There is no doubt that today ecological crisis is one of the biggest challenge humanity is ever faced. Due to the vast and rapid expansion of human activity since the mid-20th century, significant alterations are taking place on Earth. Among these, the twin crises known as climate change and biodiversity loss are at the forefront. A stable climate and healthy biodiversity are essential to various aspects of our everyday activities, economies, and natural ecosystems. As a result, the effects of climate change and the decline in biodiversity, in addition to ecological concerns, will bring about economic, social, ethical, and security-related challenges, raising important questions about justice across social, generational, and species boundaries. This implies that environmental crises have deep ontological and philosophical implications that must be considered (Cole & Malone, 2019; Dinçel & Çakır-Yıldırım, 2022; Jardins, 2006; Orr, 1992).

That said, the ethical dimensions of Environmental Education (EE) are often neglected (Jickling, 1992; Kronlid & Öhman, 2013). However, as demonstrated by Sauvé (1996, 2005), who categorized various movements within the EE field, the perspective of the institutions that organize EE plays a critical role in shaping both the content and the methods they adopt to address environmental challenges. Therefore, the values, beliefs, and perspectives held by these institutions regarding the relationship between humans and nature greatly impact the ways EE programs tackle environmental issues and propose solutions. Consequently, EE is closely tied to the environmental ideologies of the organizations offering the education. In this study, "environmental ideology" refers to the collection of ideas, beliefs, perceptions, and attitudes concerning the environment, aiming to address the questions raised by Novikau (2016, p. 16): "What should we do about the environment and environmental issues, and why?". At its essence, environmental ideology consists of a belief system that guides our attitudes and behaviors towards the relationship humans share with the natural world. Given the above context, the aim of our research was to examine how the environmental ideologies of environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) in Türkiye influence the EE programs they implement. We searched for answers to the following questions: (1) How do the environmental ideologies adopted by ENGOs in Türkiye differ? (2) How do the environmental ideologies adopted by these ENGOs affect their EE programs in terms of their target groups, implementation, monitoring and evaluation methods, educational materials and content?

While this research focuses on the EE programs of ENGOs in Türkiye, it could also encourage European researchers to explore how different environmental ideologies influence EE programs in their regions. Ideological influences on EE content are not exclusive to Türkiye, and the lack of critical, emancipatory approaches in mainstream EE programs may be a global issue. This challenge requires collective action from researchers and educators across national boundaries. This study's findings could inspire further exploration of the environmental ideologies behind EE programs supported by public institutions or international organizations in Europe. Second the literature mainly examines environmental ideologies in Western ENGOs (Dobson, 2016; Eckersley, 1992; Naess, 1973; O’Riordan, 1981; Palmer, 1998; Vincent, 1993; Wissenburg 1997), investigating the approach of ENGOs in non-Western regions like Türkiye can open new avenues for discussion. Given Türkiye's evolving democracy and progress in human and nature rights, analyzing EE initiatives in this context can offer fresh insights. Lastly, this article invites educators and researchers in EE to reflect on how we position ourselves in relation to the rest of the world. As environmental educators, recognizing the environmental ideology we endorse is crucial for understanding the unintended messages we convey through our educational practices (Cocks & Simpson, 2015).

This is a descriptive study that uses a qualitative research design. Among the different qualitative research designs, a multiple case study approach (Stake, 2006) was chosen to explore data from various organizations. Study Sample: The researchers used the Civil Society Development Centre's NGO database to identify 728 ENGOs in Türkiye. After excluding inactive or local organizations, 66 national or regional ENGOs were selected and classified into two groups -Reformists and Radicals- based on their environmental approaches and political tendencies, following existing typologies (Duru, 1995; Nohl, 1994; Şakacı & Aygün, 2013). Three organizations from each group were purposefully chosen, with priority given to those with extensive EE program reach. After contacting the selected ENGOs and obtaining their consent, the final sample of six ENGOs was confirmed. Data Collection Methods: To increase data diversity and enhance trustworthiness, the study used document analysis, semi-structured interviews, and participatory observation. Document analysis focused on founding documents, mission statements, activity reports, and other materials to understand the environmental ideologies of the ENGOs. This process helped verify the initial classification of the ENGOs, which was based on existing literature but adapted by the researchers. To examine how environmental ideologies influenced EE programs, the researchers analyzed educational materials from reformist ENGOs. For radical ENGOs with no written materials, participatory observation was used. Semi-structured interviews were held with two members of each organization - a total of 12 individuals - selected on the basis of their knowledge and experience regarding the EE programs of the ENGOs in question and their openness to communication. Data Analysis: The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Existing classifications of ENGOs from the literature were reviewed to identify key categories. Four primary domains were determined to distinguish between reformist and radical ENGOs: (1) founding purpose and area of activity, (2) operational structure, (3) collaborations and funding, and (4) approach to the human-nature relationship. Subsequently, a list of codes was developed encompassing initial themes, categories, and codes. The transcriptions of the interviews and the documents were then coded using this list. After the initial basic coding process was completed, the codes, themes, and sub-categories were re-organized through axial coding. Finally, the researchers reviewed both the codes and all the data using selective coding, and all data were analyzed once more using the updated code list so formed. Reliability was ensured through inter-rater reliability, with an expert achieving 92% agreement on the coding process.

The study highlights key differences between reformist and radical ENGOs, especially in their structures, collaborations, funding sources, views on nature, and EE programs. Reformist ENGOs tend to have centralized, hierarchical structures and collaborate with public authorities and businesses. They adopt an anthropocentric view of nature, addressing environmental issues within existing economic and political frameworks. In contrast, radical ENGOs favor a more horizontal structure, reject corporate ties, and advocate for the rights of nature, seeing environmental issues as a consequence of the growth-oriented economic model. These differing ideologies shape their EE programs. Reformist ENGOs typically run long-term EE programs in collaboration with the Ministry of National Education, using standardized materials and methods and offer limited public participation. In contrast, radical ENGOs organize open education activities, like workshops and camps, without standardized materials, relying on support from international foundations and civil society networks. While reformist ENGOs view nature as a resource for economic growth and avoid addressing social justice or global capitalism, radical ENGOs focus on social justice and systemic environmental issues. However, these activities remain rather limited and predominantly target adult learners, leaving a gap in transformative EE for all age groups. This research highlights a boundary within formal education that limits critical thinking, making it unlikely for reformist ENGOs to easily adopt ecocentric approaches. To address this, they can offer alternative EE programs outside the formal system, fostering critical thinking through public forums and informational meetings. Both reformist and radical ENGOs face funding challenges. Collaborating on joint projects, exploring independent funding, and strengthening international solidarity could help. Increasing dialogue within and between ENGOs would also foster collaboration and the sharing of solutions. Such dialogue could strengthen the bonds and culture of solidarity among ENGOs, while also fostering greater international collaboration and the emergence of best practices.

Cocks, S., & Simpson, S. (2015). Anthropocentric and ecocentric: An application of environmental philosophy to outdoor recreation and environmental education. Journal of Experiential Education, 38(3), 216-227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825915571750 Cole, D., & Malone, K. (2019). Environmental education and philosophy in the Anthropocene. Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 35(3), 157-162. https://doi:10.1017/aee.2020.5 Dinçel, D., & Çakır-Yıldırım, B. (2022). Earth as Self: Healing our connection with the Earth through education. In G. Karaarslan-Semiz (Ed.), Education for sustainable development in primary and secondary schools (pp.107-117). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09112-4_8 Dobson, A. (2016). Ekolojizm (C. Yücel, Trans.). Yeni İnsan Yayınevi. (Original work published 1990). Duru, B. (1995). Çevre bilincinin gelişim sürecinde Türkiye’de gönüllü çevre kuruluşları [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Ankara University Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. State University of New York. Jardins, J.R. (2006). Environmental ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy. The Thomson Cooperation. Jickling, B. (1992). Viewpoint: Why I don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Education, 23(4), 5-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1992.9942801 Kronlid, D. O. & Öhman, J. (2013). An environmental ethical conceptual framework for research on sustainability and environmental education. Environmental Education Research, 19 (1), 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.687043 Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and deep, long-range ecology movement: A summary. Inquiry, 16(1-4), 95-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682 Nohl, A. M. (1994). Türkiye’de hükümet dışı örgütlerde ekoloji sorunsalı. Birikim Aylık Sosyalist Dergi, January-February, 23-26. https://www.birikimdergisi.com/birikim-yazi/4940/turkiye-de-hukumet-disi-orgutlerde-ekoloji-sorunsali#.XLHqtegzY2w Novikau, A. (2016). The evolution of the concept of environmental discourses: Is environmental ideologies a useful concept? Western Political Science Association 2016 Annual Meeting Paper. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2754835 O’Riordan, T. (1981). Environmentalism (2nd ed.). Pion. Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to postmodern world. State University of New York. Palmer, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: Theory, practice, progress and promise. London: Routledge. Sauvé, L. (1996). Environmental education and sustainable development: A further appraisal. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 1, 7-34. Sauvé, L. (2005). Currents in environmental education –mapping a complex and evolving pedagogical field. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10, 11-37. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guilford Press Şakacı, B.K., & Aygün, B. (2013). Türkiye'de çevreye doğrudan odaklı çevreci hareketler. In K. Fatih & S. Özcan (Eds.), Siyasal ekoloji (pp. 222-250). Otorite Yayınları. Vincent, A. (1993). The character of ecology. Environmental Politics, 2(2), 248-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019308414074 Wissenburg, M. L. J. (1997). A taxonomy of green ideas. Journal of Political Ideologies, 2(1), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569319708420749