Permaculture and Environmental Education: Shared Roots and Assumptions

In many ways, permaculture and environmental education are two peas in a pod. However, a search of environmental education literature for programs involving permaculture reveals little, despite the fact that the movements have developed side by side for over three decades. They share common roots in the 1970s, as well as a number of basic assumptions. Permaculture co-founder David Holmgren (Reference Holmgren2002) identifies five assumptions underlying the ecological design system he developed in cooperation with Bill Mollison. As described below, three of these assumptions are closely aligned with the assumptions underlying environmental education (UNESCO-UNEP, 1978) and sustainability (WCED, 1987):

• • The environmental crisis is real and of a magnitude that will certainly transform modern global industrial society beyond recognition. In the process, the well-being and even survival of the world's expanding population is directly threatened;

• • The ongoing and future impacts of global industrial society and human numbers on the world's wondrous biodiversity are assumed to be far greater than the massive changes of the last few hundred years; and

• • Humans, although unusual within the natural world, are subject to the same scientific (energy) laws that govern the material universe, including the evolution of life. (Holmgren, Reference Holmgren2002, pp. xv–xvi)

Unlike the development of permaculture, which was largely the vision of Holmgren and Mollison, environmental education was shaped during the 1970s by a series of international summits and reports. With additional summits and reports over subsequent decades, the emphasis of environmental education shifted toward the type of sustainability thinking embraced by permaculture from its beginning. What Orr (Reference Orr1992) described as an ecologically literate citizen two decades ago easily describes a practising permaculturist. This is not to say that permaculture has not also developed over time. Just as environmental education (EE) branched into differing approaches, such as education for sustainable development (ESD) and education for sustainability (EfS), permaculture has taken on two similar but distinct interpretations (Whitefield, Reference Whitefield and Stibbe2010).

Original Versus Design Permaculture

Permaculture emerged in the mid 1970s through the work of Mollison and Holmgren. Mollison, tired of protesting against environmental degradation, was determined to develop a positive, solution-oriented approach for environmental protection (Mollison, Reference Mollison1988), with a focus on sustainable food production. The word permaculture was formed from the words permanent and agriculture, which represents an emphasis on perennial crops over annuals. Another emphasis was mimicking nature in biologically diverse food systems as alternatives to monocultures. For example, the commonly recognised permaculture interpretation of an orchard is a food forest, where a chemically managed monoculture is replaced by an organic polyculture. Early writings on permaculture (see Mollison, Reference Mollison1988; Mollison & Holmgren, Reference Mollison and Holmgren1978) focused on such low-input/high productivity food systems, sometimes called cultivated ecologies (Mollison, Reference Mollison1991). Whitefield (Reference Whitefield and Stibbe2010) calls this overt focus on food production original permaculture, and differentiates it from an evolved and broader interpretation he calls design permaculture.

Design permaculture has emerged over the last three decades to address more than permaculture's agricultural applications (Whitefield, Reference Whitefield and Stibbe2010), as the original vision of permanent agriculture evolved into one of permanent culture (Holmgren, Reference Holmgren2002). The design principles developed by Mollison and Holmgren are broad enough to apply to many cultural systems, such as legal, financial and business (Hopkins, Reference Hopkins2008). Holmgren (Reference Holmgren2002) includes the built environment, tools and technology, culture and education, health and spiritual wellbeing, finance and economics, and community governance within the scope of permaculture design. In this study, we used a design permaculture perspective on teaching and learning.

Although a widely accepted definition of permaculture has been elusive, it can be described as a system of design that seeks to recognise and maximise beneficial relationships while minimising or eliminating harmful relationships (Lebo, Reference Lebo2012). This was the overall design perspective throughout our study. For example, within the context of science and sustainability learning, potential beneficial relationships explored were those between EE, science education, and permaculture itself.

Such designing in threes is common practice in original permaculture. When three different plants are placed together with the intention that each benefits the others, permaculturists call it a guild. One well-known guild consists of corn, beans and squash — the Hopi ‘Three Sisters’ from the American Southwest. From an educational perspective, cultivating a relationship between environmental education, science education, and permaculture creates a learning guild, building on the already recognised mutualistic relationship between environmental education and science education (Gough, Reference Gough and Gilbert2004; Steele, Reference Steele2011).

This is an example of design permaculture thinking as it translates the original food-focused design intention to a non-food production context. Additionally, in this learning guild, original permaculture examples of food production were used to promote and enhance students’ engagement in science and sustainability learning, just as legumes are used to improve the growth and productivity of companion plants. In other words, the study used design permaculture to focus on science and sustainability learning through food production. This type of pedagogical approach aligns with what Holbrook and Rannikmae (Reference Holbrook and Rannikmae2009) argue is the best way to teach scientific literacy: ‘education through science’ instead of ‘science through education’. In the same way, this study advocates ‘science education through permaculture’ rather than ‘permaculture through science education’ (Lebo, Reference Lebo2012).

The Intervention: Food as a Context for Science and Sustainability Learning

If viewed as an exercise in design, the challenge in this study was to engage students in science and sustainability learning while maintaining allegiance to the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007). From a design permaculture perspective, the inclusion of environmental education and permaculture would have to enhance the teaching and learning of science, not detract from it. The process of engaging students in science and sustainability learning involved two mutually reinforcing strategies throughout the intervention: cultivating attitudes toward science, learning science, and the environment; and trellising science and sustainability learning. These strategies are explained further in the discussion section.

The intervention was composed of three units — Environmental Chemistry (including the topic of global climate change), Ecological Principles, and Plants for Food — arranged with the intention of promoting transformative learning in students. This transformative chronology (Lebo, Reference Lebo2012) was designed to align with the process of transformative learning (Mezirow, Reference Mezirow2000), and to mimic permaculture co-founder Bill Mollison's own transformation as he described it in the documentary, Global Gardener (Russell & Gailey, Reference Russell and Gailey1991). In brief, this view of transformation involves a disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, Reference Mezirow2000), followed by an examination of other perspectives, and ultimately the adoption of an alternative worldview. In this instance, that worldview can be described as ecological literacy, which includes science and sustainability knowledge, an attitude of care for the environment, and the tendency to act on that knowledge and those feelings (Orr, Reference Orr1992).

The topic of global climate change was placed first to serve as a potential disorienting dilemma for students, as it represents an urgent threat to humanity (IPCC, Reference Solomon, Qin, Manning, Chen, Marquis, Avery, Tignor and Miller2007). The unit on ecology was placed second to engage students in the examination of how natural ecosystems tend toward dynamic stability and resilience to volatility by relying on diversity and negative feedback loops. Finally, the food unit was placed third to expose students to certain original permaculture practices that exhibit ecological design (lessons from observing nature) to enhance the productivity and resilience of food systems.

Through studying these units in this order, it was hoped that students would develop an understanding of sustainable food production in their community as one way to address environmental issues such as climate change. In other words, the learning opportunities would take on a heightened level of relevance coming at the end of the transformative chronology. Relevant learning contexts are important for promoting scientific literacy (Holbrook & Rannikmae, Reference Holbrook and Rannikmae2009; Keller, Reference Keller and Reigeluth1983) and ecological literacy (Balgopal & Wallace, Reference Balgopal and Wallace2009; Orr, Reference Orr1992).

Using Local, Sustainable Food Production

Of the many lessons involved in the intervention, there were several teaching and learning activities directly related to local, sustainable food production. Included in those were two field trips that took place during the latter half of the intervention: one to a food forest near the school, and the other to an eco-accommodation several kilometres away.

The first field trip was to a food forest in a suburban park 1 kilometre from the school that was planted a few years earlier by a group of local permaculturists. It consisted of approximately 20 fruit trees planted in two equal clusters covering about 30 square metres each. Both of the amoeba-shaped clusters were sheet mulched with corrugated cardboard and woodchips. A range of fruit types and cultivars grew through the mulch, and there was evidence of a diverse groundcover taking hold in places. The field trip was placed at the juncture of the Ecological Principles and Plants for Food units, and was meant to serve as a transition for students from their ecology learning to their ecological farming learning — making connections between the two and providing a local context. The main science topics addressed at the food forest were biological diversity, predator/prey relationships, and soil permeability. Sustainability topics included issues such as ‘food miles’, chemical use in agriculture, and the ‘carbon footprint’ of food. The field trip was designed to be student-centred, allowing them to build on previous learning by working in groups and asking questions of the site host.

The field trip to the eco-accommodation — referred to henceforth as Eco-Hostel — took place near the end of the final unit. The 10-acre property was located 7 kilometres from the school, and the owners were developing it into a permaculture site complete with energy-efficient dwellings, water conservation methods, composting, and fruit and vegetable production. After an introduction that tied together students’ previous learning on climate change and ecological principles using a large concept map, the students were shown four sites on the property that exhibited how science knowledge can be used for sustainable food production. Those sites were: a water-retaining swale planted with feijoa trees (a fruit tree); a chicken tractor using poultry to clear land for a future garden; a hot compost pile; and a biologically diverse organic garden. At each of these stations students were encouraged to ask questions and to explain the science behind these common original permaculture practices. We also revisited ‘food miles’, chemical inputs, and ‘carbon footprints’.

Impacts on Students

As described above, the unit on food production was the third of three units designed to cultivate a heightened level of relevance for students with regard to science and sustainability learning. Data on student learning experiences provided some evidence of the cultivation of positive attitudes towards science and sustainability. ‘I think it was fun, so we remembered what we did,’ one boy said of the field trips during a focus group interview after the intervention. In another focus group interview, one girl reported what she remembered most about the intervention: ‘When we went down to that garden. That was real memorable.’

Most students reported to enjoy learning science with a focus on the environment in the post-questionnaire. On a 5-point Likert-scale where 5 equalled strongly agree, the class mean was 3.5 with a standard deviation of 0.7. Many students reported favourably on the field trips, emphasising their experiential nature. One boy said he liked them because ‘We actually got out doing stuff instead of just sitting in the class learning about what other people are doing’ (Focus group interview). Experiential learning is often used as a way to engage students (Daudi & Heimlich, Reference Daudi, Heimlich and Heimlich2002; Tilbury, Reference Tilbury1995), although at times there may appear to be no clear boundary between relevance and engagement, because they can relate to and reinforce one another. For instance, during one focus group interview after the intervention, a group of three boys spoke enthusiastically about both the experiential and contextual aspects of the field trip to Eco-Hostel simultaneously. Following the statements above on ‘fun’ and ‘doing stuff,’ another boy — citing the permaculture practices of mulching with vegetative matter and companion planting — said, ‘Yeah, learning about how the garden works, instead of buying the weed killer and stuff, that there are other plants that can stop it [weed competition] instead.’

This may indicate the synergistic, or regenerative, impact of learning within the context of local sustainable food production. In other words, relevance can engage students, and engagement (through hands-on approaches) can help promote relevance.

Many students reported they recognised certain science and sustainability topics from their classroom learning on the field trips, such as seed types and germination, soils and compaction, and biological diversity (Focus group interviews). On a 5-point Likert-scale where 5 equalled strongly agree, all 16 students who attended the field trip to Eco-Hostel agreed or strongly agreed with the following two statements on the post questionnaire: ‘The field trip to Eco-Hostel helped me see permaculture in action’, and ‘Permaculture is a good way to solve environmental problems’. Of the students who attended the field trip to the food forest, half (8/16) agreed and the other half were neutral about the following Likert statement: ‘The field trip helped me learn about environmental projects in my community.’ These findings appear to indicate that students recognised the relevant contexts — primarily sustainable food production — provided by the field trips.

Garden-based learning has been identified as providing real contexts that allow valuable opportunities for knowledge construction, higher order thinking, and the development of analytical and synthesis skills (Hayzlett, Reference Hayzlett2004; Miller, Reference Miller2007; Subramaniam, Reference Subramaniam2002). Miller (Reference Miller2007) contends that gardens are an effective context to teach about sustainability theory through examples of sustainable practices supported by environmental science and ecology. Driscoll and Lownds (Reference Driscoll and Lownds2007) used extended field trips to a garden site to foster wonder and curiosity in primary school children. Although this study included secondary students, there were elements of wonder and curiosity alongside an appreciation of relevant contexts. For example, some students expressed amazement when first seeing steam rise from a compost heap. Others said they were surprised by the use of chickens to prepare garden beds, and the use of companion planting to reduce insect pest damage; as one said, ‘Knowing how different plants can coincide with each other . . . instead of using bug spray’ (Focus group interview). One boy in particular was fascinated by the use of swales to reduce surface water runoff and increase infiltration. The trip to Eco-Hostel provided fertile grounds to cultivate students’ attitudes toward science and sustainability learning by providing a local context in which the two worked hand-in-glove, and to trellis learning by sowing a wide variety of examples and allowing students to ask questions about those which most intrigued them.

Two girls identified organic gardening as something they had learned during the intervention. One admitted, ‘I didn't really know there was another way of gardening’ (Focus group interview). The other added, ‘I heard about it, but I didn't really understand it’ (Focus group interview). Regarding the recognition of ecological possibilities, this appears to be a milestone for both learners. Knowing that it is possible to grow vegetables without purchased artificial chemical applications is the first step toward learning how to do it and then perhaps one day doing it.

The relevance and engagement provided by the field trips may have been particularly impactful on six students who reported not to enjoy learning science in school on the pre-questionnaire. Although they reported the same on the post-questionnaire, five of them agreed or were neutral in response to the Likert statement ‘I enjoyed learning science with a focus on the environment’. (These students — who appear to have disengaged with science during their schooling — are discussed further below.) Any apparent changes in attitudes toward science and learning science were not accompanied by clear evidence of changes in attitudes toward the environment. Data were mixed between the questionnaires, observations and focus group interviews. For those students who reported to enjoy learning science in school on the pre-questionnaire, the data indicated no change in attitude in the post-questionnaire.

While relevance and engagement may go together like peas and carrots, science learning and sustainability learning may be equally complementary within the context of original permaculture food production. In this study we used identical concept mapping exercises on the pre- and post-questionnaires to assess some aspects of students’ science and sustainability knowledge and, in particular, systems thinking. The exercises provided 16 terms in a word bank and asked students to make a concept map showing what they knew about a sustainable system for producing food, using any additional terms they thought might apply. When analysed against a framework of permaculture principles, overall word use that aligned with these principles increased slightly between the pre- (M 11.5 words, SD 4) and post-questionnaires (M 12.1, SD 4), and three students added their own words to their post-maps: soil, legumes, shops, pollution, and people.

For the purposes of evaluating students’ recognition of sustainable and unsustainable practices in food production, we developed a process for scoring sustainable propositions. Put succinctly, two concept words connected by a linking word or phrase form a proposition. For example, the terms food and organic can be connected by the phrase ‘can be’, forming the proposition: food can be organic. A proposition is a unit of meaning assembled in cognitive structure. Each proposition was analysed for whether or not it trended toward sustainability. Only those propositions that were considered to reflect sustainable thinking were counted. Potential sustainability-related issues that students could have identified included: the use of fossil fuels (both on farm and in transportation — ‘food miles’), soil fertility, insect and weed control, meat-centred diet (eating lower on the food chain), and water conservation. While the class mean for sustainable propositions improved (1.8 to 2.2), an increase in standard deviation (1.4 to 2.2) suggests some students experienced growth in their sustainability learning while others did not.

Impacts on the Teacher

During the final interview in this study, the teacher reflected on what he identified as ‘a positiveness in that class’, particularly after the trip to Eco-Hostel. But he admitted, ‘I can't really tie it down to anything specific.’

Like any living ecology, a learning ecology is complex and multifaceted. As described above, the relationship between relevance and engagement appeared to be dynamic and mutually reinforcing for students, especially during the unit on food production. Additionally, the teacher was aware of the role that this unit played as the final step of the transformative chronology (Lebo, Reference Lebo2012).

During the early stages of negotiation about the intervention, the teacher expressed no concern about reordering the units. He recognised that this simple manoeuvre would not cause extra work for him or disrupt the overall curriculum in any significant way. Months later, during the final interview, he reflected on the progression of the units by describing them as moving from the big picture to a more detailed perspective: ‘It's logical. I do think that was better than going in and teaching about seed germination at the start. That's just basically science-learning names. But this wasn’t. This was a whole crazy interwoven web of science: a good idea.’ By referring to the transformative chronology as ‘logical’, ‘better’, and ‘a good idea’, the teacher appears to be expressing his appreciation for one component of what he also called ‘a new way of teaching science: It's about making it relevant, global and it's passionate.’ This expression of appreciation for something new appears to indicate that the teacher experienced learning about science teaching and learning, and that his perspective changed as a result.

The passages above may be said to hold special significance because the teacher was not sold on the idea of a permaculture approach from the beginning. During the negotiation he was not specific about what his reservations were, simply stating that he had them, but was ‘willing to give it a go’. What might be called his cautious scepticism continued during the early stages of the intervention, but he was never clear about the particulars at the time. It was not until afterward that he shared what might have been on his mind.

The teacher's acknowledged lack of familiarity with permaculture appears to have been significant in shaping his initial attitude.

As the teacher became reassured that permaculture had an adherence to science he began commenting on the ways in which a permaculture approach appeared to engage his students. For example, after the field trip to the food forest he said, ‘I think it was good to get the students out there seeing that project in their community.’ As a context for learning, the teacher praised the role of permaculture food production in promoting the relevance of science learning, and its ability to engage students. He was particularly impressed by the field trips run by one of us as part of the intervention:

The teacher went on to reflect on other activities, but then returned to the field trips, saying, ‘So the field trips I guess was the greatest one. I suppose that's a big thing at the moment — trying to make it relevant.’

During informal conversations throughout the intervention the teacher did not make statements specifically about relevance, but did comment with increasing frequency on student engagement. For example, he said that one boy had ‘cottoned on’ to the idea of using swales to manage water at Eco-Hostel. He made a similar comment during the final interview: ‘That water system struck a chord. “Edward” asked if we could do that again, or build one.’

In these passages, the teacher emphasises real settings and relevance. Although other approaches to making science relevant were included during the intervention, it appears that the teacher felt the field trips were a particularly effective means to achieving that end. Relevance has been recognised as important for promoting both scientific literacy (Holbrook & Rannikmae, Reference Holbrook and Rannikmae2009; Keller, Reference Keller and Reigeluth1983) and ecological literacy (Balgopal & Wallace, Reference Balgopal and Wallace2009; Orr, Reference Orr1992). When asked if he would teach the three units with the same activities in the future, he replied:

Although it would be an overstatement to say that the teacher changed his perspective on science and sustainability education through his participation in this study, evidence suggests a number of ideas for engaging students took root.

Alongside relevance and engagement, the teacher identified the importance of the participant researcher's role as citizen scientist and permaculture More Knowledgeable Other (MKO). According to social development theory (Vygotsky, Reference Vygotsky1978), children working at any stage of cognitive development may be able to operate at a higher cognitive level by interacting with a MKO. During the final interview, he said, ‘I think your character went well with that. You were the scientist coming in. You weren't like some hippy.’ Mayer-Smith, Bartosh, and Peterat (Reference Mayer-Smith, Bartosh and Peterat2007) found that pairing children and elders in the context of gardening resulted in changes to the children's personal relationships with the environment:

These researchers also report that an intergenerational context — which can be likened to Vygotsky's MKO — provides a social setting that supports the growth of what Morris (Reference Morris2002) calls environmental consciousness. The notion of growing consciousness instead of building it is explored next.