The authors start from a familiar problem: pressing sustainability issues such as biodiversity conservation and the inequitable impacts of climate change emerge from interactions between human and earth systems that are complex, dynamic and unpredictable. They argue these challenges are compounded by a persistent cultural framing that positions humans as separate from the rest of the natural world, a view that Eurocentric science education practices often reinforce. Drawing on earlier work by Abson and colleagues on deep leverage points, they contend that learning functions as an indirect yet powerful driver of change, one that is less tangible than visible interventions such as policy shifts but potentially more transformative because it can reshape societal values and human relations with the more-than-human world of lands, waters and creatures.

The first of the article’s two central moves is to position learning ecosystems as elements of social-ecological systems. Social-ecological systems theory emphasizes the intertwining of social and biophysical elements, envisioning humans as part of, rather than separate from, ecological systems, and highlights the resilient, multi-scalar and interconnected nature of those systems. The learning ecosystem framework, by contrast, describes how, where, when and with whom learning happens: it is lifelong, lifewide and lifedeep, occurring across lifespans, inside and outside formal schooling, in settings that range from out-of-school programs and museums to gardening, commuting and neighboring, and it is entwined with cultural values and identities. The framework builds on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory of human development, which recognizes how individuals are shaped by experiences across ever-widening spatial scales from home to society.

Nested within learning ecosystems, the authors describe individual learningscapes, the points where a person’s intellectual and sociocultural foundations for learning connect with the biophysical places in which they learn. A regional learning ecosystem, they illustrate, could include formal schooling alongside informal opportunities in parks, museums and afterschool settings, plus everyday experiences, with deliberate pathways connecting learning in one setting to learning in another. The framework has been applied in higher education, workforce development, early childhood contexts, and STEM learning research, where researchers and practitioners have emphasized building pathways that strengthen science identity and workforce development. The authors caution, however, that the framework is frequently used only as a metaphor for networked institutions, when learning ecosystems should instead be understood as emergent, complex systems requiring adaptive management.

The article identifies three commonalities that learning ecosystems share with other social-ecological systems. First, both are nested and function at multiple scales, from individual experience to community-based learning to regional and national systems; as with watersheds, smaller scales are not subordinate to larger ones, and elements of nested systems interact, supporting the flow of energy and ideas. Second, both are material places consisting of space, such as landscape features or a museum exhibit, and time, where histories, present circumstances and future possibilities intertwine. Third, both are complex, exhibiting fluctuating interactions among individuals, communities and organizations. These layers of complexity, the authors note, create myriad intervention points for engagement, presenting both opportunities and challenges for transformative change.

Learning, in this view, is not simply something that happens in the mind but part of complex social-ecological systems. Individuals and organizations learn with and from each other about ecosystem functions, including their own roles and the impacts of biotic and abiotic elements on daily life, and this learning happens in relation with material elements of ecosystems, including more-than-human beings that support learning. The authors take up a view of reciprocal relationality that includes affective and material practices supporting mutually beneficial forms of care between humans and more-than-humans over cyclical, long-lasting periods. They also argue that learning from the environment, which recognizes the agency of the more-than-human world and is foundational in Indigenous ways of knowing, provides an essential approach beyond the familiar modes of learning about, in, with and for the environment, and they stress that respectful and authentic engagement with Indigenous scholarship is an essential part of recalibrating human interactions within social-ecological systems.

The second central move concerns the people who do the science. Building on theoretical work that positions learners as indicators of learning system health and educators of all types as keystones, the authors argue that environmental scientists function as keystones in learning ecosystems, analogous to how keystone species such as wolves in Yellowstone National Park support ecosystem health and landscape-scale transformation. In a summer youth program case study, the authors’ earlier work found that interactions with ecological researchers were essential elements of environmental interest development. In a separate study using retrospective life history interviews with adult naturalists, nonfamilial adults who encouraged environmental interest, even through fleeting interactions, played a critical role in supporting long-term environmental engagement. Citizen science programs that connect awareness of issues with opportunities to contribute have also been shown to support environmental engagement, particularly when projects knit together scientific and learning goals, and existing literature documents benefits of scientists in classrooms for learners, teachers and the scientists themselves.

Through public-facing activities ranging from informal conversations to BioBlitzes and guest presentations, the authors suggest, scientists can act as brokers who connect learners with environmental experiences, a role that helps solidify interest and expand individual learningscapes. Crucially, they argue that sharing scientific facts alone has yet to produce the transformative change needed given today’s environmental crises, and that an emphasis on teaching facts can even contribute to eco-anxiety and disengagement. Instead, they call on scientists to share their passions and awe about the world, to tell their own stories, including stories of challenges, which research suggests can humanize scientific work and inspire publics, including young learners. By connecting with people’s cultural, religious and emotional selves, scientists can open space for people who do not see themselves as belonging to the scientific community to engage with scientific endeavors.

The article frames transformative learning as an internalized outcome that unfolds over time rather than immediately: it begins with a disorienting dilemma, moves through the emotions that drive a perceived need for change, and gradually shifts toward sustainable actions that, with consistent practice, become part of the individual, who gains competence and self-confidence in new roles and relationships. The authors emphasize that these shifts are not only cognitive processes in individual learners; transformative learning comes into being through relationships between actors, including human and more-than-human beings in communities, and it is nonlinear and cyclical, sometimes appearing messy and uneven. Environmental learning, they argue, must build understanding while simultaneously strengthening environmental values and supporting action, which requires engaging people in emotional and experiential connections with the environment rather than information transfer alone.

The authors acknowledge that disciplinary boundaries make cross-field integration challenging, and that integrating two multifaceted systems adds layers of complexity requiring adaptive strategies responsive to emergent dynamics. Their hope is that conceptual integration of learning ecosystems into social-ecological systems will support the development of an environmentally engaged citizenry, people knowledgeable about social-ecological issues, expanding their connections with the more-than-human world, and committed to taking action to repair it. As a perspective piece, the article offers a framework and a provocation aimed at ecologists and other environmental scientists: recognize learning systems as essential elements of the ecosystems they study, and embrace their own role as keystones within those systems, uniquely positioned to drive interest in the environment and support the transformative learning that deep, values-level systems change may require.

Subject of Research: Bridging social-ecological systems theory and learning systems theory to reposition environmental scientists as facilitators of lifelong environmental learning

Article Title: Building environmental engagement: Can bridging social-ecological and learning systems theories be a lever for change?

Article References: Hecht, M., Heimlich, J. E., Ortbahn, C. T., & Ardoin, N. M. (2026). Building environmental engagement: Can bridging social-ecological and learning systems theories be a lever for change?. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-026-02510-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s13280-026-02510-y

Keywords: social-ecological systems, learning ecosystems, environmental education, transformative learning, environmental scientists, keystone species, biodiversity conservation, informal science learning, place-based education, Indigenous knowledge, systems transformation, citizen science