The Journal of Environmental Education

ISSN: 0095-8964 (Print) 1940-1892 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjee20

The role of school partnerships in promoting

education for sustainability and social capital

Iris Alkaher & Dafna Gan

To cite this article: Iris Alkaher & Dafna Gan (2020): The role of school partnerships in promoting
education for sustainability and social capital, The Journal of Environmental Education, DOI:
10.1080/00958964.2020.1711499

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2020.1711499

Published online: 07 Apr 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjee20
The Journal of Environmental Education
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2020.1711499

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The role of school partnerships in promoting education for

sustainability and social capital
Iris Alkaher and Dafna Gan
Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and the Arts, Tel-Aviv, Israel

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
State, civil society and private sector partnerships play a crucial role in fostering environmental citizenship;
a sustainable society. This case study explores the role of school-state-community- school partnerships;
civil society-business partnerships in promoting environmental citizenship as a education for sustainability
major component of education for sustainability (EfS), and social capital as a new (EfS); social capital; actors
in the community
outcome, from a school’s perspective. The findings indicate that the school suc-
ceeded in establishing and maintaining long-term connections with diverse
actors. Both the connections and the actors promoted EfS and social capital
within the school and community. School-state-community partnerships culti-
vated the students’ and community’s environmental citizenship, and school-busi-
ness partnerships improved the physical infrastructure of the School, and also
assisted the promotion of EfS in the school. Additionally, school-business part-
nerships were hard to sustain in long term.

Introduction – the interrelations between sustainability, EfS, partnerships, social capital

environmental citizenship and civil society
Sustainability was established as an approach to addressing the global environmental crisis (Tilbury,
1995). It includes three main components: ecological, economic and social (Tracey & Anne, 2008). While
the ecological component in the context of education is widely discussed (Berkowitz, Ford, & Brewer,
2005; Kahn, 2008; Tidball & Krasny, 2011), the economic components (Kopnina, 2014; Manteaw, 2008),
social components – and specifically, the role of the school-state-community-civil society-business
partnerships in fostering sustainable development – is less discussed in the literature (Eilam & Trop,
2013; Hatcher, 2014). According to the seventeenth United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (i.e.,
Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable develop-
ment), partnerships play a crucial role in fostering a sustainable society:
A successful sustainable development agenda requires partnerships between governments, the private sector and civil
society. These inclusive partnerships built upon principles and values, a shared vision, and shared goals that place
people and the planet at the center, are needed at the global, regional, national and local level (UN., 2018).

The effectiveness of partnerships for achieving sustainability does not exist only on a global scale, but
also within local communities. These partnerships are dependent upon and contribute to the social
capital of the different actors (Dillard, Dujon, & King, 2008), as we explain below. In line with this,
complex relationships exist between partnerships, sustainability and social capital. Whereas partnerships
are considered as important components of education for sustainability (EfS), social capital is a new
essential outcome of EfS, as suggested in this study. In other words, social capital could be fostered
through the partnerships.

CONTACT Iris Alkaher Iris.alkaher@smkb.ac.il Kibbutzim College of Education, Technology and the Arts, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/vjee.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

The term “education for sustainability” is interchangeable with “education for sustainable development
(ESD)”, both of which were developed as major ways to address the environmental crisis by engaging
the community. According to McKeown and Hopkins (2003), EfS (or ESD) aims to empower individuals
and communities of all ages to assume responsibility for creating a sustainable future and developing
environmental stewardship. In this study we use the term “EfS”, which is the current term used by the
Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Environmental Protection in Israel, regardless of its particular
programs and emphases. In addition, the school that is the focus of our case study adopted this term in
its agenda, curricula, formal documentation and day-to-day activities.
Dobson (2007) and Berkowitz et al. (2005) emphasize that the major goal of EfS is to develop indi-
viduals who act in a responsible way with respect to the environment. They both acknowledge the
importance of environmental citizenship, which means “the motivation, self-confidence, and awareness
of one’s values, and the practical wisdom and ability to put one’s civics and ecological literacy into action”
(Berkowitz et al., 2005, p. 228). Dobson (2007) assesses the commitment of environmental citizens to
the common good, such as protecting the environment. He argues that individual, self-interest behavior
might be in conflict with sustaining these values. Sustaining public good requires considering the social
characteristics of the community involved in a specific environment, such as social trust, social networks
and social norms, which are included in the idea of social capital (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993). Social
capital and civil society are tightly interrelated concepts. According to Paffenholz and Spurk (2006), civil
society is an arena in which people are voluntarily involved in collective actions around shared interests,
purposes and values. Environmental citizenship is an example of such involvement. These concepts –
environmental citizenship as a component of EfS and social capital – are often discussed separately in
academia, and investigated independently from one another. This study connects between these typically
separate arenas. In line with this, we built a framework that combines them.
The extent of research that connects social capital and sustainability is constantly growing (Garrigos-
Simon, Botella-Carrubi & Gonzalez-Cruz, 2018). The ideas of trust, networks and norms as part of social
capital (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993) strongly influence sustainable lifestyles (Garrigos-Simon, Botella-
Carrubi & Gonzalez-Cruz, 2018). Accordingly, high social capital enables communities to protect envi-
ronmental resources (Pretty & Ward, 2001). Partnerships demonstrate situations where different actors
with shared norms, trust and visions collaborate to achieve a common goal for the common good (Martin,
2011), such as achieving a sustainable society (UN., 2018). Our point of departure in this study is that
partnerships and environmental citizenship, as components of EfS, social capital, and civil society are
factors that could be related to each other in diverse ways. They are all interconnected and influence one
another. More specifically, we perceived social capital as a new important outcome of EfS, whereas part-
nerships are components of EfS that foster such outcomes.

Schools’ role in society in the context of EfS

Civil society is considered to be a sector that is separate from the other three main societal sectors: the
state, the community and the business sector (Howell, 2008). Our assumption is that schools can be seen
as intermediaries between these four sectors. According to scholars such as Johnson and Morris (2012),
schools should take a critical perspective toward social issues such as injustice and inequity, and become
leaders of societal processes and change. Moreover, as part of EfS, schools should prepare their students
to become responsible environmental citizens and make an effort to achieve a better democratic society
(Stevenson, 2007; Johnson & Morris, 2012). In this sense, children, teachers and the school as an orga-
nization should be viewed as agents of change in society (Gough, 2013).
Some governmental documentation emphasizes schools’ role in promoting student involvement in
social and environmental citizenship (Hahn, 2008). For example, in the Israeli context, a document issued
by the Ministry of Education in 2004 encouraged the environmental citizenship of learners as an essential
strategy to promote EfS within schools and the community (Ministry of Education, 2007). To some, the
point of departure in our study (based on a literature and policy document review) is that schools, as
agents of change, play a central role in promoting social change as part of EfS. As such, encouraging
 The Journal of Environmental Education 3

students to be active citizens should include development of critical thinking competencies, thus enabling
students to act wisely as informed citizens in democratic society, focusing on real-world issues. Involving
students in real-world issues in an environmental context is essential for the implementation of successful
EfS (Stevenson, 2008, 2013). School partnerships with different actors provide students with such authen-
tic learning experiences related to real-world social and environmental issues in a critical way, and these
experiences, in the wider social, political and business context, enable students to participate in a citizenry
process that might improve social equity and justice.

Study goals
As mentioned earlier, previous studies emphasize the effectiveness of various partnerships in developing
social capital (Edwards & Foley, 1998; Fukuyama, 2001) and promoting a sustainable society (Bridger &
Luloff, 2001; Edwards & Onyx, 2007; Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). The establishment and promotion of
school-state-community-civil society-business partnerships are rare in the education field (Hatcher,
2014). As a result, only a few research studies have focused on the characteristics and development of
these collaborations as a whole (Bryan & Henry, 2012; Scales et al., 2005). A greater amount of research
deals with the impact of school-family-community partnerships on academic achievement (Epstein et al.,
2018; Sanders & Harvey, 2002; Sheldon, 2007) than on school-community partnerships that develop
schools as organizations that promote environmental citizenship through EfS (Sobel, 2013; Zachariou &
Symeou, 2009). In Israel, the investigation of such partnerships has been conducted mainly in schools
that are nationally defined as community schools, in diverse arenas, including EfS (Dori & Tal, 2000; Tal,
2004). River School, the school used in our study, is a public school which is not defined as a community
school according to the Israeli Ministry of Education.
In light of the perception that environmental citizenship is an inherent component of EfS, we explored
the characteristics of partnerships between different actors in society and investigated their impacts on
social capital in a local community in Israel in the context of EfS. More specifically, we asked two ques-
tions: (1) What are the characteristics of the school-state-community-civil society-business partnerships
developed by River School? This descriptive question aims to use River School as a case study to shed
light on the phenomenon of partnerships in the context of EfS. This led us to our second question, which
focuses on the effect of these partnerships on environmental citizenship and social capital: (2) What is
the impact of school-state-community-civil society-business partnerships on environmental citizenship,
as part of EfS, and social capital on local and national scales?
The significance of this study is theoretical, practical and academic. Theoretically, it connects con-
ceptual frameworks from EfS with the sociological theories of social capital and civil society. In addition,
it sheds light on the inclusion of these frameworks in the practice of school-state-community-civil soci-
ety-business partnerships to promote environmental citizenship as part of EfS in society. Practically, this
study contributes to our understanding of the characteristics of these unique partnerships in general,
and in the context of EfS in particular. On an academic level, the study adds to the literature of schools’
relationships with different societal actors in its methodology from the unique perspective of school as
an intermediary between these actors.

Environmental citizenship, schools as agents of change and education for sustainability

A major goal of EfS is to foster environmental citizenship. However, the concept of citizenship as part of
EfS has only recently received scholarly attention (Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Dobson, 2010; Houser, 2009;
Schusler, Krasny, Peters, & Decker, 2009). According to Dobson (2010), environmental citizenship is
“pro-environmental behavior, in public and in private, driven by a belief in fairness of the distribution
of environmental goods, in participation …. It is about the active participation of citizens in moving
towards sustainability” (p. 6). Environmental citizenship encompasses a number of attributes: (1) Other-
regarding motivation – Commitment to environmental sustainability as a common good which requires
personal effort for public benefit. (2) Responsibility – The acknowledgment that the environmental rights
4 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

of other citizens infer personal environmental responsibility, which is international and intergenerational.
(3) Role of ethics – In promoting pro-environmental behavior, moral considerations and ethical knowledge
have equal weight with scientific-technological knowledge. (4) The arena for enacting citizenship –
Citizenship action is associated with the public sphere.
Schools have a central role to play in promoting EfS in society by engaging students in environmental
citizenship actions (Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Jensen & Schnack, 2006). Researchers agree that EfS should
put emphasis on community engagement and collaboration, rather than on individual knowledge, atti-
tudes and actions to promote environmental citizenship (Lerch, 2015; Wals & Noorduyn, 2010). Although
this approach requires an intensive inclusion of social aspects, it is often neglected (Tilbury & Wortman,
2008). In alignment with this idea, collaborating and interacting with various actors in society is important
for promoting EfS.

Social capital and EfS

Social capital is rooted in the domain of sociology, and has been defined by many researchers (Coleman,
1988; Bourdieu, 1986; DiClemente, Crosby, & Kegler, 2009; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 2001). In this study,
we used two complementary definitions for social capital: “the capacity of individuals to command scarce
resources by virtue of their membership in networks and their set of relationships with others” (Portes,
1998); and “the features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together
more effectively to pursue shared objectives” (Putnam, 2001). These two definitions are complementary
with respect to the components of social capital, and specifically highlight the following dimensions of
the concept: individual relationships with others and the establishment of relevant and effective networks,
which are the focus of our study.
Social capital can help us understand the various processes within social systems, including networks
between different structures and organizations (Krasny, Kalbacker, Stedman, & Russ, 2015; Van Deth,
Castiglione, & Wolleb, 2008). Providing suitable conditions to develop social capital at the community
level builds the ability to function as a democratic society that ensures the well-being of its members
(Coleman, 1988; Portes, 1998; Putnam, 2001; Van Deth et al., 2008). In addition, social capital is accepted
as a solution to various problems that communities worldwide face today, such as the need to cope with
the consequences of the environmental crisis through EfS (Bridger & Luloff, 2001).
According to the recent literature, social capital and EfS are closely connected through the idea that
social bonds and norms are critical for EfS (Evangelinos & Jones, 2009; Kühtz, 2007; Pretty, 2003; Ramirez,
2006). A wide area of research demonstrates how social capital enhances collective action, including
community-based activities in the arena of sustainability (Ahn & Ostrom, 2008; Krasny et al., 2015;
Pretty & Smith, 2004). These collective actions foster the development of sustainable communities that
are capable of protecting both the environment and the well-being of society (Bridger & Luloff, 2001;
Krasny et  al., 2015). Social capital is connected to the management of the natural resources of the
community. In particular, communities with developed social capital can act more successfully to protect
the common good and manage the natural resources in their surroundings in a sustainable manner
(Pretty, 2003). Furthermore, such communities encourage civil society to act to protect those natural
resources (Krasny & Tidball, 2009).

Civil society in the context of the different actors in society

As presented above, civil society relates to the voluntary involvement of people in collective actions
around shared interests, purposes and values. There are several frameworks and models that define the
concept of civil society in the context of community action. For example, the “civil society as a sector”
model (Croissant, Lauth, & Merkel, 2000; Merkel & Lauth, 1998, as cited by Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006)
includes four independents sectors, which interact with each other: the state, the community, civil society
and the business sector. State includes governmental organizations, local municipalities and other public
organizations. Community includes individuals or groups that are involved in citizenship actions. Civil
 The Journal of Environmental Education 5

society, according to this model, is a separate sphere (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006), which includes local
and national non-governmental and nonprofit organizations (Black & Hughes, 2001). Business sector
includes private profit organizations (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). In practice, the boundaries between
these four sectors (i.e., state, community, civil society, business) are complex and vague. Based on this
model, although these sectors are separate from each other, they strongly interact. For example, civil
society is independent from the state, but it closely interacts with it in promoting national policies on
various aspects of life (Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006), such as schools.
Schools are a complex system in society that interacts with each of the four sectors (i.e., the state, the
community, civil society and the business sector): (1) Public schools are officially part of the state (both
central and local government); they get financial support and are under the jurisdiction of state ministries.
In addition, schools can establish specific partnerships with the state to promote educational and eco-
nomic benefits to society (Hatcher, 2014; Parish, Baxter, & Sandals, 2012). (2) Schools and families are
part of the school-community partnerships that are widely discussed in the literature about schools and
the community (Auerbach, 2012; Epstein & Sheldon, 2006; Sanders & Harvey, 2002; Sheldon, 2003).
Families are an inherent part of the school system that can support, be involved in, or even lead, school
actions, initiatives and programs for the good of the whole community. (3) Schools play an important
role in the development and maintenance of civil society and can help students develop suitable skills to
become responsible citizens (Morrison, 2001; Viteritti, 2012). Schools have diverse partnerships with
civil society, such as collaborating with NGOs and other local entities (Tilbury, Goldstein, & Ryan, 2003).
(4) Schools and business partnerships are relatively new. In the past two decades, researchers have
acknowledged the important role of the private sector in the school system, which includes private
companies and the business sector (Hatcher, 2006). Schools and business partnerships have several
benefits, such as school sponsorship and business engagement in and for the community. Businesses also
serve as professional mentors for students for future careers and jobs (Scales et al., 2005) and, in some
cases, partnerships with the business sector are part of the curriculum (Neumann, 2008).
Schools can be effective intermediaries, meaning that they are a good platform for nurturing both
social capital and EfS in the community together with these four societal sectors, and could fill the gap
between them. Our point of departure in this study connects between the centrality of schools as such
intermediaries and the “civil society as a sector” model (Croissant et al., 2000; Merkel & Lauth, 1998, as
cited by Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006). Revising this model, we added the school as the intermediate sphere
which connects each of the sectors (Figure 1). Within the community sector, we included also family
members who act individually, and not through community-based organizations such as universities
and NGOs, which represent the civil society sector.

Figure 1.  School-State-Community-Civil Society – Business Partnership Scheme (based on Croissant et al., 2000; Merkel & Lauth,
1998; Paffenholz & Spurk, 2006, p. 3).
6 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

Types of school-community partnerships

There are various interrelationships between schools, their communities and civil society (Bauch, 2001;
Eilam & Trop, 2013; Uzzell, 1999). Although these include only two sectors of the partnerships discussed
above, they reflect diverse collaborations with external actors (i.e., school-state-community-civil soci-
ety-business). For example, Uzzell (1999) classified school-community relationships into four models
from the lowest to the highest levels of collaboration: (1)” The school as an isolated island” – schools and
their communities do not work together. (2)” The local community invited into the school” – members
of local communities are invited into schools to improve specific purposes. (3)” The school as a guest in
the local community” – school members work and act in the local community. (4)” The school as a social
agent” (also called the dialogue model) – community members are present in the schools, and school
members are active in the local community. In this study, based on River School’s agenda to act as a social
agent in the community, we adopted the dialogue model. This type of school-community partnership
has the following characteristics: a partnership highlights a school commitment for academic achieve-
ment; the school principal supports the partnership and the involvement of the community in the school;
the school is open for community engagement and for mutual communication with respect to the nature
of the community engagement in the school (Sanders & Harvey, 2002).

River School’s characteristics

River School is an elementary school, established in 1992 in central Israel. At the time of the study, the
school consisted of about 450 students, thirteen percent of whom were Jewish immigrants. The pseud-
onym” River School” comes from its location near a stream that runs in winter. The sociodemographic
characteristics of the students’ parents were middle-low socioeconomic status (SES) to middle-high SES.
The community of the school included 80 percent of originally Yemenite families that were integrated
with new immigrants in the neighborhood in the 1990s. The social capital of the school community was
partially developed. The school attempted to influence the community regarding the environment to
create a sustainable society and develop the social capital of its community (Gan, 2016).
The school focused on EfS through curriculum programs that emphasized the use of natural resources
in a way that recognized and considered the needs of future generations. From the beginning, the school
identified creating a sustainable local community as part of its humanistic, ecological and citizenship-
oriented vision: “The school’s aspiration is to develop graduates who have strong connectedness to their
place, are engaged in their community, and act for the common good in their own community” as written
in River School’s vision, 2017. According to this vision, River School developed as a sustainable school
over the years, focusing on engaging the community in the EfS agenda (Table 1). In 2005, the school was
awarded a green school certificate (a national accreditation process, headed by Israel’s Ministry of
Education and Ministry of Environmental Protection), and in 2009, it received a continuing green school
certificate (Ministry of Environmental Protection, 2019).
River School has been involved in EfS since its establishment in 1992, and different types of EfS
approaches were implemented in five stages (Table 1). The school-community partnerships gradually
developed through the stages: (1) New school in a new neighborhood – initiating the school-community
relationship. In the beginning, it was intuitive, not organized, and mainly focused on outdoor learning;
(2) Environmental school which promotes sustainability and place-based education – later on, termed as
EfS. In this stage, the school-environment-community partnership developed; (3) Certified green school
and innovative school for sustainability – a unique program designation led by Israel’s Ministry of
Education. In this stage, the focus of the school was developing the environmental citizenship of the
students and the community; (4) Certified continuing green school and dissemination center for sustain-
ability information – teaching other schools how to implement EfS. In this stage, there was further
development of the school-environment-community partnership at the local level. (5) National expert
sustainable school – outreaching various communities in the local town and in Israeli society. Table 1
demonstrates the long-term, rich environmental and community partnerships. The examples presented
in the table illustrate the deep relationships that were developed between school and community.
 The Journal of Environmental Education 7

Table 1. Historical development of River School focusing on partnerships.

Year Stage in Partnership Development
1992–1997 New school in a new neighborhood
Creating initial connections
school-environment-community
1998–2003 Promoting place-based environmental
education
Developing school-environment-community
partnership
2004–2008 Certified “green school” and “innovative school
for sustainability”
Promoting environmental citizenship within
the community
2009–2013 Certified continuing green school and
distributing to/outreaching other schools
Further development of school-environment-
community partnership locally
National “expert sustainable school”
Dissemination center for sustainability:
outreaching larger communities and
various actors in Israeli society
*Ongoing activities.
School-Community, Sustainability-oriented Outcome and
Activities
• Student learning about the local community
• Developing school vision with the school community*
• Public campaign to preserve local stream*
• Writing and publishing a book focusing on the characteristics
of the local community
• Establishing a local cultural heritage museum in the school
• Creating school-kindergarten partnership focusing on environ-
mental education*
• Implementing lectures with environmental experts for teacher
and students*
• Outdoor learning with the community: Students guide the
community, focusing on local nature (e.g. birdwatching, creat-
ing flower trail)*
• Adopting an archeological site with the community*
• Participating in an international peace posters contest
• Students’ participation in national conference for environmental
education*
• Implementing professional development with environmental
and educational experts, including outdoor learning
• Student involvement in environmental education academic
research – partnership with an environmental college*
• Creating community events in local open spaces to preserve the
natural landscape*
• Curriculum development focusing on protecting Boulder Stream
with the community
• Organizing school visits of state actors, such as national and
regional stakeholders and decision makers, to learn about the
implementation of sustainability in the school*
• Student participation in a local media broadcast regarding envi-
ronmental issues*
• Participating in a national EfS children’s conference organized
by the Ministry of Education.
• Creation of local plants guide by the students for the use of the
community to increase environmental awareness and to protect
nature
• Students, parents and community participation in municipal
committees focusing on promoting sustainability in the city*
• Student campaigns in the community focusing on environmen-
tal citizenry behaviors, such as water and energy saving, and
household waste management*
• Participating in an international conference aimed to promote
social and environmental topics in the community
• Adoption of the EfS model developed in the school by the Israeli
Ministry of Education*
• Distributing the EfS model to the Israeli education system to
embed sustainability in other schools*

Based on the school’s vision, students were encouraged to be actively involved within the school and
its community, and with the four different actors. The students’ learning experience included the follow-
ing: (1) guiding different visitors, who represent all the actors in the school partnerships, about the
principles of EfS in the school and in the broader context (e.g., guiding representatives of state stakeholders
who visited the school); (2) gaining knowledge from the different actors and learning from their expe-
riences about social and environmental issues (e.g., learning from local businesses in the city about local
heritage as part of EfS); (3) civic engagement that includes learning about a specific issue, choosing the
specific actor with whom to collaborate, and making decisions about how to act by using critical thinking
(e.g., collaborating with NGOs, as representatives of the civil society actor, to solve social and environ-
mental issues).
8 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

Research methods
We adopted a case study approach to explore the participants’ perspectives of the phenomenon (Merriam,
2009). A case study is a qualitative, naturalistic and holistic research approach that includes an “intensive,
thick description and interpretation of the phenomenon” (Merriam, 2009, p. 207). It also enables the
investigation of “complex social units containing multiple variables” (Merriam, 2009, p. 210). Case study
research includes real-life exploration of bounded systems over time, and in-depth data collection involv-
ing multiple sources of information (Yin, 2017). More specifically, we adopted a descriptive case study
approach, which yields a rich, thick description of the studied phenomenon (Yazan, 2015), thus strength-
ening the validity and reliability of the research (Yin, 2017).

Data collection, analysis and validity

As required in a case study, we collected data using multiple sources for validation: documents, interviews
and observations. Data was collected between 2012 and 2018. The documents (several dozen) related to
the school’s vision, experimentation, green school certification, the dissemination center, committee
meetings, sustainability events in the school and partnership with the community, as well as the protocol
of the teachers’ professional development programs, curriculum and study units. The documents reflect
the five stages in the development of the school-community partnerships, and give a chronological
description of the partnership development and the interrelationships between the partners, as presented
in Table 1. In addition, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews (Fontana & Frey, 2003) with
the principal, whom we chose because of her two decades of experience as the driving force behind EfS
in the school. We interviewed the principal three times during this study. The interviews focused on her
view of promoting EfS in the school through partnerships with diverse actors in the community, based
on the crucial role of partnerships in achieving EfS (UN., 2018). We also observed ten different in-school
and out-of-school sustainability-based activities that involved teachers, students, state policymakers,
community members and experts from the academia. Each activity lasted about three hours (in total,
30 hours). The observations focused on different situations in which partnerships were expressed.
For this study, we employed a general inductive approach, which typically focuses on the presentation
and description of the main ideas that emerge from the data. In this approach, the researcher follows a
straightforward set of procedures, such as the preparation of raw data files, close reading of text, and
development and revision of the main categories until deciding on the final ones (Thomas, 2006). We
guaranteed different types of validity and reliability: for construct validity we used triangulation of
multiple data sources and member checking; for internal validity we used an analytic categorization
technique using two more experts (besides the authors of this article); and for reliability we used protocols
of the documents and the observations and full verbatim transcriptions of the interviews (Yin, 2017).

Findings
The findings discuss the characteristics of the partnerships between River School and actors in the
community, and use a specific example to illustrate the nature of these partnerships. Our interpretation
of the findings addresses environmental citizenship as an inherent component of EfS and the strength-
ening of social capital as a new outcome of EfS within the community.

Creating partners and partnerships between the school and actors in the community to
promote sustainability
River School cultivated various networks of connections with all the actors: the state, the community,
civil society and the business sector (Figure 2, as of 2018). Based on the idea of the school as a driving
force behind the promotion of sustainability at local and national levels, it developed ties with all the
actors in the community and adapted the types of connections to the specific needs and interests of the
 The Journal of Environmental Education 9

different actors. For example, some connections advocated social and environmental activism, while
others spread the concept of sustainability in Israel. Other connections attempted to apply the principles
of sustainability in the school community, focusing on the aspects of environment, society and economy.
Based on the data analyzed, we learned that the entire school staff was involved in gaining partners and
nurturing partnerships, which were initiated by the school, as well as by the different actors. These col-
laborative partnerships created strong networks with various actors and strengthened social capital by
creating norms of a sustainable society.
Figure 2 illustrates the long- and short-term connections; some of which occurred very frequently and
some only when needed. We found that the strongest relationship was between the school and the state agencies
(19). State agencies include the local authorities, state ministries (environment, energy, agriculture and edu-
cation) and institutions of higher education. These connections enabled cultivating environmental citizenship
among the students. By creating partnerships with local government, the school also influenced the promotion
of sustainability at the municipal level. School representatives, students and their families participated in local
committees that deal with education and sustainability to influence the decisions of local policymakers. The
principal emphasized this relationship: “The school’s influence is highly respected on municipal committees,
[such as] environmental committees …. Most people who volunteer are parents of the school’s graduates ….
They [local policymakers] say … that River School has a great impact.” This exemplifies the mutual trust that
exists between River School, its community and local policymakers, and also demonstrates how social capital
in the context of sustainability contributes to decision-making within the level of state agencies. In addition,
this example highlights River School’s role as a mediator that encourages the environmental citizenship of the
students’ parents, who participate in the municipal environmental committees.
The connections between the school and institutions of higher education, such as teacher training
colleges, reflect the school’s willingness to promote EfS in Israeli teacher education. The school’s contacts
with government ministries are designed to influence policymakers at the national level to promote EfS.
These connections also strengthen EfS within the school. For example, the students presented
sustainability principles to visitors from the Ministry of National Infrastructures, Energy and Water

Figure 2. River School’s partnership with the four different actors (as of 2018).
Each circle’s area reflects the number of partnerships; the relative thickness of the arrow stands for the frequency of connection; the
type of arrow refers to the duration of the connection (broken line – short-term; unbroken line – long-term).
10 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

Resources. During this visit, the school consulted the visitors about how to act more efficiently regard-
ing energy.
The Connections Between School and Community Members included connections with five internal
school frameworks (parents, teachers, students, school graduates and volunteers) and ten external school
frameworks (five municipal forums, a community garden, two municipal centers and two neighborhood
administrations). These connections reflect the high environmental concern of the residents, who are
familiar with the local environmental problems, and voluntarily invest time and effort into promoting
sustainability. Therefore, this type of connection encourages environmental citizenship among commu-
nity members, which is in line with the River School EfS agenda. For example, the principal described
the long-term contacts with parents and volunteers:
The activities in an open area in the city led to further activity with the town residents, who were not necessarily
the students’ parents … [but] wanted to be partners [in the environmental effort]. They guided [the community on
outdoor subjects] when the wildflowers were in bloom …. In appreciation of the volunteers, we went on a field trip.

This example reflects the mutuality of the school-volunteer partnership. In this case, the partnership
provided the community an opportunity to better connect to their local surroundings and, at the same
time, the school gratefully acknowledged the volunteers’ efforts and showed its appreciation by organizing
an activity that suited the volunteers. This type of partnership enables the school to serve as an anchor
for creating an interest group on various aspects of sustainability. For example, River School encouraged
the establishment of municipal committees such as the Forest Committee, Protecting Boulder Stream
Committee and the Energy Efficiency Committee (Table 1). These committees advocate the relevant
issues at the municipal level, and the school set up a sustainability center to manage the activities of the
committees. The examples presented above demonstrate how the school succeeded in developing envi-
ronmental citizenship in the local community, thus strengthening social capital by reinforcing the different
networks while embedding norms of sustainability into the community.
The Connections Between School and Civil Society comprised two aspects: environmental-oriented
and social-oriented. The environmental-oriented connection included connections with national envi-
ronmental agencies and organizations. Its initial goal was to assist the professional development of school
staff as leaders of EfS in Israel. For example, the school principal pointed out the importance of the
connections with leading environmental NGOs in Israel:
We worked …. with [an NGO] …. that became a major structure in the school … and we have received invaluable
support regarding environmental issues. Currently, when I need assistance, I can call [the NGO], and they will offer
all the [professional] help available. This has enabled us …. to broaden the connections with other organizations …
that has immeasurably enhanced the school’s EfS.

These types of connections have frequently developed into two-way learning venues, where environ-
mental organizations visit the school to learn firsthand about the challenges and successes in promoting
EfS at River School. One of the additional outcomes of these partnerships is the development of envi-
ronmental citizenship within the school.
The social-oriented connections included connections with global and local social agencies and orga-
nizations, and aimed to foster the value of volunteering in the community as part of the idea of sustain-
ability. Since the acknowledgment and preservation of historical and cultural heritage were part of River
School’s EfS agenda, the school established connections with specific agencies that preserve the heritage
of diverse ethnic groups that have immigrated to Israel over the years. Acknowledging the historical and
cultural heritage of the community strengthened social capital because it invited the underprivileged
immigrant citizens to participate and contribute their values, traditions and norms to the current sus-
tainability discourse. River School’s awareness of the importance of creating partnerships with diverse
actors in the community and working together with these actors continuously is unique in the educational
system, both in Israel and worldwide. Creating such partnerships and maintaining them in the long term
encourages the promotion of EfS in society, including environmental citizenship.
The Connections Between School and the Business Sector included ten organizations. In the Israeli
context, where the education system is completely separate from business organizations, creating such
 The Journal of Environmental Education 11

school-business partnerships is unique, complex and challenging. River School successfully created many
partnerships with the business sector, the aim of which mostly focused on financial support for the
school’s infrastructure; a common reason for schools to connect with businesses (Hatcher, 2006). However,
River School also aimed to promote sustainability in the local community through partnerships with the
business sector; an aim rarely found in school partnerships in the context of EfS (Bennett & Thompson,
2011; Hoff, 2002). One example of such a partnership was the school’s collaboration with a local super-
market, in which students campaigned to reduce the use of disposable plastic bags. Another example
was the connection with a local street market to deepen students’ familiarity with the cultural charac-
teristics of the community. The students’ acknowledgment of the local merchants in the market strength-
ened the social capital of the business owners and made the students realize the importance of such
business in the local urban sphere. Despite the diversity of school-business partnerships, these connec-
tions were short term and relatively few in comparison with the other partnerships. The school-business
partnerships improved the physical infrastructure of River School, assisting the promotion of EfS in the
school. For example, financial support received from one of the businesses was used for building an
ecological yurt (traditional Mongolian tent), which serves the school for outdoor learning. However,
school-business partnerships were mainly one-way oriented and the school’s impact on promoting sus-
tainability in the business partnerships was lacking. Therefore, creating school-business partnerships
remains a challenge and is still in its initial stages.

A representative example of the partnerships between river school and other actors
The school’s eight-year campaign for protecting the local landscape of Boulder Stream serves as a good
example of fostering environmental citizenship by the school-community partnership with civil society
and strengthening social capital. Data collected from the documents and interviews indicated that the
local community actively participated in the long environmental campaign that River School led to
protect the natural landscape of Boulder Stream. River School used the stream’s landscape in its daily
outdoor education, as part of the school’s EfS agenda. The students learned about the characteristics of
the local ecosystem and its vulnerability to human damage. In 2002, the local municipality decided to
build an educational campus within the boundaries of this natural landscape. This decision triggered
the school to initiate an environmental campaign to preserve the stream, working together with the local
community.
First, the students met with the mayor and requested the preservation of the original route of the
stream. They emphasized the importance of protecting the unique biodiversity of the stream and sup-
ported their explanations with academic research findings. In the next stage, River School invited more
actors from environmental organizations, residents and academic experts to participate in the campaign.
This stage was characterized by an ongoing dialogue between the school, community representatives,
and local and national authorities, with the aim of reversing the decision that would destroy the landscape.
In the final stage, the campaign became broader and included several environmental NGOs. Together,
all the campaign participants organized petitions and presented the uniqueness of Boulder Stream to
relevant local and national stakeholders, and students and community members participated in local
municipality committees. Finally, after eight years of campaigning, the actions of the whole community
culminated in the decision to halt building operations at the site. River School continued to protect
Boulder Stream, with the assistance of an academic ecological-environmental expert. This continued
campaign demonstrates how River School plays a central role in leading environmental citizenship within
the community to protect their local environment and reflects the importance of the school-communi-
ty-civil society partnerships in promoting sustainability. These findings reflect how social capital devel-
oped within this community. The school principal described the campaign as follows:
We began the campaign on a small scale to save the stream …. Many communities joined us along the way ….
The partnerships became extremely valuable as the campaign developed …. Community members, parents and
residents participated in meetings with experts or governmental ministry representatives … to deepen their under-
standing of the issues in the campaign …. Many community members attended the meeting with the mayor … and
12 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

expressed their opposition to construction on the stream …. Parents and residents joined us to better understand
how Boulder Stream should be rehabilitated …. everyone in the school’s neighborhood was aware of the campaign
to save the stream … and many of them supported the school’s position …. The whole campaign received excep-
tional support from environmental activists in Israel, and it was exposed in the media.

This example illustrates the central role that the school-community partnerships played in the success
of the environmental campaign, emphasizing the principles of EfS. These principles include improving
the ecological literacy of all the actors involved and collaborating with the community and relevant
stakeholders. This example also highlights how school can serve as an intermediary in promoting EfS
and protecting the environment by encouraging environmental citizenship.

Discussion
Our discussion is organized around three major themes that reflect the findings and present a circular
process. (1) Starting with school partnerships, which influence the school level (Establishing Partnerships
between Schools and Different Actors). (2) Continuing with the influence of these partnerships on envi-
ronmental citizenship at local community level (Broadening Environmental Citizenship in Schools and
the Community through Partnerships). (3) Ending with the influence of school partnerships and envi-
ronmental citizenship on social capital at the broader societal level (Developing Local Social Capital
through Environmental Citizenship) (Figure 3).

Partnerships with River School – Establishing partnerships between schools and different actors
At the school level, creating continuous connections between schools and different actors in the com-
munity is not very common in the education system, neither in Israel, nor worldwide, and leaves many
challenges to be addressed (Epstein & Sheldon, 2006). In most cases, schools choose to work with a
limited number of partners that are mainly connected to the school system. These connections are often
short term and are organized around specific goals. Conversely, creating continous connections with
diverse actors in the community (such as state institutions, the community, civil society and the business
sector) require specific arrangements and management from the school. Creating partnerships between
schools and different actors provides an opportunity for schools to strengthen the level of connection
with these actors. The partnerships promote both EfS in school and facilitate community building; thus
widening the school’s impact on the whole community and its social capital. Our findings indicate that
River School succeded in partnership building and managed, by inviting the whole community, to
participate in school activities in the public sphere. In this way, River School became a social community

Figure 3.  The circular influence of school partnerships with different actors on environmental citizenship and social capital.
 The Journal of Environmental Education 13

center that enabled the development of an open dialogue between school and community concerning
their mutual needs. Our findings indicate that by their citizen involvement, the different actors in the
community reflected the principles of sustainability that River School promoted. It seems that the
school’s openness to community involvement and open dialogue led to the further creation and devel-
opment of more partnerships with other partners in the community. Despite these successful partner-
ships, our findings indicate that there are still some boundaries that can be pushed with respect to
duration, scope and type of school connections with different actors, especially in the business sector.
The limited scope of school-business partnerships that focus on promoting sustainability in the com-
munity might be influenced by the inherent tension that exists within the concept of sustainable devel-
opment (Jabareen, 2008). Creating a sustainable community might clash with the economic growth goals
that usually lead the business sector (Bridger & Luloff, 2001). Consequently, creating school-business
partnerships has challenges as well as opportunities (Barza, 2013). Such a partnership could, for example,
lead to a sponsorship-based relationship that does not promote sustainability but rather the business uses
the school’s need for economic support to promote its economic benefits (Hatcher, 2006). However, the
partnership could also be beneficial for protecting the environment, school-community relations and
broadening social capital, as illustrated by Cruz, Selby and Durham’s (2018) model. This model empha-
sizes the socio-environmental relationships that can promote sustainable socioeconomic and environ-
mental benefits in the community, and integrates social and economic components, such as social capital,
place-based education and environmental citizenship. Based on this and the initial school-business part-
nerships found in this study, we recommend broadening such relationships in schools and communities
to promote both social capital and sustainability. These school-community-business partnerships should
take into consideration the inherent tensions between economic growth and building a sustainable society.

Environmental citizenship – Broadening environmental citizenship in schools and the

community through partnerships
At the community level, the partnerships with the different actors provided opportunities for the students
and community members to engage in various forms of environmental citizenship. Our findings demon-
strate that the partnerships encouraged the implementation of environmental citizenship and they are
in line with two attributes taken from Dobson’s (2010) definition of this concept: (1) The other-regarding
motivation attribute, which focuses on personal effort for the public benefit – it seems that this attribute
enabled the different actors, including the students, to understand the importance of protecting the
common good, such as protecting the local stream and becoming involved in specific actions that required
their personal effort for the public benefit. Specifically, the students’ involvement in protecting the com-
mon good improved their understanding that environmental citizenship requires partnerships with
different actors. (2) The arena for enacting citizenship attribute – the various partnerships provided the
students and community members the opportunity to interact with different policymakers and stake-
holders in the public sphere as a common strategy in promoting EfS, which, in turn, contributed to
actually protecting a specific landscape. Our findings suggest that River School promoted environmental
citizenship among the students and community members through partnerships. In line with this, we
suggest expanding Dobson’s (2010) attributes for environmental citizenship, and adding the aspect of
partnerships as a crucial component for implementation in the school context.

Social capital – Developing local social capital through environmental citizenship

According to the literature, social capital enhances the collective action of the community to promote
sustainability (Ahn & Ostrom, 2008; Evangelinos & Jones, 2009; Krasny et al., 2015; Kühtz, 2007; Pretty,
2003; Pretty & Smith, 2004; Ramirez, 2006). In our study, at the societal level, we found that it also works
in reverse: the activities of the school with its community broadened the local social capital. According
to Putnam (2001), networking is one of the main characteristics of a developed social capital. The rich
networks that River School succeeded in establishing and maintaining with the various actors (i.e., the
14 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

community, the state, civil society and the business sector) enabled the increase of social capital. Specific
national and local environmental issues, such as the environmental damage to the local stream, were
identified as acute problems by the school. As a result, the school encouraged the local community to
take citizenry action. In other words, the development of environmental citizenship led to broadening
and deepening the social capital. Similar conclusions were discussed by Powers (2004), who evaluated
the effect of four different place-based programs on teachers, students, schools and communities, and
also found that increasing civic engagement in a community broadens and deepens social capital as “the
invisible web of relationship” (p. 19). Improving the social capital of a community through environmental
citizenship, and specifically in middle-low SES communities, as in our case, is encouraging. It demon-
strates how the sustainability arena is a suitable platform for promoting both environmental citizen
engagement and social capital.

Conclusions and implications

This study demonstrates how school could serve as an anchor for partnership establishment with diverse
actors in society. Theoretically, it connects the frameworks of environmental citizenship, as a component
of EfS, and social capital, which until recently were considered as separate concepts and were studied
separately. This connection is important, since EfS requires a holistic perspective to address the global
ecological crisis. EfS itself should be grounded in holistic theoretical frameworks, and especially those
that connect social and ecological approaches. The concept of social capital focuses on networks between
individuals and organizations (Krasny et al., 2015; Van Deth et al., 2008) and is considered a suitable
resource for addressing problems such as the environmental crisis (Bridger & Luloff, 2001). Therefore,
exploring the diverse networks included in the idea of social capital could assist in effectively promoting
environmental citizenship as part of the principles of EfS.
Based on River School’s success in creating partnerships that promote sustainability and strengthen
social capital, we suggest that other schools who are willing to promote sustainability perceive the com-
munity as a valuable partner in this process. Creating partnerships with the community is part of EfS.
Based on our findings, we recommend several steps for managing school-state-community-civil soci-
ety-business partnerships for other schools who wish to promote EfS within their community: (1) includ-
ing partnership establishment and development as part of the school agenda. (2) Identifying specific and
common goals for schools and communities to achieve through their partnerships. (3) Developing an
open dialogue to address the needs of the different partners, and (4) engaging all partners in environ-
mental citizenship to protect the societal common good. These steps create shared interests and willing-
ness to be involved in long-term connections. The advantages of these partnerships for schools and the
actors must be constantly evaluated.
Despite the relatively few school-state-community-civil society-business partnerships that exist in
Israel, we recommend that schools who are willing to create such partnerships should not to be con-
cerned about being “pioneering institutions that promote EfS” but rather become role models. Most
of the literature describes partnerships between schools and one or two actors (Bryan, 2005; Scales
et al., 2005). Our findings relate to partnerships that include diverse actors, and their contribution to
both schools and society. These types of partnerships promote sustainability and social capital at the
local level, especially when communities with relatively low social capital are involved, as in the case
of this study.
This study focuses on a school’s perspective on the characteristics and role of partnerships between
the school and the four actors: the state, the community, civil society and the business sector. Further
research should explore these partnerships also from the perspectives of the actors. This case study
presents the promotion of EfS and the development of social capital in a specific community. Further
research should explore other models of school-community partnerships in the context of EfS. We believe
that this study contributes to our understanding of processes that promote EfS via connections with the
four actors in the community and illustrates how these connections contribute to the promotion of
sustainability and social capital. As found in this study, developing social capital contributed to fostering
sustainability and enhanced collective action in the community to protect the environment – the common
 The Journal of Environmental Education 15

good. The collective protection of the environment achieved by creating the partnerships explored in
this study also developed social capital. This study demonstrates how developing social capital should
be considered as a new valuable outcome of EfS that contributes to both the community and the
environment.

ORCID
Iris Alkaher https://orcid.org./0000-0003-2609-0369
Dafna Gan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1322-3564

References
Ahn, T. K., & Ostrom, E. (2008). Social capital and collective action. In The handbook of social capital. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University.
Auerbach, S. (2012). School leadership for authentic family and community partnerships: Research perspectives for trans-
forming practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Barza, L. (2013). School-business partnerships: The case of the UAE. Journal of Strategy and Management, 6(2), 180–189.
doi:10.1108/17554251311322431
Bauch, P. A. (2001). School-community partnerships in rural schools: Leadership, renewal, and a sense of place. Peabody
Journal of Education, 76(2), 204–221. doi:10.1207/S15327930pje7602_9
Bennett, J. V., & Thompson, H. C. (2011). Changing district priorities for school–business collaboration: Superintendent
agency and capacity for institutionalization. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 826–868. doi:10.1177/00131
61X11417125
Berkowitz, A. R., Ford, M. E., & Brewer, C. A. (2005). A framework for integrating ecological literacy, civics literacy, and
environmental citizenship in environmental education. In E. A. Johnson & M. J. Mappin (Eds.), Environmental educa-
tion and advocacy (pp. 227–266).Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press.
Black, A., & Hughes, P. (2001). The identification and analysis of indicators of community strength and outcomes.
FaHCSIA Occasional Paper 3. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1729048
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of
education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Bridger, J. C., & Luloff, A. E. (2001). Building the sustainable community: Is social capital the answer? Sociological Inquiry,
71(4), 458–472. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2001.tb01127.x
Bryan, J. (2005). Fostering educational resilience and achievement in urban schools through school-family-community
partnerships. Professional School Counseling, 8(3), 219–227.
Bryan, J., & Henry, L. (2012). A model for building school–family–community partnerships: Principles and process.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 90(4), 408–420. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.2012.00052.x
Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. F. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research,
13(4), 437–452. doi:10.1080/13504620701581539
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
doi:10.1086/228943
Croissant, A., Lauth, H. J., & Merkel, W. (2000). Zivilgesellschaft und Transformation: ein internationaler Vergleich.
Systemwechsel, 5, 9–49.
Cruz, A. R., Selby, S. T., & Durham, W. H. (2018). Place-based education for environmental behavior: A ‘funds of knowledge’
and social capital approach. Environmental Education Research, 24(5), 627–647. doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1311842
DiClemente, R. J., Crosby, R. A., & Kegler, M. C. (2009). Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Dillard, J., Dujon, V., & King, M. C. (Eds.). (2008). Understanding the social dimension of sustainability. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Dobson, A. (2007). Environmental citizenship: Towards sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 15(5),
276–285. doi:10.1002/sd.344
Dobson, A. (2010). Environmental citizenship and pro-environmental behaviour: Rapid research and evidence review.
London, UK: Sustainable Development Research Network.
Dori, Y. J., & Tal, T. (2000). Formal and informal collaborative projects: Engaging in industry with environmental aware-
ness. Science Education, 84(1), 95–113. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<95::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-W
Edwards, B., & Foley, M. W. (1998). Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(1),
124–139. doi:10.1177/0002764298042001010
Edwards, M., & Onyx, J. (2007). Social capital and sustainability in a community under threat. Local Environment, 12(1),
17–30. doi:10.1080/13549830601098206
Eilam, E., & Trop, T. (2013). Evaluating school-community participation in developing a local sustainability agenda.
International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 8(2), 359–380. doi:10.12973/ijese.2013.201a
16 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., Sheldon, S. B., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., … Greenfeld, M. D. (2018). School,
family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Epstein, J. L., & Sheldon, S. B. (2006). Moving forward: Ideas for research on school, family, and community partnerships.
In C. F. Conrad, & R. Serlin (Eds.), Sage handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry
(pp. 117–138). New York, NY: Sage.
Evangelinos, K. I., & Jones, N. (2009). An analysis of social capital and environmental management of higher education
institutions. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(4), 334–342. doi:10.1108/14676370910990684
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2003). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In. N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 61–106).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 7–20. doi:10.1080/
713701144
Gan, D. (2016). Environmental education and citizenship: A case study of elementary teachers and principals perspectives in
Israel (Doctor of education). Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
Garrigos-Simon, F., Botella-Carrubi, M., & Gonzalez-Cruz, T. (2018). Social capital, human capital, and sustainability:
A bibliometric and visualization analysis. Sustainability, 10(12), 4751–4770. doi:10.3390/su10124751
Gough, A. (2013). The emergence of environmental education research. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. Wals
(Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hahn, C. (2008). Education for citizenship and democracy in the United States. In A. James, D. Ian, C. Hahn (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of education for citizenship and democracy (pp. 263–278).Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hatcher, R. (2006). Privatization and sponsorship: The re‐agenting of the school system in England 1. Journal of Education
Policy, 21(5), 599–619. doi:10.1080/02680930600866199
Hatcher, R. (2014). Local authorities and the school system: The new authority-wide partnerships. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 42(3), 355–371. doi:10.1177/1741143214521591
Hoff, D. L. (2002). School-business partnerships: It’s the schools’ turn to raise the grade!School Community Journal, 12(2), 63.
Houser, N. O. (2009). Ecological democracy: An environmental approach to citizenship education. Theory & Research in
Social Education, 37(2), 192–214. doi:10.1080/00933104.2009.10473394
Howell, J. (2008). Report on activities 2007–08 (70527). London, UK. Retrieved from: http://www.lse.ac.uk/CCS/home.
aspx.
Jabareen, Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 10(2), 179–192. doi:10.1007/s10668-006-9058-z
Jensen, B. B., & Schnack, K. (2006). The action competence approach in environmental education. Environmental
Education Research, 12(3–4), 471–486. doi:10.1080/13504620600943053
Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2012). Critical citizenship education in England and France: A comparative analysis. Comparative
Education, 48(3), 283–301. doi:10.1080/03050068.2011.588885
Kahn, R. (2008). Towards ecopedagogy: Weaving a broad-based pedagogy of liberation for animals, nature, and the
oppressed people of the earth. The Critical Pedagogy Reader, 2, 522–540.
Kopnina, H. (2014). Revisiting education for sustainable development (ESD): Examining anthropocentric bias through
the transition of environmental education to ESD. Sustainable Development, 22(2), 73–83. doi:10.1002/sd.529
Krasny, M. E., Kalbacker, L., Stedman, R. C., & Russ, A. (2015). Measuring social capital among youth: Applications in
environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 21(1), 1–23. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.843647
Krasny, M. E., & Tidball, K. G. (2009). Applying a resilience systems framework to urban environmental education.
Environmental Education Research, 15(4), 465–482. doi:10.1080/13504620903003290
Kühtz, S. (2007). Adoption of sustainable development schemes and behaviours in Italy: Barriers and solutions–what can
educators do?International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 8(2), 155–169. doi:10.1108/14676370710726625
Lerch, D. (2015). Six foundations for building community resilience. Santa Rosa, CA: Post Carbon Institute.
Manteaw, B. O. (2008). When businesses go to school: Neoliberalism and education for sustainable development. Journal
of Education for Sustainable Development, 2(2), 119–126. doi:10.1177/097340820800200209
Martin, F. (2011). Global ethics, sustainability and partnership. In G. Butt (Ed.), Geography, education and the future
(pp. 206–222). London, UK: Continuum.
McKeown, R., & Hopkins, C. (2003). EE p ESD: Defusing the worry. Environmental Education Research, 9(1), 117–128.
doi:10.1080/13504620303469
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jowwey-Bass.
Merkel, W., and H. Lauth. (1998). “Systemwechsel und Zivilgesellschaft. Welche Zivilgesellschaft braucht die Demokratie?”
Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 6(7), 3–12.
Ministry of Education. (2007). General director: Environmental education – a main challenge in the educational system in
Israel, action program to promote environmental education. Jerusalem, Israel: Author.
Ministry of Environmental Protection. (2019). Ministries of environmental protection and education certify 95 new
“Green” schools. Retrieved from https://www.gov.il/en/departments/news/95_green_schools2018
Morrison, B. (2001). The school system: Developing its capacity in the regulation of a civil society. In H. Strang & J.
Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and civil society (pp. 195–210).Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Neumann, R. (2008). Charter schools and innovation: The high tech high model. American Secondary Education, 36(3),
51–69.
 The Journal of Environmental Education 17

Paffenholz, T., & Spurk, C. (2006). Civil society, civic engagement, and peacebuilding. Social Development Papers: Conflict
Prevention and Reconstruction, 36, 10–55.
Parish, N., Baxter, A., & Sandals, L. (2012). Action research into the evolving role of the local authority in education. London,
UK: Department for Education.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Powers, A. L. (2004). An evaluation of four place-based education programs. The Journal of Environmental Education,
35(4), 17–32. doi:10.3200/JOEE.35.4.17-32
Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302(5652), 1912–1914. doi:10.1126/
science.1090847
Pretty, J., & Smith, D. (2004). Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management. Conservation Biology, 18(3),
631–638. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00126.x
Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social capital and the environment. World Development, 29(2), 209–227. doi:10.1016/S0305-
750X(00)00098-X
Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community. The American Prospect, 4(13), 35–42.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Ramirez, M. (2006). Sustainability in the education of industrial designers: The case for Australia. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 7(2), 189–202. doi:10.1108/14676370610655959
Sanders, M. G., & Harvey, A. (2002). Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community
collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1345–1368. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00206
Scales, P. C., Foster, K. C., Mannes, M., Horst, M. A., Pinto, K. C., & Rutherford, A. (2005). School-business partnerships,
developmental assets, and positive outcomes among urban high school students: A mixed-methods study. Urban
Education, 40(2), 144–189. doi:10.1177/0042085904272746
Schusler, T. M., Krasny, M. E., Peters, S. J., & Decker, D. J. (2009). Developing citizens and communities through youth
environmental action. Environmental Education Research, 15(1), 111–127. doi:10.1080/13504620802710581
Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking school–family–community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achieve-
ment on state tests. The Urban Review, 35(2), 149–165.
Sheldon, S. B. (2007). Improving student attendance with school, family, and community partnerships. The Journal of
Educational Research, 100(5), 267–275. doi:10.3200/JOER.100.5.267-275
Sobel, D. (2013). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and community. Grate Barrington, MA: Orion Society.
Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental/sustainability education: From discourses of policy and practice to
discourses of professional learning. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 265–285. doi:10.1080/13504620701295650
Stevenson, R. B. (2008). A critical pedagogy of place and the critical place(s) of pedagogy. Environmental Education
Research, 14(3), 353–360. doi:10.1080/13504620802190727
Stevenson, R. B. (2013). Researching tensions and pretensions in environmentallsustainability education policies: From
critical to civically engaged policy scholarship. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. Wals (Eds.), International
handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 147–155). New York, NY: Routledge.
Tal, T. (2004). Community-based environmental education – A case study of teacher-parent collaboration. Environmental
Education Research, 10(4), 523–543.
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of
Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246. doi:10.1177/1098214005283748
Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Toward an ecology of environmental education and learning. Ecosphere, 2(2),
art21–17. doi:10.1890/ES10-00153.1
Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: Defining the new focus of environmental education in the
1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 195–212. doi:10.1080/1350462950010206
Tilbury, D., Goldstein, W., & Ryan, L. (2003). Towards environmental education for sustainable development: The contri-
butions of NGOs in the Asia-Pacific region. International Review for Environmental Strategies, 4(1), 59–73.
Tilbury, D., & Wortman, D. (2008). How is community education contributing to sustainability in practice?. Applied
Environmental Education & Communication, 7(3), 83–93. doi:10.1080/15330150802502171
Tracey, S., & Anne, B. (2008). OECD insights sustainable development linking economy, society, environment: Linking
economy, society, environment. OECD Publishing. Retrived from https://www.oecd.org/insights/sustainabledevelopment
linkingeconomysocietyenvironment.htm
UN. (2018). About the sustainable development goals. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
sustainable-development-goals
Uzzell, D. (1999). Education for environmental action in the community: New roles and relationships. Cambridge Journal
of Education, 29(3), 397–413. doi:10.1080/0305764990290309
Van Deth, J. W., Castiglione, D., & Wolleb, G. (2008). Handbook of social capital. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Viteritti, J. (2012). Choosing equality: School choice, the constitution, and civil society. Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press.
Wals, A. E. J., & Noorduyn, L. (2010). Social Learning in Action: A Reconstructive of an Urban Community Moving
Towards Sustainability. In R. Stevenson and J. Dillon (Eds.), Engaging Environmental Education: Learning, Culture and
Agency (pp. 59–76).Rotterdam, Holland: Sense Publishers.
18 I. ALKAHER AND D. GAN

Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report,
20(2), 134–152.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zachariou, A., & Symeou, L. (2009). The local community as a means for promoting education for sustainable develop-
ment. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 7(4), 129–143. doi:10.1080/15330150902744152