Special issue: Towards an eco-social pedagogy
Introduction
At a time of environmental destabilisation, education and social pedagogy are increasingly called on to cultivate ecological sensibility through practices that connect learners ethically and affectively with the living world (Haraway, 2016; Rodrigues and Payne, 2017; Thorburn et al., 2019). Ecological sensibility refers to individuals’ and communities’ capability to interact with the more-than-human elements of the environment in ways that ethically, politically and morally guarantee the sustenance of preferable living conditions (Lysaker, 2020). From a socio-pedagogical viewpoint,1 sensibility is not only a heightened kind of cognitive awareness but also an embodied capacity that can be nurtured through everyday relational encounters and events of community participation (Cameron, 2020; Moss and Petrie, 2019). Among these, community-based physical activity projects/events, such as school gardens, outdoor learning initiatives and intergenerational walking groups, invite individuals to become knowing/moving bodies, or what Bresler (2004) calls bodies at work, and to attune to context through experiences that are simultaneously individual, social and physical/biological (Grosz, 2008). The changes that may take place in such exchanges will shape the way different bodies, such as physical bodies, natural bodies or bodies of experience and thought, will form sustainable relations and will generate awareness of ecological interdependence (Massumi, 2004).
For this reason, researchers have explored the pedagogical potential of physical activity as/for sustainability within various contexts related to education, such as physical education (Lundvall and Fröberg, 2023; Olive and Enright, 2021), sport (Bácsné-Bába et al., 2021; Thurm et al., 2024), outdoor/nature activities (Dyment and Potter, 2015; Stangierska et al., 2023), early childhood education (Vanderloo et al., 2015), eco-motricity interventions (Pazos-Couto et al., 2021), eco-wellness projects (Kim et al., 2023) and environmental awareness initiatives (Portela-Pino et al., 2021). Furthermore, the restorative impact of the environment has been highlighted in studies focusing on landscapes with a healing potential (Jansen et al., 2017) or eco-friendly initiatives designed for health promotion and environmental justice (Friel et al., 2011; Nayna Schwerdtle et al., 2020).
Considering today’s planetary crisis, the above suppositions invoke critique from scholars drawing on new materialist theoretical frameworks (Colebrook, 2019). New materialist scholars call for a decentring of the human in the study of physical activity (Brice and Thorpe, 2021; Chappell, 2024; Fullagar, 2017; Mannion, 2019) and a focusing of the human–nature interaction in its complexity, receptivity and violability, beyond ‘human–environment’ distinctions. From a new materialist perspective, human activity can be seen as the relational entanglement of all entities, which continually shape and reshape one another as they come together within their shared ecological systems, such organisms, materials and environments (Ingold and Palsson, 2013). Similarly, physical activity is perceived not as a fixed human act of biological significance, but instead as an evolving process attuned to natural rhythms and collective transformations of various systems (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994; Norton, 2009; Salonen et al., 2024). Such a perspective acknowledges the interconnectedness between humans and the rest of nature during different forms of physical activity, such as running, walking or training, as well as the multiplicity of their liaisons, unity and symbiosis as they become a systemic whole (Agyeman et al., 2003; Deleuze and Parnet, 2007; Folke et al., 2016; Thorburn et al., 2019). From a socio-pedagogical standpoint, this view underscores how physical activity can cultivate sustainable ways of knowing and being – Indigenous, embodied or affective – that can emerge through the connections the living world affords (Lysaker, 2020). In doing so, it provides new pedagogical insights for fostering ecological sensibility, particularly within youth education, while also extending to intergenerational and community-based contexts where physical activity can become a shared means of nurturing collective responsibility and ecological awareness.
New materialist ideas in the study of physical activity for sustainability
New materialist ideas, increasingly adopted in fitness (Brice and Thorpe, 2021), sport (King and Weedon, 2021; Thorpe et al., 2021) or outdoor education (Gough, 2016), seek to challenge ‘stewardship’ or ‘paternalistic’ notions in the study of physical activity, such as exercise prescription, step-count goals and behaviour change interventions that promote outdoor movement. Both from a new materialist and a socio-pedagogical standpoint, such notions reinforce an instrumental idea of the body as something that must be managed effectively, rather than lived holistically. Instrumental ideas of the living body are grounded in hylomorphic perspectives that assume a disconnection between humans and the natural-material world (Corradini, 2019). The term hylomorphism, originating from the Greek hyle (matter) and morphe (form), rests on the assumption that matter is passive and receives form imposed by human intention or design (Corradini, 2019). What this means is that human agency is shaping or controlling inert matter (namely, the body), a view that privileges notions of body mastery and performance over relational becoming. For instance, studies adopting a hylomorphic approach to human movement define physical activity as ‘any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles (matter) that results in energy expenditure (form/human intention)’ (Caspersen et al., 1985, p. 126). Such a perspective reduces body movement to quantifiable outcomes, such as daily steps, intensity levels or caloric expenditure, rather than recognising it as a relational and ecological process of interaction. As a result, only health-orientated and measurable forms of physical activity are legitimised as bodily movement produced for energy expenditure, what Ingold (2021) refers to as ‘that thing’, while affective, communal and contextually embedded forms of being active in the community remain ecologically and pedagogically invisible.
New materialist scholars argue that people, places and materials are entangled and co-emergent through their relational encounters, which means that human activity and environmental processes unfold together (rather than separately) in self-creative, fluid and unpredictable ways (Ingold and Palsson, 2013). Such relations do not occur within a pre-existing space such as a green park or an outdoor space, but rather they create and transform in-between spaces, always shaping new conditions of coexistence between human and non-human life forms (Vetlesen, 2015). The deeper this sense of coexistence, the greater the agency that will be attributed to the in-between spaces and the more likely physical activity will become an emergent and transformative event (Brice and Thorpe, 2021; King and Weedon, 2021). From a socio-pedagogical perspective, this view is rather valuable since it shifts attention from physical activity as a set of individual skills, performances or intentions towards processes of relational engagement that connect individuals to their socio-material and ecological communities. Furthermore, it positions ecological sensibility as a present and lived capacity of attunement to the world, enabling learners to actualise sustainable ways of active living by becoming responsive to the spaces they inhabit and co-create.
With the above in mind, the aim of the present article is to explore the pedagogical potential of re-conceptualising physical activity as a relational process of ecological sensibility, one through which more-than-human spaces of coexistence are continually produced. Following Colebrook’s (2017) call for education scholars to imagine futures distinct from what we already are, the concepts of physical activity and sustainability are unpacked and ‘plugged in’ with new materialist ideas to reconfigure our understanding of physical activity as an eventful, affective and pedagogically meaningful process of ecological attunement.
To achieve this aim, the article is divided into three sections. The first section introduces process ontology as an idea that could provide a foundation for conceptually re-orientating educational thought towards the world of relations within complex and more-than-human systems. The second section examines physical activity through a socio-pedagogical lens, conceptualising it as a process-becoming event of relational coexistence. The third section discusses the concept of aesthetic sustainability, highlighting how affect-based and experiential pedagogical perspectives can deepen educators’ understanding of movement, embodiment and sustainability. The article concludes by offering suggestions for future pedagogical work that can nurture ecological sensibility and response-ability (Barad, 2007) across youth and community-based contexts.
A process ontology perspective on the study of physical activity
Within traditional, hylomorphic approaches, materials and/or bodies are often viewed as passive entities awaiting human action, as if transformation, growth and/or learning occur only through hierarchical or pre-determined structures (Simondon, 1958). In the study of complex systems, such as human development, social relationships or environmental interactions, this way of thinking reflects a prevailing teleological mindset, in which human actions are seen as shaping the world from above rather than emerging with it or being shaped by it. Drawing on new materialist thought, such understandings become insufficient. New materialists adopt a process ontology perspective on the study of complex systems, one which emphasises that humans, environments and materials are continuously co-creating one another through dynamic and reciprocal relationships (Haraway, 2016; Ingold, 2011).
From this perspective, physical activity is conceived as part of a living process during which complex systems – ecological, social, geographical – generate their own flows, rhythms and patterns of interaction and dynamically affect each other’s change (Ergin and Ergin, 2017; Markula, 2023; Schoon and Van Der Leeuw, 2015). This view invites educators and practitioners to see the different forms of interaction that are produced during physical activity as emergent and relational rather than as managed, planned or evaluated. For example, during a community walking project, spontaneous conversations, sensory experiences and shared reflections between participants and their surroundings can generate unplanned conversations about care, place and interdependence. These forms of learning or meaning making would be lost if physical activity was reduced to measurable outcomes such as a walk to lose weight or the completion of daily step goals.
Extending these perspectives, the concept of process ontology (or ontology of becoming) offers a generative framework for understanding physical activity as a relational and pedagogically meaningful event (Cooke et al., 2016; De la Cadena, 2015; Jacobson et al., 2011; Nicholson and Dupré, 2018). Process ontologies suggest that reality is constituted through dynamic and continuously unfolding processes and events, whose interplay produces diverse states of becoming (Deleuze, 1994; Deleuze and Guattari, 1994). These processes and/or events arise from the interactions of multiple forces occurring at a social, material, ecological or affective level, forming relationships that are fluid, interdependent and constantly evolving rather than fixed or isolated. It is their dynamism that produces a pluralism of states with no sharp boundaries, as each moment or action becomes meaningful only through its entanglement within a wider network of relationships and events (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994).
Within the event of physical activity, a process ontology perspective could help us trace the numerous interconnected processes – biological, technology enhanced or emotional – that unfold between bodies, materials and environments as they interact and co-shape one another. For example, the environment – natural and built – can be both a precondition and a limitation for physical activity. Green landscapes may invite exploration, play and reflection, while landslides, pollution or urban infrastructure may restrict movement and alter physical engagement. Within such a complex and evolving system various resources and material affordances will shape opportunities for interaction among the entities that compose it. Thus, the idea that physical activity can be studied or explored as a representation of ‘that thing’ (namely, bodily movement produced for energy expenditure) cannot be supported.
Adopting a process ontology perspective on the study of physical activity allows us to move beyond commodified, context-free and ahistorical models of human–environment interaction, opening new ways of thinking about learning via and within movement as co-emergent processes. This perspective, already influential in fields such as biology (Nicholson and Dupré, 2018), anthropology (De la Cadena, 2015), human geography (Stark, 2017), sustainability research (Cooke et al., 2016), philosophy (Thiele, 2016) and education (Honan, 2015; Thompson, 2020), provides a conceptual foundation for reimagining physical activity beyond notions of what counts/the amount of physical activity, towards an exploration of what it could mean for humans and environments to continuously affect one another during physical activity. From a social pedagogical perspective, this shift invites educators and practitioners to ask how we might live better with physical activity and more precisely how physical activity can become a site of relational, ecological and ethical learning within communities. This question forms the basis for the discussion that follows, where the pedagogical connotations of a process ontology approach to physical activity are further explored.
What could physical activity as/for sustainability mean
Be(com)ing physically active within the environment, any kind of environment, is a shared process; it does not belong solely to the individual. Humans and the environment(s) coexist through continuous exchanges of energy, affect and transformation, always emerging into new configurations of experience and meaning (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994). In educational terms, this means that being physically active, whether walking through a park, climbing a tree or commuting to work, becomes an act of entanglement with one’s surroundings, one that shapes expression or action (Bresler, 2004). A simple stone, a tree, a valley, a road, a runner, a morning fog, a child walking to school, all can be understood as part of the same living network of mutual influence (de Block and Vicenzotti, 2018). Their emergent bio-complexity is a living system always in flux, and thus it cannot be described or apprehended though static representations or meanings (Clarke and McPhie, 2014). Such a perspective encourages social educators/pedagogues to view physical activity as an evolving possibility space, within which individuals learn to engage bodily and relationally with their environments, discovering ethically responsive and ecologically sensible ways of being-with others and the material world.
By envisioning physical activity as a possibility space, our attention shifts towards the relationships taking place when individual (biological, physical, psychological and so on), geographical (outdoor/indoor environment) or socio-political (culture, economy and so on) systems come together (Salonen et al., 2024). The interaction of these systems can be ‘neither one nor two [types/sorts], nor the relation of the two; it [is] the in-between’ (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004, p. 323). This betweenness forms a dynamic field of interaction and transformation, where learning arises through attunement to the spatial, temporal and ecological dimensions of physical activity (Salonen et al., 2023). Thus, if the cultivation of ecological sensibility is a pedagogical goal, then educators and pedagogues need to support young people and communities in experiencing physical activity as an event of awakening, exploration and adaptation in these in-between spaces (Co-building a New Eco-Social World: Leaving No One Behind, 2022).
Derived from the Greek word αἴσθησις (aisthesis) (which has the meaning of sensibility, sentience and perception), sensibility can be understood as an aesthetic and embodied form of experience. Sensibility manifests itself as a qualitative and aesthetic responsiveness to the world that is reconfigured when the doors of perception stay open to relational encounters (Ingold, 2021, p. 326): perception not only of things in themselves (for example, the peace of natural scenery), but of things-in-phenomena (for example, physical activity as co-constitution and intra-action) (Barad, 2007). Even though materials and things may not be biologically alive, they possess ‘thing-power’ which is a capacity to animate, affect and participate in the world’s becoming (Barad, 2007; Bennett, 2010). From a socio-pedagogical perspective, this means that places, spaces and contexts (that is, natural, built, social) are entangled with human activities, relationships and material objects, forming a system that is constantly in motion and transformation (Gough, 2016; Mannion, 2019). The inseparable unity of these entanglements will ultimately influence how individuals and communities are enabled or constrained in their capacity to become or remain physically active (de Block and Vicenzotti, 2018).
Considering the above, it becomes relevant to ask, how might we re-conceptualise physical activity as a process of sustainable becoming within contemporary educational contexts? To address this question in the following paragraphs, I introduce aesthetic sustainability as a concept that offers a pathway beyond hylomorphic understandings of sustainability, enabling a process-orientated and pedagogically grounded perspective in the study of physical activity as a living form of relational practice. Through this lens, both physical activity and sustainability are understood not as fixed goals or measurable outcomes, but as embodied, affective and aesthetic dimensions of educational experience that unfold through ongoing interactions between people, environments and communities.
Physical activity as/for aesthetic sustainability
Informed by new materialist ideas of entanglement and becoming, aesthetic sustainability offers an innovative framework for understanding how physical activity can cultivate ecological sensibility within the scope of social pedagogy. Its main idea is the opening of perception towards ‘more-than-human systems of “pulsating aesthetics”’, whose inhabitants are ‘treading their own paths through the meshwork [and thereby contributing] to [their] ever-evolving weave’ (Ingold, 2011, p. 71).
Rather than viewing sustainability as a learning goal/outcome or an educational policy target, aesthetic sustainability foregrounds the lived, sensory and affective interactions via which people and communities co-create sustainable relations with their environments. This perspective allocates pedagogical and ecological agency to the in-between spaces of human–environment interaction and is deeply compatible with social pedagogy’s focus on Haltung, relationships, reflection and culture (Eichsteller and Holthoff, 2012). In these in-between spaces, humans become co-negotiators with material and non-human elements in shaping the conditions of physically active living. Such negotiations are visible in socio-pedagogical and community practices where, for example, parks are re-built to support intergenerational interaction, urban infrastructures are reconstructed to support movement and ecological balance, trees and gardens are vegetated to balance heat indexes, or old railways are turned into walking and cycling routes to invite affective encounters with place. These examples illustrate how aesthetic sustainability can transform physical activity into a ‘decentered task-space’ (Jeong et al., 2021), where learning, negotiation and care can emerge as a collective process, one that reconfigures how communities can learn to live, move and sustain together. Furthermore, they extend social pedagogy’s concern for relational, ethical and embodied learning into the ecological domain, aligning directly with the aims of an eco-social pedagogy.
The adoption of aesthetic sustainability for the study of physical activity introduces an innovative pedagogical lens that challenges established assumptions about both physical activity (that is, as a form of exercise pursued for health or performance) and sustainability (that is, romanticised notions emphasising the moral imperative to do less harm to the environment). Aesthetic sustainability departs from these idealised assumptions and foregrounds equity and justice of embodied experiences as fundamental to our capacity to live sustainably. Since sustainability is an evolving happening that is largely connected with experience, a lack of physical activity or the offering of inequitable forms of physical activity may create imbalances in the more-than-human system. When access to meaningful experiences is limited, or when these experiences occur within marginalising or unsupportive settings, significant imbalances may emerge and disrupt both human and more-than-human systems of physical activity. For instance, being active within polluted or overbuilt urban environments may create an imbalance regarding what is realised as a healthy lifestyle. Similarly, the exposure of vulnerable populations (for example, low-income or ethnic minority groups) to harmful environmental conditions underscores the need to embed social and environmental justice perspectives within pedagogical and community-based programmes that frame physical activity as a pathway to sustainability (Hawes et al., 2019; Taylor et al., 2006).
We all know that previous generations have inhabited the environment and have left their ecological traces in terms of the ways they lived within the system (for example, wars, rising sea level, gobal warming or technological advancements). This is a challenge that newer generations seek to resolve when engaging with physical activity for sustainability. However, such a challenge cannot be addressed only with changes in human actions (for example, active transportation, tree planting for preserving physical activity and preventing health inequities) (Lanza et al., 2021; Ross et al., 2019), or through the dissemination of guidelines and best practices for ecologically aware forms of physical activity (Woods et al., 2022; World Health Organization, 2018). The reorientation towards aesthetic sustainability expands the above efforts at a socio-pedagogical level. Its difference lies in the fact that it encourages educators to move beyond prescriptive models or policy guidelines and embrace action that fosters relational, ethical and ecological forms of learning by using physical activity as a site for nurturing ecological sensitivity and collective well-being. Given that the aesthetic always has the meaning of sensational attunement (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994), the concept of aesthetic sustainability affords understandings of sustainability as the reticular messiness, temporality, growability and open-endedness of the more-than-human relations, that ‘run perpendicularly to localizable relations’ (Ingold, 2011, p. 83).
Thus, in the context of ecological and pedagogical reflection, the key question for sustainability may not have to do with what we want the future to look like or what potential that future may hold for physically active living; instead, the question shifts to which aspects of more-than-human relationships we aim to sustain and cultivate through the processual, eventful nature of physical activity. To answer this question, I introduce two key concepts below: (a) time and (b) tradition as concepts related to the re-conceptualisation of physical activity as/for aesthetic sustainability. Both concepts extend the conceptual and practical boundaries of engagement within human–environment systems, offering a pedagogically innovative vocabulary that can accommodate sustainability in all its evolving and relational arrangements.
Time
Time plays a crucial role in the re-conceptualisation of our engagement with the environment (Deleuze, 1994). Traditionally, the fascination with the new has connected human relationships within unthoughtful uses of planetary resources. This emphasis on novelty has often led us to overlook older forms of knowledge, experience and sustainable practices. For instance, the emphasis on the use of eco-friendly materials, the adoption of practices focusing on sustainable living (for example, mindfulness), modifications to natural and built environments, or data highlighting physical activity levels among youth, all reflect a cultural tendency to privilege the new over the old (Jeong et al., 2021; Korpelainen, 2023). From a social pedagogical perspective, this focus on novelty presents limitations for sustainability transitions (Korpelainen, 2023). If educators, youth and communities are constantly in search of innovation in acting, knowing and experiencing, it becomes difficult to cultivate the long-term conditions needed for sustainable, relational engagement with the environment. For example, creating sustainable urban environments may require using materials that we now seek to economise such as water or open spaces. Similarly, educational programmes aimed at engaging young people in physical activity may need to emphasise the gradual cultivation of lifestyle habits, such as active transportation or community-based movement practices. Without acknowledging the temporality of these practices, sustainability risks becoming a ‘missed opportunity’. For social pedagogy, this highlights the importance of embedding awareness and appreciation of time and continuity in educational practice, so that young people and communities escape consumerist-driven practices and participate in sustained, meaningful and ethically responsive forms of physical activity.
To move beyond commodified notions of acting for sustainability, it is important to understand that sustainability is not only a pedagogical concern for the future but is equally embedded in the present and the past. What was/can/will be left behind as sustainable and active living needs to be understood as a continuous flow of experience and not as divisible time intervals (past, present, future) (Bergson, 2014). Envisioning time not as a linear progression from one state to another but rather as ‘alive and whooshy, flowing and vibrant’ (Williams, 1998) offers a dynamic field for pedagogical reflection and engagement that moves beyond the fixity of outcome-driven approaches. For social pedagogy, a uniting perspective of time has direct implications for practice. It challenges binary distinctions (that is, old versus new) and encourages educators to work creatively with existing resources, including spaces, materials and community infrastructures. In the context of physical activity, this approach aligns with an unfinished or open-ended notion of sustainability, emphasising adaptive reuse and the ethical maintenance of historical or community spaces (for example, stadiums, schools, local architecture), while redefining what counts as meaningful physical activity in these spaces (Salonen et al., 2023). This notion replaces the ‘new and innovative’ with the ‘durable, modest and simple’ (Wergeland and Hognestad, 2021) and contributes to critically enhanced conceptualisations of ecological sensibility, based on which beginnings and endings are viewed as a unified whole, each meaningless without the other. By embedding physical activity within such a temporal and relational perspective, social educators and community practitioners can foster sustainable, embodied and contextually grounded forms of learning and engagement that resonate with youth and the wider community.
Tradition
To redefine our ways of engaging with physical activity, both in natural and built environments, it is important to recognise how tradition may shape our habits of acting, knowing and valuing. As a socially and historically transmitted concept, tradition has been considered as having both a stabilising and a restrictive potential in affecting human thought and action (Barakos, 2020). It can preserve values that safeguard the wise use of resources, but it can also inhibit progress when inherited habits conflict with new forms of thinking and awareness (Greenberg, 2018; Gruwell, 2022). In socio-pedagogical contexts, especially those related to youth and community education, acknowledging this dual impact of tradition is crucial. Tradition may inform how young people will learn to care for and to relate to their environments, but when traditional norms stay unquestioned, they can reinforce patterns of acting and relating that undermine sustainability. For example, while the organisation of athletic events (for example, park-runs) may be traditionally used to express collective identity and community continuity, it can also create lots of disturbance to the environment and its material affordances and thus affect quality of life (Wergeland and Hognestad, 2021). Similarly, the purchase of latest-technology sportswear to remain active during these events may perpetuate market-driven logics even if the aim is to sustain physical activity engagement and community interaction. From a social pedagogical perspective, the above examples reveal the importance of teaching young people about tradition, not as something that nostalgically belongs to the past, but as something that can be reworked relationally and creatively. This involves helping young learners to identify which traditions nurture ecological sensibility and which perpetuate unsustainable practices in their community.
For this reason, reimagining physical activity through aesthetic sustainability becomes a pedagogical invitation to transform tradition from repetition into responsiveness. Even though it is widely acknowledged that it is not easy to unlearn traditional thinking patterns and act differently (Juelskjær, 2020), an out-of-the-box way of thinking is needed to attend to the way that teachers and learners can co-create new ways of moving, learning and living that remain rooted in history but stay open to ecological futures. Thus, rather than questioning the mere usefulness or relevance of traditional or established habits (Dania and Farias, 2024), an aesthetic sustainability approach would invite attention to the affective, cultural and situated dimensions of such habits with the aim being to explore what makes these habits feel rational, meaningful or necessary within specific social and environmental contexts (Ingold, 2011). At a practical level, such an orientation requires a shift from measuring what physical activity is to exploring what physical activity means in terms of relational responsiveness and community becoming. By embracing this shift, educators and social pedagogues could ultimately develop a new vocabulary, one that could recognise the evolving nature of physical activity as the lived practice of ecological sensibility for sustainability.
An affect-based perspective to re-imagining physical activity for sustainability
What are the implications of the above discussion for educational policy and pedagogical practice seeking to develop ecological perspectives on the study of physical activity? Significant attention has been paid in later years to the design and implementation of curriculum-based interventions that could promote sustainable physical activity behaviours in children and youth (Barton et al., 2016; Bentsen et al., 2022; Bucht et al., 2022; Kimiecik et al., 2019; Kracht et al., 2024; Santos-Pastor et al., 2022; Tomayko et al., 2017; Wells et al., 2023). Based on biomedical evidence and/or performance/behaviour-related findings, these studies produce knowledge and guidelines concerning the value of physical activity for sustainable living. Despite the value of such evidence, there are key shortcomings in the way policy and physical activity curriculum models/frameworks are applied in practice in a contextually relevant way. Because scientific perspectives have often been privileged over socio-pedagogical ones (Barker-Ruchti and Barker, 2017), there remains uncertainty about how best to design and deliver curricula that strengthen the social dimensions of physical activity and foster ecological sensibility among youth and communities. Recognising these limitations, scholars agree that a renewal of established practices requires cultivating learners’ perception, sensibility and embodied awareness (Barker-Ruchti and Barker, 2017; Fullagar, 2019; Lupton, 2019). That would mean engagement with the socio-affective and embodied dimensions of learning that connect movement, environment and social life.
Affect refers to a sentimental (cognitive) and an embodied (emotional) sensation and helps us balance our ways of being with our ways of living (Singh, 2018; Welch et al., 2021, 2023). The affective associations that we develop with more-than-human elements during the event of physical activity (for example, viewing landscapes, breathing air pollution) make us embody physical activity as an intense experience. Plants, animals, abiotic/physical elements and landscapes produce signs (visual, auditory, tactile). These material signs create aesthetic ‘corridors of disorientating effects and affects’ (Wallin, 2014, p. 152) that may take us elsewhere, as part of our relationship with the world (Marenko, 2010). Even when the emotions or tactile adaptations of physical activity have passed, our affective associations continue to produce feelings of (ir)relevance which reflect not only individual moods or embodied states (for example, exhaustion or enjoyment), but also material forms and patterns of (dis)connection (that is, memories, smells, environmental sounds).
An affect-based perspective offers a pedagogically rich alternative to resource-based views of physical activity (for example, commodification of fitness and health for sustainable living) (Ergene et al., 2018; Gren and Huijbens, 2012; Guia and Jamal, 2020), or to hylomorphic understandings that frame activity as a means to an end (that is, we stay active so that we can be healthy), since it focuses on physical activity as an unfolding process that creates multiple aesthetic and experiential opportunities for attunement (Fullagar, 2017; Merewether, 2018; Thorpe et al., 2021). This perspective also invites social educators and pedagogues to notice how relationships between humans and non-human entities (for example, plants, insects, running trails, fitness wearables) come together or pull apart (Barad, 2007) to (un)make liveable assemblages during moments of physical engagement. Further, it recognises that nature, landscapes and the material world are not complementary to physical activity but active participants in shaping learning, well-being and ecological awareness. In this sense, physical activity is studied as an ‘earthly business’ (Gren and Huijbens, 2012, p. 156) that requires the sustainment of relations at its core. In a similar vein, ecological sensibility is conceptualised as the ongoing ebb and flow of affective forces that can become agential with the power to ‘kick back’ at any time (Barad, 2007).
Implications for future educational practice
As Wallin (2014) suggests ‘the disidentification of the world as given’ (p. 152) can take us elsewhere, if we are willing to create more-than-human inceptions of ecological understandings. That is the reason why reimagining physical activity through aesthetic sustainability and affect could offer new directions for social pedagogy. By referring to social pedagogy as a relational and ethical form of educational practice, we perceive the turn towards affect as socio-pedagogical, emphasising its socially and ecologically embedded nature, one that could explore how learning unfolds through interactions occurring among people, places and materials within communities. Similarly, the term ‘more-than-human’ can expand this description to include animals, technologies and landscapes as agents that co-shape youth learning and experience (Barad, 2007; Ingold, 2011). Grounded in these descriptions, aesthetic sustainability invites social pedagogues and educators to rethink physical activity not as a human-centred pursuit, but as a co-creative, relational and ecological practice, during which both humans and the rest of nature become interdependent (Morgan et al., 2023). This reorientation opens three key pedagogical directions for future practice in social pedagogy:
-
Exploring the meaning(s) of physical activity: Enquiry within social pedagogy can shed light on how language and discourse construct what counts as physical activity, revealing the ways dominant biomedical (health, fitness) and economic (productivity) perspectives may restrict its social, cultural and ecological significance (Brice and Thorpe, 2021; Esmonde and Jette, 2018). From a pedagogical perspective, exploring how such narratives are formed and disseminated can help social educators and practitioners rethink physical activity as a shared social practice. Such an approach would invite youth and communities to engage collectively in processes of inquiry, dialogue and co-creation, foregrounding physical activity as a lived experience that can nurture ecological response-ability.
-
Attending to the relationship between affect and physical activity: From a pedagogical standpoint, affect refers to the bodily and emotional forces that shape how people move, sense and connect (Hamzah, 2020). Thus, rather than treating physical activity as a fixed behaviour, an affective lens would study it as an event through which bodies become intertwined. This view would invite educational practices that could nurture attunement, empathy and responsiveness to place (for example, community walks and storytelling sessions, inclusive community sports events in under-resourced neighbourhoods, youth co-design of safe green play spaces, intercultural outdoor programmes that connect physical activity with cultural heritage and environmental justice and so on), all of which align to the core elements of social pedagogy.
-
Re-appreciating the aesthetics of human–environment relations: Engaging with the world through sound, texture or colour (for example, the smell of rain, the rhythm of wind, the feel of soil) would help young people connect with nature as living participants in their learning (McPhie and Clarke, 2020). This aesthetic orientation would complement social pedagogy’s holistic vision of learning, where care for the self, others and the environment are inseparable.
As affective experiences exert stronger influence on our behaviour than merely cognitive or rational ones (Deleuze and Guattari, 1994), we need to relate to the affective content of physical activity as lived and not merely as learned experience. The more affective our associations to the lived experience of physical activity are, the easier it is afterwards to find meaning in physical activity as an ecologically sensible habit and to un-think tacit assumptions (Haraway, 2016). The arguments raised here invite social educators/pedagogues and scholars in similar fields to engage with physical activity through a process ontology perspective and to examine how the affective and aesthetic dimensions of body movement can contribute to more sustainable human–environment interactions. The goal for teachers and educators, then, would be to empower young people to act and reflect with their head, heart and hands, so they have multiple opportunities to expand their capacities for critical, embodied and caring engagement within the more-than-human systems that co-shape their lives and communities.
Note
- The functional definition of key terms used in this article are introduced at this point in an effort to enhance conceptual clarity and reader comprehension: (a) socio-pedagogical describes processes and contexts within which social pedagogy operates; (b) social pedagogical refers to the professional field of social pedagogy and its applied philosophy; (c) social educators/pedagogues are the professionals/practitioners who facilitate/nurture/support pedagogical interventions with a focus on strengthening/empowering relational interactions within communities; (d) more-than-human encompasses all ecological relations beyond human-centered frameworks; (e) human–environment is used when referring to interactional dynamics within ecologies; and (f) humans and the rest of nature refers to anthropocentric language that the article seeks to move beyond. ⮭
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
Not applicable to this article.
Consent for publication statement
Not applicable to this article.
Conflict of interest statement
The author declares no conflicts of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the author during peer review of this article have been made. The author declares no further conflicts with this article.
References
Agyeman,J; Bullard,R D; Evans,B. (2003). Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal world. MIT Press.
Bácsné-Bába,É; Ráthonyi,G; Pfau,C; Müller,A; Szabados,G N; Harangi-Rákos,M. (2021). Sustainability-sport-physical activity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18 (4) 1455 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041455
Barad,K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
Barakos,E. (2020). Modernity and tradition. The international encyclopedia of linguistic anthropology. Wiley, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0277
Barker-Ruchti,N, Barker,DD(ed s .), . (2017). Sustainability in high performance sport: Current practices-future directions. Routledge.
Barton,J; Bragg,R; Pretty,J; Roberts,J; Wood,C. (2016). The wilderness expedition: An effective life course intervention to improve young people’s well-being and connectedness to nature. Journal of Experiential Education 39 (1) :59–72, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1053825915626933
Bennett,J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Duke University Press.
Bentsen,P; Mygind,L; Elsborg,P; Nielsen,G; Mygind,E. (2022). Education outside the classroom as upstream school health promotion: ‘Adding-in’ physical activity into children’s everyday life and settings. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 50 (3) :303–311, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1403494821993715 [ PubMed ]
Bergson,H. (2014). Time and free will: An essay on the immediate data of consciousness. Routledge.
Bresler,L. (2004). Knowing bodies, moving minds: Towards embodied teaching and learning. Springer Science & Business Media.
Brice,J E; Thorpe,H. (2021). Toward more-than-human understandings of sport and the environment: A new materialist analysis of everyday fitness practices. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 3 660935 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.660935 [ PubMed ]
Bucht,C; Mess,F; Bachner,J; Spengler,S. (2022). Education for sustainable development in physical education: Program development by use of intervention mapping. Frontiers in Education 7 1017099 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.1017099
Cameron,C. (2020). Towards recognising practitioners working in out-of-home care as experts in everyday life: A conceptual critique. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 9 (1) :19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2020.v9.x.019
Caspersen,C J; Powell,K E; Christenson,G M. (1985). Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Reports 100 (2) :126–131. [ PubMed ]
Chappell,K. (2024). Chappell,K, Turner,C;Cand Wren,HH(ed s .), Flowing with embodiment and materiality: Touch and time for new educational futures. Creative ruptions for emergent educational futures. Springer Nature Switzerland, pp.27–49.
Clarke,D A; McPhie,J. (2014). Becoming animate in education: Immanent materiality and outdoor learning for sustainability. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning 14 (3) :198–216, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2014.919866
Co-building a new eco-social world: Leaving no one behind. (2022). The People’s Charter for an Eco-Social World, https://newecosocialworld.com/the-peoples-charter-for-an-eco-social-world/.
Colebrook,C. (2017). What is this thing called education?. Qualitative Inquiry 23 (9) :649–655, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800417725357
Colebrook,C. (2019). A cut in relationality: Art at the end of the world. Angelaki 24 (3) :175–195, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2019.1620469
Cooke,B; West,S; Boonstra,W J. (2016). Dwelling in the biosphere: Exploring an embodied human–environment connection in resilience thinking. Sustainability Science 11 :831–843, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0367-3
Corradini,A. (2019). Hylomorphism: A critical analysis. Acta Analytica 34 (3) :345–361, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12136-018-00378-6
Dania,A, Farias,CC(ed s .), . (2024). Social pedagogy in physical education: Human-centred practice. 1st ed. Routledge.
de Block,G; Vicenzotti,V. (2018). The effects of affect. A plea for distance between the human and non-human. Journal of Landscape Architecture 13 (2) :46–55, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2018.1553394
De la Cadena,M. (2015). Earth beings: Ecologies of practice across Andean worlds. Duke University Press.
Deleuze,G. (1994). Patton,P(trans.), Difference and repetition. Columbia University Press.
Deleuze,G; Guattari,F. (1994). What is philosophy?. Columbia University Press.
Deleuze,G; Guattari,F. (2004). EPZ thousand plateaus. A&C Black.
Deleuze,G; Parnet,C. (2007). Dialogues II. Columbia University Press.
Dyment,J E; Potter,T G. (2015). Is outdoor education a discipline? Provocations and possibilities. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 15 (3) :193–208, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2014.949808
Eichsteller,G; Holthoff,S. (2012). The art of being a social pedagogue: Developing cultural change in children’s homes in Essex. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 1 (1) :4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2012.v1.1.004
Ergene,S; Calás,M B; Smircich,L. (2018). Ecologies of sustainable concerns: Organization theorizing for the Anthropocene. Gender, Work & Organization 25 (3) :222–245, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12189
Ergin,M; Ergin,M. (2017). (Post)Humanist tangles in social ecology and new materialism. The ecopoetics of entanglement in contemporary Turkish and American literatures. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.53–82.
Esmonde,K; Jette,S. (2018). Fatness, fitness, and feminism in the built environment: Bringing together physical cultural studies and sociomaterialisms, to study the ‘obesogenic environment’. Sociology of Sport Journal 35 (1) :39–48, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2016-0121
Folke,C; Biggs,R; Norström,A V; Reyers,B; Rockström,J. (2016). Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science. Ecology and Society 21 (3) :41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341
Friel,S; Akerman,M; Hancock,T; Kumaresan,J; Marmot,M; Melin,T; Vlahov,D. GRNUHE members. (2011). Addressing the social and environmental determinants of urban health equity: Evidence for action and a research agenda. Journal of Urban Health 88 :860–874, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11524-011-9606-1 [ PubMed ]
Fullagar,S. (2017). Post-qualitative inquiry and the new materialist turn: Implications for sport, health and physical culture research. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 9 (2) :247–257, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2016.1273896
Fullagar,S. (2019). A physical cultural studies perspective on physical (in) activity and health inequalities: The biopolitics of body practices and embodied movement. Revista Tempos e Espaços em Educação 12 (28) :63–76, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20952/revtee.v12i28.10161
Gough,N. (2016). Postparadigmatic materialisms: A ‘new movement of thought’ for outdoor environmental education research?. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education 19 :51–65, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03400994
Greenberg,S L. (2018). Greenberg,S L(ed.), Editing and the real: From postmodern idealism to new materialism. A poetics of editing. Palgrave Macmillan, pp.143–174.
Gren,M; Huijbens,E H. (2012). Tourism theory and the earth. Annals of Tourism Research 39 (1) :155–170, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2011.05.009
Grosz,E. (2008). Alaimo,S, Hekman,SS(ed s .), Darwin and feminism: Preliminary investigations for a possible alliance. Material feminisms. Indiana University Press, pp.23–51.
Gruwell,L. (2022). Making matters: Craft, ethics, and new materialist rhetorics. University Press of Colorado.
Guia,J; Jamal,T. (2020). A (Deleuzian) posthumanist paradigm for tourism research. Annals of Tourism Research 84 :102982. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.102982
Hamzah,A. (2020). Feminist new materialisms, sport and fitness: A lively entanglement: by Thorpe, H., Brice, J. E., and Clark, M.. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 48 (3) :480–484, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2021.1981138
Haraway,D J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9780822373780
Hawes,A M; Smith,G S; McGinty,E; Bell,C; Bower,K; LaVeist,T A; Gaskin,D J; Thorpe,R J. (2019). Disentangling race, poverty, and place in disparities in physical activity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16 (7) 1193 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16071193
Honan,E. (2015). Gulson,K N, Clarke,M;Mand Bendix Petersen,EE(ed s .), Thinking rhizomatically: Using Deleuze in education policy contexts. Education policy and contemporary theory: Implications for research. Routledge, pp.208–218.
Ingold,T. (2011). Redrawing anthropology: Materials, movements, lines. Ashgate Publishing.
Ingold,T. (2021). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge.
Ingold,T; Palsson,G. (2013). Biosocial becomings: Integrating social and biological anthropology. Cambridge University Press.
Jacobson,M J; Kapur,M; So,H J; Lee,J. (2011). The ontologies of complexity and learning about complex systems. Instructional Science 39 :763–783, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9147-0
Jansen,F M; Ettema,D F; Kamphuis,C B M; Pierik,F H; Dijst,M J. (2017). How do type and size of natural environments relate to physical activity behavior?. Health & Place 46 :73–81, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2017.05.005
Jeong,S; Sherman,B; Tippins,D J. (2021). The Anthropocene as we know it: Posthumanism, science education and scientific literacy as a path to sustainability. Cultural Studies of Science Education 16 :805–820, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11422-021-10029-9
Juelskjær,M. (2020). Mattering pedagogy in precarious times of (un) learning. Matter: Journal of New Materialist Research 1 (1) :52–79, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1344/jnmr.v1i1.30067
Kim,B R; Grabow,M L; Walters,S; Rateike,S; Hitchcock,M; Barrett,B. (2023). Imagining eco-wellness: A scoping review of interventions aimed at changing individual behaviors to promote personal health and environmental sustainability. WMJ: Official Publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin 122 (3) :216–225. [ PubMed ]
Kimiecik,J; Horn,T; Newman,T J; Kimiecik,C M. (2019). Moving adolescents for a lifetime of physical activity: Shifting to interventions aligned with the third health revolution. Health Psychology Review 14 (4) :486–503, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2019.1700820
King,S; Weedon,G. (2021). The nature of the body in sport and physical culture: From bodies and environments to ecological embodiment. Sociology of Sport Journal 38 (2) :131–139, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/ssj.2020-0038
Korpelainen,N H. (2023). On experiencing sustainability. Clarifying the sensory approach with the pragmatist aesthetics’ conception of aesthetic sensibility. European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 15 (XV-2) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/ejpap.3369
Kracht,C L; Staiano,A E; Harris,M; Domangue,K; Grantham-Caston,M. (2024). Modification of childcare’s outdoor setting for toddler physical activity and nature-based play: A mixed methods study. PLoS ONE 19 (9) e0309113 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309113
Lanza,K; Alcazar,M; Hoelscher,D M; Kohl,H W. (2021). Effects of trees, gardens, and nature trails on heat index and child health: Design and methods of the green schoolyards project. BMC Public Health 21 (1) 98 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10128-2 [ PubMed ]
Lundvall,S; Fröberg,A. (2023). From individual to lifelong environmental processes: Reframing health in physical education with the sustainable development goals. Sport, Education and Society 28 (6) :684–696, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2022.2062320
Lupton,D. (2019). Toward a more-than-human analysis of digital health: Inspirations from feminist new materialism. Qualitative Health Research 29 (14) :1998–2009, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732319833368
Lysaker,O. (2020). Ecological sensibility: Recovering Axel Honneth’s philosophy of nature in the age of climate crisis. Critical Horizons 21 (3) :205–221, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2020.1790751
Mannion,G. (2019). Re-assembling environmental and sustainability education: Orientations from New Materialism. Environmental Education Research 26 (9–10) :1353–1372, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2018.1536926
Marenko,B. (2010). Contagious affectivity: The management of emotions in late capitalist design. Negotiating futures – design fiction, Proceedings of the Swiss design network conference, Basel, Switzerland, 28–30 October 2010. Central Saint Martins College of Art & Design, pp.134–135.
Markula,P. (2023). Human Bodies in Motion: The performative intra-actions of materialization. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies 23 (2) :146–156, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/15327086221144790
Massumi,B. (2004). Deleuze,G, Guattari,FF(ed s .), Notes on the translation and acknowledgments. A thousand plateus. Continuum, pp.xvii–xx.
McPhie,J; Clarke,D A G. (2020). A walk in the park: Considering practice for outdoor environmental education through an immanent take on the material turn. Feminist posthumanisms, new materialisms and education. Routledge, pp.148–168.
Merewether,J. (2018). New materialisms and children’s outdoor environments: Murmurative diffractions. Children’s Geographies 17 (1) :105–117, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2018.1471449
Morgan,C B; Brevik,K; Barbieri,L; Ament,J. (2023). Humans in/of/are nature: Re-embedding reality in sustainability sciences. Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 11 (1) :00083. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.00083
Moss,P; Petrie,P. (2019). Education and social pedagogy: What relationship?. London Review of Education 17 (3) :393–405, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.3.13
Nicholson,D J; Dupré,J. (2018). Everything flows: Towards a processual philosophy of biology. Oxford University Press.
Norton,B G. (2009). Minteer,B(ed.), Convergence and Contextualism: Some clarifications and a reply to Steverson. Nature in common? Environmental ethics and the contested foundations of environmental policy. Temple University Press, pp.36–48.
Olive,R; Enright,E. (2021). Sustainability in the Australian health and physical education curriculum: An ecofeminist analysis. Sport, Education and Society 26 (4) :389–402, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1888709
Pazos-Couto,J M; Toro Arevalo,S; Luhrs Middleton,O; Hidalgo Kawada,F. (2021). Eco–motricity: An epistemic turn to re–thinking physical education in Chile. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise 16 (1) :97–111, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2021.161.09
Portela-Pino,I; Alvariñas-Villaverde,M; Pino-Juste,M. (2021). Environmental barriers as a determining factor of physical activity. Sustainability 13 (6) 3019 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13063019
Rodrigues,C; Payne,P G. (2017). Environmentalization of the physical education curriculum in Brazilian universities: Culturally comparative lessons from critical outdoor education in Australia. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning 17 (1) :18–37, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2015.1035294
Ross,A; Kwon,J Y; Kulinna,P H; Searle,M. (2019). Active transportation: The role of parent attitude, the physical environment, and social capital. Journal of Physical Activity & Health 16 (1) :60–67, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2017-0503
Salonen,A O; Isola,A-M; Jakonen,J P; Foster,R. (2024). Who and what belongs to us? Towards a comprehensive concept of inclusion and planetary citizenship. International Journal of Social Pedagogy 13 (1) :5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14324/111.444.ijsp.2024.v13.x.005
Salonen,A. O; Laininen,E; Hämäläinen,J; Sterling,S. (2023). A theory of planetary social pedagogy. Educational Theory 73 (4) :615–637, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/edth.12588
Santos-Pastor,M L; Ruiz-Montero,P J; Chiva-Bartoll,O; Baena-Extremera,A; Martínez-Muñoz,L F. (2022). Environmental education in initial training: Effects of a physical activities and sports in the natural environment program for sustainable development. Frontiers in Psychology 13 867899 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.867899 [ PubMed ]
Schoon,M; Van Der Leeuw,S. (2015). The shift toward social-ecological systems perspectives: Insights into the human-nature relationship. Natures Sciences Sociétés 23 (2) :166–174, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/nss/2015034
Nayna Schwerdtle,P; Horton,G; Kent,F; Walker,L; McLean,M. (2020). Education for sustainable healthcare: A transdisciplinary approach to transversal environmental threats. Medical Teacher 42 (10) :1102–1106, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1795101
Simondon,G. (1958). Crary,J, Kwinter,SS(ed s .), The genesis of the individual. Incorporations. Zone Books, pp.297–319.
Singh,N M. (2018). Introduction: Affective ecologies and conservation. Conservation and Society 16 (1) :1–7, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_18_33
Stangierska,D; Fornal-Pieniak,B; Szumigała,P; Widera,K; Żarska,B; Szumigała,K. (2023). Green physical activity indicator: Health, physical activity and spending time outdoors related to residents preference for greenery. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20 (2) 1242 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021242 [ PubMed ]
Stark,H. (2017). Deleuze, subjectivity and nonhuman becomings in the Anthropocene. Dialogues in Human Geography 7 (2) :151–155, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2043820617717857
Taylor,W C; Poston,W S C; Jones,L; Kraft,M K. (2006). Environmental justice: Obesity, physical activity, and healthy eating. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 3 (s1) :S30–S54, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jpah.3.s1.s30
Thiele,K. (2016). Of immanence and becoming: Deleuze and Guattari’s philosophy and/as relational ontology. Deleuze Studies 10 (1) :117–134, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/dls.2016.0215
Thompson,G. (2020). The education assemblage. Routledge.
Thorburn,M; Gray,S; O’Connor,J. (2019). Creating thriving and sustainable futures in physical education, health and sport. Sport, Education and Society 24 (6) :550–557, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2019.1610375
Thorpe,H; Brice,J; Clark,M. (2021). New materialisms, sport and the environment: Imagining new lines of flight. Sport, Education and Society 26 (4) :363–377, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1837097
Thurm,S; Frank,P; Greve,S; Schröder,S. (2024). Can learning to move foster sustainable development? A systematic literature review examining the potential of sport and physical activity in the context of environmental and sustainability education. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research 54 (1) :29–42, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12662-023-00908-4
Tomayko,E J; Prince,R J; Hoiting,J; Braun,A; LaRowe,T L; Adams,A K. (2017). Evaluation of a multi-year policy-focused intervention to increase physical activity and related behaviors in lower-resourced early care and education settings: Active Early 2.0. Preventive Medicine Reports 8 :93–100, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.08.008 [ PubMed ]
Vanderloo,L M; Tucker,P; Johnson,A M; Burke,S M; Irwin,J D. (2015). Environmental influences on preschoolers’ physical activity levels in various early-learning facilities. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 86 (4) :360–370, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2015.1053105 [ PubMed ]
Vetlesen,A J. (2015). The denial of nature: Environmental philosophy in the era of global capitalism. Routledge.
Wallin,J. (2014). MacCormack,P(ed.), Dark pedagogy. The animal catalyst: Towards a human theory. Bloomsbury, pp.145–162.
Welch,R; Taylor,N; Gard,M. (2021). Environmental attunement in health, sport and physical education. Sport, Education and Society 26 (4) :339–348, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2021.1890009
Welch,R; Taylor,N; Gard,M. (2023). Environmental attunement continued: People, place, land and water in health education, sport and physical education. Sport, Education and Society 28 (6) :609–613, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2023.2224666
Wells,N M; Cosco,N G; Hales,D; Monsur,M; Moore,R C. (2023). Gardening in childcare centers: A randomized controlled trial examining the effects of a garden intervention on physical activity among children aged 3–5 years in North Carolina. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20 (11) 5939 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20115939
Wergeland,E S; Hognestad,H K. (2021). Reusing stadiums for a greener future: The circular design potential of football architecture. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living 3 692632 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2021.692632
Williams,C. (1998). A bergsonian approach to A-and B-time. Philosophy 73 (3) :379–393, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819198000059
Woods,C B; Kelly,L; Volf,K; Gelius,P; Messing,S; Forberger,S; Lakerveld,J; den Braver,N R; Zukowska,J; García Bengoechea,E. (2022). The physical activity environment policy index for monitoring government policies and actions to improve physical activity. European Journal of Public Health 32 (Suppl. 4) :iv50–iv58, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckac062
World Health Organization. (2018). ACTIVE: A technical package for increasing physical activity. World Health Organization.