D5.4 Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions

D5.4 Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Funding scheme EU-H2020-Grean Deal, H2020-LC-GD-2020-3 Project ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education Project number 101036505 Project Coordinator CIEMAT, Centro de Investigaciones Energeticas, Medioambientales y Tecnologicas Start Date of the Project 01.10.2021 Duration of project 48 months Contributing WP WP5. Testing the ECF: Interventions Tasks Task 5.3. Joint implementation: Participatory, reflective, and deliberative process to support the interventions Dissemination Level Public Due date 2025 January 31 Submission date 2025 January 31 Responsible partner UAB / CIEMAT Contributing organizations CIEMAT, IST, USE, JYU, UAB, MedaResearch Authors: Ana Prades, Josep Espluga, Carles Vañó, Silvia Germán, Markku Lehtonen Version 1.0 The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101036505 Ref. Ares(2025)757101 - 31/01/2025 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions ii WHO WE ARE The ECF consortium consists of ten partners. The project is coordinated by Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT). Name Country Logo Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas CIEMAT ES Instituto Superior Técnico. University of Lisbon IST PT Universidad de Sevilla USE ES University of Jyväskylä JYU FI Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona UAB ES Meda Research Ltd MedaResearch RO Instituto de Soldadura e Qualidade ISQ PT Trebag Szellemi Tulajdon Es Projektmenedzser Korlatolt Felelossegu Tarsasag TREBAG HU Smartwatt Energy Sercuces SA Smartwatt PT ENLITIA PT Que Technologies Kefalaiouchiki Etaireia QUE GR H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions iii ABOUT THE PROJECT Through a multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary and participatory process, ECF4CLIM develops, tests and validates a European Competence Framework (ECF) for transformational change, which will empower the educational community to take action against climate change and towards sustainable development. Applying a novel hybrid participatory approach, rooted in participatory action research and citizen science, ECF4CLIM co-designs the ECF in selected schools and universities, by: 1) elaborating an initial ECF, supported by crowdsourcing of ideas and analysis of existing ECFs; 2) establishing the baseline of individual and collective competences, as well as environmental performance indicators; 3) implementing practical, replicable and context adapted technical, behavioural, and organisational interventions that foster the acquisition of competences; 4) evaluating the ability of the interventions to strengthen sustainability competences and environmental performance; and 5) validating the ECF. The proposed ECF is unique in that it encompasses the interacting STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)-related, digital and social competences, and systematically explores individual, organisational and institutional factors that enable or constrain the desired change. The novel hybrid participatory approach provides the broad educational community with: an ECF adaptable to a range of settings; new ways of collaboration between public, private and third-sector bodies; and innovative organisational models of engagement and action for sustainability (Sustainability Competence Teams and Committees). To encourage learning-by-doing, several novel tools will be co-designed with and made available to citizens, including a digital platform for crowdsourcing, IoT solutions for real-time monitoring of selected parameters, and a digital learning space. Participation of various SMEs in the consortium maximises the broad adoption and applicability of the ECF for the required transformational change towards sustainability. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions iv LEGAL NOTICE The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the CINEA nor the European Commission is responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be translated, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher. Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. The quotation of those designations in whatever way does not imply the conclusion that the use of those designations is legal without the content of the owner of the trademark. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions v TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 6 2. Goals ................................................................................................................................................ 8 3. Method: the hybrid participatory approach ................................................................................... 9 3.1. The methodological basis ........................................................................................................ 10 3.2. The joint implementation of the interventions ...................................................................... 12 4. Data Gathering .............................................................................................................................. 24 5. Findings .......................................................................................................................................... 27 5.1. The deliberative process: SCT/SCCs 3 and 4 ....................................................................... 27 5.2. Preliminary evidence on drivers and barriers ..................................................................... 32 5.3. Reflecting on the roadmap: engagement ........................................................................... 49 5.4. Reflecting on the roadmap: connections ............................................................................ 57 5.5. The gender dimension ......................................................................................................... 62 6. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 66 7. Discussion & next steps ................................................................................................................. 67 8. References ..................................................................................................................................... 68 Annex: Sustainability conceptions ..................................................................................................... 72 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 6 of 84 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ECF4CLIM hybrid participatory approach, rooted in participatory action research and partly based on the STAVE tool (Systematic Tool for Behavioural Assumption, Validation and Exploration) encourages students, teachers, staff and external stakeholders to work together to assess sustainability competences and reflect on the impact of actions. By emphasising creativity, transdisciplinarity and iterative reflection, it supports transformative change and enhances institutional capacity to address sustainability challenges. In each of our 13 Demonstration Sites (DS) in Finland, Portugal, Romania and Spain, we have established two types of innovative organisational structures: Sustainability Competence Teams (SCTs), made up of students, teachers and staff, and Sustainability Competence Committees (SCCs), which include representatives from the wider education community, such as experts, authorities, NGOs, etc. At this stage of the project, around 800 participants are actively involved in our SCTs and SCCs. To promote reflection and ownership, the SCTs and SCCs will meet up to six times during the course of the project. The first two meetings (SCT/SCC 1 and 2) encouraged critical thinking on competences and preferences towards sustainability and on co-designed a set of interventions to promote sustainability competences in each DS. In Task 5.3, SCTS and SCCs 3 and 4, aim to further involve the educational communities in the ongoing interventions and to generate meaningful empirical evidence on the individual, organisational and structural drivers and barriers to sustainability competences. In addition, SCT/SCC meetings 3 and 4 promote reflection on the first two steps of our roadmap: engagement and connections. Results show the significant potential of our hybrid participatory approach. First, the participatory process has demonstrated a high potential for fostering meaningful engagement within the participating educational communities. Evidence gathered from participants and research teams underlines the transformative value of this approach in empowering individuals and groups to develop sustainability competences. Despite challenges such as time constraints, participant turn-over and resistance to change, the participatory process provided a platform for meaningful engagement and action. With regard to the second objective, our participatory approach provided rich empirical insights. At the individual level, experiential learning, teamwork and participation in decision-making emerged as key drivers of engagement. However, individualistic thinking, an age-related decline in commitment and teachers' resistance to change were notable barriers. At the organisational level, motivated leadership, interdisciplinary teacher collaboration and membership of networks such as Eco-Schools were key enablers. Structural factors such as policy alignment and community support also played H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 7 of 84 a critical role, while resource scarcity, social inequalities and competing priorities sometimes relegated sustainability to a secondary concern. The participatory approach also helped to validate the project roadmap by gathering valuable reflections on engagement and connections. The flexibility and adaptability of the methodology was crucial in tailoring interventions to local contexts, enabling schools to overcome silos and adopt integrated approaches to sustainability education. The approach is adaptable and evolves to incorporate learning from the specific contexts of the Demonstration Sites (DS). These findings represent an important first step towards broader systemic action and transformative change in educational communities. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 8 of 84 2. GOALS Through our participatory, reflective and deliberative process, Task 5.3 supports the joint implementation of the interventions co-designed to boost sustainability competences at our Demonstration Sites (DS). In Task 5.3, all actors involved in the interventions engage in 'reflection' on whether and how the interventions have affected their competences and capabilities to act towards sustainability. The aim of Task 5.3 is twofold: to engage our educational communities in transformational change towards sustainability, and to generate meaningful empirical evidence on the drivers and barriers to such change: → Deliberative process to engage our Demonstration Sites in reflection on whether and how the interventions affect competences and capabilities to act towards sustainability and to engage the wider educational community in providing suggestions, modifications or changes on the on-going interventions. → Preliminary identification of the individual, organisational and structural drivers for and barriers to sustainable behaviours. In addition, although not foreseen in the initial Description of Work, we took advantage of the SCT/SCC sessions 3 and 4 to promote reflection on the different steps of our roadmap, as follows → Sessions 3 focus on the 1st step of our roadmap: engagement. → Sessions 4 focus on the 2nd step of our roadmap: connections. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 9 of 84 3. METHOD: THE HYBRID PARTICIPATORY APPROACH The ECF4CLIM hybrid participatory approach, rooted in participatory action research (Kemmis, 2014) and partially based on the STAVE tool (Systematic Tool for Behavioural Assumption, Validation and Exploration) (Horlick-Jones & Prades, 2015; Espluga et al. 2016; Prades et al. 2016, 2017), allows the educational community to jointly identify, understand, assess, and evaluate their own sustainability-related competences and obstacles to improvement. The communities engage in joint deliberation on how to promote sustainable individual and collective behaviours, and to jointly evaluate the outcomes of the learning experience. This experiential learning process will empower the broader educational community to take steps towards a transformational change for a more sustainable future. As describe in D4.4, at each Demonstration Site, two types of innovative organizational structures were set up: → Sustainability Competence Teams (SCTs), composed of members of the educational community at each Demonstration Site (students, teachers, staff). → Sustainability Competence Committees (SCCs), including also representatives from the wider educational community such as experts, public authorities, NGOs, and members of other education services. At this stage of the project, 89 SCTs and 33 SCCs have been established in 13 educational institutions from four EU countries to discuss and reflect on sustainability competences and practical ways to promote them. Around 800 participants, including students, teachers, staff and representatives of the wider educational community are actively engaged in understanding their sustainability competences, co-designing interventions to promote them and assessing and evaluating the outcomes of the learning experience. To foster reflection and ownership, the SCTs and SCCs meet several times throughout the project. Figure 1 shows the sequence of relationships between SCTs and SCCs. Figure 1: Sequences of relationships between SCTs and SCCs H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 16 of 84 started with a short introduction to understand the degree of involvement of participants with the design and implementation of the interventions. The moderator then invited the participants to engage in an “ice-breaker” debate about their experiences and expectations. To encourage further reflection and deliberation, participants engaged in a discussion on drivers and barriers they face when implementing the interventions in their DS and how they relate to our analytical framework. To surface and display perceptions, understandings, and ideas about the interventions and to explore links with the analytical framework, we relied on the technique of "oval mapping" (or "concept mapping") (Morgan et al. 2008). This is a low-tech’ decision support method to assist groups agree the nature and boundaries of complex and messy problems they must tackle, and to secure shared commitments to action (Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001; Horlick-Jones et al. 2007). Concept mapping has been identified as an empowering method for facilitating learning, thinking, teaching and research (Åhlberg, 2013). As in ECF4CLIM, concept mappings are used iteratively across the different SCT/SCC sessions, the resulting oval maps may help to create a useful cumulative resource that generates a sense of continuity between subsequent sessions of the SCTs and SCCs (Horlick-Jones & Prades, 2015). The moderator briefly introduced the three spheres of our analytical framework for sustainability competences (individual competences, collective competences and environmental performance) and invited participants to consider how relevant they are in their interventions 1 . 1 SCT members were already familiar with our analytical framework, as it was part of the guidance and training provided by the research team for monitoring the interventions (Task 5.1 and Task 5.2). “Ice-breaker” debate: What is going on? → How actively have you been involved in the execution of the planned interventions? → Has the experience been good? → Have things worked out as expected? → Has your thinking (values/attitudes/knowledge) changed during the process? H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 17 of 84 The moderator emphasized that there is no single and unequivocal answer to the question: which of the three spheres is the most important in your intervention? The inherent ambiguity is precisely what makes our analytical framework meaningful and useful, as it draws attention to the interactions between the “spheres” and the dependence of answers on the perspective that one adopts. It should be noted that in the SCT3 in primary schools, with children, the concept mapping excluded the links with the analytical framework and focused only on the identification of enablers and constraints for the successful implementation of the interventions. The last step in our SCT3 gather evidence on how to improve the interventions and, more specifically, how to improve their ENGAGEMENT potential. Relying once more on oval mapping, the moderator invited participants to reflect on ways for improvement and to write down up to three proposals for each intervention. Through these proposals, our educational communities engage in joint reflection on how to promote sustainable competences and actively contribute to the learning experience at the DS. Participants were informed about the next steps in the hybrid participatory process, and finally, to check the quality of our SCT session as a participatory and deliberative process, the participants were asked to answer some questions at the end of the session. This short survey was based on Rowe & Frewer's well-known evaluation criteria (Rowe & Frewer, 2000). Each question was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Concept mapping: identifying drivers & barriers related to our analytical framework → Which of these spheres (individual, collective, environmental) is the most important for your intervention? Why? → Is there something constraining or enabling the realisation of the planned intervention? → Are there some other constraints or enablers that are not included in the picture? → What has helped to overcome the challenges?  Oval mapping: improving the interventions and their ENGAGEMENT potential → How to communicate the activity in an inspiring way? → How to share our experiences with others? → How to attract further participants?  H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 18 of 84 Sustainability Competence Committee Session 3 (SCC3): In SCC3, the wider educational community in each DS (NGOs, relevant public and private sector organisations, etc.) reflect on the development of the interventions and suggest modifications or changes (if necessary). Figure 5: Structure of SCC3 As in SCT3, to establish a common ground for ENGAGEMENT, participants watched a short video about our roadmap at the beginning of the meeting: https://youtu.be/TaEaStic7Qw. Next, to promote the deliberative process of reflection among the wider educational community (NGOs, relevant public and private sector organisations, etc.), each DS, in close collaboration with the research team, selected up to two interventions to be discussed at SCC3. The meeting therefore began with a brief introduction by the research team to the selected interventions, including their objectives, status and Evaluation questionnaire Q1. I feel that the people running the group discussions did not seek to promote a specific view on the issue. Q2. The way the group discussions were run allowed me to have my say. Q3. It was clear to me what I was supposed to be doing throughout the group meetings. Q4. The meetings seemed to provide sufficient time for everyone who wanted to contribute to the group discussions and have their say. Q5. I found the discussion meetings interesting. Q6. How to get best possible impact of this collaboration with students and decision makers for both this research and for promoting sustainability?  Q7. Any additional comment, suggestion you may have regarding this committee Sustainability Competence Committees Session 3 Welcome (10’) Reflecting on the interventions (70’) Intervention 1 Explanation of the intervention (5’) Findings from SCT3 (10’) How to improve further (20’) Intervention 2 Explanation of the intervention (5’) Findings from SCT3 (10’) How to improve further (20’) Farewell & next steps + evaluation questionnaire (10’) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 19 of 84 implementation, and preliminary findings. Afterwards the moderator invited the participants to an open debate about their preliminary impressions and expectations. To encourage further reflection and to actively involve the wider educational community in the monitoring and progress of the interventions, the participants engaged in a new concept mapping exercise (oval mapping). As a result, participants wrote down up to three concrete suggestions for improving each intervention. This whole process (getting to know the interventions, sharing first impressions and working together on ways forward) was repeated for each selected intervention. Participants were informed about the next steps in the hybrid participatory process, and finally, as in all our SCT and SCC meetings, to check the quality of the session as a participatory and deliberative process, participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire based on Rowe & Frewer's evaluation criteria (Rowe & Frewer, 2000). Sustainability Competence Teams session 4 (SCT4): The 4th sessions of our SCTs focus on further developing and broadening the perspectives of the interventions on the one hand, and on how the interventions and their objectives are linked to different environmental challenges and different stakeholders (CONNECTIONS) on the other. Figure 6: Structure of SCT4 Oval map: ways to improve the interventions (links with SCT4) → How to overcome the identified barriers? → How to communicate the activity in an inspiring way? → How to attract more participants? → How to motivate? → How to involve more local institutions/entities, generate additional resources? → How to institutionalize the intervention? Sustainability Competence Teams session 4 Welcome (5’) Description of the interventions (10’) Creative exercise on connections (50’) Sustainability conceptions (25’) Farewell & next steps + evaluation questionnaire (5’) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 20 of 84 To establish a common ground for CONNECTIONS, participants were invited to watch a short video on the 2nd step of our roadmap at the beginning of the meeting: https://youtu.be/ZBqbW8-qa5g. Facilitators could also use the first ECF4CLIM roadmap to deepen their understanding of this second step of the roadmap and thus stimulate the debate on this topic during the meeting. (https://mappa.fi/en/greencomp-roadmap/connections) Then, as in SCT3 and following the principles of participatory action research and transdisciplinarity, we encourage self-reflection on the interventions (Kermis et al., 2014; (Bergman & Jahn, 2008; Bergman et al. 2021). Each DS, in close collaboration with the research team, selected in advance one intervention to be discussed in SCT4. If possible, we tried to select an intervention aimed at improving the different spheres of our sustainability competencies (individual, collective, environmental). We could either select an intervention that has not been discussed before in SCT3/SCC3 meetings, or an intervention that has already been discussed in previous meetings. The point of revisiting those already discussed is to reflect on them from the perspective of CONECTIONS. The moderator invited participants to discuss the various issues that impact or interfere with the intervention and its objectives: e.g., infrastructures, service providers, cultural habits, rules, resources, people’s competences such as knowledge, skills, and attitudes, etc. To encourage further reflection and deliberation, participants engaged in a creative exercise to understand the systemic nature of sustainability activities. Creativity is an essential part of learning for sustainability as it supports innovation and problem solving to address complex ecological issues, rather than education limited to instruction and knowledge transfer (Sandri 2013). The design of our creative exercise relied on mind map methods as they are dynamic, activity-based, participatory, and support systems thinking, which is an essential domain of sustainability competences (Palmberg & al. 2017). Mind-map method helps to activate participants and organize individual and collective mental activity (Mautenbaev, 2018). Open debate (ice breaker): What is the problem? → Objective & status of the implementation. → What is the intervention and what does it aim to have impact on or change? (What is the problem?) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 21 of 84 Participants collaboratively created a mind map of the connections with the help of the facilitator’s questions: How do they have an impact? Why? How are the interventions and their aims interconnected and connected to different challenges and stakeholders? How does the intervention relate to or connect with sustainability in your school or university? What aspects facilitated the intervention? What did not work? An example from Finland regarding school lunches was provided to help participants grasp the concept. https://mappa.fi/materiaalit/kouluruoan-yhteydet In the final debate, participants concluded how the interventions and their aims are interconnected and connected to different challenges and stakeholders. Next, to enrich the evidence and stimulate further thinking on sustainability, the research team presented the results of the short survey in SCT3 and the facilitator engaged participants in an open debate on their impressions and reactions to the results. Creative exercise on CONNECTIONS: mind map The aim of this exercise is to think together, to make visible connections and different perspectives to sustainability, to elevate collective understanding of the problems and possible ways to change the situation through interventions → What kind of issues have impact on or interfere in the intervention and its object? How they have an impact? Why? → How the interventions and their aims are interconnected and connected to different challenges and different stakeholders? Participants are invited to create a mind map together in a big paper or a board, using words, colours, and pictures. They also take a photo of their collective drawing. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 22 of 84 At the end of the discussion, and in order to track possible changes (or not) in the sustainability conceptions, participants were asked to repeat the short survey. Participants were informed about the next steps in the hybrid participatory process, and finally, as in all our SCT and SCC meetings, to check the quality of the session as a participatory and deliberative process, participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire based on Rowe & Frewer's evaluation criteria (Rowe & Frewer, 2000). Sustainability Competence Committee Session 4 (SCC4): In SCC4, the wider education community in each DS (NGOs, relevant public and private sector organisations, etc.) will continue to monitor the interventions, deepen the framing of the problem and the connections between everyday school life and sustainability (CONNECTIONS), and develop proposals to further improve the interventions. Figure 7: Structure of SCC4 As in SCC3, to encourage the deliberative process of reflection among the wider educational community, each DS, in close collaboration with the research team, selected the interventions to be discussed with them, on this occasion using the mind maps elaborated in SCT4. As there are up to three SCT4 sessions in each DS (one with students, one with teachers and one with staff), there could be up to three mind maps per intervention. In this way, the research teams helped the DS to prepare the materials to be discussed in SCC4. In those DS where the creative exercises of teachers, pupils and staff focused on the same Sustainability conceptions: open debate (linking SCT3 & SCT4) → Do the visions and conceptions on sustainability change or do they remain the same? Why? → What are the main arguments underlying current (or part) visions or conceptions of sustainability? → Do the changes relate to the ECF4CLIM participatory process and/or interventions? Sustainability Competence Committees Session 4 Welcome (5’) Description of the selected intervention(s) (10’) Main findings from SCTs4: creative exercise. (45’) How to improve further (25’) Farewell and next steps (5’) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 23 of 84 intervention, the research team presented all their mind maps, highlighting similarities and differences in terms of strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. Figure 8: Creative exercise al SCT4 Where the creative exercises at SCT4s focused on more than one intervention (as in the example above), the research team produced a single mind map for each intervention, showing the main similarities and differences in terms of strengths and weaknesses. In fact, this required prior analysis by the research team. The meeting began with a brief presentation of the selected mind maps by the research team, followed by an open discussion of initial impressions and expectations. Next, to encourage further reflection and to actively involve the wider educational community in the monitoring of the interventions, participants engaged in a new concept mapping exercise (oval mapping) on practical ways to improve the interventions. Open debate: impressions and reactions on CONNECTIONS (links with SCT4) → Are the connections meaningful to you? Why? → Anything/anyone especially relevant or remarkable? → Is there anything missing? What? → Is there anything that surprised you? Why? H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 24 of 84 Participants wrote down up to three suggestions for improving the interventions. Participants were informed about the next steps in the hybrid participatory process, and to conclude, as in all our SCT and SCC meetings, to check the quality of the session as a participatory and deliberative process, participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire based on Rowe & Frewer's evaluation criteria (Rowe & Frewer, 2000). Besides this methodological guidance for each SCT and SCC sessions, and in line with the suggestions by the reviewers in the 1st reporting period, simple observational protocols were designed and facilitated to the research teams in the different countries. The objective is capturing ethnographic elements to promote contextualization and facilitate the transfer, the flexibility and, in case of need, the re-adaptation of the methods and tools (Lynch, 2002). Figure 9: Observation protocols 4. DATA GATHERING Once the methodological guide was ready, we organised three training sessions with partners to familiarise them with all the tools and methods, and to invite them to express their views and concerns and to suggest changes to the practical implementation in each DS. The training sessions took place on 22/02/2024 (SCT3 Oval map: practical ways to improve the interventions If the intervention would take place again in the next school term…. → What would you change? What would you do differently? → Who else should be involved? How? → What would you do the same? Why? H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 25 of 84 training session); 30/04/2024 (SCC3 training session) and 29/05/2024 (SCT4 and SCC4 training sessions). Figure 10: Training session Throughout 2024 and up to the date of this report, 62 meetings of our Sustainability Competence Teams and Committees, Sessions 3 and 4, have taken place, involving 543 students, teachers, staff and other members of the wider educational community. Table 2: SCTs and SCCs 3 & 4 meetings and participants The task leaders provided specific reporting templates for each SCT/SCC meeting, illustrated with examples of reports from research teams including social scientists. Number of meetings Number of participants SCT3 25 216 144 students; 51 teachers; 21 staff SCC3 9 81 SCT4 22 195 134 students; 48 teachers; 13 staff SCC4 6 51 TOTAL 62 543 H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 32 of 84  Short surveys, especially those on sustainability, proved useful in understanding the evolution of participants' ideas and setting the tone for the meetings. However, some of the questions were difficult for participants to answer and there were instances where children copied answers from each other or discussed their answers with friends rather than answering them individually. This has led some participants to favour group discussions rather than completing the surveys individually.  The evaluation questionnaire used at the end of the workshops is easy to complete and allows participants to reflect on what they have learnt. However, some participants, particularly children, have found it repetitive and somewhat boring, especially as they have completed similar forms in the past. In some cases, participants even skipped questions or did not answer because they felt redundant. In addition, certain questions, especially the first one, could be misunderstood by the participants. To summarise, the participatory process was successful in terms of promoting engagement, reflection, and deliberation on the interventions as well as on stimulating critical thinking. Creating spaces for interactions and discussions is specially valued by the research teams in ECF4CLIM. Even though there is still room for improvement, especially in terms of flexibility, time management, and sensitivity to the different contexts. Suggestions for improving the process include emphasising the flexibility of the process, improving time expectations by arranging meeting dates early, and allowing more time for open discussion. To this end, and in line with the principles of participatory action research, the methodological strategy will be adapted and iteratively constructed throughout the project. 5.2. Preliminary evidence on drivers and barriers As mentioned above, our SCT/SCCs 3 & 4 encourage reflection on the ongoing interventions and on how they may affect sustainability competences in each demonstration site. In this section, we present preliminary findings on the impact of the interventions on individual and collective competences and, more specifically, on the drivers and barriers to such competences. With regard to the interventions, for very practical reasons (i.e. available time at the SCT/SCC meetings) it was not possible to discuss all of them in each DS (which ranged from three to six depending on the site). Therefore, the research teams, in close collaboration with the DS representatives, selected the two or three that they considered most relevant or that they wanted to discuss at the SCT meetings. Table 3 shows the list of interventions selected for reflection in each DS. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 33 of 84 Table 3. List of selected interventions by DS Country Educative Centre Analysed Interventions (SCT3 & SCT4) Finland Juhannuskylä school Vegan tasting and vegetarian food (SCT3) Engaging students and the whole school through awareness raising and positive behaviour campaign: Change goods recycling day (SCT4) Clean environment & promoting effective use of resources: Art supplies storage room rearranged [only teachers] (SCT4) Samke High School Recycling (SCT3) Campaigning on sustainable transport [only teachers] (SCT4) University of Jyväskylä Sustainability curriculum development work (SCT3) Portugal Bobadela school Taking care of a river section (SCT3) Waste Separation Competition (SCT3) Camarate school Quinta do Charco (SCT3) Waste Separation Competition (SCT3) Romania Dragasani school Solar panels (SCT3 & SCT4) Educational programme on solar energy (SCT3) Sercaia School Solar panels (SCT3) Educational programme on solar energy (SCT3) Mioveni High school Infrastructure improvement: water sensors at sanitary rooms (SCT3 & SCT4) Educational programme on water saving (SCT3) Pitesti University Course development: “Sustainability in the context of technological changes” (SCT3 & SCT4) Improvement of infrastructure: installing smart sensors to the water in toilets (SCT3) Spain Mozart school Second-had market (SCT3) Umbralejo Field Trip (SCT3) Visit to the municipal composting and recycling plant & promotion of sustainable work in the school garden' (SCT4) Itaca High School Action plan for the proper use of waste bins in the school (SCT3) Participation in environmental training programmes. Sustainability awareness (SCT3) Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) Facilitate transversal learning spaces (SCT3 & SCT4) Improve thermal insulation (SCT3) The interventions in Table 3 deal with different topics, ranging from environmental improvements (such as water or energy saving, renewable electricity production, sustainable mobility, improving biodiversity or waste management) to information campaigns and training activities on sustainability. Often, environmental interventions are linked to debates, discussions or exercises to be carried out in the classroom, with the aim of raising awareness and giving students the opportunity to reflect on their implications and consequences in terms of sustainability. It is important to note that the initial expectation at some of our DS was that the environmental improvements could have an impact on the individual and collective H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 34 of 84 competences of pupils and schools. Let's see what the evidence says. To this end, we outline below the drivers and barriers for sustainability competences as identified in SCT/SCC 3 and 4. 5.2.1. Individual competences In ECF4CLIM, we conceptualize sustainability competences ‘as the abilities to act in an appropriate way to achieve sustainability goals successfully and efficiently’. This general definition applies to both the individual and the collective competences2. Individual competences refer to the ‘development of a combination of personal qualities and qualifications’, that is, the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that individuals need in order to achieve certain goals through their actions and activities (Vare, 2022). In our case, such goals are promoting sustainability and planetary wellbeing (JYU, Wisdom community 2021). Individual competences are one of the three main aspects of our roadmap towards sustainability3 and refer to the individuals’ inner, personal qualities and abilities. We now present the range of factors that seem to promote or hinder sustainability competences from an individual perspective, based on the qualitative analysis of the SCT reports produced by the research teams at each DS. → Drivers for individual competences Experiencing our hybrid participatory approach seems to be the main driver of individual competences for sustainability, especially among students. This includes factors such as group meetings, teamwork and collective discussion of environmental interventions and sustainability issues at the DS. Experiencing the co-decision process encourages students to think about sustainability (valuing sustainability) and helps them to realise that their involvement can change and improve things. a) Participation in group discussions and teamwork Participation in SCTs seems to have an empowering effect on students, increasing their sense of doing something for sustainability (collective action, individual initiative, in GreenComp terms). Students perceive teamwork as a form of action. In a way, the hybrid participatory approach helps to change perceptions, as what seemed impossible may now be possible. "After the intervention, some students are more aware of the power of a group to do something together". (Sercaia School, Romania). 2 See D4.1 for the assessment of collective competences. 3 See D3.3. for the development of an initial ECF H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 35 of 84 In some cases, even though the intervention did not work as well as desired, there was student engagement and satisfaction. This is well described in the SCT report from Juhannuskylä School (Finland): "Not everything went as planned. For example, the vegetarian market day at the primary school was a little different from what the children would have liked: it wasn't as big as planned and the group of children didn't have many days to prepare; it was done in one day, from baking to the end. Nevertheless, it was a successful day for the children. One pupil said: "I didn't think it was possible, but it was". This experience was also important for the teachers". (Juhannuskylä School, Finland). Besides, participating in SCTs allows students to develop their own opinions and express them freely, while also facilitating the experience of being heard. This point is highlighted in several reports. For example, the SCT report from Bobadela School (Portugal), states: "Unlike previous SCTs, where students tended to copy three or four sentences that someone shared aloud and did not elaborate further, this SCT was different. Everyone wanted to talk, argue, and discuss each other's ideas. We believe this was due to their high level of involvement in the activities. Students expressed a sense of being able to communicate their thoughts to the research team while also feeling heard. This aligns with the idea that their opinions should be valued and acknowledged by teachers." (Bobadela School, Portugal). A similar experience was reported at Mozart School (Spain), where, according to the SCT report, students became more aware of sustainability issues and adopted more proactive attitudes through their participation in established groups. "Students discovered their potential to save water and reduce CO2 emissions. They expressed their willingness to actively engage in the next edition of the second-hand market." (Mozart School, Spain). b) Students’ experience of communicating and being heard Students expressed a strong sense of being able to share their thoughts while also feeling genuinely heard which aligns with the "action" dimensions of the GreenComp framework. On one hand, participation in small peer groups (with fellow students and no teachers) creates a safe space for students to voice opinions they might not feel comfortable sharing in other contexts. This environment fosters a broader exchange of ideas and deeper reflection, ultimately contributing to the enhancement of students' H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 36 of 84 competences. On the other hand, participation in plenary sessions with representatives from various sectors or entities (such as SCCs) enables students to feel heard by the educational institution. This has an empowering effect, encouraging greater involvement and a deeper understanding of the factors influencing the sustainability of the school. "Students expressed a sense of being able to communicate their thoughts to the research team while also feeling heard. This aligns with the idea that their opinions should be valued and acknowledged by teachers." (Bobadela School, Portugal). c) Discussing intervention results and data in the classroom According to the teachers involved in the SCTs, one of the most effective strategies for enhancing individual sustainability competences among students is bringing the results and data from interventions into classroom discussions. This approach facilitates the assessment of sustainability, aligning with the GreenComp framework. “The discussion of these data within the framework of a subject or during a debate organized specifically for this purpose serves to enhance the students' skills.” (Bobadela School, Portugal). “Teachers state that understanding the value of results (such as electricity savings, increased school knowledge, and sustainability awareness) helps students’ better grasp the complexity of sustainability and improves their knowledge of the topic.” (Dragasani School, Romania). d) Performing activities outside the classroom Engaging students in learning activities outside the classroom significantly enhances their interest, motivation, and knowledge—at least according to the teachers’ perspectives. “This type of free, home-based activity outside of school leaves a lasting impression on students and helps shift their thinking and attitudes.” (Bobadela School, Portugal). At Camarate School (Portugal), one of the interventions led to the creation and arrangement of a natural space near the school, Quinta do Charco, aimed at enhancing biodiversity and serving as both an educational and recreational space. According to the teachers, students expressed a strong desire to actively participate: H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 37 of 84 “(...) They want to use the space in the future not only for classes but also for leisure. They also want to take care of the space. The area acts as a vehicle for teaching about nature, sustainability, and responsibility.” (Camarate School, Portugal). → Barriers for individual competences In this section, we report on individual barriers that are primarily rooted in the human nature of the individuals involved in our SCTs. However, it should be noted that many of these barriers also have a collective, organisational or contextual nature, which will be analysed in the following section. a) Individualistic thinking Students often tend to attribute sustainability deficits to the poor attitudes or behaviours of others, rarely acknowledging contextual barriers. “The children focused mainly on individual skills and not so much on collective ones. They talk a lot about wrong attitudes or lack of knowledge on the part of some members of the school community, especially other students.” (Bobadela and Camarate Schools, Portugal). b) Age group According to the SCT reports, younger students tend to show higher levels of attention and interest in sustainability issues. “The influences will have an age-driven effect, as attention and interest seem to be higher for younger students.” (Mioveni High School). However, as students grow older, it appears increasingly difficult to engage them in sustainability topics, even within the SCTs. In the case of the universities involved in the project, establishing long-term discussion groups proves especially challenging. Students' motivation declines rapidly as their schedules fill with numerous academic and extracurricular tasks. As will be discussed in the next section, several contextual factors contribute to these challenges, particularly in relation to collective competencies. c) Students’ Habits and Preferences In some cases, lack of reading habits among students emerges as a barrier to engagement with sustainability issues. “Some students do not like to read too much, which prevents engagement. Even if the material is very interesting, some students will ignore it because they simply do not like to read.” (Dragasani School, Romania) H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 38 of 84 Interventions involving contests and awards seem to work well in many cases. However, it is observed that some students' interest is driven more by the attractiveness of the award than by the sustainability goals themselves. “The implementation of one of the interventions was based on the design and application of the regulation of flags, through which students observe how habits are changing. As a result, many feel that at the group level, they are gaining a culture of waste management through participatory learning. This regulation, implemented by the environmental coordinators, involves the entire class. However, some students complain that they do not want to recycle mainly because they do not find the award sufficiently attractive. They confessed that a significant part of their interest lies in the appeal of the reward.” (Itaca High School, Spain) While this approach promotes sustainability through “collective competencies,” it also affects the acquisition of individual competencies. It highlights that certain individual factors determine whether reward-based strategies succeed with some students but fail with others. d) Teachers’ resistance Individual actors that hinder the development of sustainability competencies are also observed among teaching staff. Several SCT reports highlight the presence of teachers who personally resist adopting new and innovative practices, thereby limiting progress toward sustainability. This resistance is often attributed to the entrenched routines common in educational institutions, which are notoriously difficult to change. This observation points us toward collective competencies, where we find the factors that sustain routines that fail to adequately address sustainability. According to our analysis, collective competencies appear to represent the primary constraints to the development of individual sustainability competencies. These factors are explored in the following section. 5.2.2. Collective competences In ECF4CLIM we conceptualise collective competences as the set of enabling and constraining characteristics that condition the ability of a community or organisation to function in a way that promotes sustainable development and to prepare younger generations for behaviours that promote such a goal. We have identified three types of collective competences: H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 39 of 84  Regulatory competences (external to the organisation: Derived from written rules (laws, regulations) that specify how sustainable development is to be considered and promoted - and by whom.  Normative competences (internal to the organisation): Norms and values reflected and institutionalised in the organisation's own strategies, action programmes, plans, guidelines, performance agreements with authorities at different levels of government, etc.  Cultural-cognitive competences: related to the internalisation of regulative and normative competences as taken-for-granted social norms of normal and acceptable behaviour; translation of regulative and normative competences into the organisation's operating culture, daily routines, habits and practices, e.g. schools. → Drivers for collective competences The main drivers for collective competences relate to the profiles of the teachers, the schools and the interventions carried out in our DS. In addition, the characteristics of our hybrid participatory approach to promote reflection and support the co-design of interventions seem to facilitate progress towards sustainability competences (from a collective point of view). a) Teacher profiles (interdisciplinarity, motivation, commitment) Motivated teachers, predisposed to work for sustainability, emerge as a key driver for the development of the interventions and, therefore, of sustainability competences in the demonstration sites. Although they seem to be a minority in each school, they are quite active. They tend to come from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, which is very positive for the development of sustainability education activities. The most involved teachers frequently have an interdisciplinary profile. “Different teachers have different strengths: some come up with a lot of ideas, others are good at concrete practical things. Different teachers are in charge of different interventions, and they come from different disciplines: maths, physics, chemistry, languages, biology, geography, history, primary teachers, special education, social studies, student counselling. The point is that whenever someone asks for help there are always volunteers". (Juhannuskylä School, Finland). One way to increase interdisciplinarity among teachers is to organise training courses on sustainability. When tried, it seems to have worked well. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 40 of 84 "The sustainability training was important for the person in charge of the teacher team. (Juhannuskylä School, Finland). There are always (a few) teachers who are able to involve not only pupils but also their families. This supports the promotion of sustainability competences. "This team involves both students and parents, not just teachers." (Juhannuskylä School, Finland). b) School profiles (leadership, commitment, new rules, network membership) Teachers' leadership and commitment especially that of the headteacher, is key to promoting sustainability in the demonstration sites. "A good team leader who keeps reminding us of these things is important." (Juhannuskylä School, Finland). Some interventions have succeeded in establishing new sustainability rules shared by the whole educational community (e.g. in recycling competitions, water saving, etc.). This helps not only the development of the intervention but also its maintenance over time. "It requires a rethinking of resources: how to save water for irrigation, what to plant in the garden and what to do with these vegetables, among other things. It will be a space that can be part of the curriculum of the special education class, for which there will need to be well-established rules and regulations". (Camarate School, Portugal). "They [the students] highlighted very clearly that the main driving force for them to implement a waste management procedure was the establishment of rules". (Itaca Secondary School, Spain). In other cases, it has not yet been possible to create new rules, but the intention is to institutionalise some of the activities carried out in order to make them permanent or periodic. In a way, the institutionalisation of interventions, even if only partial, is an indicator of change in the organisation, showing progress towards sustainability. "They [the students] clearly emphasised the need to institutionalise the activity." (Mozart School, Spain). The school's membership of green school networks (e.g. eco-schools) facilitates the development of and commitment to sustainability activities. In fact, several of the demonstration sites seem to engage with the interventions and the SCTs and SCCs H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 41 of 84 precisely because they want to join these eco-school networks or because they are looking for ways to stay in them. "This action is used to create curriculum content. The school and its community, as long as they are members of the UNESCO Blue School Programme, are responsible for this stretch of river. This responsibility contributes to changing values and strengthening the culture of sustainability in the school". (Bobadela School, Portugal). "What stood out was the fact that the school is involved in several environmental projects (including ECF4CLIM) and is an eco-school, which opens the door to raising awareness among more people". (Camarate School, Portugal). "Trying to achieve the goals of the Green School is a good enabler" (Dragasani School, Romania). "Green week (school event)". (Dragasani School, Romania). "Becoming a recognised prosumer school can influence a lot in its modernisation (the economy will be a driver), but also the reduction of the carbon footprint will support our efforts to become a green school (to be certified as a green school)". (Sercaia School, Romania). c) The nature of the interventions According to the SCT and SCC reports, some of the interventions could influence (and even help to change) teaching practices. For example, demonstrative interventions could help to set realistic priorities because of the measurability of the impacts. "Teachers understand the limitations of resources (money, time, staff) and need to think more about prioritisation. The interventions can help for a realistic prioritisation as impacts can be measured (instead of a rough estimation)". (Dragasani School, Romania). "The solar panels and the recognition of the school as a pro-summer can help a lot, not only to reduce the environmental impact, but also to extend the infrastructure intervention." (Dragasani School, Romania). Another element that seems to help promote sustainability competences is the complementarity of different interventions in the same centre. These are usually a variety of interventions in different spheres: individual, collective or environmental. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 48 of 84 e) Difficulties in involving other stakeholders (such as families or neighbours) The school sometimes finds it difficult to communicate with other stakeholders and involve them in sustainability activities. It is difficult to get information flowing and the relationship with external actors is not easy. This can be an obstacle to promote sustainability competences, as transdisciplinarity becomes a key issue. "Communication with parents is difficult, but not only when it comes to the SecondHand market (one of the interventions at the school). There is an App to communicate with parents, but it's not a success. The teachers agree that parents are "too busy" to be aware of what is happening in the school. That's why they decided to postpone the next flea market". (Mozart School, Spain). "They [the teachers] are aware of the general context of greening, global warming, creating green schools (as a basis for future education). However, there is a local resistance to change, which comes from the local community's habits. (Sercaia School, Romania). f) General context (social, economic, political) adverse to sustainability The SCTs also refer to the difficulties of teaching and living in an unsustainable society. In this sense, society outside the school is perceived as an obstacle, as well as politics and politicians, who tend to create a framework that is unfavourable to sustainability. "The pupils' opinions integrate the context of the school, the city and society. They criticised the inaction and false actions of politicians and some groups". (Sercaia School, Romania). "Pupils understand the context of modern society; there are different forces for and against sustainability. More awareness and empowerment are needed. (Pitesti University, Romania). g) Lack of technical training In some cases, a lack of specialised information or technical knowledge is cited as an obstacle to the development of interventions and therefore to their sustainability. This is particularly true for environmental interventions. "Lack of information, such as some technical misunderstandings, fear of maintenance, fear of bureaucracy in the case of a pro-summing option (solar panels)". (Dragasani School, Romania). H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 49 of 84 "The lack of knowledge (how to do it) was mentioned as another constraint, together with the low level of confidence in technological changes." (Sercaia School, Romania). "It was not possible to carry out certain activities due to the lack of technical staff with sufficient knowledge and time to install certain equipment (sensors, etc.)". (UAB, Spain). 5.3. Reflecting on the roadmap: engagement At the SCT3 meetings, participants were asked to reflect on "how to engage" people in sustainability in their schools or universities. Engagement is one of the main dimensions identified by GreenComp and in our Roadmap. To this end, each DS chose one intervention (the one they considered most relevant) and the participants discussed the engagement of the different actors of the educational community: who had participated, with what intensity, who should have been there, what was the result, etc. In most cases, engagement emerges as a crucial issue for the success of our interventions. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for such interventions to change or improve the sustainability competences of the students and the school or university. They could improve environmental sustainability, but without affecting pedagogical competences. The analysis of the SCT3 reports allowed us to draw the following conclusions. As there are considerable differences in the engagement of students, teachers and staff, we have divided the presentation of the results according to the profile of the participants. 5.3.1. Engaging students in sustainability The project identified several factors that facilitate and/or hinder student engagement in sustainability interventions. Firstly, student engagement was quite high in all cases, although it was not always possible to involve the right number of students or the desired types of students. In addition, it is often difficult to maintain student interest and motivation over time. "Students are very keen to take part. They are convinced of the value for education and they will try to contribute". (Mioveni High School, Romania). "Students seem to be really involved in a process to improve sustainability. Even if they are not very communicative, sometimes shy, they show a real reflection on the problems". (Sercaia School, Romania). H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 50 of 84 "Some of the students (about half) were really involved in the process, the others seemed to be more passive. (...) The engaged students are mainly interested in future jobs". (Pitesti University, Romania). "The challenge will always be to keep people involved for a long time and to convince other members of the school community who do not participate in school activities beyond their compulsory work". (Camarate School, Portugal). According to our empirical evidence, the following aspects are critical to improving engagement. a) Social relations between students Pupils are encouraged to participate if their friends participate. Participation is a collective phenomenon. Social relations are key motivating factors for students. "We promoted reflection on motivational profiles and found out how teachers' and students' motivational profiles differ - how peers & social relations are very relevant for students". (Samke High School, Finland). There is close collaboration between students from different disciplines around the same sustainability project: "A significant part of the intervention depends on the work and collaboration of students from other faculties (e.g. architecture). This dependency is perceived as both a driver and a barrier. While the students' availability and enthusiasm are assets, their lack of professional experience and their academic commitments are challenges". (ITS University, Portugal). There are interventions that can bring together students from different schools: "Umbralejo [an educational mountain village where students have gone on excursions] is perceived as an opportunity to interact not only with peers and teachers (you leave together in an unusual way), but also with children from other schools." (Mozart School, Spain). b) The opportunity to have a voice and a choice Having a voice emerges as one of the main drivers of engagement. Engaged students expect their voices to be heard and their suggestions to be taken into account. There is evidence that working in a team helps students to feel that their opinions are relevant and that they are valued by others (SCC3). H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 51 of 84 "It is important for the participants to talk to each other and find solutions together; they feel that their opinions are relevant and valued by others. There is a feeling of group and unity working together for the sustainability of the school, and, this way, interventions like this, with complicated logistics, are successful and last over time." (Bobadela School, Portugal). Related to this, the perception of a real ability to influence the decision-making process is crucial in terms of commitment. "In our SCT3, participants felt that their opinions were relevant and valued by others, and that their ideas would ultimately improve the next edition of the Second-Hand market and therefore the sustainability of the school." (Mozart School, Spain). Tailoring activities to pupils' schedules and interests seems like a good idea. In fact, there are different individual interests among the students that need to be reconciled, and the hybrid participatory process in the ECF4CLIM project has made it possible "Enabling students' involvement: adapting the group's action plan to the limited time and students' interests. Inviting friends to participate". (Samke High School, Finland). In this context, the experience of having a good time is very stimulating and helps to keep students engaged. Interventions and activities should be designed with this in mind. "In particular, having fun emerged as a driver for engagement." (Mozart School, Spain). c) Breaking the classroom routine Interventions that break the classroom routine seem to be successful in terms of student engagement. "They [students] consider this type of intervention as a different way of learning, which, by getting out of the daily routine of the classroom, makes them more motivated and attentive to get the most out of the experience." (Itaca High School, Spain). There are different ways to break routines. One is to organise activities outside school (excursions, visits to places of interest, etc.). Another is to introduce challenges and competitions into the school dynamic. Competitions, prizes and awards can stimulate pupils' engagement. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 52 of 84 "The competition associated with this intervention has led to a high level of student engagement (according to the teachers)". (Bobadela School, Portugal). "They [the students] stressed the strong influence of the prize (for better recycling) as a motivational aid." (Itaca High School, Spain). "This recycling competition is perceived as an opportunity to engage with colleagues, teachers and staff (...) They [the students] also believe that the more colleagues participate in the competition, the easier it is for them to continue recycling in their daily lives and to take these lessons home." (Camarate School, Portugal) Visits to nature parks, forests or places of environmental quality could help students to engage with nature and foster a sense of being part of it. "There are interventions that have helped students to feel part of nature." (Mozart School, Spain). 5.3.2. Engaging teachers in sustainability Effective engagement strategies include not only encouraging student participation, but also ensuring ongoing support from teachers and staff. In general, students tend to be more willing to participate. The most challenging is involving teachers (beyond the minority who are already convinced). "Without greater commitment, more and better communication and more motivated teachers willing to collaborate (students say there are few), the activity may work because students will always make the request, but it will have no effect on their attitudes and future ways of thinking." (Bobadela School, Portugal). "The wider involvement of teachers, beyond those directly involved in the SCTs, is the crucial point." (Mozart School, Spain). "The wider involvement of teachers, beyond those directly involved in SCT, is the critical issue. Teachers often mentioned that it is difficult to involve more colleagues and that they do not show interest. They even avoid asking about the interventions because they don't want to be invited to participate". (Camarate School, Portugal). "The involvement of teachers is modest, with the exception of the teacher in contact with ECF4CLIM. It seems that they have other priorities; they are very busy and not open to make special efforts for sustainability". (Pitesti University, Romania). H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 53 of 84 The challenge is to keep people involved for a long time. Some teachers were very involved at the beginning, but after a short time, they stop or other priorities come up. "Teachers played an important role in the first phase of the project, known as "Semana Relâmpago". Since then, however, their involvement has diminished. This is an obstacle" (ITS University, Portugal). There are cases where teachers have been more involved. Perhaps this reflects different organisational and academic cultures between countries and/or demonstration sites. "The discussion reflects a good engagement of all teachers. They are convinced of the value of working with ECF4CLIM and teacher involvement is seen as a key step. Even if there are some time constraints (busy schedule of the school) they are eager to contribute". (Dragasani School, Romania). "Teachers' commitment seems to be at a good level. They expressed their willingness to contribute to the improvement of the educational material, to test it and to use it to create some new lessons". (Sercaia School, Romania). → Suggestions for improving engagement: The reports contain a number of suggestions for increasing teacher engagement. For example, creating a context that promotes mutual support among teachers is a good way to encourage their involvement in sustainability projects. It is also good to ensure that everyone finds his or her role in the whole, which requires good team coordination. "A good atmosphere, support from colleagues, finding a personally suitable role and tasks within the group are good conditions for teachers' involvement. (Juhannuskylä School, Finland). It seems that the creation of working committees or commissions in educational centres consisting of several teachers (in addition to pupils and staff) can be a good strategy. Clear leadership is needed to make them dynamic in the long run. "Effective engagement strategies should aim to create a cohesive and motivated team committed to the common goal of advancing sustainability projects within the university." (ITS University, Portugal). In some cases, the participation of some of the most involved teachers has been rewarded (financially) to ensure that they can devote time and effort to promoting sustainability. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 54 of 84 "Good atmosphere among teachers. Two teachers receive financial compensation for their responsibility to lead the teacher and student teams". (Samke High School, Finland). In short, the commitment of teachers does not only depend on their more or less predisposition, but above all on organisational and institutional factors related to the culture of the education centre. However, their commitment can be strengthened by seeking mutual support and resources to get involved. 5.3.3. Engaging school staff in sustainability The commitment of the staff is important, with a plus for the principal. Principals should be supportive of the project and committed to its success. "The discussion reflects a fair engagement of the staff, with a special interest of the principals." (Dragasani School, Romania). "The involvement of the staff is significant, with a plus for the principal. They are aware of the importance of the educational material to have more impact in relation to the solar panels. (Dragasani School, Romania). "Separating waste and sending it for recycling may seem simple, but it requires several steps and involves several actors within the school. Everyone has to be involved and take responsibility. (Bobadela School, Portugal). After the start of the interventions, staff seem to be more willing to get involved. "The administrative staff is very involved. After the implementation of the solar panels, they are more confident in the interventions. They appreciate working with the ECF4CLIM team. It seems that they are determined to contribute more". (Sercaia School, Romania). The commitment of the staff is fair, with a particular interest of the principals. The principal is most interested in the values transmitted by the educational programme. Sometimes they make their future support dependent on seeing the results of the project. "Adequate commitment of the staff to this action. The principal is most interested in the values transmitted by the educational programme". (Mioveni High School, Romania). H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 55 of 84 "The engagement of the staff is fair, with a special interest of the principals. (...) There is an interest in longer term cooperation, but depending on the real results". (Pitesti University, Romania). In some cases, the director's position is more ambiguous, which reinforces the idea that his commitment is essential. "The principal, although always interested and open to ideas, has an authoritative attitude. For every issue raised, the director responds with a counter-argument and tries to quickly refute any criticism". (Bobadela School, Portugal). Replicating (and institutionalising) the interventions would stimulate the engagement of the wider educational community. "The students felt that the market should be institutionalised: holding it regularly could help to increase the involvement of the whole educational community." (Mozart School, Spain). However, engagement requires a good organisational capacity on the part of the school management, something that cannot be improvised and should be well planned, with adequate resources and well distributed responsibilities. "This school is full of projects and initiatives that show interest and willingness to participate, but it seems to us that there is sometimes a lack of organisational capacity. Communication needs to be improved". (Bobadela School, Portugal). One of the things that good organisation and planning should address is time allocation. Lack of time and very tight schedules are recurring problems at all demonstration sites. "Lack of time and very tight schedules are the main collective challenge." (Samke High School, Finland). "It was a big problem to involve people who have no interest or time resources for collaboration, but very tight working schedules." (University of Jyväskylä, Finland). 5.3.4. Engaging actors outside the school Throughout the group discussions of the SCTs, the need to extend sustainability beyond the boundaries of the DS is a recurring theme. Sustainability is perceived as something that needs to be linked to its social and territorial context. Therefore, other local actors, H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 56 of 84 external to the school, should be involved to effectively carry out educational sustainability projects. "Engaging with external actors, integrating their views and needs is crucial; without their active involvement, this intervention cannot happen. Communication and cooperation with other institutions is essential". (Mozart School, Spain). "This activity involves the whole school, including students, teachers, staff, school management and parents' associations. And only by involving all these actors from the beginning will there be a sense of belonging that will lead them to maintain the space for many years to come". (Camarate School, Portugal). "Involvement is seen in three ways: (1) the educational community of DS (students, teachers and staff), (2) parents, citizens and decision makers, (3) other schools. All of them are considered crucial to transform the intervention into a more fruitful one". (Dragasani School, Romania). Involving families seems to be one of the key objectives. "It is important to involve the parents so that the students do not lose what they have learned at school at home. Communication and collaboration are important". (Camarate School, Portugal). Local authorities should also be involved in the process of promoting sustainability in education. "There is a determination to use the DS to convince local decision-makers for better support in the activities to improve the sustainability performance of the school". (Mioveni High School, Romania). Other schools in the area are also key actors to be involved in the interventions, especially in order to disseminate the experience and replicate it in other educational centres. "The involvement of the school community and external bodies is essential for this intervention". (Bobadela School, Portugal). In some cases, the different actors (from the educational community and the territory) have been involved in thinking about how to extend the experience to other schools in the area (and perhaps to municipal buildings). H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 57 of 84 "This involvement is seen as very important in order to move from the demonstration phase to widespread implementation. The SCC provided an opportunity to share experiences of implementing similar interventions in different contexts. The solar panels were implemented in Dragasani (small town) and Sercaia (village) with some specificities in terms of the size of the educational communities, the relationship with local stakeholders and the involvement of parents". (Dragasani school, Romania). In some cases, there have been difficulties in organising interventions outside the school, as it is necessary to coordinate with other bodies that cannot always adapt to the needs of the school. "At the external level, the continued commitment of the Umbralejo institution is essential. If they do not facilitate planning and logistics, it will be very difficult for the school to continue with future editions of this experience". (Mozart School, Spain) 5.4. Reflecting on the roadmap: connections "Connections" is step 2 of our roadmap to sustainability and links with the GreenComp competence area "Embracing complexity in sustainability". In schools and other educational institutions, everyday life flows through isolated situations and the holistic nature of issues is difficult to grasp. Without recognising the connections and underlying assumptions, it is impossible to find the root causes and frame the problems in a satisfactory way. To collectively define the problem (How to frame the problem?), it is also important to understand the different perspectives on sustainability and how our context and cultural background shape the way we see the problems and our knowledge about these issues. To encourage further reflection and deliberation, participants in SCT4 engaged in a creative exercise to understand the systemic nature of sustainability activities. The aim of this exercise is to think together, to make visible connections and different perspectives to sustainability, to elevate collective understanding of the problems and possible ways to change the situation through interventions → What kind of issues have impact on or interfere in the intervention and its object? How they have an impact? Why? → How are the interventions and their aims interconnected and connected to different challenges and stakeholders? Participants created a mind map together in a big paper or a board, using words, colours, and pictures. They also take a photo of their collective drawing. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 64 of 84 level (6 males to 3 females). Portugal displays a relatively balanced distribution at the primary level, with 16 females to 14 males, while Romania shows males slightly outnumbering females at the primary level (23 males to 26 females) and maintaining a lead at the secondary (11 males to 8 females) and university levels (8 males to 4 females). Spain continues the trend of female dominance in primary education (9 females to 4 males) and male predominance at the secondary level (14 males to 10 females), with no representation at the university level. Overall, females dominate primary education, while male representation increases at secondary and university levels, particularly in Romania and Spain. In SCC3, the gender distribution is more imbalanced, with females overwhelmingly dominating across most levels of education. In Finland, females account for 6 participants in primary and secondary education, with no males, and 3 females to 2 males at the university level. Portugal follows a similar pattern, with 14 females to 3 males at the primary level. Romania exhibits more balance, with equal representation in primary education (3 males to 3 females) and near-equal numbers in secondary and university levels. Spain shows a slight male dominance at the primary level (5 males to 4 females), but females predominate in secondary education (5 females to 1 male), with no university-level representation. Across SCC3, the gender imbalance leans heavily toward females, with males having limited representation, especially in higher education levels. In SCC4, Finland shows female predominance at all levels, with 12 females to 2 males in primary and secondary education and equal representation at the university level (2 females to 2 males). Romania exhibits male dominance at the primary level (5 males to 1 female) but shifts to female predominance at the secondary level (4 females to 1 male), with females again being underrepresented at the university level (2 females and no males). Spain provides limited data, showing female dominance at the secondary level (5 females and no males), with no data for primary or university levels. Portugal lacks representation in SCC4. Overall, females continue to dominate, with occasional male predominance at the primary level in Romania. This analysis reveals consistent patterns across datasets. Females dominate overall, both by country and by educational level. Thus, females overwhelmingly dominate primary education levels, particularly in Finland and Portugal, while male representation increases in secondary and university education levels, especially in Romania and Spain. Within this context, the gender dimension will be addressed in the monitoring of interventions (monitoring templates in WP5) and will be specifically considered in the evaluation of interventions (WP6). H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 65 of 84 At this stage of the project, we are analysing gender differences through the short survey on sustainability conceptions. Figure 18. Sustainability models by gender Analysing sustainability models through a gender lens reveals remarkable differences in preferences, which are characterised by different perspectives on socio-ecological issues. Male participants show a balanced preference with a slight rejection of the degrowth model. This pattern indicates a more balanced consideration of the different sustainability models. While the female participants also have different preferences, they have a stronger bias towards the three-pillar model. This preference underlines the emphasis on an approach that harmonises economic, social and environmental goals. Models such as degrowth and Planetary Boundaries receive comparatively fewer responses from female participants, reinforcing a leaning towards frameworks that offer more inclusive solutions. These differences highlight the importance of considering gender perspectives when developing inclusive sustainability strategies H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 66 of 84 6. CONCLUSIONS The findings from Task 5.3 reveal the significant potential of the hybrid participatory approach in achieving the project’s objectives. Firstly, the participatory process has shown a high potential for fostering meaningful engagement within the participating educational communities. This methodology successfully engaged diverse educational communities—students, teachers, staff, and external stakeholders—by fostering collaboration, dialogue, and reflection. Evidence collected from participants and research teams underscores the transformative value of this approach in empowering individuals and groups to develop sustainability competences. Despite challenges such as time constraints, participant turnover, and resistance to change, the participatory process provided a platform for meaningful engagement and action. The participatory method demonstrated its effectiveness through deliberative workshops, short surveys, open debates, concept mapping, visual tools like mind mapping, and structured feedback mechanisms. These tools facilitated interdisciplinary thinking, collaborative problem-solving, and systems-based approaches. For instance, interventions like solar panel installations were connected to academic disciplines such as physics, geography, sociology and economics, enabling participants to understand their broader systemic relevance. Small-group discussions created safe spaces for open expression, fostering trust and engagement, particularly among younger students. From participants' perspectives, the hybrid approach empowered students to become active agents of change. Tangible, hands-on interventions—such as second-hand markets and biodiversity projects—helped connect abstract sustainability concepts to real-world outcomes, enhancing students’ sense of agency and responsibility. Younger students found outdoor activities particularly engaging and motivational, while older students were harder to engage due to academic pressures and competing priorities. Teachers valued the interdisciplinary nature of the interventions, which allowed sustainability to be integrated into diverse subjects, but many-faced challenges in overcoming entrenched routines and rigid institutional structures. Strong leadership from school principals proved critical, as their commitment often determined the success and sustainability of interventions. As for the second objective—generating preliminary evidence on barriers and facilitators to sustainability competences—our participatory approach produced rich empirical insights. At the individual level, experiential learning, teamwork, and participation in decision-making emerged as key drivers of engagement. Students felt empowered when they saw the tangible results of their efforts, and group discussions enhanced their critical thinking and collaboration skills. However, individualistic thinking, an age-related decline in engagement, and teacher resistance to change were H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 67 of 84 notable barriers. At the organisational level, motivated leadership, interdisciplinary teacher cooperation, and membership in networks such as Eco-Schools were crucial enablers. Participatory frameworks like SCTs and SCCs provided structure for reflection and planning, helping schools institutionalise sustainability practices. Structural factors, such as policy alignment and municipal support, also played a critical role, while resource scarcity, social inequalities, and competing priorities sometimes relegated sustainability to a secondary concern. The participatory approach not only highlighted drivers and barriers but also validated the project’s roadmap by collecting valuable reflections on engagement and connections. The flexibility and adaptability of the methodology were crucial in tailoring interventions to local contexts, allowing schools to overcome compartmentalisation and adopt integrated approaches to sustainability education. These findings mark an important first step toward broader systemic action and transformative change in educational communities. 7. DISCUSSION & NEXT STEPS To date, the hybrid participatory process comprising sessions 3 and 4 has effectively achieved its objectives and generated a high level of satisfaction among participants. By fostering an iterative process of continuous learning, the project has successfully identified challenges and adapted to the specific contexts and capacities of each demonstration site. This adaptability has proven to be one of the key strengths of the methodology, allowing it to tackle the complexity of applied transdisciplinary research and tailor interventions to local needs. Building on these successes, the next phases of the consultation process will focus on evaluation. The experience and knowledge gained will help to refine the tools, improve the participatory processes and ensure the continued relevance and impact of the interventions. Through this commitment to continuous reflection and adaptation, Task 5.3 will deepen its contribution to the promotion of sustainability skills and systemic change in educational communities. Ultimately, the findings emphasise that sustainability is not just a subject to be taught, but a practise to be lived, with schools serving as incubators for a more sustainable and equitable future. These principles will guide the project’s continued efforts on SCT5 & 6 to build resilient, engaged and forward-thinking educational communities. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 68 of 84 8. REFERENCES Åhlberg, M. (2013). Concept mapping as an empowering method to promote learning, thinking, teaching and research. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 4(1), pp. 25 –35. Bergmann, M., & Jahn, T. (2008). CITY: mobil: a model for integration in sustainability research. Handbook of transdisciplinary research, 89-102. Bergmann, M., Schäpke, N., Marg, O., Stelzer, F., Lang, D. J., Bossert, M., ... & Sußmann, N. (2021). Transdisciplinary sustainability research in real-world labs: success factors and methods for change. Sustainability Science, 16, 541-564. Clark, C.M.A. (ed.), Institutional Economics and the Theory of Social Value: Essays in Honor of Marc R. Tool. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston, Dordrecht and London. De Perthuis, C., Didier, M., Lehtonen, M. & Duchassaing, S. (2002). Le développement durable: signification et enjeux. Sustainable development: Meaning and Challenges. Groupe Caisse des Dépôts & Le Cercle ces économistes. Paris. Espluga, J., Konrad, W., Mays, C., Oltra, C., Poumadére, M., & Prades, A. (2016). How to address citizens' practices and policies on sustainability? A consultative tool for brokering policy-related knowledge between the worlds of policymaking and everyday citizens' life. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 12(3), 381-404. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Scott, P., Schwartzman, S., & Nowotny, H. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G., & O'Riordan, T. (2007). The GM debate: Risk, politics and public engagement. Routledge Horlick-Jones, T., & Prades, A. (2015). Translating between social worlds of policy and everyday life: The development of a group-based method to support policymaking by exploring behavioural aspects of sustainable consumption. Public Understanding of Science, 24(7), 811-826. Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological economics, 79, 1-10. Kallis, G. (2019). Limits: why Malthus was wrong and why environmentalists should care. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Kemmis, S. K., & McTaggart, R. M. (2014). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Springer. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 69 of 84 Lehtonen, M. (2004). The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics 49(2): 199-214. Lehtonen, M. (2005). Environmental Policy Evaluation in the Service of Sustainable Development: Influence of the OECD Environmental Performance Reviews from the Perspective of Institutional Economics. PhD thesis. Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, France. Lehtonen, M. (2008). Mainstreaming Sustainable Development in the OECD through Indicators and Peer Reviews. Sustainable Development 16(3): 241-250. Lehtonen, M. (2009). OECD organisational discourse, peer reviews and sustainable development: an ecological-institutionalist perspective. Ecological Economics 69(2): 389-397. Lehtonen, M. (forthcoming). Policy relevance and actionability as quality criteria for SDG indicators: doubts and dilemmas. In: Umbach, G. & Tkalec, I. (eds.), The Elgar Companion to Data and Indicators for the Sustainable development Goals. Edward Elgar. Lynch, M. (2022). Garfinkel’s studies of work. The Ethnomethodology Program: Legacies and Prospects, 114-38. Martínez Alier, J. (2002). The Environmentalism of the Poor: A Study of Ecological Conflicts and Valuation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northhampton, MA. Mautenbaev, A. A., Atanbaeva, G. K., Kyrbassova, E. A., Parmanbekova, M. K., Baitasheva, G. U., Ashirova, Z. B., . . . Abdrassulova, Z. T. (2018). Using the Mindmap Method (Associogram) in the Study of Biology. Journal of pharmaceutical sciences and research, 10(12), 3214. Morgan D, Fellows C and Guevara H (2008) Emergent approaches to focus group research. In: Hesse-Biber S and Leavy P (eds) Handbook of Emergent Methods. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 189–205. Nokkala, T., Lehtonen, M., Lehtonen, A., Espluga Trenc, J., Mykrä, N., Heikkinen, H. & Prades Lopez, A. (2024). Collective sustainability competences of universities as a nested institutional space. Higher Education Quarterly. 78(4): https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12552 Ortiz, G., & Climent-Gil, E. (2020). A transdisciplinary framework for environmental impact assessment: Opportunities and resistances among practitioners in Spain. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 81, 106339. Palmberg, I., Hofman-Bergholm, M., Jeronen, E., & Yli-Panula, E. (2017). Systems Thinking for Understanding Sustainability? Nordic Student Teachers’ Views on the Relationship between Species Identification, Biodiversity and Sustainable H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 70 of 84 Development. Education sciences, 7(3), 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci7030072 Prades, A., Espluga, J., & Horlick-Jones, T. (2017). Hybrid Focus Groups as a Means to Investigate Practical Reasoning, Learning Processes and Indigenous Activities. In A New Era in Focus Group Research (pp. 179-204) Palgrave Macmillan, London. ISBN: 978-1-137-58614-8 Prades, A., Horlick-Jones, T., Barnett, J., Constantin, M., Enander, A., Espluga, J., ... & Rosenhead, J. (2016). PACHELBEL/STAVE: Shining a light on citizens’ everyday environment-related behaviours. In Knowledge Brokerage for Sustainable Development (pp. 188-206). Routledge. ISBN 9781783532544 Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, S., Lambin, E. F., ... & Foley, J. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. nature, 461(7263), 472-475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J. (eds) (2001) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester: Wiley. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390002500101 Sachs, Ignacy. (1980). Stratégies de l’écodéveloppement. Paris. Editions ouvrières. 140 p. Sachs, Ignacy. (1993). L’écodéveloppement: stratégies de transition vers le XXIe siècle. Paris. Syros. 120 p. Steffens, Will, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, Reinette Biggs, et al. (2015). Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet. Science 347 (6223): 736–748. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 Sandri, O. J. (2013). Exploring the role and value of creativity in education for sustainability. Environmental education research, 19(6), 765-778. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.749978 UNCED (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations, Rio de Janeiro. http://www.agora21.org Veblen, Thorstein. (1919). The Place of Science in Modern Civilisation. New York. Viking. Republished in 1990, New Brunswick. Transaction Publishers. 509 p. WCED. (1987). Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 71 of 84 Wickson, F., Carew, A. L., & Russell, A. W. (2006). Transdisciplinary research: characteristics, quandaries and quality. Futures, 38(9), 1046-1059. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 72 of 84 ANNEX: SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTIONS Our survey of sustainability concepts looks at four models of sustainability: 1) the conventional three-pillar model, 2) the planetary boundaries concept, 3) the bioeconomy model, which is particularly promoted by ecological and institutional economists, and 4) degrowth thinking, which is closely linked to grassroots degrowth movements at the local level. The data analysis classified survey responses into predefined sustainability models, creating binary indicators (dummies) to facilitate statistical analysis. Binary variables represented the four main sustainability models, enabling clear visualization of their prevalence across respondent groups, such as countries, genders, and education levels. Proportions were calculated by dividing the count of each model within a group by the total responses for that group, ensuring meaningful comparisons. Missing data was excluded dynamically during processing to maintain accuracy, particularly in visualizations for gender and education level. This approach provided a nuanced and comprehensive representation of the survey results while addressing the complexity of overlapping sustainability models. It should be noted that our main aim was not to create sustainability profiles, but to encourage participants to reflect and explore possible changes in their visions from one SCT session to the next one.  Sustainability models in our SCTs participants In our sample, the three-pillar model was the most widely represented model with almost 60 % of responses. In contrast, the other three models (Degrowth, Ecological Institutionalist and Planetary Boundaries) had similar proportions, each accounting for around 20%. This indicates a clear general preference for an approach that integrates the three most important dimensions of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. Figure 14. Sustainability models in our SCTs participants H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 73 of 84  Sustainability Models by SCT Level SCT3 and SCT4 participants exhibit differences in their alignment with sustainability models. SCT3 participants show a stronger preference for the Three-Pillars Model, reflecting an emphasis on balancing economic growth, environmental preservation, and social equity. Conversely, SCT4 participants show a more diverse distribution, with a significant proportion compared to SCT3 of degrowth models, indicating a shift towards critical perspectives on ecological constraints, although the Planetary Boundaries model diminishes somewhat as the perspective of the Three Pillars model diminishes greatly. Figure 15. Sustainability models by SCT level  Sustainability Models by Professional Role Teachers and staff demonstrate a preference for the Three-Pillars Model as well as for Planetary Boundaries and Ecological Institutionalist. Their alignment with these models suggests a practical focus on balancing economic and environmental objectives while H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 80 of 84  Romania: The average increases slightly to 4.49, with negligible gender differences. Females rate it at 4.5, while males score it slightly lower at 4.48, suggesting growing agreement among genders.  Spain: The average score declines slightly to 4.25, based on responses from unspecified genders, indicating moderate agreement but a slight reduction compared to SCT3. Comparison Between SCT3 and SCT4 The comparison reveals an increasing emphasis on sustainability as a continuous process across most countries, with notable gender dynamics in some cases. 1. Overall Trends: The global average rises from 4.24 to 4.48, reflecting a growing consensus on sustainability’s evolving and adaptive nature. 2. Country-Level Changes: o Finland: The score improves significantly, reflecting a stronger belief in sustainability as a continuous process. o Portugal: Consistently high scores reaffirm the country’s strong emphasis on this perspective, with female respondents leading this trend. o Romania: Scores increase slightly, showing stability and minor gender differences. o Spain: The slight decline in SCT4 suggests reduced enthusiasm compared to SCT3, though scores remain favorable. 3. Gender Differences: In SCT3, females in Portugal and Spain demonstrate stronger agreement compared to males. By SCT4, gender differences diminish, particularly in Romania, indicating greater alignment across genders. The results consistently emphasise the perception of sustainability as an ongoing process rather than a fixed goal. Portugal and Romania show a stable and strong agreement in both surveys, while Finland shows a remarkable improvement in SCT4. The slight decline in Spain warrants further investigation to understand the underlying factors. Gender dynamics show that women are often more supportive of this perspective, particularly in SCT3, although this trend is converging in SCT4. These findings emphasise the importance of promoting sustainability as an adaptive and ongoing process that cuts across cultural and gender contexts. Q4: Are democracy and sustainability compatible? This question examines perceptions of the relationship between democracy and sustainability. The responses in SCT3 and SCT4 show moderate to strong agreement on their compatibility, with variations across countries and genders. SCT3 Analysis H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 81 of 84 In SCT3, the overall average score is 4.04, reflecting moderate agreement on the compatibility of democracy and sustainability.  Finland: Finland has the highest score, with an average of 4.5 (from unspecified genders), indicating strong agreement with this compatibility.  Portugal: The overall average is 4.28, with male respondents rating it higher (5.0) than females (4.24). This suggests a gender gap, with males showing stronger belief in the compatibility.  Romania: With an average of 3.79, Romania records the lowest score among the countries. Males rate it slightly higher (3.88) than females (3.67), indicating some gender disparity.  Spain: The second-highest score of 4.6 is observed in Spain. Female respondents rate the compatibility as perfect (5.0), while males provide a lower score (4.0), revealing a gender difference. SCT4 Analysis In SCT4, the overall average increases slightly to 4.06, indicating growing agreement on the compatibility of democracy and sustainability.  Finland: The average score decreases to 3.8 (from unspecified genders), reflecting a shift toward a more cautious perspective.  Portugal: Scores increase to 4.8, with strong support for the compatibility, particularly among female respondents.  Romania: The average improves slightly to 4.07. Male respondents rate the compatibility higher (4.12) than females (4.0), maintaining a small gender gap.  Spain: The average score declines slightly to 4.04, with responses from unspecified genders only. This indicates stable but slightly reduced agreement compared to SCT3. Comparison Between SCT3 and SCT4 The comparison reveals subtle shifts in perceptions across countries, with overall trends remaining consistent. 1. Overall Trends: The global average rises slightly from 4.04 to 4.06, suggesting stable and moderate agreement on the compatibility of democracy and sustainability. 2. Country-Level Changes: o Finland: Scores decline from SCT3 to SCT4, indicating a more cautious perspective in SCT4. o Portugal: Scores increase significantly, reflecting growing agreement, particularly among females. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 82 of 84 o Romania: Scores improve slightly, with males maintaining a stronger belief in the compatibility than females. o Spain: A slight decline in SCT4 reflects reduced enthusiasm compared to SCT3, though agreement remains stable. 3. Gender Differences: Gender gaps are evident in SCT3, particularly in Portugal and Spain, where males and females show divergent ratings. In SCT4, these differences diminish, particularly in Romania, suggesting greater alignment across genders. The results show stable to growing agreement on the compatibility of democracy and sustainability, with Portugal emerging as the country with the strongest belief in this relationship. Romania and Spain show slight improvements or stability, while Finland shows a decline in SCT4. Gender dynamics show that men often rate compatibility higher, although these differences decrease in SCT4. The results suggest that while the compatibility of democracy and sustainability is generally recognised, cultural and contextual factors influence the strength of this belief. To achieve a broader consensus, it is important to continue to pay attention to these factors. Q5: Is technological development an impediment to or a precondition for sustainability? This question explores perceptions of the relationship between technological development and sustainability, focusing on whether technology acts as a barrier or a facilitator for achieving sustainability. The results in SCT3 and SCT4 show moderate agreement that technological development is a precondition for sustainability, with some variations across countries and genders. SCT3 Analysis In SCT3, the overall average score is 3.93, indicating a moderate belief in the positive role of technological development in sustainability.  Finland: The average score is 3.4 (from unspecified genders), suggesting a neutral stance toward the role of technology in sustainability.  Portugal: With an average of 3.89, Portugal shows stronger support for technology as a precondition for sustainability. Male respondents rate it significantly higher (5.0) than females (3.82), indicating a notable gender difference.  Romania: Romania records an average of 4.15, the highest among the countries. Female respondents score it slightly higher (4.24) than males (4.08), reflecting a balanced view with minor gender differences.  Spain: With an average score of 3.0, Spain demonstrates the lowest level of agreement, with both male and female respondents aligned in their neutral stance. H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 83 of 84 SCT4 Analysis In SCT4, the overall average increases slightly to 3.94, reflecting growing agreement on the positive role of technological development in sustainability.  Finland: The score rises slightly to 3.5, maintaining a neutral perspective with a slight upward trend.  Portugal: The average decreases to 3.4, reflecting reduced belief in the role of technological development. Female respondents drive this decline, as their ratings drop compared to SCT3.  Romania: The average increases to 4.24, reaffirming Romania’s position as the country with the strongest belief in technological development as a precondition for sustainability. Gender differences remain minimal, with females scoring it slightly higher (4.3) than males (4.2).  Spain: The average improves to 3.75, indicating a shift toward greater agreement compared to SCT3. However, Spain still lags behind other countries in its level of agreement. Comparison Between SCT3 and SCT4 The comparison reveals a stable or increasing emphasis on the positive role of technological development, with some country-specific changes. 1. Overall Trends: The global average rises slightly from 3.93 to 3.94, indicating stable agreement that technological development supports sustainability. 2. Country-Level Changes: o Finland: Scores remain neutral but show a slight improvement in SCT4. o Portugal: The decline in scores, particularly among females, suggests waning support for the role of technology in sustainability. o Romania: Consistently high scores across both surveys reaffirm Romania’s strong belief in the positive role of technological development, with minimal gender differences. o Spain: A notable improvement in SCT4 suggests growing recognition of technology’s role in sustainability, though scores remain below the global average. 3. Gender Differences: In SCT3, males in Portugal and Romania show stronger support for the positive role of technological development. By SCT4, gender differences diminish in Romania but persist in Portugal, where female respondents rate it lower. The analysis shows a general consensus on the positive role of technological development for sustainability, with Romania consistently showing the strongest belief in this relationship. Portugal’s declining scores in SCT4, particularly among women, H2020-LC-GD-2020-3, Project 101036505, ECF4CLIM, European Competence Framework for a Low Carbon Economy and Sustainability through Education D5.4. Key findings from the joint implementation of the interventions Page 84 of 84 reflect lower confidence in this perspective, while Spain shows the clearest positive change. Finland remains neutral but shows a slight upward trend. These results suggest that perceptions of the role of technology in sustainability are shaped by cultural and gender dynamics, emphasising the need for tailored approaches to address these perspectives.