作者：Rodrigues, C., & Arenas, A. (2022). Stockholm+ 50, Tbilisi+ 45, Rio+ 30: Research, praxis, and policy. The Journal of Environmental Education, 53(6), 309–313.
翻譯和導語：吳蒙
導語：閱讀的角度
A.環境教育
如果站在環境教育的角度，會覺得這篇有點莫名其妙地批評環境教育。
1. 文章里的呼吁，從社會科學的角度來看，比如正義、自然權利/內在價值、對可持續發展的批判，很多都是老生常談。感覺應該有不少文獻可以搜到，并不是沒有成功案例。（雖然文章說At JEE we suggest the embracement of a life-affirming educational philosophy that replaces fear, dread, and fatalism with courage, joy, justice, and empowerment.，但是感覺這篇讀起來比較負面。）
2. 看起來文章對短時方案有偏見。長期方案很精彩，但小而美短平快的短時方案也可能很不錯，比如受眾喜歡、激發興趣。多個短時方案聯合起來成效不一定比長期方案差。
3. 會議內容與實務工作者之間的關系，缺少實證。會議報告很有可能對讀者不夠友善，比如冗長或者缺少多語言版。EE實務工作者對這些會議有多大程度的了解，是有疑問的。而且需要了解到什么程度、是否只要大概了解即可，要看各自的背景而定?？赡芤芯恳幌翬E實務工作者對這些會議的了解程度、每個人持有的教育立場、傾向的環境教育取向、如何影響對會議的認可，看看實務現場對這些會議的評價。（另外想到，可持續發展的論述廣為人知，可能是它們的outreach做得好，有架構、可視化、簡單明了好傳播。）
B.環境教育與可持續發展教育的比較，維護環境教育
如果先閱讀The Tbilisi Declaration和《教育促進實現可持續發展目標：學習目標》，體會一下可持續發展教育對生態中心主義的忽視，就會更加抓到這篇文獻里面的一些理念，并非在批評環境教育。
另外補充對環境教育與可持續發展教育關系的觀點和說明。
曾經看到文獻/聽到有研究者講可持續發展教育可以等同于環境教育，只要看環境教育如何定義環境。他們的這種角度，可能比較從議題分類（非人環境、經濟、社會）出發，認為環境包含非人環境、經濟、社會，所以可持續發展教育的內容就是環境教育?；蚴沁@種等同的看法來自于，在區分強永續和弱永續(Morandín-Ahuerma, Contreras-Hernández, Ayala-Ortiz, and Pérez-Maqueo 2019)后，從強永續的角度，加上出于環境教育領域的背景，把強永續的優先考慮環境（以保障人類發展），補充成環境倫理中優先考慮環境的主體性?；蚴浅鲇诃h境教育的背景，而自動把對可持續性的追求換成了環境保護/環境問題的解決，認為其中可以談以環境為主體的可持續性。
但是就《教育促進實現可持續發展目標：學習目標》（以及可持續發展教育的來歷）來說，可持續發展教育沒有納入生態中心主義，各種目標的內容都比較人類中心主義，圍繞的是人類發展。所以環境教育的概念會更寬，因為環境教育會注意到應當強調生態中心主義。這也回到了Sauvé (2005)的分類，可持續發展教育是環境教育中的一個潮流。二者并不能等同。
Morandín-Ahuerma, I., Contreras-Hernández, A., Ayala-Ortiz, D. A., & Pérez-Maqueo, O. (2019). Socio–ecosystemic sustainability. Sustainability, 11(12), 3354.
Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education: Mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 11–37.
The year 2022 commemorates three milestones in the history of environmental protection and education: It marks the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, organized in Stockholm in 1972; the 45th anniversary of the first Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education, held in Tbilisi in 1977; and the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Each one of these meetings influenced the field of environmental education (EE) in the ensuing decades, and echoes of these meetings reverberate until the present.
2022年紀念著環境保護和教育歷史上的三個重要里程碑：是1972年在斯德哥爾摩舉行的聯合國人類環境大會50周年；是1977年在第比利斯舉行的首次政府間環境教育大會45周年；是1992年在里約熱內盧舉行的聯合國環境與發展大會30周年。每次會議，都對隨后幾十年的環境教育（EE）領域產生了影響，這些影響一直持續至今。
A bird’s-eye view of landmark conferences
標志性會議的鳥瞰圖
Whereas the Tbilisi conference was the first worldwide conference that addressed EE in all its forms — formal, non-formal, and informal — the 1972 Stockholm Conference set the initial impetus for its establishment among all nations, particularly Principle 19 and Recommendation 95. Principle 19 of the Stockholm Conference stated:
第比利斯會議是首次全球性會議，涵蓋了EE的各種形式 — — 正規、非正規和非正式。1972年斯德哥爾摩大會為其在所有國家的建立設立了最初的動力，特別是第19條原則和第95號建議。斯德哥爾摩大會的第19條原則指出：
Education in environmental matters, for the younger generation as well as adults, giving due consideration to the underprivileged, is essential in order to broaden the basis for an enlightened opinion and responsible conduct by individuals, enterprises and communities in protecting and improving the environment in its full human dimension. (United Nations, 1973, p. 4)
為了讓個人、企業和社區在所有人類的維度上保護和改善環境，形成開明觀念和負責任行為，并擴大這些觀念和行為所基于的基礎，我們的關鍵是要為年輕一代和成年人提供在環境問題/事項中的教育，同時這種教育應當對處境不利的人給予應有的考慮。(United Nations, 1973, p. 4)
Principle 19 was followed by a specific plan of action, particularly Recommendation 95, which proposed teacher training in the field of EE, the elaboration and testing of new curricula, and pedagogical methods for all levels of EE (United Nations, 1973).
第19條原則后面跟著一個具體的行動計劃，特別是第95號建議，提出在EE領域進行教師培訓，細化和測試新課程以及各級EE的教育方法(United Nations, 1973)。
Five years later, during the Tbilisi Conference, representatives from 68 different countries put forth a set of principles and guidelines for EE at all levels — local, national, regional, and international — and for all age groups both inside and outside the formal school system. With this, two important things happened: Firstly, Tbilisi assured a narrative and discursive continuity to Stockholm in a historical context where social movements were flourishing, including the environmental movement; secondly, following the highly relevant conceptual work that came out of the Stockholm Conference, the representatives in Tbilisi set the bedrock for developing, implementing, and enacting EE concepts, policy and practice. According to the Tbilisi Declaration (UNESCO, 1977), the goals [sic] of EE were:
五年后，在第比利斯大會上，來自68個不同國家的代表提出了適用于各級別（地方、國家、區域和國際）、各年齡段（包括正規學校系統內外）的EE原則和指南。通過這一點，發生了兩個重要的事情：首先，第比利斯在一個社會運動蓬勃發展的歷史背景下，為斯德哥爾摩確保了敘事和話語的連續性；其次，在斯德哥爾摩大會產生的高度切題的概念工作之后，第比利斯的代表們為發展、實施和執行EE的概念、政策和實踐奠定了基礎。根據《第比利斯宣言》(UNESCO, 1977)，EE的總述目標是：
· to foster clear awareness of, and concern about, economic, social, political and ecological interdependence in urban and rural areas;
· to provide every person with opportunities to acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes, commitment and skills needed to protect and improve the environment;
· to create new patterns of behavior of individuals, groups and society as a whole toward the environment.
①在城市和鄉村，培養對經濟的、社會的、政治的和生態的相互關系的清晰覺知和關注；
②為每個人提供獲得保護和改善環境所需的知識、價值觀、態度、承諾和技能的機會；
③創造個人、團體和整個社會對環境的新行為模式。
Twenty years after Stockholm and 15 after Tbilisi, the Rio 1992 Conference harbored hopes and expectations with the presence of 172 countries, with more than 100 of them represented by their leaders. Rio 1992 culminated with a non-binding action plan, Agenda 21, which mentioned education throughout its 40 chapters, but one of them in particular was entirely devoted to promoting education, public awareness, and training, with a strong focus on sustainable development. Chapter 36 called for:
在斯德哥爾摩大會后的20年和第比利斯后的15年，里約1992大會充滿希望和期望，共有172個國家參加，其中100多個國家由各自的領導人代表。里約1992大會以一個非約束性的行動計劃，即《21世紀議程》告終，該議程在全部40章中都提到了教育，但其中一章尤其完全致力于促進教育、公眾意識和培訓，特別強調可持續發展。第36章呼吁：
· universal access to basic education, and to achieve primary education for at least 80 per cent of girls and 80 per cent of boys of primary school age through formal schooling or non-formal education and to reduce the adult illiteracy rate to at least half of its 1990 level. Efforts should focus on reducing the high illiteracy levels and redressing the lack of basic education among women and should bring their literacy levels into line with those of men. (United Nations, 1992)
· 普及基本教育，并通過正規教育或非正規教育實現至少80%的女孩和80%的男孩完成初等教育，以及將成年文盲率降低至1990年水平的一半。努力應集中在降低高文盲率水平和彌補婦女基礎教育的不足，使她們的文盲率降到與男性的持平。(United Nations, 1992)
Notably, there have historically been strong criticisms of the shift from ‘environmental’ to ‘sustainability’ consolidated in the Rio 92 conference, following the 1987 Brundtland report, or Our Common Future, especially in educational settings. At the core of the critique is the focus of sustainability on economic growth, alongside the commodification of human relations and of nature; as much as economic growth does have a role in just environmental development, the (historically anchored) critical sense is that the profits mostly go to the local elites and first world business and government interests, an especially problematic structure and dynamic in the poor parts of the world. Curiously enough, this is the case in Brazil where the Rio 92 Conference was held, and where the ‘environmental’ field and discourse (education; policy; research; etc.) is vastly more developed than ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable development.’
值得注意的是，在1987年《布倫特蘭報告》或《我們共同的未來》之后，在1992年里約會議上，特別是在教育環境中，對從“環境的”到“可持續性”的轉變一直存在強烈的批評。批評的核心問題是可持續性關注的重點在于經濟增長，伴隨的是對人際關系和自然的商品化；正如經濟增長在環境發展中發揮的那些作用一樣，（歷史上的）批判意識是，利潤主要流向了當地精英和第一世界的商業和政府利益，這是一個有問題的結構和動力，尤其是在世界貧困地區。有趣的是，這種情況在舉辦里約1992大會的巴西尤為明顯，而在這里，“環境的”領域和話語（教育、政策、研究等）比“可持續性”或“可持續發展”發展得多。
Another notable issue in the Rio 92 Conference was how the approach of specifying quantifiable, measurable objectives differed from previous declarations, certainly that of Tbilisi, but inevitably David Orr’s admonition comes to mind, regarding the importance of opening up the black box of education: “The conventional wisdom holds that all education is good, and the more of it one has, the better. The truth is that without significant precautions, education can equip people merely to be more effective vandals of the earth” (Orr, 1994, p. 6).
里約1992大會另一個引人注目的問題是，具體說明了采用的可量化與可衡量的目標與以前的宣言，當然是《第比利斯的宣言》，有何不同，但不可避免地使人想起David Orr關于打開教育黑箱的重要性做出的告誡：“傳統智慧認為，所有教育都是好的，一個人接受的教育越多越好。事實是，如果沒有重要的警覺，教育可能只會使人們更有效地破壞地球” (Orr, 1994, p. 6)。
More closely tied to education itself was the 1997 Tessaloniki Declaration, which sought to celebrate 20 years of Tbilisi and revisit its original commitments. In many ways, the Tessaloniki Declaration was still riding on the coattails of Rio 1992, and as such the concept of sustainable development greatly influenced the final declaration, so much so that the Tessaloniki Declaration was notorious for not mentioning EE. To be precise, EE was mentioned only twice, and one of those instances was the suggestion to replace the concept of EE for education for environment and sustainability (Knapp, 2000, p. 33). This was reflective of two parallel phenomena: (1) The rise of the sustainable development discourse that had become increasingly influential in educational policy circles worldwide; and (2) surveys at the time that showed the vast majority of teachers spent a minimum amount of time teaching about environmental issues (e.g., in the US, in the mid-1990s, the World Wildlife Fund estimated that 86% of teachers spent 1 hour or less on the environment each week, 1994).
與教育本身更密切相關的是1997年的《塞薩洛尼基宣言》，旨在慶祝第比利斯20周年并重新審視其最初的承諾。在許多方面，《塞薩洛尼基宣言》仍然依靠里約1992會議的成果，因此可持續發展的概念極大地影響了最終的宣言，以至于《塞薩洛尼基宣言》因幾乎未提到EE而臭名昭著。確切地說，EE僅被提到兩次，其中一次是建議將EE的概念替換成為了環境與可持續性的教育(Knapp, 2000, p. 33)。這反映了兩個并行現象：（1）可持續發展話語的崛起，在全球教育政策圈越來越有影響力；（2）當時的調查顯示，絕大多數教師只花了很少的時間教授環境問題（例如，在20世紀90年代中期的美國，世界野生動植物基金估計86%的教師每周只花費1小時或更少的時間講授環境問題，1994）。
Starting in 2000, other landmark multilateral conferences, summits, and declarations have taken place (e.g., the United Nations Millennium Development Goals of 2000; the Johannesburg Declaration of 2002; the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, or Rio + 20; and the Sustainable Development Goals of 2015). Given the current malaise of the planet, both socially and environmentally, alongside the large number of international meetings and pronouncements of the last 50 years, it is quite easy to become cynical and bitter regarding how worthwhile they are. Eco-pessimism, environmental existential anxiety, and a profound sense of paralysis may, and have, enveloped certain groups worldwide. Nonetheless, it is vital to ask what role does environmental and sustainability research, praxis, and policy play in identifying the possibilities, breakthroughs, silences, absences, and limits of the various summits and declarations in the context of education.
從2000年開始，其他具有里程碑意義的多邊會議、峰會和宣言相繼舉行（例如2000年聯合國千年發展目標、2002年《約翰內斯堡宣言》、2012年聯合國可持續發展大會或里約+20、2015年可持續發展目標）。鑒于當前社會和環境的困境萎靡，以及過去50年國際會議和聲明的大量會議和宣言，領域很容易變得憤世嫉俗和憤怒，對它們有多少價值感到懷疑。生態悲觀主義、環境存在焦慮和深刻的無力感，可能已經或正在籠罩全球某些群體。然而，關鍵是要問，在教育的脈絡下，環境和可持續性研究、行動和政策，在識別各種峰會和宣言的潛力、突破、沉默、缺席和限制方面發揮了什么作用。
Connecting educational research, praxis, and policy to landmark conferences
將教育研究、行動和政策與標志性會議聯系起來
A cursory look at newspapers around the world show how dreadful the state of the environment is today, which may lead to a sense of hopelessness for the planet’s future. While it is important to be realistic of the immense and varied challenges faced by the planet, EE by its very nature ought to offer a sense of hope and enjoyment precisely because the field seeks solutions to these difficult-to-solve problems. At JEE we suggest the embracement of a life-affirming educational philosophy that replaces fear, dread, and fatalism with courage, joy, justice, and empowerment. Below are a series of questions that offer a partial road map that could assist EE scholars in engaging in this life-affirming philosophy:
對世界各地報紙的粗略瀏覽表明，如今環境狀況之差可謂令人堪憂，這可能導致對地球未來的絕望感。雖然對地球面臨的巨大和多樣化挑戰保持現實態度非常重要，但EE出于其本質，應該提供一種希望和享受其中的感覺，正是因為這個領域尋求解決這些難以解決的問題。在JEE中，我們建議采用一種肯認生活/鼓舞人心的教育哲學，以勇氣、歡樂、正義和賦權，取代恐懼、憂慮和宿命感。以下是一系列問題，提供了一份部分路線圖，可以幫助EE學者參與到這種肯認生活/鼓舞人心的哲學中：
· To what extent is EE praxical, or just academic performative abstract theoretical textualism? (e.g., JEE 51(2), Rodrigues, 2020). How do we effectively close/bridge the gap between policy and action? What are some of the fundamental (preferably, simple) questions for a ‘practical theory’ of environmental justice? (e.g., JEE 52(5), Rodrigues & Lowan-Trudeau, 2021, asking “What is in it for Nature?”). One obvious point of departure is an exploration of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (a treaty that came into force in 1994), with gatherings organized annually through the COPs. At the COP26 of 2021, and for the first time, Ministers of Education and the Environment got together to pledge to integrate climate change into formal and non-formal education (UNESCO, 2021). Research can play a vital role in identifying strengths and weaknesses of this approach.
· EE在多大程度上是行動性的，還是僅僅是學術表現上的抽象理論性墨守成規主義？(e.g., JEE 51(2), Rodrigues, 2020)。我們如何有效地彌合政策和行動之間的差距？對于“環境正義”的“實踐性理論”來說，有哪些基本的（最好是簡明的）問題？（e.g., JEE 52(5), Rodrigues & Lowan-Trudeau, 2021，詢問“這對大自然有什么好處？”）。一個明顯的出發點是探討聯合國氣候變化框架公約（1994年生效的一項條約）及其通過COPs組織的年度會議。在2021年的COP26會議上，教育和環境部長首次聯合承諾將氣候變化融入正規和非正規教育(UNESCO, 2021)。研究可以在識別這種方法的優點和不足方面發揮重要作用。
· Relatedly, how can we best integrate the concept of justice in international education when poorer nations that have contributed negligible amounts to fossil fuel emissions nonetheless suffer the brunt of climate change consequences? In 2022, Pakistan experienced its worst floods in recorded history: Two-thirds of the country’s districts have been damaged, at least 1,200 people died, and 33 million people were displaced (Mallapaty, 2022). Can educational and economic research, praxis, and policy intersect to ensure, for instance, more intense afforestation along the Indus River? After all, the historic floods in Pakistan in 2010 were a harbinger of what eventually became a reality 12 years later. Are the collective actions that respond to environmental issues (aesthetically-ethically-politically) aligned with the principles of justice historically claimed within social movements?
·相關地，當那些化石燃料排放貢獻微不足道的較貧窮國家卻遭受氣候變化后果的沖擊時，我們如何最好地將正義概念納入國際教育？在2022年，巴基斯坦經歷了有記錄以來最嚴重的洪水：該國三分之二的地區受到了破壞，至少有1,200人死亡，3300萬人流離失所(Mallapaty, 2022)。教育和經濟研究、行動和政策是否能夠交匯，以確保，例如在印度河沿岸地區進行更多高強度的植樹造林，畢竟，巴基斯坦在2010年的歷史性洪水，是12年后的這次洪水的前兆。響應環境問題的集體行動（審美地-倫理地-政治地）是否與社會運動中歷史上宣稱的正義原則相一致？
· How to connect the enactment of environmental laws and environmental politics with the field of education? For instance, one of the most exciting happenings in environmental law in the 21st century are the “rights of nature” provisions that confer legal rights to rivers, mountains, forests, and other ecosystems. Until recently, these rights were mostly symbolic, but in 2022 Ecuador’s High Court determined that the entity responsible for a project (i.e., a corporation or the State) must demonstrate that its activity is not harming fragile ecosystems or endangered species (Surma, 2022). Identifying the role that educational research can play in supporting and exploring rights of nature laws is vital.
·如何將環境法律的實施與環境政治跟教育領域聯系起來？例如，21世紀環境法領域最令人興奮的事件之一，是授予河流、山脈、森林和其他生態系統法律權利的“自然權利”規定。一直以來，這些權利大多是象征性的。但在2022年，厄瓜多爾高等法院裁定，負責項目的實體（即公司或國家）必須證明其活動不會危害脆弱的生態系統或瀕危物種(Surma, 2022)。確定教育研究在支持和探討自然權利法方面如何起作用，是至關重要的問題。
· Sustainability discourses continue to prioritize the economy over social and environmental concerns. In EE/EER, where, why, and when are such representations allowed to persist? ‘New’, ‘post’ […] theories seem to be dead ends, unless a decentering ecocentrism and praxis gets some performative traction within those abstractions (e.g., JEE SI 51(2), 2020). Theories that ought to play a much larger role in today’s debates — such as buen vivir, degrowth, and ecological swaraj (Kothari et al., 2014) — tend to be ignored or are placed at the margins of economistic policy debates, and even more so in educational circles.
·可持續性話語繼續將經濟置于社會和環境問題之上。在EE/EER領域，這種表現在哪、為什么以及何時可以允許存在？似乎“新的”、“后”[…]理論，似乎是死胡同，除非在這些抽象概念中，一種去中心化的生態中心主義和實踐得到展演性的推動(e.g., JEE SI 51(2), 2020)。在今天的辯論中應該扮演更大角色的理論 — — 如buen vivir美好生活運動、去除增長和生態swaraj自·(Kothari et al., 2014) — — 往往被忽視或被置于經濟政策辯論的邊緣，甚至在教育圈內更是如此。
· What research evidence do we have, and where can it be found (in different geo-epistemologies), that can be used to defend experiential learning and education in the interdisciplinary framings of EE (or outdoor education, health education, sustainability education, etc.)? The pressures of capitalism in higher education are such that scholars are often forced to publish short-term empirical studies that advance little the field of EE (for an analysis of “academic capitalism,” see Slaughter & Rhoades, 2009). Academic journals often receive short-term empirical studies that last between one weekend to a couple of months, but seldom do they receive articles that last one year or longer to truly assess the longitudinal effects of experiential education in all its forms, and what can be done to improve it. One article that bucked the trend was Tal and Morag’s (2013) 8 year-long study of an elementary school EE program in Israel. While not all studies can last this long, the results from this and other longitudinal studies tend to be of such significance that they are well worth the effort and time.
·我們有哪些研究證據，以及在哪里能夠（在不同的地理認識體系中）找到這些證據，可以用來在EE（或戶外教育、健康教育、可持續教育等）的跨學科框架下捍衛體驗式學習和教育？在高等教育中，資本主義的壓力如此之大，以至于學者通常被迫發表短期的實證研究，對EE領域幾乎沒有推動作用（關于“學術資本主義”的分析，參見Slaughter & Rhoades, 2009）。學術期刊通常接收持續時間介于一個周末到幾個月之間的短期實證研究，但很少接收持續時間長達一年或更長以真正評估各種形式的體驗式教育的長期影響以及如何改進它的那些研究。打破這一趨勢的一篇文章是Tal and Morag (2013)對以色列小學EE項目進行的8年研究。雖然并非所有研究都能持續這么長時間，但這和其他縱向研究的結果往往具有如此重要的意義，以至于值得付出努力和時間。
· Do we have solid, empirically based examples where the agency of the non-human changed EE and EER? Are there potential ecopedagogical drives in social change brought forth by non-human agencies? One positive result from these conferences was the Convention of Biological Diversity of 1993. Given the continuous loss of species worldwide, one could focus on actual or potential success stories and how education played — or could play — an important role. In 2022, India reintroduced the cheetah, 50 years after becoming extinct in that country (Biswas, 2022). This reintroduction represents the first time a large carnivore is being moved from one continent to another and being reintroduced in the wild. It is too early to determine how successful this reintroduction will be, but it is clear that a parallel education campaign to teach regional populations of the importance of this effort, in addition to strong accountability and law enforcement, is vital to ensure its success.
·我們是否有堅實的、基于實證的例子，表明非人類的主動性如何改變了EE和EER？非人類主體是否在社會變革中引發了潛在的生態教育動力？這些會議的一個積極結果是1993年《生物多樣性公約》。鑒于全球物種不斷喪失，我們可以關注實際或潛在的成功案例以及教育如何發揮或可能發揮重要作用。在2022年，在該國滅絕50年后，印度重新引入了獵豹(Biswas, 2022)。這次重新引入代表著首次將大型食肉動物從一個大陸移動到另一個大陸并重新引入野外。現在還太早確定這次重新引入會取得多大的成功，但顯然，除了強有力的問責制和執法外，還需要并行的教育宣傳活動教育地區人口這一努力的重要性，這對其成功至關重要。
Amnesia and silences…
遺忘和沉默…
In JEE’s 2020 special issue on global politics of knowledge production in EER: ‘New’ theory and North-South representations (Rodrigues, 2020), Phillip Payne critiqued the “amnesia of the moment” in EE (research) highlighting how founding policies of EE and its implied pedagogical praxis and commensurable methodological development in EE research have given place to an ahistorical and atheoretical mash of performatively-driven abstract theorizing (Payne, 2020). The questions and examples presented in this editorial paper are aimed as a provocative call which we hope will be heeded by fellow EE researchers and practitioners: We need more memory and retrospective empirical studies in EE research about the core of EE―How does the field praxically respond to the recommendations, principles, and policies from half a century of landmark conferences? In the narrative continuity of each of these landmarks, what changed, what was reenforced (and possibly re-worded), what were/are the remaining silences?
在JEE關于EE研究的全球知識生產的2020年特刊中，“新”理論與南北代表(Rodrigues, 2020)，Phillip Payne批評了EE（研究）中的“一時失憶”，強調EE的創始政策及其隱含的教育行動和EE研究中類似方向的方法發展，是如何讓位于由表現力驅動的抽象理論化的非歷史和非理論混合體的(Payne, 2020)。本社論文章中提出的問題和例子，旨在激發EE研究人員和實務工作者的注意：在EE研究中，我們需要更多關于EE核心的記憶和回顧性實證研究 — — 該領域如何行動應對半個世紀里標志性會議的建議、原則和政策？在每個里程碑事件的連續性敘事中，有哪些變化，有什么得到了強化（可能是重新措辭），有哪些問題曾經或現在一直在沉默？
While we are at it, why not extend the call to organizations such as the NAAEE, forums like the WEEC, and journals like JEE? How have they historically dealt with policy-action gaps and contradictions? If we do acknowledge the tendency to an “amnesia of the moment,” are these organizations, forums, and scientific publication streams part of the problem of mainstreaming EE and EE research inaction against the promise and potential of Tbilisi? Or can they be part of the solution as critical histories of EE and EE research, including and beyond UN gatherings?
既然說到這里了，為什么不將呼吁擴展到組織，比如NAAEE、類似WEEC的論壇，以及像是JEE這樣的期刊呢？它們在歷史上是如何處理政策行動差距和矛盾的？如果我們承認“一時失憶”的傾向，那么在主流EE和EE研究不作為而與第比利斯的承諾和潛力相違背的這個問題中，這些組織、論壇和科學出版通道是否是問題的一部分？還是它們能夠成為解決方案的一部分，作為EE和EE研究的關鍵歷史，包括并超越聯合國會議?
Following this editorial paper, the readers of JEE will find Phillip Payne’s Tbilisi’s “sounds of silence” — (in)action in the policy ≠ embodiments of environmental education as a critical response to our call. Our hope is that Payne’s article will be the first of many responses, and that the collective memory-work of how different organizations (be it through events, documents, publications, etc.), past and present, address or not policy-action, or theory-practice gaps, to serve as guidance and inspiration to a more praxical EE.
在這篇社論之后，JEE的讀者將找到Phillip Payne的《第比利斯的“沉默之聲” — — 政策的（不）行動≠環境教育的體現》文章，作為對我們的呼吁的重要回應。我們希望Payne的文章將是眾多回應的第一篇，希望關于“不同組織（通過活動、文件、出版物等方式）如何處理或不處理政策行動、理論實踐差距”的集體記憶工作，無論著眼過去還是當前狀況，能夠作為更加行動性的EE的指導和靈感。
