘education for sustainability(EfS)’ should not be used interchangeably ‘as the concepts encode different empha-ses’. Lang argues that while ESD focuses on (economic) development, EfS empha-sizes ‘building capacity to live more sustainably’. Yet, it is also necessary to refer tothose scholars who question both terms (i.e., EfS and ESD) or who argue that the olderterm EE already addressed human aspects in various ways (e.g. Gonzalez-Gaudiano2006; Hart 2008; Sauvé 1996; Stevenson 2006). Indeed, Hart (2008) argues that theolder problems of EE remain with ESD:



Assumptions about the universal applicability of new education for sustainable develop-ment principles work as much as older environmental education principles to sustainconventions and assumptions of traditional pedagogy that marginalize diverse humanexperience as embodied, emplaced and (geographically, historically, and culturally)contextualized. As we learn to accommodate EE/ESD pedagogy working toward moreparticipative, experiential, political and action-oriented processes of social/environmen-tal engagement in the real world the worry remains that such apparent complicity in thename of development is less likely to disrupt dominant social practices, discourses andpatterns of power. (p. 30)

In accordance with the last view, we perceive EE that focuses on EfS as anapproach that aims at examining and emphasizing the origins and sources of currentproblems, and seeks a new vision of education that empowers people of all ages andcommunities to assume responsibility for creating a sustainable future and develop-ment of environmental stewardship (cf. Hopkins and McKeown 2002; UNESCO2002). From this point on when we refer to EfS we mean EE that emphasizes demo-cratic processes, acknowledges diversity, and promotes peace, equality, and justice.As such, EfS is human centered, involves communities, and encourages critical think-ing, action, and collaboration.

Finally, we believe that the complexity and the multi-faceted nature of EfS ideasdemand situated learning that will only occur if students are provided with methods toreconstruct their own social and scientific knowledge (Bishop and Scott 1998), and ifthey are allowed access to the appropriate environment – the nearby outdoors. Theprojects in this study fulfill these two requirements.

The idea of sense of place, as a concept that emerged while collecting and analyz-ing our data, refers to the first-hand experience with nature to create a place-basedsense of connection and compassion (Kellert 2005; Orr 1993; Pyle 2002). In order tounderstand such relations between humans and places, it is necessary to define theconcept of ‘place’ as a holistic and multidimensional concept (Ardoin 2006). Tuan(1977) defines place as a center of meaning or field of care that emphasizes humanemotions and relationships. Ryden (1993, 37–8) adds that ‘a place … is much morethan a point in space … but takes in the meanings which people assign to that land-scape through the process of living in it’. According to these definitions, sense ofplace is not imbued in the physical setting itself, but resides in human interpretationsof the setting (Jorgensen and Stedman 2001).

Based on an interdisciplinary literature review, Ardoin (2006) presents fourdimensions of sense of place which contribute to creating a robust connection withplaces: (1) the biophysical dimension, which provides the physical environment as thecontext which enables a direct connection between people and a place; (2) the psycho-logical dimension, which focuses on understanding individual interactions and expe-riences with the biophysical places; (3) the sociocultural dimension, which focuses onsocial, cultural, and anthropological aspects of attachment to a place; and (4) the polit-ical economic dimension, which focuses on the role of communities in their attach-ment to places and their active involvement in the local environment.

Other researchers connect sense of place and place-based education and suggestthat strengthening the sense of place of individuals and communities is an essentialaim of place-based education and EE in order to develop pro-environmental responsi-ble citizens (Ardoin 2006; Gonzalez-Gaudiano 2008; Gruenewald 2003; Sanger 1997;Thomashow 2002). Gruenewald (2003) suggests shaping the development of a socio-ecological, place-conscious education and place-conscious accountability focusing on



the following five dimensions of a place: perceptual, sociological, ideological, politi-cal, and ecological. Given that educational goals are related to social goals, and inorder to raise people’s sense of accountability towards a place, Gruenewald suggeststhat in order to assess our relation with the places we live in we use social and envi-ronmental well-being indicators, focusing on community sustainability or livability.

EfS programs that aim to improve awareness and action in diverse ethnic commu-nities should address the different perceptions and needs of each community (Hart2008). The different ways that people address environmental problems were widelyinvestigated in the past three decades. People perceive and understand environmentalproblems in various ways based on their sociocultural, political, geographical, andSES background (Gruenewald 2008; Schultz 2000). Gonzalez-Gaudiano (2008, 57)also stresses that if citizens are responsible for their acts, honest with themselves andwith others, and commit to equality and justice, it is because they identify with othersof like mind and feel part of a group. Despite considerable vagueness with respect tothe political aspect in the projects we studied, we would like to address Hart’s (2008)notion that proponents of EE and ESD argue that students need to engage with criti-cally reflective knowledge that comes from understanding political processes in orderto participate in social/environmental issues.

Goals and rationale

This study is part of a larger investigation that involved students from Arab and Jewishcommunities in the Galilee region of northern Israel, who were engaged in extendedsocio-environmental projects. These projects were directed by 16 adult leaders thatincluded facilitators of environmental organizations, teachers, and principals. We willrefer to these leaders as ‘adults’. In this study, we aimed to identify and understandthe views and objectives of these adults in the context of the local environmentalprojects they were involved with. That includes understanding their views of EE (asEfS), the local projects’ goals, and environmental problems and their solutions. Focus-ing on the adults’ views could be worthwhile for a number of reasons. First, as educatorswho were strongly involved in the projects, the adults’ views influence their pedagog-ical practice in the context of EE programs and, in turn, influence their students’ learn-ing experiences and their impacts in such programs. In addition, the various roles ofthe participating adults could help in portraying multiple perspectives that will aid indesigning future projects. The research questions that guided our study were:

(1) What were the adult leaders’ views of EE?(2) How did the adult leaders view the local environmental problems and their

possible solutions?(3) How did the adult leaders view the project’s goals?

As we analyzed the data, aspects of sense of place clearly emerged and, consequently,were instrumental in answering research question 1.

Method

Context

As indicated earlier, many EE programs, in formal and informal education, take placein the Galilee region in order to raise environmental care and activism. The two



programs that are described in this study, Projects A and B, are educational programsthat were initiated and directed by two leading environmental organizations, asdescribed in the following section. In both programs, Bedouin and Jewish middle-school students from different communities meet in order to get better acquainted witheach other, learn about and discuss environmental and social conflicts, and worktogether in the parks.

Project A

This project took place in Green Mountain Creek,1 which is a national park managedby the Protectors of the Parks (PoP), a governmental organization (GO). Severalvillages, Arab and Jewish, are located around the park. Two extended Arab familiesreside in the park consisting of 44 and 32 individuals, respectively. These families,who cultivate the land within the park and use the stream water, are at the center ofthe development versus conservation conflict between the Israeli authorities and thelocal residents (Tarrabiah 2008), which was studied in the project. After more than20 years a mediation process was held to end the dispute. In this process, thoseinvolved in the dispute jointly explored and reconciled their differences. The partiesthemselves, with the guidance of a mediator, negotiated until they reached a consensusregarding what they considered to be a workable solution to settle their disagreements(Cormick 1982).

The parties in the mediation in Green Mountain Creek, which was the first envi-ronmental mediation in Israel, included members of governmental ministries, govern-mental and non-governmental environmental organizations, local municipalities, andJewish and Arab members of local communities. This process was held during 2002–2004 but has not yet been fully implemented due to the refusal of two parties (theMinistry of Interior and an environmental organization) to sign the final consensus(Tarrabiah 2008). Project A was initiated by the PoP, which was one of the parties inthe mediation process, with the goal of collaborating with schools and communities tofoster environmental involvement in the park by the nearby communities in thecontext of the mediation process. We followed the second year of the project, whichconsisted of eight meetings held between November 2005 and May 2006. Six of themeetings included cross-cultural activities and two were enacted separately for theBedouin and Jewish students.

Project B

The second project was initiated by the Association for the Conservation of Nature inIsrael (ACNI), a non-governmental organization (NGO). It took place in the Oak HillsCreek Nature Reserve. Many Jewish and Arab villages are located around the creek,which in recent years has suffered from massive sewage pollution. This pollution iscaused mainly by the Arab villages that suffer from insufficient infrastructure systemsand who use the landscape of the creek, which is their backyard, as an unofficial solidwaste disposal site (Israel Union for Environmental Defense 2008). In addition, farm-ing along the stream increases the consumption of the scarce water resource. In 1999,a new management agency was established to rejuvenate the landscape and regulatethe water consumption of the villages. Since then, several educational programs havetaken place in order to engage the local communities in the process of the creek reha-bilitation. Project B is one of these projects. This is a three-year program, and the



study was carried out in the first year of the project during 2006–2007. The projectconsisted of six meetings between December 2006 and June 2007. Four of the meet-ings were cross-cultural and two of them were separate discussions within theBedouin and Jewish student groups, respectively.

In both programs Arab and Jewish middle-school students from different commu-nities met to become acquainted with each other, learn and discuss environmentaland social issues, and work together in the parks. The ultimate goal of the programdevelopers was to promote environmental awareness and care for the benefit of theenvironment and the communities. The projects, which implemented ideas of EfS,outdoor education, and place-based education, included hands-on and experientialactivities. They took place either in two school locations of each project, in the creeklandscapes, or in the local outdoor surrounding of each school. Learning about thesocio-ecological systems included the physical, biological, geographical, historical,and cultural characteristics of the landscapes as well as interacting with residents.The implementation of EfS ideas was done through collaboration between groupsthat rarely interact. It included exposing the students to the complex environmentalissues of the landscape and discussing the challenges of the local socio-environmen-tal conflicts that are strongly tied to political conflicts. Pedagogically speaking, inProject B, the whole group of leaders, regardless of affiliation and role, actedtogether to set goals and carry out the activities. In contrast, for Project A, the envi-ronmental organization leaders were mainly those responsible for carrying out theactivities. In both projects all the activities were designed to correspond with thebilingual Hebrew–Arabic multicultural social setting, including bilingual mentoringand teamwork.

PoP and ACNI facilitators, with teacher assistance, led the activities of projects Aand B, respectively. The school principals were involved mainly in the early stages ofdecision-making and planning.

Participants

Altogether, 16 adults (eight Jewish and eight Arab) took part in the two projects; 12adults lived in the villages that surround each creek and four adults lived outside thecreeks’ area. Eight adults participated in Project A: three PoP facilitators (two Jewishand one Bedouin), one Muslim Arab facilitator from CONTACT – a local Jew–ArabNGO, two school principals (a Jew and a Bedouin), and two eighth-grade teachersfrom the two schools. All the adults lived in the villages around Green MountainCreek with the exception of the two Jewish PoP facilitators.

Eight adults participated in Project B as well: the Jewish ACNI coordinator whoinitiated the program, two principals (of the Bedouin and the Jewish schools), twoteachers from the Jewish school, and three teachers from the Bedouin school. All theadults lived in the villages around Oak Hills Creek except the ACNI coordinator andthe Jewish school principal.

Both the authors of this article live in Jewish villages in the Galilee region. Thefirst author’s community is near Oak Hill Creek. She had previously worked in theJewish school of Project A, but at the time of data collection, she was not involved inthe school any more. The co-author is an experienced researcher and educator who hasworked for many years with Jewish and Arab environmental educators. In the early1990s, she was a national EE coordinator employed by ACNI. Both authors arecontinuously engaged in projects that aim to bring together Jewish and Arab citizens



to negotiate socio-environmental issues and act together, in the educational arena toimprove mutual relationships.

Data collection and analysis

The data for this exploratory study were collected by the first author through personalinterviews and observations of formal staff meetings. Prior to collecting data, the firstauthor met the adults, introduced her research goals, and secured the adults’ permissionto participate in this study. Since the Arab adults were much more fluent in Hebrewthan the first author was in Arabic, the interviews were conducted in Hebrew. More-over, these interviewees preferred talking directly with the first author in Hebrew andfelt that translation was unnecessary. The first author conducted two semi-structuredinterviews with each participant: one took place during the course of the projects andthe other at the end. The first were not, however, designed as pre–post interviews and,with the second, were not used to compare the adults in different stages of the projects.Rather, we investigated their perspectives at the early stage and then again at a moreadvanced stage of the project, in order to portray a credible picture of the entire projectand allow the adult participants an opportunity to explain and clarify their views indepth. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim.

We asked the participants to describe their general ecological worldviews, andtheir views towards the goals of EE in general and the goals of multicultural Arab–Jewish environmental programs in particular. In addition, we were interested in theirexpectations from the projects, their opinions about the projects’ objectives, and opin-ions with respect to the achievement of these goals. We were also interested in theways the subjects perceived the main problems of each creek and how they desired tosolve those problems.

As mentioned before, the second interview allowed the subjects to provide newexplanations, to clarify previous statements they had made, and to address other issuesthat came up throughout the projects. In addition, we videotaped and transcribed fivestaff meetings that took place throughout the projects: two meetings of Project A andthree meetings of Project B. In these meetings, the adult leaders discussed their expec-tations, plans, ways to attain the goals during the projects, accomplishments of thegoals, their feelings towards the collaboration between all the parties, the students’function, and any other issues that were brought up. These staff meeting discussionsallowed us to clarify the adult leaders’ main perspectives.

Content analysis of the interview and staff meeting transcripts was conducted toidentify emergent categories and major themes focusing on the adults’ views of EE,local problems and solutions, and projects’ goals. Validation was achieved in threephases. The first author reviewed the transcripts for repetitive ideas and created aninitial set of codes for the analysis. Then, three researchers (co-author and two otherEE researchers who were familiar with the projects’ context and participants) used theinitial set of codes to independently analyze the transcripts. Additional codes werewritten if necessary. After several discussions, the four researchers confirmed theinitial set of codes and agreed on the establishment of new codes or combining exist-ing ones.

In analyzing the data we refrained from drawing strict conclusions in relation toethnicity for two reasons: while observations can be offered, the small number and diver-sity of participants does not allow a reliable comparison; the second reason is relatedto language. Despite their fluency in Hebrew, the Arab subjects were less articulate in



Hebrew. Furthermore, cultural differences yield different ways of expression in the twocultural groups that also undermine reliable cross-group comparison.

Findings

The interviews with the 16 adult leaders of the projects were designed to address theirviews of EE, the way they perceived the local environmental problems, and the possi-ble approaches to resolve these problems. Data on the project goals, as perceived bythe leaders, were obtained through the interviews and from the documentation of thestaff meetings.

Views of EE

In regard to our first question, we identified two types of views of EE among the 16adult leaders: (1) broad views, and (2) narrow views. Within each type we identifieda variety of views with respect to human–nature relations. In addition, we identified astronger sense of place among the Arab adults as they described local environmentalissues of the landscapes.

Broad views of EE

Fourteen adults viewed EE broadly, emphasizing several components that should beincluded while involving students in EE. These included a thorough understanding ofenvironmental issues, the roles of individuals and communities in protecting the envi-ronment, and local issues in particular. For example, the Arab principal of Project Aviewed EE as an opportunity to enhance inquiry-based learning in addition to protect-ing nature and collaborating with and educating the local community:

Of course we implement EE in our school. We are doing it in three ways: first, we havea class of environmental sciences majors [in the upper grade levels] … then, scienceteachers go out to the creek with their students, teach in the outdoors and do inquiryprojects, asking research questions that are related to the landscape. Finally, we areinvolved in projects like this project [Project A], in which the students have the chanceto deepen their knowledge about the creek. When they go with their families to the creek,they do it for fun, but when they come with their teachers, they really learn … I myselfonce went out with the students to the creek and taught about a typical but rare plant inthe creek and why they shouldn’t pick up this plant and thus prevent extinction, since it’svery unique … I am trying to work with parents too, but it’s so hard educating them.

Several of the adults clearly addressed ideas of sustainability, pointing out theinfluence of social, cultural, and economic factors on the environment. An example ofthis was a response by the Jewish principal in Project A:

In my opinion, environment is something that includes society and economy and ‘man’s’influence on the environment … one should see a culture, a community and should seehow they affect the environment and what they get from it … when you look at theGalilee and you don’t stick only to air pollution parameters or to water testing in thecreeks, but rather look on [and teach] how one community sees the environment throughits tradition, customs in daily life, how it influences the environment, and what it takesfrom it or from other communities. It is then that the concept of the environment is moresignificant.



The Jewish principal of Project B pointed out the importance of creating a pro-environmental atmosphere in school and acting for the next generation. To demon-strate involvement of EE in diverse ways in his school curriculum, he spoke about theways he integrates EE in his history classes:

As a history and social studies teacher, I often integrate civic dilemmas that include envi-ronmental aspects. I discuss and help the students understand that environmental aspectsexist everywhere. EE is not something that you can assign only to a specific course. Itshould encompass all the students and be included in many school aspects. This is whylast year I decided to nominate Daphne to be the EE coordinator of the school. I expectedthat she will initiate and carry out projects for each grade level that include an activitycomponent for the environment … and school projects that will involve the public …that’s why in this project [Project B] other staff members such as the pedagogical coor-dinator, the outdoor activity coordinator, and the home teachers are involved … It’s veryimportant that the students understand they need to care for the local environment notonly for their own sake but for future generations as well.

Narrow views of EE

Only two Arab teachers expressed more narrow views of EE. The first focused onlyon nature conservation in a rather simplistic way:

EE means teaching the students to protect our unique environment where we live …Students should respect nature as a value of its own … I try to increase the awareness toconserve the creek, saving nature resources, and preserving the water and the animals. Itold the students that when a bulldozer digs, it ruins and harms all the poor animals; whatabout their own right to live?

The second teacher emphasized human needs as the main reason for learning aboutand protecting the local environment; he focused mainly on aesthetic aspects:

I think that the environment is everything you look at and gives you beauty, whereverwe go, everything should be clean, beautiful, and green. ‘Quality’ is an in-depth discus-sion of our environment … seeing more of the beauty of the environment, keeping italways, so it would be clean and good for us … [EE] is about teaching students to keeptheir environment clean, for example not leaving trash behind when they go to the creekand keeping the school and home backyards clean. Students should understand thatpolluting the water that we drink could make us sick. We want to live in a nice village.

As already indicated, the last two examples represented a small minority, while all theother adults, teachers, principals, and staff members of the environmental organiza-tions expressed more complex and holistic views with regard to EE and its goals.

Sense of place

An interesting aspect that came up only from the Arab adults while interviewing themabout their views of EE and local environmental issues of the landscapes was theirsense of place. Seven out of the eight Arab leaders referred to the creek as rooted intheir local cultural identity. The Arab adult leaders pointed out their deep multi-generational link to the creeks and their history.

I live about 100 meters away from the stream … people who arrive here tell me, wow!What a view, what a creek, how beautiful! It’s true and it’s not the first time I hear it.



It’s beautiful and we have to do everything to avoid further deterioration, bringing thesituation to what was here before, like it was when I was a kid … when we used todrink (the water). At that time, I used to go out with a few cows, and we would drinkthe clean stream water. It was 40 years ago, when in Abyad [the Bedouin village]there were no more than 50 houses. Nowadays, we have 500–600 … (Project B, Arabprincipal)

This unique attachment to the creek was acknowledged by the Jewish leaders as well:

It was obvious that Green Mountain Creek is the backyard of Azrak’s [the Bedouinvillage] students. It was clear they grew up there … they even acted like hosts. (ProjectA, Jewish PoP facilitator)

As noted in the introduction, all the Arab adults grew up in the creeks’ region, whilemost of the Jewish adults moved to the area as adults.

Views about local socio-environmental problems

With respect to the local socio-environmental problems, the participants expressed avariety of views. The three main topics the interviewees addressed were: (1) exploita-tion of natural resources for private needs; (2) equity issues – expressed by the rela-tionships with the authorities; and (3) conservation versus development of the creek.In each topic we identified a variety of views.

Exploitation of natural resources for private needs

All the adults agreed that using land and water resources for private cultivation resultsin turning the original water flow away from the community into cultivated lands andthat using polluted water for irrigation damages the natural ecosystem of the creeks.However, tolerance towards this exploitation by the local residents varied.

Low tolerance towards exploitation. Several adults strongly disagreed with allowinghumans to use natural habitats for private benefits. They expressed limitedunderstanding of the local residents who did so. The Arab PoP facilitator of ProjectA expressed his dissatisfaction with the actions of the Green Mountain’s localresidents:

Recently, I saw a negative development, someone blocked the path [to the creek] withboulders; how could he do so; Is this his own land; without telling anyone? As a personwho loves nature, I strongly disagree with this … I’m not against the creek inhabitantsand I never was. I insist they’ll get complete ownership rights on the land, but the creekhas its own boundaries.

Although this individual accepts the rights of the local residents to live inside thenational park, he does not agree with their larger exploitation of the landscape andemphasizes the existence of some boundaries.

High tolerance towards exploitation. In contrast, other adults expressed higher toler-ance, associating the use of the natural resources by local residents to their lowersocioeconomic status, level of education, and/or traditional habits. One of the Arab



teachers of Project B believed the use of natural resources by the poor farmers is theresult of no other choice:

I know it’s bad to use the creek’s water for cultivating, but how could we ask old peoplestop using it, maybe they can’t afford paying for the water they use?

In the discussion that followed, the teacher did not suggest a solution to the problem,but rather seemed to suggest this was a reality that cannot be changed.

Another Arab teacher from the same school who was tolerant towards exploitationsuggested negotiating with and teaching the ‘less well-educated’ farmers about theimplications of their actions:

I have few neighbors who cultivate the creek lands. I think that if we want to solve theproblem we should establish a ‘water association’ that consists of the authorities and thelocal farmers. What is the problem with these farmers? They are not so well educated,they are simple people, and maybe they don’t understand the impacts on the creek, ofwhat they are doing, so we must talk to them and explain that there is an alternative watersource they could use. We have to solve this problem and reach an agreement with them.I’m not even sure that they really make a living from these small lots that each familyholds.

This teacher tended to see the locals not only as part of the problem, but as part of thesolution as well, as we discuss later.

Socio-environmental justice

As discussed earlier, the Israeli government declared parts of the two landscapes ofGreen Mountain and Oak Hills creeks as national parks. Such a declaration meantrestricting living inside the park and using its natural sources for private use. In GreenMountain Creek, the declaration process was done prior to the project, led by the PoPorganization. In Oak Hills Creek, the declaration process led by the new managementagency of the creek was in an early phase. A few of the Arab adults claimed that theway the Israeli authorities suggested addressing the needs of local residents reflectedinequity. They expressed deep concerns towards expropriation of private lands in thecreeks. For example, one of the Arab teachers in Project B clearly addressed the possi-bility of land expropriation as a politically discriminatory action:

Sure, we need to protect Oak Hills Creek, avoid polluting it and make sure all theanimals and plants could live there in good conditions … but when it comes to thepossibility that in order to solve the creek problems people must lose part of their lands,the residents who grow crops are very concerned. They are worried that the Israeligovernment will expropriate their lands and force them to leave. My family cultivateslands in the creek and they already employ a lawyer, they want to be prepared, and theywill disagree to abandon; I promise you, it is going to be a big dispute. And I totallyunderstand them and agree with their resistance to leave; they make a living from theirlands.

As a member of a family that cultivates lands in the creek, this teacher understands theland issue as a dispute between the Israeli authorities and the creek residents. Hebelieved the farmers were not well treated by the government and, therefore, theyneeded legal advice.



Other adults, Arab and Jews alike, did not view the involvement of the authoritiesas a socio-political injustice. For example, the Jewish coordinator of Project Bbelieved that land expropriation does not represent a dispute between the Israeliauthorities and the Arab minority, since both Arab and Jewish communities wouldface the possibility of land loss:

Yes, I agree that giving up your lands in order to let space for the stream to expand isproblematic. This would be problematic for all farmers who have lands near the stream.Both Arab and Jewish farmers from the nearby villages would refuse to give up theirlands; it’s not a political dispute between the local Arab population and the authorities… because Jewish farmers of Kibbutz Yevulim will refuse to any expropriation of landsas well the Arab farmers that live in Azrak.

Similarly, the Arab PoP facilitator of Project A emphasized equal opportunities forboth the Arab and the Jewish local communities to affect the mediation process thatwas held in the creek in order to solve the local dispute:

As a youth facilitator in my village and a member of my Bedouin village, I had the priv-ilege to participate in the mediation meetings. I even involved few students from myvillage and we talked about the needs of the young generation in relation to the creek …I’m sad about the few problems that prevent the completion of the process. I’m not surewho to blame, but I was satisfied with the fact everyone was engaged – local residents,regional council, the communities, Jews, and Arabs.

Nature conservation versus development

Two main approaches were addressed by the subjects: (1) any development should beprohibited; and (2) a balanced development is acceptable.

Any development should be prohibited. Several adults believed that the currentdamage to the creeks’ ecosystems as a result of human involvement is severeenough to avoid any further development. They emphasized the disappearance oftypical plants and animals and the damage to some valuable archeological artifacts(old flour mills, Roman ponds). They also believed effort should focus on preserv-ing the natural resources. In addition, they pointed out the need to teach othersabout the importance of protecting the limited natural resources and understandingits value:

I’m not sure if this creek is restorable. The conditions there are bad enough. We mustunderstand the importance of open space, the trees, and the animals there. I understandthe people [who live there], but we must learn why we shouldn’t continue constructionover there or making other changes. We need to be aware of the natural resources andprotect them. (Project A, Arab CONTACT facilitator)

A balanced development is acceptable. Other adults believed that some level ofdevelopment in the creeks is acceptable if a balance between restoring the creek andallowing reasonable comfort for visitors is achieved. This approach is echoed in thewords of one of the Arab teachers of Project B:

I would like to see the creek habitat with a strong flow, with a variety of plants andanimals that existed there in the past, and I would maybe like to fish there … I’m against



a modern development that looks artificial. I want it to look natural, but maybe a deckwould fit for visitors’ and residents’ use.

Views of social solutions to the problems

We found four levels of social solutions to the disputes. These levels were proposedby the adult leaders in the following ways: (1) within the family and home, (2) withinschools, (3) within the community, and (4) institutional: within organizations and theestablishment. Each level corresponds with the extent of the individual’s responsibil-ity and involvement in a hierarchical order from the closest connection to the individ-ual (family) to the most remote level (institutions). Table 1 presents the four levels ofsolutions, the key terms used by the interviewees with regard to these levels, andexamples from the interviews and the staff meetings.

The family level, which is the inner level, is the most fundamental level ofinvolvement and responsible for resolving environmental problems. It addresses an

Table 1. Types of solutions to local socio-environmental problems expressed by adult leaders.

Level Keywords Adults Example

Family I, we, parents 5 Arabs7 Jews

I believe in home influence, I believe in parents’ role, because as a father, as a parent, I feel that if I participate (in environmental activities) it supports my children, my contact with them and with their teacher, and facilitators.

(Project A, Arab school facilitator)School I, we, teachers,

principal8 Arabs8 Jews

It takes time to change the students’ habits. In my class I try to do it; if we speak with parents and students in each meeting about taking care of nature, I believe that as the time goes by, we could see what is our contribution as teachers.

(Project A, Arab school teacher)Community We, together,

collaboration, community, collaboration of Arabs and Jews

7 Arabs8 Jews

The idea is to create an active group of parents and residents who care about the creek – that together with the educational project they could push creek authorities forward to promote its restoration. This process must be led by the local community; there is no chance that an external environmental organization will lead this process successfully, no matter what the projects’ budget is.

(Project B, coordinator)Institutional They, council,

government, organization/ authorities

6 Arabs5 Jews

The authorities must allocate a place for solid waste in our village … there are people who wait for the night, and then throw all their garbage away in the creek that has become polluted. In addition, I would expect the head of our village to be more involved in the school projects that we do here in creek, to be a part of solving the creek’s problems.

(Project B, Arab school principal)



appropriate education at home and the parents’ role in enhancing pro-environmentalbehavior. Modeling behaviors such as avoiding littering or cleaning the creek wasincluded in this level.

The school level refers to the responsibility of principals, teachers, and staff topromote environmental awareness and behavior. It focuses on teaching about thecreek and getting the school involved in pro-environmental activities. Adults whoaddressed this level spoke about students’ bad habits and the importance of the teach-ers’ role in changing them through educational processes.

The community level includes the involvement of all the residents (Jews andArabs) who live nearer the creek. According to the statements expressed at this level,this involvement should include raising environmental awareness and a feeling ofcontinuous obligation of the local communities to protect the creek by participating increek restoration projects by multicultural groups and organizations and by promotingagreement between conflicting parties. The adults that spoke about this level high-lighted the importance of involvement of the community in the creek. They perceiveda sense of intrinsic responsibility as a key factor in solving the socio-environmentalproblems in the creek. They suggested teaching for public action in order to raiseknowledge, awareness, and involvement of the creeks’ residents. These adultsexpressed strong ownership feelings.

The institutional level, which is the most external level, represents someone else’sresponsibility. It refers to the enforcement and maintaining of rules, improving munic-ipal services, and increasing the employment within eco-tourism and environmentalorganizations – all of which are external factors. The adults who referred mainly to aninstitutional solution focused on Israeli formal authorities, such as the Ministries ofthe Interior, Agriculture, and Environmental Protection, and NGOs and their duties.

A good example of the institutional level would be a response by an Arab teacherof Project B, who claimed that the responsibility for Oak Hills Creek is mainly that ofthe authorities. Therefore, students’ work in the creek is less important and could bedone only after the authorities fulfilled their responsibilities:

In our village we don’t have a sewage system; we still have pits, some constructors cameto the creek and threw their garbage into the pits … we need garbage cans everywhereso the residents will learn to put their waste there. The authorities must allocate a placefor solid waste … there are people who wait for the night, and then throw all theirgarbage away in the creek that has become polluted. We need such things and alsopatrols of the PoP … the students as well should be working in the creek only after therelevant organizations, such as ACNI and other authorities will prepare the infrastructurefirst, then they [the students] could do some work there.

An example of a more comprehensive and broad approach, which involves all foursocial levels of solutions, and which was held by several leaders, is the response fromthe Jewish coordinator of Project B:

There are three parallel processes that should occur at the same time – first, there is theeducational aspect in which the children must learn, explore, know, and even develop alearning program in the creek that should enable other children to learn [school level].There must be an obligation and development done by the creek authorities [institutionallevel] and there should be a group of people and parents that care and change things andpromote the process [family and community level]. I want Oak Hills Creek to be thefocus there and a public arena to the educational process when they are both pushing thethird party – the creek authorities – to promote the restoration. There is no chance that



an external organization, such as ACNI as a representative of the environmental organi-zations, will lead any process, no matter what the project’s budget is. If things will notemerge internally, it won’t be successful.

This coordinator addressed the collaborative work that should be done to promotelong-term solutions to Oak Hills Creek’s socio-environmental problems. She empha-sized that the key for a successful process is through the empowerment of local peopleand development of leadership. In her interview, she indicated several times that thepower of any external organization, even her own NGO, is limited if it is notsupported by local leadership.

Views of the projects’ goals

With respect to the third question, we identified four top goals of the socio-environ-mental projects that were addressed by the adult leaders: (1) improving knowledge,awareness, and environmental behavior of the students and their communities; (2) anopportunity for taking part in community collaboration and action; (3) an opportunityfor a multicultural meeting; and (4) meaningful long-term learning in the outdoors.However, not every goal was stressed by all leaders. We found that these goals areconnected with the local problems and levels of solutions as previously described. Inaddition, in Project B we found that the adults’ roles in the project influenced the waysthey perceived the first top goal. Each of the identified top goals is discussed in detailin the following sections.

Improving knowledge, awareness, and environmental behavior of the students and their communities

This goal involved adults’ reference to the school and community levels of solu-tions to local problems. It consisted of the following four specific objectives: (1)knowledge – 15 adults wished that the students would learn and acquire substantialknowledge about the places, the environmental problems, and the ways to resolvethem; (2) awareness – all 16 adults wanted the students to increase their awarenessof the deterioration of the creeks’ condition and of the need to protect the habitats;(3) affiliation to the place – 11 individuals shared the idea of strengthening thestudents’ sense of place and enhancing care for nature in general and for the twocreeks in particular; and (4) taking responsibility – 15 adult leaders suggested thatthe projects should include planning and carrying out specific actions in the creeks,and initiating active, life-long contributions to the environment. The response of anArab teacher of Project B at the end of the project is a representative example ofthese objectives:

The project raised the students’ awareness of the pollution in the creek, which was oneof the goals. Prior to the project, the students came to the creek many times to play andspent some time, but they didn’t pay attention to the dirt and pollution. They actuallylearned about the creek with us and measured the quality of the water and learnedabout typical plants and animals. Now they know that people are littering the creek andare aware of its importance in keeping it clean. I think that during the project, thestudents should also work in the creek. They should perform specific actions in orderto improve the conditions of the creek, like putting signs up that prohibit littering andtrash cans along the creek. However, it did not happen and I suggest it will happennext year.



This teacher indicates that improving the knowledge and awareness of the studentswas strongly attained during the project, while the behavioral objective, taking respon-sibility and being actively involved in creek, was not addressed.

Although most of the adults agreed that improving knowledge and awareness inregard to the socio-environmental conflict and its possible solutions is one of theprojects’ goals, there were role-related differences in the adults’ ideas on how toaddress the local conflicts in Project B. Project B allowed open discussions among theadult leaders regarding the ways to address the land and water issues. We found role-related differences between the teachers, the principals, and the project’s coordinator.The teachers supported an extensive integration of the dispute into the project’s activ-ities. The principals and coordinator were more hesitant. For example, one of the Arabteachers claimed that:

We need to ‘show all the cards’ in this project, make sure the students know everythingabout the conflicts, because we all pollute the same, Arab and Jews as well and we allneed to look for solutions.

In contrast, the Jewish coordinator of the project was concerned about the influenceof the huge dispute on the project. She explained that different perceptions of the Araband Jewish projects’ participants to local problems, such as using natural resources,could incorporate politics into the projects. She explained that her goal is veryspecific:

I’m not sure if this specific topic should be part of our project and if yes, how to do itand how it’s going to influence the project. It’s a huge problem. I’m not sure how we candiscuss it without involving politics or including sensitive issues … What I (really) wantto achieve is working together, with all the river communities to improve the situationof the creek by raising the awareness of the communities.

An opportunity for taking part in community collaboration and action

Fourteen adult leaders viewed the physical and the human system in which theprojects took place using ‘wide-open lenses’ and addressed social and cultural aspectsin addition to the environmental constituents, thereby expressing their overall wish togo beyond the school yards. This goal included involvement of the community andinstitutes in the projects in the following two ways: (1) collaborating with the localcommunities – 12 adults shared the idea of collaborating with the communities aroundthe creek in an attempt to resolve real problems and establish a ‘River Community’;and (2) regional negotiation and collaboration between environmental organizationsand municipalities – eight adults agreed that this collaboration is essential to improvethe environmental situation of the natural parks’ landscapes. For example, one of theJewish teachers of Project B described the project as collaboration between the schoolstudents and four member organizations of the Oak Hills Creek Management Agency:

This year, the main goal was raising the environmental awareness of the students to thecreek’s situation. Next year, the main goal should be active involvement of the students.The students should be divided into small multicultural groups and meet with differentinstitutions, such as Abyad [the Bedouin local council] and Emek Rimonim [the Jewishregional council], municipalities and the Ministry of Environmental Protection, to seehow they can really help improve Oak Hills Creek within our project … I also suggestedthat the students will visit another creek in our area that was rehabilitated by the Jewish



National Fund [JNF – another organization], so they will be more prepared to getinvolved in a similar process here, in Oak Hills Creek, with assistance of JNF staff.

This teacher connected the students’ citizenry activism to their abilities to communicate,collaborate, and be supported by the institutional levels.

An opportunity for a multicultural meeting

As the people who live near the creeks come from diverse communities and cultures,the environmental projects provided an authentic context for meeting and collaborat-ing. This goal focused on the involvement of different communities in order to solvelocal problems. This category included the following two objectives: (1) cross-culturalenvironmental motive – 10 adults believed that the multicultural collaboration in theprojects should be set on the basis of mutual interest – improving the environment;and (2) sociocultural interaction – 15 adults agreed that these programs allow thepromotion of co-existence, good relationships, mutual learning about tradition andhabits, and mutual respect towards the different cultures of the region.

A good example of the second objective is the perspective of one of the Arabteachers of Project A:

I think that when the Jewish students are coming to the creek they should learn about thehistory of the creek’s landscape and about the tradition and customs of the Bedouins.This is the first goal. In addition, when we plan encounters for young Arab and Jewishstudents, we reduce their prejudice towards each other, allow them to get to know eachother more closely, and help them feel that they are actually improving their relation;that’s how we promote co-existence.

Seeing the projects as an opportunity to diminish prejudice, improve the interrelationsbetween the groups, and learn about cultural traditions suggests that this teacher’sconception of learning about a place was broad.

Meaningful long-term learning in the outdoors

As the main arena where the projects took place was the outdoors, these projectsallowed non-traditional learning experiences and provided varied informal context.The more detailed aspects of this category were: (1) education for citizenship – 15adults believed that the projects should engage the students in citizenry issues throughexposing the multi-faceted aspects of the local and national conflicts and throughlooking for reasonable solutions; (2) learning to respect our environment as a value –nine adults suggested incorporating meaningful outdoor experiences in order toincrease the students’ respect towards nature; and (3) focusing on outdoor learning asmeaningful learning – six adults shared the idea that out-of-school learning is the mostappropriate context to discuss real-world issues.

The response of the Jewish school principal of Project A clearly exemplifies theseobjectives:

The outdoor learning within this project is more meaningful than classroom learning andthat’s why we decided to participate. In such a project, the students are exposed to a real-life environmental dilemma and can realize that there is a considerable conflict betweenthe needs of the people who live inside the nature park and the need to preserve the park.They have the chance to understand that in order to solve the conflict people make efforts



to negotiate and compromise and that the mediation process does not work so well untilnow, that’s like in real life. I believe that this experience is very important for thestudents; it’s a real citizenry issue, and I assume they will remember it in the long term,much better than routine learning in school.

The principal emphasized the potential of the outdoors in exposing the students to areal ‘conservation versus development’ conflict in the creek and to the possible long-term effect of the subjects that were discussed during the project.

A good example of the educators’ view of the projects’ goals that integrates alllevels of solutions to local problems, discussed earlier, is the following response of theJewish coordinator of Project A:

The idea was to take this project and tell the students – your neighbors, your parents,your friends, your teachers, your village, your community [family, school and commu-nity levels] – to discuss the conflict and they handled this in a very unique way, throughthe mediation process. Actually, the goal is that they [the students] will go through athinking process. First they will understand the difficulty, will become part of the peoplewho are involved in this broad issue and examine it. I actually introduced more peoplefrom the community [community level] into this huge mediation project. I invited thestudents to at least take part and experience … we are lucky to be working with manypeople and organizations [institutional level]. It could be very fruitful if we understandhow to use it.

Similarly to several other adults, this project coordinator spoke about the educationalproject as part of the actual mediation process that was taking place in the local envi-ronment at that time. She saw the project as offering multiple pathways to solve thesocio-environmental problems.

Overall, our results present a variety of the adult leaders’ perspectives towards: (1)the environment and EE; (2) the main environmental problems of two local landscapesand ways to solve the problems; and (3) the goals of the educational projects. Theperspectives draw an interesting and wide spectrum of the adult leaders’ environmen-tal worldviews.

Discussion

This investigation, which explored the adult leaders’ views, is part of a larger studythat explored the characteristics of EfS-based socio-environmental projects that werecarried out in the unique multicultural society in northern Israel. Identifying the lead-ers’ voices enabled better understanding of the complexity of such projects. Overall,we found that the majority of the adults held broad views of EE and the projects’goals, and complex understanding of local environmental problems and their solu-tions. This is encouraging, as this diversity reflects a broad understanding of thehuman–nature relations in general and the socio-environmental system of the Galileeregion in particular.

The various views could be a result of the different sociocultural, political,geographical, or SES background, as proposed by Gruenewald (2003) and Schultz(2000). For example, claiming that the local residents use the water for private needsbecause they are poor, as noted by one of the adults, could reflect differences in SES.Associating the loss of land to what was perceived as political discrimination by theIsraeli authorities towards the Arab minority, as indicated by a few Arab adults, couldreflect differences in the political power of Jewish and Arab populations in Israel.



Consequently, the Arab adults considered the solutions to the environmental problemsas expressing injustice. In a previous study which described Project A (Tal and Alkaher2010), we investigated the students’ views of the local conflict of the creek. We foundethnic differences between the Arab and Jewish groups of students related to the waythey visioned the ‘authorities’. Hence, we argued that the differences result from thediverse positions and needs of each community and from the specific challenges theArab citizens in Israel face. The findings of both studies illustrate the strong connec-tions between environmental issues, social justice, and political power as has beenargued in prior research (Bowers 1995, 2001, 2006; Bullard 1993; Gonzalez-Gaudiano2008; Hart 2008). We will return to this issue later.

The broad perspective held by the majority of the leaders with regard to theirviews of EE, the projects’ goals and with respect to solving local environmental prob-lems is consistent with several fundamental ideas of EfS. It is consistent with takingresponsibility for citizenry activism such as collaboration with local communities andmutual learning about and respecting other cultures that share the same environment(Smyth 2006; Stevenson 2006). The adults’ broad vision with regard to educatingyouth to prevent local problems as future citizens supports the characteristic of EfS asa proactive approach and as a vision that emphasizes the prevention of future prob-lems rather than dealing with current ones (Smyth 1995). Highlighting the role ofdiverse communities as a part of the projects’ goals and as a part of solving localproblems, as done by the adults, is aligned with the EfS idea of working with commu-nities for improving environmental activism and promoting justice (Mckeown andHopkins 2003). In addition, the four levels of solutions to local problems proposed bythe adults (i.e., family, school, community, and institutions) are aligned with theholistic stance of EfS and its emphasis on empowering the whole society in order totake responsibility and act for creating a sustainable future (Hopkins and McKeown2002; UNESCO 2002).

The multi-faceted perspective of the majority of the adults regarding EE, theprojects’ goals, and the local environment reflects the main ideas of place-basededucation as well. The educators’ suggestions to encourage the students’ attachmentto the landscape are aligned with calls to enhance learners’ connections to the localenvironment in order to increase their responsibility and ownership towards the envi-ronment as well as their commitment to act (Ardoin 2006; Gruenewald 2003). Theadults’ suggestions to learn about and respect the other cultures, who share the land-scape, are congruent with calls to learn about the sociocultural and political-economicdimension of a place and not only about the biophysical dimension (Ardoin 2006).These adults’ recommendations suggest that they were aware of the different environ-mental perspectives that diverse groups that live in the same place might have. Hence,it appears that the projects we studied provide a working example for somewhat theo-retical ideas that are supported by limited research. These projects demonstrate howthe adult leaders suggested to provide (and actually provided) opportunities forstudents from two neighboring communities to discuss sociocultural issues (i.e.,conflicts, problems, and solutions) that are related to their own environment. Theseopportunities included meeting different individuals and communities involved in thespecific place and considering their diverse needs.

The broad views of the majority of the adults towards EE were congruent with thediverse ways they perceived the projects’ goals. These two were aligned as well withthe multi-level solutions proposed for the local problems. This congruence suggeststhat in the context of the two projects, the adults’ beliefs about environmental issues



are connected to their educational practice. This finding is encouraging because ofteneducators struggle with transferring their pedagogical beliefs into practical goals. Forexample, addressing the role of the community by most of the adults was part of theirvision of EE. This was addressed as a major goal of the specific projects and as meansto resolve the local environmental problem.

The variety of the adults’ views regarding involvement of the Israeli socio-political dispute in the project, as well as the concern of an Arab teacher of expropri-ation of lands as part of solving local problems, reflects the influence of the Israelipolitical context on the educators’ perceptions. This finding suggests that educatorswho plan, design, and carry out educational multicultural projects in sensitive contextsand educators who are willing to be involved in such multicultural projects need toconsider the broader cultural and political contexts related to their participants. Adopt-ing a ‘critical pedagogy of place’ when investigating educational programs in regionsunder political disputes, as proposed by Greenwood (2009), seems as an appropriateplatform to consider these issues. Greenwood (2009) strongly recommends addressingenvironmental issues as part of broader contexts that integrate place, culture, power,and politics, and claims that separating the political and cultural contexts fromenvironmental issues is not realistic.

We also support Greenwood’s recommendations in multicultural projects. In ouropinion, adopting a critical pedagogy of place in the context of Israeli multiculturalenvironmental projects means that researchers and educators involved in suchprojects should ask questions such as: To what extent do these programs incorporatelocal socio-political topics into the curriculum? To what extent do these programsprovide opportunities to discuss local conflicts? To what extent do these programsconsider different perceptions and needs of the socio-culturally diverse participantsthat are related to the ‘place’? Do the voices of majority groups in Israel dominate thevoices of the minorities when discussing socio-political disputes related to place?How do the socio-political identities and perspectives of the adult leaders of suchprojects affect their pedagogical decisions and actions in the programs? For example,the coordinator and principals of Project B questioned the need to include ‘politicsand sensitive issues’, while they discussed local conflicts such as using naturalresources by the creek residents and exploitation of private lands. FollowingGreenwood’s recommendation, discussing political aspects of such issues isnecessary and unavoidable.

We noted that the Arab adults expressed a greater sense of place, addressing moreaspects of historical heritage and deeper affiliation to the region than their Jewishcolleagues. This could be accounted for by the fact that most of the Jewish educatorsmoved into the region as adults, while the Arab educators grew up and shaped theiridentities in and around the creeks. This assumption is supported by Haymes (1995)and Ardoin (2006) who referred to the terms ‘cultural identity’ and ‘place identity’.They argue that people inevitably, even if unwittingly, shape their identity in thecontext of where they live. As we mentioned earlier, a stronger sense of placeenhances the responsibility and ownership of young people towards the environmentand their commitment to act. Thus, we believe, it is important to increase environmen-tal educators’ awareness of this idea, by engaging them in activities that aim toincrease their consciousness of their own affiliation to a local environment. This couldhappen in the early stages of planning these projects to prepare and support the staff.Although we found evidence for a higher level of sense of place among the Arabadults, we are still questioning how we could better examine, evaluate, and explain the



degree of sense of place among different individuals in general and among culturallydiverse people in particular. Assuming that the development of cultural and placeidentity, and thus the development of sense of place, is affected by a variety of factors,what criteria should we follow to judge such development? Should we use differentor similar criteria to determine the levels of sense of place of different cultures? Andwhat particular advice could we give to educators and teachers willing to improve thesense of place of their students in the context of multicultural place-based projects?Answering these questions, which requires further research, is essential to betterunderstand the role of sense of place in sociocultural context.

Conclusions

Based on our study, we recognize the necessity of considering the broad socio-politi-cal context related to a place while planning, designing, and carrying out place-basedand EfS multicultural projects. Socio-political factors do play a significant role in theworldviews of the adults involved in such projects. Therefore, acknowledging them isessential for the project’s success. In the case of Israel, the socio-political contextincludes majority–minority relations, authorities’ power related to a place, and differ-ences in SES and ethnicity. Examples of issues that could be addressed by adult lead-ers as they design such multicultural projects are: the long-term socio-politicalinequity between the Jewish majority and the Arab minorities groups, the power of theIsraeli governmental authorities to make decisions that force both Jewish and Arabcitizens to leave their homes and lands or change their lifestyles to solve politicalconflicts, and the greater power of high SES groups in Israel to influence governmen-tal decisions related to their own properties and lands. In addition, as proposed by theadults in this study, it is important to involve individuals, schools, local communities,and organizations in order to develop the learners’ broader understanding of theirenvironment and solve environmental problems. In the case of Israel we believe thatsignificant governmental support is needed to encourage the development and successof multicultural school–community collaborations that consider all the socioculturalaspects mentioned above.

For example, in recent years, the Israeli Ministry of Environmental Protection,collaborating with local municipalities, award and fund schools that show sufficientevidence of EfS, including involving local communities, and declare them as ‘nationalgreen schools’. As a result, the reputation of these schools’ communities is improved.We suggest including sociocultural aspects in the considerations for these awards. Wealso recommend developing training programs for educators who are willing to carryout educational place-based projects in a multicultural context in any field and notonly in EE. To do so, we suggest incorporating aspects of multicultural education andsociocultural diversity into the curriculum of pre-service and in-service teachers’programs in Israel and elsewhere. Recently, several teacher education institutes inIsrael have added new programs or courses focusing on these issues (e.g. http://www.levinsky.ac.il/?cmd=about_e.199#Med; http://www.smkb.ac.il/en/), and we callon the post-secondary sector to expand this effort. Preparing teachers to work in multi-cultural projects could improve the educators’ understandings of the influences ofsociocultural backgrounds on people’s worldviews. This understanding might alsoimprove the potential and capacity for collaboration between culturally diverse educa-tors and students who are involved in joint educational projects, particularly in thephases of planning and enactment.



Further research with a larger number of participants is required to better under-stand how environmental views of educators are related to culture, ethnicity, orposition within organizations. We believe that further investigation of this topic cancontribute to better planning and design of similar multicultural programs by environ-mental leaders in Israel and worldwide. Moreover, our findings in regard to sense ofplace require further investigation in terms of the links between sense of place and theethnic and cultural background of educators who are involved in place-based educa-tion programs. Our findings also illustrate the need to develop valuable tools to eval-uate the degree of sense of place among diverse educators.

Overall, the study contributes to our wider understanding of how adult leadersinvolved in projects view EE in general as well as how they view the main objectivesof specific EE and EfS projects, and specific environmental problems and solutions inparticular. Given the particular backdrop of a sometimes fragile and fraught Israelisocio-political climate, in this study we should note the adult leaders are stronglypersuaded that the projects they were involved in are promising for both Arab andJewish youth. And in bringing up environmental and social aspects, raising educa-tional and political issues, highlighting the advantages of outdoor learning, and indi-cating their concerns regarding future awareness and the behavior of their students, theinsights we can gain on these matters might also be fruitful for other inquiries andprojects in those circumstances confronting similar erstwhile challenges.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank our participants, the facilitators of the two organizations, the teachers,and the principals, for their cooperation during the projects’ period and agreement to be includedin our study. We appreciate the funding of the Galilee Research Center at Ort Braude Collegeand the Coleman-Cohen foundation which supported our study.

Note1. The names of the creeks, villages, local authorities, and the governmental and non-govern-

mental organizations that were involved in the study are pseudonyms.

Notes on contributorsIris Alkaher is a lecturer in Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and Arts in Israel.She teaches undergraduate students in the science education program for secondary school andgraduate students in the MEd program of environmental education. Recently, Iris was a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Biochemistry at the College of Agriculture and LifeSciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia. She has a PhD fromthe Department of Education in Technology and Science at the Technion, Israel, and an MScfrom Tel Aviv University. Part of her doctoral study, which was focused on education forsustainability in a multicultural society, is described in the paper. Her research interests areeducation for sustainability, citizenry education, scientific ecological literacy, socio-culturalaspects of science education, inquiry learning and biology education for undergraduates.

Tali Tal is an associate professor in the Department of Education in Technology and Scienceat the Technion, Israel. Her major research interests are in environmental education, out-of-school science education and citizen’s science. In the field of out-of-school science, Dr Tal isinterested in how to improve the connections between schools, museums, nature centers andother institutions, and in how to make the students’ experiences meaningful by tying them morestrongly to their school and everyday experiences. She works with pre- and in-service teachersto prepare them for teaching in and collaborating with non-school intuitions.



ReferencesArdoin, N.M. 2006. Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of place: Lessons for environ-

mental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 11: 112–25.Bishop, K., and W. Scott. 1998. Deconstructing action competence: Developing a case for a

more scientifically-attentive environmental education. Public Understanding of Science 7:225–36.

Bowers, C.A. 1995. Educating for an ecologically sustainable culture: Rethinking moraleducation, creativity, intelligence, and other modern orthodoxies. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.

Bowers, C.A. 2001. Educating for eco-justice and community. Athens, GA: University ofGeorgia Press.

Bowers, C.A. 2006. Transforming environmental education: Making the renewal of thecultural and environmental commons the focus of educational reform. Eugene, OR:Ecojustice Press. http://cabowers.net/pdf/TransformingEE.pdf.

Bullard, R., ed. 1993. Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Boston,MA: South End Press.

Central Bureau of Statistics. 2009. The population of Israel [in Hebrew]. http://www.cbs.gov.il/www/yarhon/b1_h.htm.

Cormick, G.W. 1982. Myth, the reality and the future of environmental mediation. Environ-ment 24, no. 7: 14–17.

Fien, J. 1997. Undermining myths in environmental education. Paper presented at the annualconference of Australian Association for Environmental Education, January 13–17, inHobart, Tasmania.

Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E.J. 2006. Environmental education: A field in tension or in transition?Environmental Education Research 12, nos. 3–4: 291–300.

Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E.J. 2008. What does environmentally educated citizenship mean? InEnvironmental education: Identity, politics and citizenship, ed. E. Gonzalez-Gaudiano andM.A. Peters, 53–62. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Greenwood, D.A. 2009. Education in a culture of violence: A critical pedagogy of place inwartime. Cultural Studies of Science Education 5, no. 2: 351–9.

Gruenewald, D.A. 2003. Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal 40, no. 3: 619–54.

Gruenewald, D.A. 2008. The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Environmen-tal Education Research 14, no. 3: 308–24.

Hart, P. 2008. Ontological/epistemological pluralism within complex contested EE/ESD land-scapes: Beyond politics and mirrors. In Environmental education: Identity, politics and citi-zenship, ed. E. Gonzalez-Gaudiano and M.A. Peters, 25–38. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Haymes, S. 1995. Race, culture and the city: A pedagogy for Black urban struggle. Albany,NY: State University of New York Press.

Hopkins, C., and R. McKeown. 2002. Education for sustainable development: An interna-tional perspective. In Education and sustainability: Responding to the global challenge,ed. D. Tilbury, R.B. Stevenson, J. Fien, and D. Schreuder, 13–26. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN.

Huckle, J., and S. Sterling. 1996. Education for sustainability. London: Earthscan.Israel Union for Environmental Defense, Adam Teva Vadin. 2008. The Arab populations in

Israel suffer from environmental injustice [in Hebrew]. http://www.adamteva.org.il/?CategoryID=330&ArticleID=607.

Jorgensen, S.J., and R.C. Stedman. 2001. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners’attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21, no. 3: 233–48.

Kellert, S.R. 2005. Building for life: Designing and understanding the human–nature connection.Washington, DC: Island Press.

Lang, J.R. 2004. Environmental education, education for sustainability and UN decade ofeducation for sustainable development. Paper presented at the International Seminar/Workshop on Quality Environmental Education in Schools for a Sustainable Society,August 24–28, in Cheongju, South Korea.

Maoz, I. 2004. Coexistence is in the eye of the beholder: Evaluating intergroup encounter inter-ventions between Jews and Arabs in Israel. Journal of Social Issues 60, no. 2: 437–52.



Maoz, I., S. Steinberg, D. Bar-On, and M. Fakhereldeen. 2002. The dialogue between the‘self’ and the ‘other’: A process analysis of Palestinian–Jewish encounters in Israel.Human Relations 55, no. 8: 931–62.

Mckeown, R., and C. Hopkins. 2003. EE≠ESD: Defusing the worry. Environmental EducationResearch 9, no. 1: 117–28.

Orr, D.W. 1993. Love it or lose it: The coming biophilia revolution. In The biophilia hypothe-sis, ed. S.R. Kellert and E.O. Wilson, 415–40. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Pyle, R.M. 2002. Eden in a vacant lot: Special places, species, and kids in the neighborhoodof life. In Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investiga-tions, ed. P.H. Kahn, Jr. and S.R. Kellert, 307–27. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ryden, K.C. 1993. Mapping the invisible landscape. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa Press.Sanger, M. 1997. Sense of place and education. Journal of Environmental Education 29,

no. 1: 4–12.Sauvé, L. 1996. Environmental education and sustainable development. Canadian Journal of

Environmental Education 1: 7–35.Sauvé, L. 2005. Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving peda-

gogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 10: 11–37.Schultz, P.W. 2000. Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective talking on concern

for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 56, no. 3: 391–406.Smyth, J.C. 1995. Environment and education: A view of a changing scene. Environmental

Education Research 1, no. 1: 3–20.Smyth, J.C. 2006. Environment and education: A view of a changing scene. Environmental

Education Research 12, nos. 3–4: 247–64.Stevenson, R.B. 2006. Tension and transition in policy discourse: Recontextualizing a decon-

textualized EE/ESD debate. Environmental Education Research 12, nos. 3–4: 277–90.Tal, T. 2009. Three perspectives of environmental education in Israel: Ideologies, national

conflicts and the environmental movement. In Diversity in environmental educationresearch, ed. D. Zandvliet, 25–41. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Tal, T., and I. Alkaher. 2010. Collaborative environmental projects in a multicultural society:Working from within separate or mutual landscapes? Cultural Studies of Science Education5, no. 2: 325–49.

Tarrabiah, H. 2008. Environmental conflict management in divided societies – Towardsdevelopment of a culturally sensitive model: Case studies from the Galilee [in Hebrew].PhD dissertation, University of Haifa.

Taylor, D.E. 1989. Blacks and the environment. Toward an explanation of the concern andaction gap between Blacks and Whites. Environment and Behavior 21, no. 2: 175–205.

Thomashow, M. 2002. Adolescents and ecological identity: Attending to wild nature. InChildren and nature: Psychological, sociocultural, and evolutionary investigations, ed.P.H. Kahn and S.R. Kellert, 259–78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Tilbury, D. 1995. Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus ofenvironmental education. Environmental Education Research 1, no. 2: 195–212.

Tuan, Y.F. 1977. Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: Universityof Minnesota Press.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2002. Educa-tion for sustainability – From Rio to Johannesburg: Lessons learnt from a decade ofcommitment. Paris: UNESCO.


Environmental projects of Jewish and Arab youth in Israel: the adult leaders' views

Documents

Transcript of Environmental projects of Jewish and Arab youth in Israel: the adult leaders' views