PROCESUL SACHIMBARII EXPERIMENTAT DE ADULTI SI ELEVI IN CEEA CE PRIVESTE COMPORTAMENTELKE ORIENTATE SPRE CLIMA

Diane Pruneau, André Doyon, Joanne Langis, Liette Vasseur,

Gilles Martin, Eileen Ouellet and Gaston Boudreau

Université de Moncton, Canada

Diane Pruneau, professor, Faculté des sciences de l’éducation, Université de Moncton, Canada, Courriel : prunead@umoncton.ca

Abstract

Ca parte din proiectul Ecosaje Circle, profesorii au fost invitaţi sã punã în aplicare comportamentele ambientale de protejare a echilibrului climatic in vietile lor. Profesorii si-au creat apoi propriul model educational referitor la schimbarile climatice, pe care l-au aplicat in propriile lor clase. Cercetatorii au analizat procesul schimbarii comportamentale a unui numar de 25 de profesori si 75 de elevi care au participat la activitatile pedagogice realizate de acesti profesori.

As part of the Ecosage Circle project, teachers were invited to experiment with environmental behaviours that protect the climatic equilibrium in their personal lives. These teachers then created their own climate change education model, with which they experimented in their classroom. Researchers analyzed the behavioural change process of 25 teachers and also of 75 students who participated in the pedagogical activities planned by these teachers. Thanks to an analysis of teachers’ and students’ work, as well as individual interviews and questionnaires, researchers were able to describe factors motivating action, factors facilitating and limiting attempts at behavioural change, and feelings experienced during such attempts. Each teacher and student adopted one or two new environmental behaviours. Motivational factors included a profound attachment to the natural environment, a desire to help the Earth, feelings sparked by affective and cognitive training activities. Among others, facilitating factors included participation in a changing community (support group), the simplicity of chosen actions, and encouragement from family members. Limiting factors included time, the lack of awareness in one’s surroundings, forgetfulness, and fatigue. Feelings experienced were quite positive. The theory put forward by Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente (2002) was used to interpret the results and propose pedagogical interventions in climate change education.

Keywords: Environmental behaviour, environmental education, climate change education.

Introduction

One of the ultimate goals of environmental education is to encourage the development of environmentally responsible behaviours (Hewitt, 1997; Hungerford and Payton, 1976). This adoption of environmental behaviours is very important in the context of the temperature fluctuations and ecosystemic, social and economic perturbations that climate change is likely to engender. However, how can we help citizens change the daily habits that cause the production of greenhouse gases? These habits, such as intensive use of the automobile, multiplication of packaging, and unrestrained use of electricity, are well-anchored in the contemporary lifestyle. Moreover, once citizens have chosen to modify certain habits, how does the process of behavioural change work? The study presented in this article was not only interested in the reasons why adults and students decide to commit to climatic equilibrium protection, but also in the behavioural change process experienced by these people as they voluntarily attempt to modify their habits.

Context

The Ecosage Circle1 was a climate change education training project aimed at teachers from all four of Atlantic Canada’s provinces and their students. It had the following objectives:

familiarize teachers with climate change; incite teachers to experiment with one or more environmental behaviours in their personal lives, and reflect on the experienced change; following this reflection, invite teachers to create their own model for climate change education and experiment with it in the classroom; provide students with the opportunity to also experiment with environmental behaviours.

Fifty-two teachers participated in this training and research action project. The professional training, which lasted six days (three weekends) over the course of the 2002-2003 school year, was offered by environment and environmental education specialists, and contained two major types of activity. First, knowledge transmission and construction activities were centred on climate change – its nature, signs, causes and possible local impacts – then, experiential and affective activities. In fact, participants were allowed to experience several activities pertaining to climate change and environmental education: science experiments, role-playing, value activities, (solo) outings in nature, etc. Each of these activities was often followed-up with an exchange between participants and trainers on the subject of the activity as well as on the possibility of trying it in their classroom.

During the first weekend of training, teachers were invited to take part in The Ecosage Circle. This Circle consists of a large symbolic group of people from all four Atlantic Provinces that have decided to act in order to protect the climatic equilibrium. Teachers who wished to commit to actions to help the environment could tie a piece of coloured string to a long circular rope. Through this ritual, we wanted to communicate the message that many people had now begun to act in order to help the climate. Following the Ecosage Circle ceremony, every teacher chose to experiment with environmental behaviours in their own lives, such as, for example, reducing their

consumption of electricity and paper towels, reducing the amount of packaging in their lunchboxes, walking more frequently, etc. (Pruneau, Doyon, Langis, Vasseur, Ouellet, McLaughlin, Boudreau and Martin, submitted). The 52 teachers then reflected on their personal process of change and created and experimented with their own climate change education model, whose goal would be to invite their students to experiment with environmental behaviours of their own. This process of research action to find, in collaboration with researchers, means of favouring the adoption of environmental behaviours in students, allowed for the emergence of a variety of pedagogical interventions in classrooms ranging from kindergarten to twelfth grade involved in this project. These multiple pedagogical strategies, well-anchored in the professional abilities of the Ecosage Circle’s teachers, resulted in the adoption of environmental behaviours by numerous students.

In this article, we will briefly present2 the processes of change of both teachers and students, and will analyze them in light of Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente’s theories (2002). Finally, this analysis will allow us to recommend pedagogical strategies for climate change education.

Theoretical framework

The factors that influence environmental behaviour

Kollmus and Agyeman (2002) summarize the definition of environmental behaviour in this manner: “a behaviour adopted by an individual who decides consciously to minimize his or her negative impacts on both natural and constructed milieus” (p. 240). However, this type of behaviour is very difficult to adopt because of the great complexity inherent in the behavioural change process. In the last few decades, numerous studies have been conducted looking into the factors that positively or negatively influence environmental behaviour. Several models have been proposed in order to identify the various factors of influence and describe their interrelationships. One of the first suggested models (Ramsey et al., 1982; quoted in Hungerford and Volk, 1990) was based on the assumption that, if people were well informed, they would become more aware of environmental problems and consequently, more motivated to act in an environmentally responsible manner. This linear model was neither recognized nor supported for long, however.

Factors other than environmental knowledge were progressively evoked to explain the behavioural change of individuals in the environmental field. Hwang, Kim and Jeng (2000) classify these factors into three categories: cognitive, affective, and situational. Cognitive factors correspond to an individual’s degree of awareness and knowledge of the environment and major ecological concepts, including the individual’s own abilities and knowledge of action strategies. Affective factors mostly concern emotions and feelings associated with environmental issues and ecological phenomena. Situational factors are linked to an individual’s (or group’s) situation and can have a reinforcing or inhibiting contribution on cognitive and affective factors.

Cognitive factors

Hungerford and Volk (1990) ascribe a direct influence to environmental knowledge on the adoption of environmentally responsible behaviour. They estimate that a person will be more susceptible of initiating an action if he or she is familiar with the problem and its causes, and if he or she knows how to go about resolving the problem. Fietkau and Kessel (1981, quoted in Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002), for their part, consider that knowledge exerts an indirect influence on action, through the prior modification of attitudes and values. However, Monroe (1993) and Hwang, Kim and Jeng (2000) estimate that knowledge, despite its importance, does not guarantee an individual’s adoption of environmental behaviour because another variable must be taken into account: the intention to act. In fact, as long as the individual has not chosen to get directly involved, his or her behaviour will not change. Similarly, Kempton, Boster and Hartley (1995) have identified a low level of environmental knowledge in people substantially involved in environmental action, leading to the conclusion that knowledge itself wasn’t a prerequisite to environmental action. In the same way, Grob (1991, quoted in Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002) and Jensen (2002) believe that intellectual and traditional information on environmental problems is not sufficient stimulation for behavioural change. Jensen proposes that knowledge should be more often constructed by learners and centred on action: knowledge of nature and the problems’ causes, but also on means of action and the capacity to construct visions and dreams of a better world.

Affective factors

Various attitudes have been identified in the affective factor category: perceived ease of the task to be accomplished (Pruneau, Chouinard, Musafiri and IsaBelle, 2000; Diekman and Preisendoerfer, 1992, quoted in Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002), an important feeling of personal responsibility (Hines, Hungerford and Tomera, 1986-1987; and Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), and personal rewards expected of an action: financial savings, better health, etc. (Fietkau and Kessell, 1981, quoted in Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Maiteny, 2002). Researchers also evoke other affective factors: an altruistic attitude (Borden and Francis, 1978), habitual involvement in community action (Pruneau, Chouinard, Musafiri and IsaBelle, 2002), daily routines that conserve water or energy (Stern, 2000), a personal attachment to natural and constructed milieus (Chawla, 1999; Tanner, 1980; Pruneau, Chouinard, Arsenault and Breau, 1999), individual priorities reconcilable with environmental action (like the desire to insure a certain quality of life for one’s family) (Stern, Dietz and Karlof, 1992) and the intensity of emotional reactions to environmental problems (Grob, 1995, quoted in Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002).

The locus of control is defined as an individual’s belief in his or her own capacity to improve a situation through action (Hines, Hungerford and Tomera, 1986-1987), and is another factor that strongly influences the intention to act. That intention is manifested at the moment when a person publicly declares out loud that he or she will accomplish an action, and conjugated with an individual’s knowledge and abilities, would lead him or her to the development of environmental behaviour.

Situational factors

Among the situational factors, other that gender, education level, political context and services offered to ease the accomplishment of tasks, there are social norms. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) thus contend that an individual will adopt behaviour if he or she feels that others around him or her attribute value to that behaviour. The individual will then expect positive feedback in his milieu following the behaviour’s adoption (Fietkau and Kessel, 1981, quoted in Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Cultural context will also have an impact on environmental behaviours. By cultural context, we mean to include cultural traditions (such as religions) and family habits (Rajecki, 1982, quoted in Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Finally, the desire for environmental action can be provoked by direct and emotional contact with the environmental problem (Preuss, 1991, quoted in Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002) and encouraged by prior successful environmental actions (Hungerford and Volk, 1990; Pruneau, Chouinard, Arsenault and Breau, 1999).

Negative factors of influence on environmental behaviour

The obstacles mentioned by researchers, those that impair the adoption of environmental behaviours, include the lack of facilities in the community to accomplish an action, and the social pressures exerted by a milieu that does not conserve resources (Maiteny, 2002). Blake (1999) also mentions not having enough time, money or information.

Research method

As previously mentioned, the 52 teachers participating in the professional development sessions decided on their own to experiment with one or two new environmental behaviours. To understand the process of change experienced by the teachers, 25 of them were chosen at random and individually interviewed two months after the start of the trial period. Open questions were aimed at making them recount their personal experience during the attempt at change. We wanted to understand what happens when people attempt to modify their environment-related behaviours. Here are examples of the questions asked:

Tell us about your experience when you tried a new behaviour. What difficulties did you encounter? What helped you persevere in the undertaken change? What feelings did you experience?

As for the students, 75 participants aged 9 to 17 were selected from five different classrooms, in geographical proximity to our university. We chose the students from those groups for two main reasons: first, because we wanted different age groups and different school levels; and secondly, because the teachers of those five classrooms had executed pedagogical strategies representative of the entirety of categories

selected by the participating teachers. The pedagogical strategies selected by the five teachers could, in fact, be categorized in the following manner:

cognitive activities (examples: Internet research on climate change, comic book about an environmental problem), science-related experiments (example: experiment to demonstrate the effects of various water temperatures on the blooming of flowers), affective activities (examples: moment of solitude in nature, narration of ecological stories), project pedagogy (example: writing and presentation of a play about the environment), reflective and ethical activities (example: keeping a reflective journal to describe one’s process of change), future education (example: forecast of climate change’s local impacts).

The 75 students too were interrogated two months after the start of their new behaviours’ trial period. The students filled out questionnaires and some participated in individual interviews. Both questionnaires and interviews used the same questions the teachers had been asked. Similarly, students were invited to talk about their experiences in an essay where they presented themselves as heroes that, during an adventure, encounter various elements, either helpful or limiting. Finally, teachers were also asked to write down their thoughts on their students’ process of change.

The teachers’ process of change was analyzed, in two ways, by three judges: content analysis of individual interviews (thanks to emerging categories) and the composition of tales of individual change for each of the 25 teachers (Stiles, 1993). For the students, three judges made a content analysis (again with the help of emerging categories), and stories were also written based on the students’ essays and answers in both interviews and questionnaires. Teachers ‘comments on their students’ processes of change were synthesized to keep only their principal ideas.

Results 2

Environmental behaviours experienced

All 25 teachers succeeded in integrating one or two environmental behaviours into their lives, among the following: reduction in the consumption of electricity, water, paper towels, and over-packaged products, and more frequent walking. Most of them succeeded in maintaining their chosen environmental behaviours. However, some modified their initial choice because it had been too ambitious or because certain behaviours proved too difficult for them personally. For example, one participant had chosen to turn off the water while soaping up in the shower. He found the new behaviour unpleasant and decided to turn off the water while doing the dishes instead.

Teachers also shared that their successes with a first behaviour encouraged them to attempt others.

For the 75 students, the degree of success for simple new behaviours was excellent with several, and moderate with some. They recycled, reduced their consumption of water and electricity, or took fewer car rides. They also accomplished group actions with their class: picking up litter in the natural milieu, organisation of a recycling system for the school, and the composition and presentation of environmental songs and plays. Most students were quite convinced and demonstrated enthusiastic involvement, but a few admitted to having taken the action to please their teacher.

Factors motivating action

Teachers confided that their adoption of environmental behaviours was motivated by the construction and reception of information on climate change, the solo moment in nature, a reflective activity on their values, and the discussions they had during training sessions.

Students said they acted because of a great preoccupation for the future of the planet, and to save animals and plants. They also described being motivated by the solo moment in nature and other affective activities, like the composition and presentation of songs and plays. Foreseen consequences for climate change were evoked as a present, but less important, motivational factor.

Facilitating and limiting factors

The factors facilitating the adoption of new environmental behaviours during their trial period are similar for both teachers and students. The presence of a support group (that we have dubbed changing community) is the predominant factor. Indeed, teachers and students alike confided that regularly discussing their attempts at environmental behaviour with the group had encouraged their continued efforts. They enjoyed recounting their attempts, listening to others’ difficulties, and finding solutions to these difficulties together. They also felt encouraged by the most enthusiastic participants. Similarly, the presence of this changing community reinforced in them the idea that individual behaviours can make a difference, even if the actions taken are minimal. Other facilitating factors evoked were the simplicity of chosen actions, tricks to help them remember to take their actions, help from family members, and the commitment made to the group.

For both teachers and students, factors limiting action during the trial period included the lack of awareness about environmental issues in their family and surroundings, forgetfulness, fatigue, time, and the difficulty of explaining to others why a change has been made.

Feelings experienced

Participants experienced very positive feelings during their trial periods: joy, pride, the relief associated with being able to make a difference, and the impression of being heroes, or at least, more aware than the majority. However, some students felt discouraged when they failed to convince their close ones to undertake the action with them or when they were laughed at.

Interpretation of results

To analyze the results presented in this article in more depth, we will use the Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente’s theory (2002) on behavioural change. These authors have identified six stages in individuals’ process of change after having questioned thousands of people that had succeeded in changing their behaviours pertaining to physical activity, emotional distress, or dependence on alcohol, drugs or tobacco. They noticed that the best changers went through (in a non-linear fashion) the following six stages:

precontemplation: Individuals are more or less aware of the problem’s presence. They resist change in various ways. They avoid discussing the problem and getting information on it. They blame their difficulties on others, minimize the situation and find excuses. contemplation : Contemplators start to think about solving their problems and intend to act soon. This desire to act manifests itself at the same time as several resistance factors. They want to make sure that the new behaviour will succeed. They wait for the magic moment to act. They say: I wish that… preparation: At this stage, individuals are getting ready to act next month. They continue to evaluate themselves and the problem. They think about the future and about what they will become once the problem is solved. They take the time to choose the best actions to solve the problem. action: Individuals here take action. During their attempts, they encounter various difficulties, and they go back and forth between action and a return to former behaviours. maintenance: Individuals now maintain their new behaviours. Certain elements will hamper that maintenance: social pressures, interior challenges and special circumstances. Social pressures come from those who do not exhibit the desired behaviour. Interior challenges are provoked by personal goals set too high. Special circumstances are strong temptations to revert to former behaviours. Forgetting the negative consequences of former behaviours can also hamper maintenance. termination: Individuals have changed for good.

In their various research projects, Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente (2002) also noted that through the six stages of the process, individuals used several processes to help themselves change:

consciousness-raising: this process consists in discovering oneself (one’s own thoughts and feelings). The information gathered in books or elsewhere heightens awareness; social liberation: motivation to change stemming from the milieu. Examples: smoking interdictions in public places, dietary menus in restaurants. Support groups are also part of this process; emotional arousal: a sudden and very strong emotion in reaction to the problem; self-reevaluation: the individual thinks about when and how the problem comes into conflict with his or her personal values. He or she realizes that life would be better for him or her, or for others around him or her, without the offending behaviour. Positive and negative aspects of various behaviours are evaluated; commitment: the individual commits to change and announces it to others. The public announcement favours action more than personal commitment does; countering: the individual does some other positive thing to avoid the problem behaviour (asking another person to spend time with him or her…); environmental control: the individual avoids situations that make him or her behave in an undesirable fashion; reward: the individual rewards himself or herself for his or her change in behaviour; helping relationships: friends or specialists help the individual.

The pedagogical strategies employed in The Ecosage Circle project, with both students and teachers, thus seems to relate to the processes of change described by Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente (2002). In fact, several affective strategies used, such as the solo in nature, onsite observation of impacts on climate change, and the Ecosage Circle, were able to provoke the emotional arousal and consciousness-raising processes. These activities seemed to create, in participants, an interest in the natural milieu and a relationship with that milieu, all the while developing a preoccupation with the impacts of climatic change. The information constructed by participants about climate change and its local impacts, as well as the attempts at environmental behaviours experienced, seemed to favour awareness in many areas: climate change is really starting to occur, small actions aren’t really that difficult to undertake, other people are getting involved… The process of social liberation, for its part, was favoured by the setting up of support groups, or changing communities, in which people share their preoccupations for the environment’s future, their desire to change and help each other do so, their obstacles, solutions, and positive feelings during their attempts. This sharing, while reinforcing emotional arousal and consciousness-raising, created social norms favourable to environmental actions. Similarly, self-reevaluation was realized through activities on the values experienced by our participants, and commitment was accomplished thanks to expressing intentions of acting in the Ecosage Circle. Colleagues (teachers), students or family members supplied helping relationships by taking the time to encourage environmental behaviours through congratulations or example.

The use of the various processes described by Prochaska, Norcross and DiClemente (2002) facilitated our participants’ passage from the stage of precontemplation to that

of contemplation, preparation or action. Similarly, and especially in the teachers’ case, success of a first action encouraged the passage to other actions, thus restarting the process of change through its various stages.

What can we conclude from the present research? It would seem that it is possible today to help people adopt one or two new, simple, self-chosen behaviours in a climate change education context. Simple behaviours, such as shutting off lights, reducing the use of paper towels, and planning a better lunchbox seem easy as long as people are willing.

Given the process of change’s complexity, transmission of information on climate change alone, during accompaniment of the subject in change, can prove to be inefficient. It seems appropriate to foresee an emotional arousal about climate change and the environment in general. In fact, the first reason to act evoked by teachers and students was not worry about the impacts of climate change, but rather a profound or renewed attachment to nature and a sincere preoccupation for the general state of the environment. It also seems important, to raise consciousness, to intellectually involve participants, along with the scientific community, in the creation of local knowledge on climate change. What is going on in my own region? What could happen in my daily life? What can we do? What solutions would work here? A self-reevaluation of one in his or her environment would be desirable: What does the environment provide me with? What do I provide the environment? Similarly, social liberation by the creation of social norms favourable to environmental action in changing communities appears to hold promise. Finally, the establishment of helping relationships by asking friends or family members, or even co-workers, to associate in pairs or trios to mutually remind one another to act, could produce excellent results.

Some pedagogical strategies could thus prove to be quite promising in facilitating environmental action in climate change education:

experiential learning (Pruneau and Lapointe, 2002): experience significant moments in the natural milieu, observe environmental problems first hand, experiment environmental behaviours and reflect on these various types of experience;

project pedagogy: in the classroom/group, select, plan and realize individual and collective projects to help the climate;

reflective and ethical pedagogy: reflect (alone or in a group) on one’s environmental actions and on the difficulties associated with the process of change;

the community approach (to learning or change): as a group, learn and understand climate change. Experiment with new behaviours: monitoring of progress, discussion and mutual support;

future education (Hicks, 1996): understand that climate change will have consequences in one’s own life, predict its impacts on local ecosystems, make choices for the future, and act in order to build a better future.

What is certain is that the process of behavioural change in the environmental field is a complex, long-term one. It is up to every individual to decide what he or she wants to change, and at what pace. We can only accompany individuals toward this environmental maturity, which requires radical changes in their values and personal lifestyles. A more global environmental education in which all available affective, ethical and cognitive strategies in this field are put to good use, is more susceptible of encouraging individuals’ behavioural evolution, than would a simple transmission of information on climate change.

Notes

In the Ecosage Circle project, the term sage designates any person concerned with the environment who chooses to adopt new behaviours to preserve the environment and reduce the effects of climate change. For us, the ecosage is a hero and the adoption of new behaviours an adventure, the hero’s adventure. This project was made possible by grants from the Climate Change Action Fund (Environment Canada), and the New Brunswick Environmental Trust Fund. To learn more about the Ecosage Circle project, visit the following website: www.umoncton.ca/ecosage

Participating teachers and students’ processes of change were described in more detail in two distinct articles:

Pruneau, D., Doyon, A., Langis, J., Vasseur, L., Ouellet, E., McLaughlin, E., Boudreau, G. & Martin, G. (submitted). The description of teachers’ process of change, having voluntarily chosen to experience pro-environmental behaviours. The Journal of Environmental Education.

Pruneau, D., Doyon, A., Langis, J., Vasseur, L., Ouellet, E., Martin, G., McLaughlin, E. & Boudreau, G. (submitted). When students integrate environmental behaviours into their daily life. In L. Filho (ed.) Handbook of sustainability research.

References

Ajzen, J. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the value-action gap in environmental policy : tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278.

Borden, D. & Francis, J.L. (1978). Who cares about ecology? Personality and sex difference in environmental concern. Journal of Personality, 46, 190-203.

Chawla, L. (1999). Life paths into effective environmental action. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 15-26.

Diekmann, A. & Preisendoerfer, P. (1992). Persoenliches umweltverhalten : Die diskrepanz zwischen ansprunch and wirklichkeit. Koelner zeitschrift fuer soziologie und sozialpsychologie, 44, 226-251.

Fietkau, H.J. & Kessel, h. (1981). Umweltlernep : Veraenderungsmoeglichkeiten des umweltbewasst-seins, modell-erfahrungen. Keonigstein, Hain.

Grob, A. (1995). Meinung, verhalten, unmwelt. Bern, Allemagne: Peter Lang Verlag.

Hewitt, P. (1997). Games in instruction leading to environmentally responsible behaviour. The Journal of Environmental Education, 28(3), 35-37.

Hicks, D. (1996). Envisioning the future : The challenge for environmental educators. Environmental Education Research, 2(1), 1-8.

Hines, J.M., Hungerford, H.R. & Tomera, A.N. (1986-1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible pro-environmental behaviour : a meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8.

Hungerford, H.R. & Volk, T.L. (1990). Changing learner behaviour through environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.

Hungerford, H.R. & Peyton, R.B. (1976). Teaching environmental education. Portland, ME: Weston Walch.

Hwang, Y.H., Kim, S.L. & Jeng, J.M. (2000). Examining the causal relationships among selected antecedents of responsible environmental behaviour. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(4), 19-24.

Jensen, B.B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 325-334.

Kempton, W., Boster, J.S. & Harley, J.A. (1995). Environmental values in American culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kollmus, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap : why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239-260.

Maiteny, P.T. (2002). Mind the gap : summary of research exploring “inner” influences on pro-sustainability learning and behaviour. Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 299-306.

Monroe, M.C. (1993). Changing environmental behaviour. Clearing, 77, 28-30

Preuss, S. (1991). Umweltkatastrophe mensch. Ueber unsere grenzen and moeglichkeiten, ockologisch tewrurst zu handeln. Heidelberg: Roland Asanger Verlag.

Prochaska, J.O., Norcross, J.C. & DiClemente, C.C. (2002). Changing for good. A revolutionary six-stage program for overcoming bad habits and moving your life positively forward. New York: Harper Collins.

Pruneau, D., Doyon, A., Langis, J., Vasseur, L., Ouellet, E., McLaughlin, E., Boudreau, G. & Martin, G. (submitted). The description of teachers’ process of change, having voluntarily chosen to experience pro-environmental behaviours. The Journal of Environmental Education.

Pruneau, D. & Lapointe, C. (2002). Un, deux, trois nous irons au bois. L’apprentissage

expérientiel et ses applications en éducation relative à l’environnement.

Éducation et francophonie, 30(2), En ligne : www.acelf.ca/revue.

Pruneau, D., Chouinard, O., Musafiri, J.-P. & IsaBelle, C. (2000). Les facteurs qui influencent le désir d’action environnementale dans les communautés. Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 21(2), 395-414.

Pruneau, D., Chouinard, D., Arsenault, C. & Breau, N. (1999). An intergenerational education project aiming at the improvement of people’s relationship with their environment. Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8(1), 26-39.

Rajecki, D.W. (1982). Attitudes : themes and advances. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.

Ramsey, J. & al. (1981). The effects of environmental action and environmental case study instruction on the overt environmental behaviour of eight-grade students. The Journal of Environmental Education, 13(1), 24-30.

Stern, P. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.

Stern, P.S., Dietz, T., & Karlof, L. (1993). Values orientation, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(3), 322-348.