We studied the development of environmental motivation in a group of vulnerable elementary school children who participated in a school kitchen garden project. 

Within the theory of Environmental and Sustainability Education (ESE) motivation is an important subject of research as it is considered the condition where a person has or acquires intrinsic and extrinsic incentives (motives), to involve into pro-environmental behavior and actions (Christodoulou and Korfiatis, 2019; Darner, 2012). From an educational point of view, the aim is to support those types of motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) who are more strongly connected with students’ personal development and well-being.  Indeed, various studies in the domain of environmental and sustainability education have shown that integrated and intrinsic types of motivation for participation and action are connected with empowerment, self-efficacy and ownership, as well as with a longer sustaining of a behavior or action (Dutta and Chandrasekharan, 2017; Murakami, Su-Russell and Manfra, 2018).

The Self Determination Theory (SDT) of motivation pays particular attention to factors or conditions that enhance motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Specifically, the SDT states that in order to foster motivation, the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness must be supported (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Karaarslan et al., 2014). However, very few studies have analysed the actual conditions under which specific motivational projects have been implemented, i.e., if participants had indeed experienced the conditions that supposedly constitute the cornerstones of a motivational approach. Εvidence derived from those studies is quite interesting even though reveals contradictions.  For example, Legault and Pelletier (2000) report that children who were part of an EE project engaged in ecological behaviors motivated less by extrinsic motives than did children who were part of a control group.  Contrary to these results, Boeve-de Pauw  and Petegem (2017) have found that 6th grade as well as 12th grade students participating in the well-known eco-school project developed external rather than internal environmental types of motivation.  Karaarslan, Ertepınar, and Sungur (2014) argue that the various institutional EE projects promote rather non self-determined pro-environmental behaviors.  In this way they emphasize the development of extrinsic motivation.  As a result, Karaarslan et al. (2014) comment, many EE campaigns fail in enduring participants’ motivation toward the environment.  In another study, Renaud-Dube et al. (2010) argue that elementary school children are more likely to exhibit external rather that self-determined types of environmental motivation, but it is important to increase autonomous environmental motivation at that age.  Therefore, there is a need to study how psychological variables affect vulnerable young students intention to act for the environment and for sustainability (Uitto, Boeve-de Pauw, and Saloranta, 2015; Boeve-de Pauw, and Petegem, 2017).

School garden projects are considered as ideal contexts to fulfill vulnerable students psychological needs.  For example, school gardens enhance students’ competence and relatedness (Pollin and Retzlaff-Fürst, 2021; Christodoulou and Korfiatis, 2019), empower their sense of autonomy, by controlling their own survival needs (e.g., food, land, tools) (Okvat and Zautra, 2011), and promote their social well-being and the quality of the natural environment (Tidball and Krasny, 2011).

Within the above line of reasoning, this study aims to answer the following questions: 1. How the development of the psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness affect vulnerable students’ environmental motivation? 2. Are there other conditions – except of those three psychological needs – that influence students’ environmental motivation and future environmental intentions?

Thirteen students from an urban elementary school, aged 6-12 years old, participated in the kitchengarden project. Students were characterized by medium educational level, low environmental motivation, limited interaction with nature, low socio-economic background, and high level of obesity. Project activities were based on students’ thoughts and decisions during the implementation of the project. Students worked in mixed capacity groups of three to four members. The project was designed with aim to enhance participating children satisfaction of their basic psychological needs, according to SDT: their sense of autonomy by making their own choices about maintaining their garden and managing their crops; their sense of competence by collecting good quality and fresh vegetables; and their sense of relatedness by discussing problem-solving activities and making group decisions (Korfiatis & Petrou, 2021). Data were collected by: (a) pre and post-test interviews, (b) schoolteachers observations and (c) students self-reported reflective Notes. Pre- and post – interviews aimed to identify students’ environmental motivation before and after their participation in the project. Post interviews aimed also to identify how students perceived the various characteristics of the project and their future environmental intentions. Teachers observations and students self-reported reflective notes aimed to record data about students’ participation in project’s activities (their considerations, initiatives, worries, difficulties, emotions). Content Analysis used to analyse the data gathered with the above-mentioned methodological tools. The analysis of the pre- & post- interviews was based on the five SDT types of motivation (External Regulation, Introjected Regulation, Identified Regulation, Integrated Regulation, Intrinsic Regulation) and open coded analysis was used to analyse teachers observations and students self -reported reflective notes. An interpretivism approach was adopted to compare the RT member observations and the Students Self -Reported Reflective notes, and to generate interpretations about the influence of the phycological needs on students’ environmental motivation, and other possible conditions affecting their future environmental intentions.

The satisfaction of the three psychological needs according to SDT influence children’s environmental motivation. This is how an 8 years old girl describe the satisfaction of her needs: “I felt autonomy because we were given the choice of where to create our kitchen garden, and what we would like to cultivate…I felt relatedness because me and my team members were working together, sharing our thoughts to take care of our crops…I felt competence by seeing our goal being accomplished, or by offering veggies to the lady who prepares our lunch at school…I would certainly create a kitchen garden again in our school or in my house yard”. However, our findings suggest that there is more about enhancing students’ environmental motives from only creating the conditions under which they will satisfy the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness. An example from teachers observations: They were considered about a boy’s non-participating behavior during the project even though he stated that his three basic psychological needs were satisfied. Personal discussions with him revealed that specific family issues (low-income, failure to cover basic survival needs) did not let him focus on his school participation in general and on the school-garden project in particular. Another 9 years old boy stated: “I would like to create a vegetable garden, only if somebody provides me help”. Supportive environment is emerged as an important condition affecting certain students’ environmental intentions (Patrick et al., 2007). The present study recommends that specific personal or social conditions (Cicek-Senturk & Selvi, 2019), are important factors that influence environmental motivation. These factors might be of significant importance when vulnerable children are concerned and the theories of motivation should include them in their explanatory frameworks

Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2017). Because my friends insist or because it makes sense? Adolescents’ Motivation towards the Environment. Sustainability, 9(5), 750. Christodoulou, A., & Korfiatis, K. (2019). Children's interest in school garden projects, environmental motivation, and intention to act: A case study from a primary school of Cyprus. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 1-11. Cicek-Senturk, O., & Selvi, M. (2019). The Development of Environmental Motivation Scale at Secondary Schools and Analysis of Different Variables of Students' Motivation towards Environment. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 14(4), 218-236. Darner, R. (2012). An empirical test of self-determination theory as a guide to fostering environmental motivation. Environmental Education Research, 18(4), 463-472. Dutta, D., & Chandrasekharan, S. (2018). Doing to being: farming actions in a community coalesce into pro-environment motivations and values. Environmental Education Research, 24(8), 1192-1210. Karaarslan, G. Sungur, S. & Ertepinar, H. (2014). Developing preservice science teachers’ self-determined motivation toward environment through environmental activities. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9, 1-19. Korfiatis, K., & Petrou, S. (2021). Participation and why it matters: children’s perspectives and expressions of ownership, motivation, collective efficacy and self-efficacy and locus of control. Environmental Education Research, 27(12), 1700-1722. Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., Grant, P., & Chung, J. (2007). On the self-regulation of implicit and explicit prejudice: A self-determination theory perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 732-749. Murakami, C. D., Su-Russell, C., & Manfra, L. (2018). Analyzing teacher narratives in early childhood garden-based education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 49(1), 18-29. Okvat, H. A., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Community gardening: A parsimonious path to individual, community, and environmental resilience. American journal of community psychology, 47, 374-387. Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of educational psychology, 99(1), 83. Pollin, S., & Retzlaff-Fürst, C. (2021). The school garden: A social and emotional place. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 567720. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68. Tidball, K. G., & Krasny, M. E. (2011). Urban environmental education from a social-ecological perspective: Conceptual framework for civic ecology education. Cities and the Environment (CATE), 3(1), 11. Uitto, A., Boeve-de Pauw, J., & Saloranta, S. (2015). Participatory school experiences as facilitators for adolescents' ecological behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43, 55-65.