Expanding Geoethics: Interrelations with Geoenvironmental Education and Sense of Place

Abstract

Human existence and progress hinge on sustainability and resilience, especially in the Anthropocene Era, where the diversity of nature plays a critical role. Central to this endeavor is the realm of geoethics, which not only reshapes the role of geosciences but also fosters the development of ethical behavior and practices in our interaction with the Earth. This paper presents a conceptual framework that integrates the seemingly disparate domains of geoethics, geoenvironmental education, and the sense of place. By conducting a systematic review using the keywords “Geoethics AND Education” and “Geoethics AND place” across global databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and JSTOR, up to October 2023, we seek to uncover evidence illuminating the potential connections between these concepts. Out of n = 98 records identified, n = 22 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in our review. Our findings reveal a growing scientific interest in the spectrum of geoethics over the last decade, with diverse perspectives related to concerns about geoeducation. We propose that future research should focus on expanding the scope of geoethics across various disciplines, emphasizing the importance of human ethos, socio-eco responsibility, and ethical considerations in geological heritage and geoconservation management. Geoenvironmental education emerges as a crucial avenue for advancing geoethics, while the multifaceted outcome of the sense of place offers a promising pathway for standardizing and correlating these fields effectively.

1. Introduction

1.1. Merging Geoethics, Geoenvironmental Education, and Sense of Place in a Common Context

Our planet is a living celestial body that possesses both biotic and abiotic elements that constitute biological (biodiversity) and geological diversity (geodiversity), respectively [1]. Our world is confronted with multiple environmental challenges [1,2,3,4,5] such as pollution, erosion, desertification, deforestation, fires, intensified agriculture, overgrazing, the introduction and spread of invasive species, overfishing [2], climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, droughts, floods, habitat loss, chemical pollution, environmental quality, sustainability issues [3], environmental emergencies, the anthropogenic impacts of population growth on economic systems, global warming, natural disasters, declining biodiversity, land degradation, water contamination, mineral resources exploitation [5], urbanization, infrastructure expansion, mineral extraction, alterations in land use, and human-induced coastline issues [6] which are threatening geological heritage.

Conservation concerns have often overlooked the inanimate world compared to the living world [7]. However, the diversity of nature, including both biotic and abiotic elements, serves as the fundamental cornerstone for maintaining the sustainability of human society [8]. Furthermore, comprehending the intricate functioning of the Earth is essential for formulating enduring and sustainable policies for managing the natural environment for the sustainability of species and habitats and fundamental to human health and well-being [9].

Geodiversity is the link that connects people, places, and cultures by encompassing the interaction of biodiversity, soils, minerals, rocks, fossils, active geological processes, and the built environment [10]. The universe, with a philosophical disposition, is composed of “nature” and the “soul” [11], describing in an abstract way a precursor conception of the modern concept of geoethics.

Advancing geoethics concerns, on the one hand, the social role of the researcher dealing with the geosciences and, on the other hand, the development of appropriate human behavior and practice concerning his interaction with the Earth [12] to restore the relationship with nature [13] in the urban, interconnected and rapidly changing world [14] through critical and systemic thinking, are key competencies for sustainable development [15,16]. In addition, environmental foresight and individual geoethical behavior are necessary conditions to achieve sustainable governance [17].

Society’s interest in the geoenvironment, geoheritage, geotourism, and geoeducation is constantly increasing [18,19]. Moreover, there has been a notable increase in geoscientists’ interest in the (geo)ethical dimensions of geoscience knowledge, education, research, practice, and communication [20]. In addition, recently, in October 2022, the International Union of Geological Sciences, which collaborates with the UNESCO “International Geosciences and Geoparks Program”, identified the “First hundred geosites of geological heritage”, recognizing them “as key sites of geological interest and international scientific importance, which can be used as reference fields and with a substantial contribution to the development of geological sciences through history” [21].

To address the complex ecological crisis, Orr [22] contended that the remedy lies in educating future generations. He believed that “the dominant form of education alienates us from real life, fragments rather than unifies, overemphasizes success and career assurance, and separates emotion from mental function as well as practical education from a theoretical framework, creating people with substantial ignorance” proposing “Earth-centered education” [23] (pp. 25–26).

For years, environmental education has grappled with an existential crisis. Krasny [3] highlighted that in the contemporary context, the primary aim of environmental education should revolve around addressing the environmental crisis, empowering learners to make informed decisions and take action on environmental issues, and promoting environmental literacy. At the same time, she supported the idea that a modern approach to environmental education should not be limited to one dimension but should use many different techniques and strategies aiming simultaneously at multiple and intermediate outcomes [3].

Our society seems to have lost the sense of “place” and replaced it with “earth” [24]. Sense of place incorporates the accumulated knowledge, experience, and connection of an individual or group of people with a duty to place [24] as well as history, memories, and emotional and symbolic representations of place [25]. The connection with nature passes through the sense of place, and its content plays a decisive role in people’s lives [26].

Sense of place encloses the degree of attachment individuals feel towards a particular location and the significance they attribute to it [27] spanning from personal residences to entire nations. Additionally, sense of place describes the distinctiveness or unique character of particular localities and regions. It can denote positive sentiments of comfort, safety, and well-being fostered by a place, home, and dwelling, as well as negative emotions such as fear, dysphoria, and placelessness [28].

Developing a strong sense of place can provide the foundation for society to create a more responsible, cooperative, friendly, and safe world [24], to improve comprehensive views of the environment through salient symbolic and emotional meanings of place [29], and to promote the willingness to engage in place-protective behavior [30]. The combination of a sense of place with the cultivation of altruistic and biospheric values fosters the adoption of “green” behaviors [31] and contributes to the acquisition of predictors of environmental behavior [32,33,34,35,36].

1.2. Objective of This Review Article

Given the increasing global scientific and societal interest in advancing geoethics, it becomes imperative to bridge various sub-disciplines and establish connections between humanistic and positivistic fields. Existing literature has already documented the intertwined relationship between geoethics and geoenvironmental education [4,37,38], as well as the recognition of sense of place as an intended outcome of environmental education [3,33,34,35,39,40,41].

This paper contributes to the literature on geoethics by linking geoethics to the sense of place as an outcome of geoenvironmental education, aiming to understand “the role of sense of place and the continuity of relationship with places in the life of an individual or human group” [42] (p. 422). Many theorists in recent decades have raised questions about sense of place rather than empirically testing them as propositions [43] (p. 822).

First, this review article highlights the theoretical framework of geoethics, geoenvironmental education, and the notion of sense of place. Particular emphasis is placed on exploring the potential linkage between sense of place and geoethics in existing literature, suggesting that this connection could further shape and promote geoethics. To the best of our knowledge, this paper represents the first time in the academic community to examine and link geoethics to the concept of sense of place, proposing a conceptualization that confounds the sense of place as an intended and measurable outcome of geoethical education through the utilization of the geoenvironmental education.

Through a rigorous assessment of global databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and JSTOR, this review seeks to identify the possible gaps, limitations, and areas of focus in merging geoethics with geoenvironmental education, especially with regard to sense of place, as this adhesive component may not have received sufficient attention and exploration.

In addition, this review endeavors to delineate avenues for future research in the emerging scientific field of geoethics, particularly in relation to geosciences, geoconservation, and geoheritage. It serves as a platform for academics, scholars, researchers, policy-makers, and stakeholders to achieve a novel outcome through geoenvironmental education in advancing geoethics by implementing relevant programs and initiatives and measuring the development of the sense of place among pupils, university students, tourists, and local people as a predictor of environmentally friendly behavior.

Based on the outlined problem, the research objectives are formulated as follows:

• Research question 1. What research topics and themes are covered in the spectrum of geoethics in relation to geoenvironmental education in global databases?
• Research question 2. Is there a research link between geoethics and sense of place?
• Research question 3. What are the research gaps in linking geoethics and sense of place?
• Research question 4. What are the future research directions regarding geoethics, geoenvironmental education, and sense of place?

The paper proceeds with a comprehensive literature review. Firstly, we highlight the emerging scientific field of geoethics (Section 2.1) and the contemporary role of geosciences in geoconservation (Section 2.1.1). We then discuss the current approaches of geoenvironmental education (Section 2.2), considering that geoeducation is a subset of environmental education (Section 2.2.1). Next, we try to explore the connection between place, geoenvironmental education, and geoethics (Section 2.3) by underlining the significance of place in education (Section 2.3.1) and proposing the local environment as a teaching context through place-based education (Section 2.3.2). We argue that the sense of place in geoenvironmental education is a novel learning outcome (Section 2.3.3), supported by several research insights on sense of place (Section “Research Insights on Sense of Place”). Afterward, we analyze the methodology used (Section 3.1) and the limitations of the research process (Section 3.2). Moving forward, we provide an overview of the records for the keywords (Section 4.1) and offer a brief descriptive analysis of the findings (Section 4.2). In Section 5, we delve into the interconnection of geoethics with geosciences and geoenvironmental education (Section 5.1). Thereafter, we present a summary of key findings from this review (Section 5.2), we identify the research gaps (Section 5.3) and suggest future research directions (Section 5.4). Finally, we conclude with the closing remarks (Section 6).

2. Literature Review

2.1. Geoethics: An Emerging Scientific Field

Geoethics is a burgeoning, distinct scientific field and a branch of ethics, focusing specifically on the interplay between human activities and the natural environment, with a particular emphasis on practices within the field of geosciences [4]. “Geoethics consists of research and reflection on the values which underpin appropriate behaviors and practices in human–Earth interaction and deals with ethical, social and cultural implications of geoscience knowledge, research, practice, education and communication, and with the social role and responsibility of geoscientists as a tool to influence the awareness of society regarding geo-resources and geoenvironmental problems” [44].

Geoethics advocates for a compassionate approach that harnesses the knowledge and expertise of the geosciences for beneficial social use, while also protecting the common heritage of humanity for future generations [12]. Geoethics seeks to establish common values upon which strategic and operational processes can be based, fostering a greater sense of responsibility towards socio-ecological systems and ensuring compatibility with the preservation of the natural environment, the potential of specific regions, and the well-being of human communities [5] (p. 63). Peppoloni and Di Capua [45] (p. 8) outlined how the core principles of responsibility, freedom, and dignity could be transformed through geoethics into aspirational ideals of justice, awareness, and respect through values and action (Figure 1).

Peppoloni and Di Capua [4] (p. 336) summarized the topics of interest in geoethics as (a) the comparison of global geological problems, (b) the rational use of geographers, (c) the correct dissemination of scientific studies for responsible public information, (d) the effective management of emergencies, (e) the improvement of relations between the scientific community, the media, and public opinion, (f) the respect of legislative and institutional decisions, (g) the development of effective teaching tools to cultivate awareness, values and good conduct, (h) the identification of the elements that can promote the relationship between cultural and moral values, (i) the transfer of the cultural values of the environment to those who inhabit it, and (j) the promotion of working groups for the development of the above topics in the perspective of the review of the scientific certainties and reflection on the variability of knowledge and roles.

In the context of geoeducation, geoethics contributes to raising awareness and instilling values and responsibilities [37]. The intersection of geocultural heritage and geoethics serves to reinforce the connections between people, their places, their roots, and their memories [4] (p. 339). Geoethics conveys both the cognitive and emotional meanings that are necessary for human practices [12]. It must run through the entire educational process and all the subjects of the school curriculum [38] to achieve a change in people’s personal and societal behaviors, attitudes, and examples of life. Furthermore, geoethics stimulate critical thinking regarding natural resource utilization, the development of environmentally sustainable technologies, and the dissemination of knowledge about natural hazards [37]. Introducing geoethical principles to students and early career geoscientists involves imparting the underlying values that underpin their scientific endeavors. As geosciences rely on practical experience, the reference values of geoethics, essential for guiding geoscientific practices, need continuous definition and validation in alignment with the tangible outcomes of their work [46] (p. 49).

Gerbaudo and Tonon [47] advocated moving beyond mere theoretical frameworks and towards educational practices focused on expanding the cultural understanding of geoscientific knowledge and fostering responsible behavior. They emphasized the importance of embracing a broad scope of geoethics, seen not only as a training opportunity for policy-makers but also as a source of inspiration for those engaged in public life. They suggested exploring potential interactions among inclusive, participatory, proactive [45], transdisciplinary, transgressive, transformative (Hirsch-Hadom et al., 2008; Lotz Sisika et al., 2015 as cited in [47], ecological, aesthetic, and ecumenical principles of geoethical education [47] (Figure 2).

Today, there exist two international organizations committed to geoethics: the “International Association for Promoting Geoethics” (IAPG) and the “International Association for Geoethics” (IAGETH). These organizations generate literature and scientific data on the subject.

2.1.1. The Contemporary Role of Geosciences in Geocoservation

Geosciences are at the heart of the debate on human, social, and natural capital [4]. Within the overall range of environmental literacy, the field of geosciences involves understanding the interactions between biological systems, the consequences of human interventions on nature, forecasting catastrophic phenomena, sustainable management of natural resources, and addressing global environmental challenges, including the climate crisis [48].

Geoscientists are poised to play a pivotal role in addressing society’s forthcoming challenges by formulating policies aimed at averting perilous levels of climate change, protecting the environment, and securing access to vital resources for humanity [49] (Figure 3).

Geoconservation is an emerging field in the geosciences [6,50,51,52] which encompasses the safeguarding of Earth’s features for heritage, scientific and educational objectives [53]. It includes both abiotic elements (geodiversity) and biotic components (biodiversity) [6,54] within a broader ecosystem framework [55]. Geodiversity is central to understanding the history of the Earth and the evolution of life and contributes to the conservation of geological heritage for societal benefit [6].

Today, the conservation of geoheritage is based on the notion that it concerns the characteristics of geological features at all scales, constituting intrinsically significant geosites or cultural sites. These sites provide invaluable insights into Earth’s evolution, human history, and scientific endeavors, serving as resources for research and educational purposes [53] (p. 62). This approach challenges the prevailing trend of viewing biodiversity as synonymous with natural capital and ecosystem services [1], highlighting the importance of both physical and cultural elements in geoheritage conservation [53].

In almost all parts of the world, in the early stages of the institution of the management of areas of intrinsic importance and value, the policy of absolute protection and exclusion of human activities has been a permanent one. In the process, this approach was largely abandoned and gave way to “the holistic approach to the ecosystem of the protected area and the planet Earth, to strengthening the links of natural and cultural heritage and to closer cooperation with local communities for the achieving more effective conservation policies towards sustainability” [17,55] through and from the characterization of the level of importance of such areas as international, national, state, regional and local geosignificance [53] (pp. 70–71).

Understanding the identity or character of a region is crucial for its development. Dowling’s “ABC” approach [56] incorporates the geological and climatic abiotic elements, the fauna and flora biotic aspects, and the cultural or human components from past and present. Geotourism integrates these elements, asserting that the combination of abiotic and biotic factors shapes the cultural landscape and reflects historical and contemporary human interactions with the environment [52].

Orion [48] contended that citizens in the 21st century are facing the challenge of coexisting with the environment. He advocated for a deeper comprehension of this relationship and the environmental processes, asserting that such understanding would facilitate more informed assessments of ongoing changes and subsequently drive behavior rooted in scientific data. Orion further proposed a transition from environmental awareness to environmental foresight, underlying the recognition of the cyclical nature of our world, characterized by the interconnected subsystems (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) that exchange energy and materials. He stressed the importance of acknowledging humanity’s place within these cycles and supporting actions in harmony with them [48] (p. 33).

2.2. Current Approaches to Geoenvironmental Education

Environmental education has been a global endeavor for over six decades. According to its first definition, the aim of environmental education is “to develop citizens with knowledge of the biophysical environment and its problems, an awareness of how to help solve them, and the cultivation of a willingness to help solve them” [57] (p. 30). This educational pursuit emphasizes both individual and collective efforts [58], recognizing that the knowledge, values, and skills imparted are instrumental in apprehending the complexities of the world and encountering local, regional, and global concerns toward a sustainable future [15].

Over the decades, environmental education has been delineated by various terms, reflecting shifts in focus and objectives. These include “Environmental Education” as highlighted in the Belgrade Charter [58] and the Tbilisi Declaration [59], “Environmental Education for Sustainability” [60,61], and “Education for Sustainable Development” [16], particularly prominent during the “Decade of Education for Sustainable Development” [15]. International conferences have served as pivotal forums in shaping the framework and content of environmental education, culminating in the formulation of the “Seventeen Sustainable Development Goals” outlined in the United Nations’ “Agenda 2030” [62].

Gough [63] has traced the historical development of environmental education, noting a transition from behaviorist approaches [64,65] to perspectives rooted in social-ecological and post-structuralist theories. This shift recognizes individual agency [66,67] and emphasizes predictive models of pro-environmental behavior [68,69] as well as a place-based approach to such behavior [70].

Similarly, Breiting [71] highlighted the necessity for environmental education to transcend mere behavior modification and to instead focus on an agency by examining the complex relationship between environmental education and society. Breiting introduced the concept of a “new generation of environmental education” to encapsulate this transformation [71] (pp. 263–265).

In this work, we utilize the term environmental education, contextualized as geoenvironmental education, as a broad and timeless conceptual framework, acknowledging its various terminologies while underscoring its systematic contribution to the vision of building a better world with an enhanced quality of life for all [15,72] (p. 48).

According to Krasny [3], environmental education should prioritize nurturing learners’ capacity to make well-informed choices and engage in proactive measures, all the while fostering environmentally aware citizens [73] who play an active role in a democratic community [74]. Environmental education is seen as a “tool or hub -in a wider network- of management, care, and restoration so that we can transform the environment in ways that benefit people and life” [3] (p. x).

As outlined by the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), contemporary environmental education is anchored in several core principles. These include (a) human well-being, (b) the significance of local environments, (c) integration and infusion, (d) justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, (e) lifelong learning, (f) connectedness of learners’ experiences to real-world contexts, (g) sustainable future, (h) understanding of systems and systems thinking. These principles serve as a guiding framework for the design and implementation of environmental education initiatives, ensuring a holistic and inclusive approach to addressing environmental challenges and nurturing environmentally responsible citizens [40] (p. 10) (Figure 4).

Ardoin et al. [75] systematically reviewed 105 studies on environmental education, delineating five key ways in which it contributes to environmental conservation and quality. These are summarized as (a) acquisition of knowledge, skills, and intentions to adopt environmental behavior, (b) cultivation of predictors of environmental behavior, (c) direct environmental action, (d) creation of community conservation capacity, and (e) measurable environmental improvement [75]. In addition, Ardoin et al. [75] identified several common characteristics observed in effective environmental education programs, including (a) a focus on local environmental issues, (b) collaboration with scientists and resource managers affiliated with local agencies, (c) incorporation of action projects aimed at solving part or a specific problem, and (d) creative and thorough methodologies for measuring and reporting program outcomes.

Drawing from the aforementioned insights, contemporary objectives of environmental education encompass participation, cooperation, interaction, communication, action, change, democracy, interdisciplinary approaches, quality of active citizenship, problem-solving, and the cultivation of values and skills for democratic life. This suggests a strong symbiotic connection between education for the environment and sustainability and participatory, active teaching, and learning methods within educational structures and the broader community [76].

2.2.1. Geoeducation (Geoenvironmental Education) as an Aspect of Environmental Education

Geoeducation and geoconservation share a close relationship, as they both contribute to a holistic approach to managing the planet sustainably, guided by environmental foresight [1] and principles of geoethics [4,37,77]. This approach underlines the importance of sustainability [17] and encourages social responsibility in the prudent utilization of Earth’s resources [51].

Geoliteracy, on the other hand, pertains to an educational framework that focuses on three main aspects: (a) understanding how the world operates, (b) recognizing its interconnectedness, and (c) making informed and reasoned decisions concerning our environment [78].

Geoeducation is defined as “the teaching process that contains learning and knowledge either in a formal or informal environment that includes natural and cultural elements combined with local geology” [79] (pp. 1–4). Very aptly, Henriques et al. [51] (p. 125) differentiated education for sustainable development around, by/within, and for geoconservation, akin to three dimensions of environmental education outlined by Lucas [80], which focus on education about, in, and for the environment.

Furthermore, the geological history of protected areas serves as a window into Earth’s history, presenting a challenge to communicate it effectively to non-specialist audiences, raising awareness, and fostering participation in geoconservation efforts [81] (p. 196).

Geoenvironmental education holds significant moral value, as it provides a platform for understanding concepts such as truth, fairness, appropriateness, and acceptability through systemic and critical thinking, thereby promoting social and environmental benefit [5] (p. 78). The overarching goal of an environmental education program is to cultivate environmental consciousness among students and empower them to become environmentally aware citizens capable of making informed decisions and taking action on environmental issues [82] (p. 9).

In conclusion, protected areas or urban landscapes are valuable places-contexts for promoting education, conservation, and sustainable development. They provide an opportunity to highlight the importance of the geoenvironment through geoeducation.

2.3. Linking Place to Geoenvironmental Education and Geoethics

2.3.1. The Significance of Place in Education

The integration of the environment into education and the learning process is a familiar idea. Within the progressive educational movement known as the “New Education”, the influential educator Dewey proposed that “place” could serve as a fundamental educational tool by transforming schools into “embryonic communities of the larger society” [83]. Similarly, Sobel [39] (p. 7) underlined the wisdom of the educator–philosopher Comenius, who suggested that one must “first acquire the knowledge of the closest things, and then of those that are more and more distant”.

Expanding on this notion, the concept of place in education transcends a narrow geographical definition. Instead, it encompasses a multi-dimensional understanding that includes both tangible elements, such as natural and artificial features, and intangible aspects that define a place in space and time, such as its social, economic, and cultural characteristics [84]. Place embodies a dynamic of representational, sociological, ideological, political, and ecological dimensions [85], evolving in response to environmental, social, and political dynamics over time [86]. Far from being devoid of meaning, place encompasses all the attributes that shape its identity [87].

Place is a central concept in human development [88] and influences our perception of the world [89]. Our knowledge of a place imbues it with values and experiences, while our interactions with it symbolize its significance [90]. The connection to a place can stem from various reasons, including biographical, spiritual, ideological, narrative, commercial, and coercive factors [91]. Such interactions foster cognitive and emotional relationships with the environment [70], conveying positive or negative sentiments in the relationship between humans and the environment [91]. Moreover, the place in which we reside profoundly shapes our values, attitudes, and perceptions of the environment [92]. Research indicates that a connection to the natural world positively impacts emotional, physical, psychological, and community well-being [3,93].

2.3.2. The Local Environment as a Teaching Context through Place-Based Education

Place-based education has gained prominence within the international scientific community over the past two decades, establishing itself as a contemporary pedagogical approach with multiple advantages for learners across formal, non-formal, and informal learning environments.

Sobel [39] (p. 11), a pioneer in this educational approach, defines place-based education as “the process of utilizing the local community and local environment as a reference point in teaching curriculum subjects such as language, the arts, mathematics, social and natural sciences, etc. By emphasizing experiential and authentic learning experiences, this educational approach increases students’ academic achievement, helps them develop stronger ties to their community, enhances their appreciation of the natural environment, and creates a strong commitment to work as active and engaged citizens”.

In the literature, place-based education is used as a methodological framework across various scientific fields, including social sciences [94], educational philosophy [95], sociology [84], and geography [96], among others. However, it is most commonly associated either broadly with environmental education [22,23,39,97,98,99], or as a particular pedagogical example within it [88,100,101]. Krasny [3] (p. 137) describes it as a prevalent approach to environmental education. This paper adopts the perspective that place-based education is part of environmental education, particularly geoenvironmental education.

Place-based education signifies a movement within contemporary educational world [102] that underscores the significance of the local environment amidst a globalized world, utilizing authentic teaching and learning methods [97,103]. This sentiment was echoed by Arenas [104] who advocated for students to first acquire a solid grounding for their home community and local environment and then extend their education to the global sphere, framing his approach as “the pedagogy of place”.

Gruenewald and Smith [105], ardent supporters of place-based education, have sought to delineate its scope, noting that this approach does not refer exclusively to differentiating the way of teaching but represents a move to redefine the face of the educational paradigm. The foundational principles of place-based education include (a) leveraging the community and local environment as educational resources, (b) fostering student-centered learning, (c) promoting inquiry-based approaches, (d) facilitating connections from the local to the global, (e) encouraging systems thinking and design logic, and (f) embracing interdisciplinary perspectives [89,106]. These elements are inherent to the essence of environmental education.

Place-based education challenges educators to incorporate the local environment into the organization and structure of the curriculum [88] (p. 8). This integration can manifest in various ways, ranging from comprehensive curricula overhauls to smaller-scale initiatives and projects led by individual teachers [107]. In place-based education, teachers take on the role of curriculum creators, shaping educational experiences around the dichotomy of the needs of the students and the opportunities of the place [106]. However, this approach clashes with the prevailing culture within schools [108,109].

A primary objective of place-based education is to foster healthy identities in students regarding place, self, and community [89,97,106], aligning with the fundamental concept of reconnection and cultivating a positive orientation towards nature, the environment, the Earth, and humanity itself [110] (p. 32). Developing an understanding of the natural world and nurturing a reciprocal relationship grounded in a connection to place shapes our attitudes, actions, and behaviors towards the environment, as “the belief that the environment is important to us leads to considering it as part of the self” [111] (pp. 45–46). Hence, place-based education has the potential to positively impact the well-being of the communities and places where students reside [88].

In conclusion, place-based education stands at the forefront of innovative learning approaches [112] and, if applied pedagogically, it holds the potential to catalyze student-centered school reform initiatives by deeply immersing learners in local heritage, culture, and the natural environment [89]. Furthermore, it aligns with Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences [113,114], as it leverages various dimensions of the reference place, including epistemological, ethical, technological, psychological, cognitive, cultural, ecological–environmental, ontological, political, aesthetic, and linguistic aspects [115].

2.3.3. The Novel Outcome of the Sense of Place in Geoenvironmental Education

The pioneering anthropogeographer Tuan [116] (p. 4) introduced the term “topophilia” to describe the subjective and emotional bond between people and a particular place or environment. Building upon this concept, Relph [117] delved into the nature of place from a phenomenological standpoint, delineating between place attachment and place meaning.

Sense of place spans a number of academic disciplines including anthropology, geography, architecture, sociology, history, leisure studies, and environmental psychology [33,91]. Each of these disciplines seeks to unravel the intricacies of human–place relationships and elucidate the significance of such connections [33] (p. 121).

The concept of place and its linkage to geoenvironmental education can indeed be intertwined within the broader framework of geoethics, particularly in the context of the sense of place discussed in the present work. Within the literature on environmental education, the sense of place is regarded as a pivotal concept [3,33,34,35,39,40,41], which also intersects with the domain of geoethics.

Sense of place can be understood as the complicated relationship individuals have with a particular place, embodying a dialectical fusion of biophysical and cultural elements [118] (p. 125). It often refers to the distinctive features that render a place noteworthy or exceptional, fostering a genuine sense of human connection and belonging [119]. Sense of place encompasses cognitive, affective, and psychomotor dimensions [120], representing a dynamic process that interconnects the social fabric and attributes of a community with a shared geographical area.

While certain scholars within the field of sense of place studies may employ varying terminology, such as “place identity”, “place dependence”, and “place satisfaction” among the elements that make up the concept of sense of place [30,121], we identify the core elements of sense of place as “place attachment”, representing the intensity of individuals’ emotional connection to specific locations, and “place meaning”, elucidating the factors contributing to this affinity [30,34]. In a broader framework, “sense of place is the lens through which people experience and make sense of their experiences in and about a place” [122] (p. 47).

In short, Kudryavtsev et al. [34] (p. 231) described the sense of place as a dual concept, containing both “place attachment”—the emotional bonds between people and places—and “place meaning”—the symbolic representations attributed to those places—(Figure 5).

Sense of place is tied to the human relationship with a particular place, influenced by a combination of physical, psychological, emotional, and experiential factors [123] (p. 237). It significantly impacts our cognitive processes and emotional responses [124] (p. 137). How we perceive various locales, whether they be streets, communities, cities, or ecoregions shapes our interactions with them, our appreciation and respect for their ecosystems, their inherent potential, and our inclination towards building sustainable and equitable societies [125] (p. 69).

As Ardoin [33] (p. 55) stated, the sense of place emerges from a complex interplay of factors including the biophysical environment, individual psychological traits, socio-cultural context, and political–economic structures. In general, people from both place meanings and place attachments through positive experiences and interactions within a particular place and with its inhabitants [3] (p. 134).

Research Insights on Sense of Place

The relationship between people and their environment is reciprocal; each person’s actions can have either positive or negative repercussions on their connection with the environment, whether in the short or long term [91,116,117]. Sense of place, being a measurable phenomenon, has been extensively studied in many contexts, leading to the development of several measurement tools documented in the global literature [25,35,70,121,126,127,128,129,130,131,132].

Recognized as pivotal, sense of place plays a crucial role in fostering environmentally aware and responsible citizenship [33]. Individuals with a strong sense of place are inclined to safeguard areas they cherish [125], consider them integral to their identity [30,133,134], and feel compelled to nurture environments that hold personal significance [35,70]. Moreover, they are more likely to adopt pro-environmental behaviors [129,135] and exhibit positive attitudes towards environmental stewardship [136]. Additionally, cultivating a sense of place has been shown to enhance learning outcomes [120,124].

3. Methodology

3.1. Overview of the Literature Search Process

We conducted a systematic review [137,138,139] of published material on geoethics, geoenvironmental education, and sense of place, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [140]. This review was conducted up to October 2023, in English, with no restrictions on document type other than whole books, and across global databases, specifically Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and JSTOR, for the content to which we had access. Furthermore, we did not use any software programs as there were few documents available. As the available documents were openly accessible, and we only extracted and reviewed these records as evidence, procedural ethics approval was not required before commencing our research. A flow chart detailing the review process is provided in Figure 6.

We conducted a quantitative and descriptive review of the Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, and JSTOR databases during September and October 2023. The search utilized Boolean logic and the keywords “Geoethics AND Education” and “Geoethics AND place” within article titles, keywords, and abstracts for articles or reviews, and the full text for book chapters or proceedings. The selected search terms encompassed the fundamental words or phrases relevant to our review. Initially, we primarily employed the keywords “Geoethics AND Geoenvironmental Education” OR “Environmental Education” OR “geoeducation” and “Geoethics AND sense of place” OR “place attachment” OR “place meaning” OR “place identity”. However, the search yielded few results. Subsequently, we identified a total of n = 98 records of which n = 61 were subjected to the screening phase, and the full texts were reviewed. Following the exclusion of out-of-scope (n = 16) or irrelevant (n = 23) records, only n = 22 records met the inclusion criteria (

Table 1. Overview of records for the keywords “Geoethics AND Education” and “Geoethics AND place”.

	Author Names	Date	Title	Type of Record
1.	Magagna, A.; Ferrero, E.; Giardino, M.; Lozar, F.; Perotti, L. [141]	2013	A Selection of Geological Tours for Promoting the Italian Geological Heritage in the Secondary Schools.	Article
2.	Almeida, A.; Vasconcelos, C. [7]	2015	Geoethics: Master’s Students Knowledge and Perception of its Importance.	Article
3.	De Pascale, F.; D’Amico, S. [142]	2016	Historical Memory and Natural Hazards in Neogeographic Mapping Technologies.	Book chapter
4.	Gomes, C.R.; Rocha, A.F.; Ferreira, J.A.; Rola, A. [143]	2016	Field Classes for Geosciences Education: Teachers’ Concepts and Practices.	Book chapter
5.	Vasconcelos, C.; Torres, J.; Vasconcelos, L.; Moutinho, S. [144]	2016	Sustainable Development and its Connection to Teaching Geoethics.	Article
6.	Vasconcelos, C.; Vasconcelos, M.L.; Torres, J. [145]	2016	Education and Geoethics: Three Fictional Life Stories.	Book chapter
7.	De Pascale, F.; Bernardo, M.; Muto, F.; Di Matteo, D.; Dattilo, V. [146]	2017	Resilience and Seismic Risk Perception at School: A Geoethical Experiment in Aiello Calabro, Southern Italy.	Article
8.	Bellaubi, F.; Lagunov, A. [147]	2020	A Value-Based Approach in Managing the Human-Geosphere Relationship: The Case of Lake Turgoyak (Southern Urals, Russia).	Article
9.	Azevedo, J.M. [148]	2021	Geoethics in Higher Education of Hydrogeology.	Book chapter
10.	Cardoso, A.; Orion, N.; Calheiros, C.; Vasconcelos, C. [149]	2021	And if the Spring that Provides the Farm with Water Should Run Dry?—A Geoethical Case Applied in Higher Education.	Book chapter
11.	Correia, G.P.; Pereira, H. [150]	2021	Teaching Groundwater Resources and Geoethics in Portuguese Secondary Schools.	Book chapter
12.	Georgousis, E.; Savelides, S.; Mosios, S.; Holokolos, M.V.; Drinia, H. [151]	2021	The Need for Geoethical Awareness: The Importance of Geoenvironmental Education in Geoheritage Understanding in the Case of Meteora Geomorphes, Greece.	Article
13.	Vasconcelos, C.; Orion, N. [17]	2021	Earth Science Education as a Key Component of Education for Sustainability.	Review
14.	Zafeiropoulos, G.; Drinia, H.; Antonarakou, A.; Zouros, N. [52]	2021	From Geoheritage to Geoeducation, Geoethics and Geotourism: A Critical Evaluation of the Greek Region.	Review
15.	Georgousis, E.; Savelidi, M.; Savelides, S.; Mosios, S.; Holokolos, M.V.; Drinia, H. [152]	2022	How Greek Students Perceive Concepts Related to Geoenvironment: A Semiotics Content Analysis.	Article
16.	Gerbaudo, A.; Lozar, F.; Lasagna, M.; Tonon, M.D.; Egidio, E. [153]	2022	Are We Ready for a Sustainable Development? A Survey among Young Geoscientists in Italy.	Article
17.	Handl, S.; Calheiros, C.S.C.; Fiebig, M.; Langergraber, G. [154]	2022	Educational Resources for Geoethical Aspects of Water Management.	Article
18.	Paz, M.; Teixeira, I.; Lima, D. [155]	2022	Are New Pandemics a Historical Fate of Human Evolution? Education and the Contribution from a Geoethical Perspective.	Article
19.	Procesi, M.; Di Capua, G.; Peppoloni, S.; Corirossi, M.; Valentinelli, A. [156]	2022	Science and Citizen Collaboration as Good Example of Geoethics for Recovering a Natural Site in the Urban Area of Rome (Italy).	Article
20.	Tormey, D.; Dongying, W.; Aixia, F. [157]	2022	Geoheritage Education as a Gateway to Developing a Conservation Ethic in High School Students from China and the USA.	Article
21.	Mosios, S.; Georgousis, E.; Drinia, H. [158]	2023	The Status of Geoethical Thinking in the Educational System of Greece: An Overview.	Review
22.	Nyarko, S.C.; Fore, G.A.; Licht, K. [159]	2023	The Role of Ethical Care in the Geosciences: Examining the Perspectives of Geoscience Undergraduates.	Article

). Out-of-scope and irrelevant records generally pertained to geoethics and geosciences concerning environmental, economic, and social issues, as well as specific cases of geoethical use of land resources or water systems.

3.2. Limitations

While our search strategy was tailored to meet our research objectives, we acknowledge certain inherent limitations in our approach. Our analysis focused solely on sources obtained from selected databases, thereby potentially overlooking relevant sources beyond these platforms. By restricting our search to English-language publications, we may have missed out on valuable insights from non-English sources. Moreover, variations in terminology could have resulted in the exclusion of pertinent records.

It is important to recognize that geoethics is an emerging field that transcends disciplinary boundaries, with wide-range applications across various scientific domains. While our dataset provides a foundational framework for understanding geoethics in relation to geoenvironmental education and the sense of place, it represents only a portion of the available literature. Nonetheless, the body of literature examined offers valuable insights into theoretical frameworks and avenues for further exploration in the evolving landscape of geoethics.

Additionally, it should be noted that our objective was not to conduct an exhaustive search across all databases and journals. However, we acknowledge that the concept of sense of place is primarily addressed in fields such as environmental psychology, sociology, attitudes, and behavior, underscoring the interdisciplinary nature of this topic.

4. Results

4.1. Overview of Records on “Geoethics AND Education” and “Geoethics AND Place”

The results of our review were based on quantitative and descriptive analysis and presentation. During the review of the records in the global databases, n = 22 were included, as documented in Table 1 by ascending date.

Of the records included (n = 22), n = 13 were articles, n = 3 were reviews, and n = 6 were book chapters, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 8 shows the distribution of records (n = 22) by year of publication, together with a trend line. The review revealed a small but growing volume of documents reflecting the critical importance of geosciences to modern society and the fact that geoethics has been an emerging scientific discipline within the last decade suggesting the growing importance or recognition of geoethics.

Figure 9 shows the distribution of articles (n = 13) and reviews (n = 3) in global journals. It can be seen that Geosciences (n = 4), Sustainability (n = 4), and Geoheritage (n = 2) are leading and that there is a spread across different journals, as geoethics is a broad and multidisciplinary scientific field.

Of the n = 22 records, all (n = 22) are concerned with the education spectrum, even in formal, non-formal, or informal contexts, and none (n = 0) were found to link geoethics to the sense of place (Figure 10). This finding is consistent with the literature on geoethics and geoeducation, which highlights the dominance of topics related to education and indicates the need for more links between geoethics and sense of place as potential avenues for future research.

4.2. Descriptive Analysis of Existing Records in a Nutshell

Magagna et al. [141] conducted research on 20 geological excursions with the goal of creating a multimedia educational resource for secondary schools in Italy. Their objective was to deepen understanding of Italy’s geological heritage among both teachers and students through virtual geological tours. These tours aimed to connect earth sciences with everyday experiences, emphasizing responsible land use and the preservation of natural resources. The educational strategy centered on eliciting emotions, recognizing their importance in sparking curiosity, and fostering appreciation for the local landscape, thereby raising awareness of the significance of geoheritage. This initiative was part of the PRO-GEO-Piemonte research project.

Almeida and Vasconcelos [7], recognizing the significance of geoethics in the professional realm of geoscientists, conducted a survey among 36 students enrolled in a master’s program in geology. Their investigation revealed that the majority of respondents were unaware of geoethics. However, upon becoming acquainted with the concept, they recognized its importance and advocated for its incorporation into formal education. A notable finding was that respondents believed geology should play a role in shaping political decisions, yet they did not fully acknowledge the boundaries of its influence.

De Pascale and D’Amico [142] underscored the pivotal role of geological and geographical studies in the preservation of nature and the planet. They employed a questionnaire to assess the perspectives of students and adults in Calabria and Basilicata, two regions in southern Italy with moderate to high seismic hazard levels. Their aim was to gauge people’s knowledge regarding earthquake response and adaptation. The same questionnaire was administered to students in Malta, a region with a low-to-moderate seismic hazard. The findings highlighted the importance of human awareness and action in mitigating the impact of extreme events and transforming them into disasters. The study emphasized the necessity of evaluating the vulnerability of cultural heritage in earthquake-affected areas. Additionally, the researchers proposed an open-source GIS project in Calabria to promote cultural tourism, preserve the historical memory of the region, educate about seismic hazard risks, and develop a web application for Maltese citizens to understand their perceptions of earthquakes.

Gomes et al. [143] examined the significance of outdoor classes for Portuguese geoscience teachers. A total of 178 teachers took part in the study, responding to a questionnaire designed to evaluate the benefits of conducting field classes. The findings underscored the importance of field classes in fostering motivation, enhancing geological skills, and raising awareness of environmental aspects and geoethics. Despite the challenges associated with outdoor classes, they serve to establish meaningful connections between students’ learning experiences and the real world.

Vasconcelos et al. [144] explored the understanding of education for sustainable development among Portuguese citizens and its connection to the three pillars of sustainable development, emphasizing the role of geoethics. They observed that while the environmental pillar is more extensively addressed, there is room for improvement in integrating the economic and social pillars into Portuguese classrooms. Through an interview-based survey involving 187 Portuguese citizens, they discovered a limited understanding of education for sustainable development but identified potential synergies with geoethical education. Additionally, through eight interviews with primary and secondary school teachers, they highlighted the feasibility of incorporating geoethics across the geoscience curriculum.

Vasconcelos et al. [145] asserted the interconnectedness of geology with economic growth, development, and the cultural landscape of a nation. They emphasized the potential of geoscience education in mitigating regional disparities. Furthermore, they highlighted the role of geoethics in reassessing behaviors, raising awareness for necessary changes in activities, and redirecting economic growth and development models. In light of these considerations, they crafted three fictional life stories depicting citizens from imaginary countries representing varying levels of human development: high, medium, and low.

De Pascale et al. [146] focused on the ability to restore equilibrium within a system following the occurrence of a natural or artificial disaster. They advocated for the promotion of geoethics as a means to educate the population, develop integrated risk management strategies, and bolster community resilience. Through experimentation involving primary (n = 14 children) and middle (n = 7 children) schools in Calabria, southern Italy, they examined the relationship between effective risk management practices and the resilience of communities facing high-risk scenarios. Their findings suggested a positive correlation between robust risk management and heightened resilience. They concluded that strengthening the education of geoethics and geography in schools could enhance long-term protection measures and mitigate the adverse effects of potential extreme events.

Bellaubi and Lagunov [147] devised a “geoethical dilemma” centered around Lake Turgoyak in the southern Urals of Russia, which is situated within the Mountainous Urals Biosphere Reserve. Through the use of semi-structured interviews, oral narratives, field excursions, and a comprehensive literature review involving stakeholders, local residents, and visitors of the lake, they explored various governability scenarios aimed at addressing the negative environmental impacts of recreational activities on the lake. Their investigation led them to conclude that employing a “pedagogy of geoethics” alongside strategies for natural resource governance can facilitate both individual and collective learning, fostering a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship between humans and their environment.

Azevedo [148] extracted the essential components of education and training in geosciences at universities, encompassing hydrogeology, scientific precision, relevant and current teaching methodologies, and effective didactic resources. They also emphasized the importance of respecting the scientific and cultural backgrounds of trainees, understanding the socioeconomic context of local education, familiarity with relevant legislation, and reverence for the natural processes and ecosystems of the Earth. Within an ethical framework, these elements are crucial for fostering social and ecological equilibrium and mitigating local and regional conflicts.

Cardoso et al. [149] asserted that geoethics serves as a scientific discipline that fosters improved relationships between citizens and the planet, influencing decision-making on a global scale. Through the “Geoethics Outcomes and Awareness Learning” project, they concentrated on integrating geoethics into the curricula of higher education programs for master’s students, including those in biology and geology, in Portugal. The outcomes revealed that students demonstrated an understanding of the interconnectedness between human activities and Earth system dynamics and exhibited contemplation regarding the responsibility associated with decision-making for society’s future.

Correira and Pereira [150] examined the curriculum reference documents for biology and geology in secondary education in Portugal to assess the feasibility of incorporating geoethics into the teaching of groundwater resources. While formal integration of geoethics into the analyzed curricula is yet to be realized, they observed that the principles and values of geoethics are indirectly addressed through various activities. They emphasized the importance of teaching geoethics as a means of fostering responsible and ethically aware behaviors in daily life. Furthermore, they advocated for the inclusion of non-formal activities as a potential strategy to advance this objective.

Georgousis et al. [151] investigated the geocultural consciousness of Junior High School pupils (n = 429) and university students (n = 183) using Meteora Geomorphes in Greece as a case study. Through a questionnaire, they explored participants’ knowledge, values, attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs regarding the understanding of geocultural heritage. The findings revealed a notable lack of comprehension regarding geoheritage, particularly concerning cultural heritage, as well as a deficiency in environmental responsibility and a code of ethics for the protection and conservation of these resources. The researchers underscored the imperative for geoenvironmental education to enhance awareness and appreciation of geoheritage.

Vasconcelos and Orion [17] advocated for environmental insight as a pivotal concept in comprehending the interconnected subsystems of the Earth and recognizing the role of human actions in maintaining balance within the dynamic Earth cycle. Given the insufficient progress in achieving sustainable development goals, the authors emphasized the importance of promoting geoethically responsible management of Earth systems. They proposed that through earth science education in both schools and universities, it is feasible to foster sustainable practices and mitigate adverse environmental effects, thereby promoting a more sustainable life on our planet.

Zafeiropoulos et al. [52] discussed the dimensions of geological heritage, geodiversity, and geotourism to illustrate the existing efforts to promote and utilize Greece’s geoheritage. They highlighted the disparity between the emphasis on biodiversity protection and the relative neglect of geodiversity, which is scarcely addressed in Greek legislation. The authors emphasized the necessity of geoconservation efforts and proposed the utilization of geotopes as a means to advance sustainable development objectives. Furthermore, they underscored the role of geoenvironmental education as a tool for cultivating responsible citizens with strong geoethical values who are committed to protecting and preserving the geoenvironment.

Georgousis et al. [152] evaluated the comprehension of geodiversity, geoheritage, geoethics, and geotourism among 45 students in a Lower Secondary School in Greece. Employing the cognitive conflict technique, they aimed to foster scientific understandings of these concepts. Through qualitative research, they observed that students’ current perceptions of geoenvironmental concepts were largely nebulous, with many students struggling to grasp them fully. The study identified areas for improvement in the educational process, suggesting concepts that could be incorporated to cultivate students’ clearer and more scientific understandings of the geoenvironmental field.

Gerbaudo et al. [153] endeavored to establish a connection between earth sciences and education for sustainability within the framework of the United Nations “Agenda 2030” concept. They highlighted the advancement of sustainability as a pivotal aspect of earth sciences, which forms an integral part of education for sustainability. The focus of their investigation was on young Italian geoscientists (n = 110) participating in the BeGeo 2021 conference. Through a questionnaire, they aimed to assess the community’s level of knowledge and collective interest in sustainability. The findings revealed a widespread recognition of the importance of sustainability, although many respondents expressed a need for further knowledge in this area. The authors suggested that educational curricula for geoscientists should place greater emphasis on sustainability and geoethical issues to facilitate a deeper understanding of the complexities of global challenges.

Handl et al. [154] recognized the significance of addressing conflicts over critical resources such as water, particularly in water-scarce regions where competing interests in water supply, tourism, agriculture, hydropower, and ecology often collide. They asserted that Higher Education institutions have a responsibility to tackle these issues, leveraging geoethical principles. Within the framework of the Erasmus+ “Geoethics Outcomes and Awareness Learning” project, they developed and implemented two educational resources focused on water use conflicts and the geoethical dimensions of hydropower plants under the theme “Geoethics and Water Management”. By using geoethical conflicts and dilemmas, they aimed to foster holistic thinking among students, facilitating a comprehensive approach to addressing these challenges and aligning with the targets of the United Nations sustainable development goals, thereby contributing to a more sustainable future for Earth.

Paz et al. [155] acknowledged the formidable challenge posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and recognized epidemics and pandemics as historical events that have profoundly impacted humankind. They emphasized that in our globalized world, particularly in the Anthropocene epoch, we face ongoing threats that require innovative and proactive responses. Geoethics, they argued, provides a framework for understanding how humans interact with the Earth system. The authors advocated for leveraging historical events to cultivate a holistic approach to geoethical education, recognizing the interconnectedness of human actions and their consequences on the planet.

Procesi et al. [156] underscored the significance of collaboration among scientists, decision-makers, and citizens, guided by the principles of geoethics, to facilitate the improvement of natural sites within urban areas. They highlighted the Bullicante Lake in Italy as a case study demonstrating the application of geoethical values such as inclusiveness, sharing, sustainability, and conservation of bio- and geodiversity. Through this initiative, a degraded urban landscape was transformed into a space dedicated to knowledge, recreation, enjoyment, and ecosystem preservation. Drawing from this example, the authors proposed a generalized approach aimed at enhancing quality of life through the collaborative efforts of the scientific community and citizens.

Tormey et al. [157] observed the interconnectedness of geoheritage with landscape and biodiversity conservation, economic development, climate change adaptation, sustainable land, and water management, as well as historical and cultural heritage, and geotourism. They emphasized the cultivation of a conservation ethic through the implementation of environmental educational programs and competitions in High Schools in both the USA and China, such as Envirothon. This initiative operates under the framework of understanding, appreciation, and protection of the environment. It’s noteworthy that Envirothon’s structure relies on project-based learning and place-based education methodologies, which employ real-life scenarios to facilitate students’ learning process.

Mosios et al. [158] outlined the current state of geoethical thinking within the Greek educational system, highlighting its limited presence among the scientific and educational communities. They advocated for the integration of geoeducation and geoethics into school and university curricula, emphasizing the importance of fostering geoethical awareness at all levels of education in Greece.

Nyarko et al. [159] highlighted the ethical responsibilities of geoscientists in the context of advancements in geotechnology and environmental concerns. In a sedimentology course at a university in the USA, they conducted a thematic analysis of essays written by 37 students to explore the concepts of attentiveness to care, responsibility for care, and competency to provide care as essential qualities of ethical geoscientists. The findings revealed that an ethical geoscientist is characterized by attentiveness to caring for their surroundings, assumes responsibility for addressing societal and environmental needs by fostering geosciences literacy, and demonstrates competence in collecting accurate and precise data while iteratively synthesizing information for the betterment of society and the Earth.

5. Discussion

5.1. Integrating Geoethical Considerations into the Geosciences and Geoenvironmental Education

The environment encompasses a complex interplay of natural and human-made factors and elements that influence ecological balance, quality of life, inhabitant health, historical and cultural traditions, and aesthetic values [160].

Environmental management involves employing a range of economic, technological, institutional, social, and empirical measures and methods aimed at safeguarding or enhancing the environment [2] (p. 71). Protecting and preserving the natural, historical, and cultural environment and resources through judicious management is crucial for ensuring the continuity of life itself [161] (p. 100). Our existence is perpetually shaped by both natural phenomena and human activities, reflecting a dynamic relationship with the Earth [162]. Consequently, the diversity of the planet stands as not only a critical asset but also a fundamental element for the functioning of modern society [163].

Geoconservation, an emerging field within the geosciences [6,50,51,53], encompasses geodiversity, analogous to biodiversity [6,54]. It focuses on conserving geological heritage across all scales [53], emphasizing both physical and cultural aspects [53]. The exploration of geoheritage not only provides valuable insights but also imbues society with moral values [164].

Protected areas refer to natural areas of special interest and importance. They include those in the European “Natura 2000” Network, biosphere reserves, wetlands, world heritage sites, national forests, protected forests, preserved natural monuments, and natural parks, but also those with unique biodiversity, geodiversity, and cultural value [2] (p. 11). It is worth noting that these sites may include protected areas of various degrees, categories, and types [165]. Large and valuable ecoregions with exceptional geotopes are designated as UNESCO Global Geoparks [166].

Protected areas or urban environments should not be isolated entities but should be organically and multifactorially linked to the wider environment in its ecological, economic, political, and cultural dimensions, and sustainable management and use are recommended with the active participation and activation of local society for protection to be effective [2] (p. 58). The UNESCO Global Geoparks initiatives represent a dynamic and multifaceted field that encompasses various topics including geology, climate change, tourism, sustainability, geodiversity, biodiversity, and education. These initiatives serve as crucial contexts for learning, promoting geoenvironmental literacy, and cultivating a profound sense of belonging and responsibility among local populations and future generations [167].

In the present day, our planet is facing environmental challenges that jeopardize its “natural capital” [1,168]. These issues [2,3,5] stand as the predominant challenges of our era, necessitating the engagement of informed and proactive citizens who are committed to advancing the collective well-being of society and humanity [40]. This responsibility entails a comprehensive approach that integrates individual, social, environmental, cultural, and aesthetic actions to safeguard acceptable living conditions on Earth for both abiotic entities and humans alike. It emphasizes the importance of conservation policies alongside actions that align with the vital needs of humanity while recognizing their intrinsic value [5] (p. 32).

Education is not only a human right [169], but also a necessary condition for sustainable development, as well as an essential factor for more effective governance through the creation of more responsible citizens, better decision-making based on knowledge, and the consolidation of democracy.

A current approach to environmental education based on the principles of the “Theory of Change” [170] must have short, intermediate, and long-term goals. The main objective of environmental education today must focus on addressing the environmental crisis, on the ability of learners to make proper decisions and take action on various environmental issues and corresponding action, on environmental literacy, and at the same time that the intended outcomes have an impact on the quality of the environment, on sustainability, resilience, ensuring the well-being of society and the health of the individual [3].

Cultivating environmental knowledge, adopting environmental behaviors, changing personal attitudes and norms, developing an environmental identity, and political efficacy are elements that can lead people to understand the relationship and interdependence between themselves and nature and create active and responsible citizens willing to take individual and collective action [3]. Some of the strategies proposed by Krasny [3] are lifestyle changes, collaborative stewardship practices, nature connectedness, sense of place, personal, political, collective, and civic efficacy, social capital and connections, and positive youth development.

Therefore, based on a contemporary cognitive, educational framework, it is necessary to use intergenerational perspectives, environmental management, social justice, respect for environmental limits, systemic thinking, interdependence, the importance of the local environment (place), economic alternatives, global citizenship and nature as a teaching framework [171]. However, sustainable change, the creation of responsible citizens, intergenerational justice, diversity, quality of life, and action orientation require more than an emphasis on environmental awareness and literacy [172].

Geoenvironmental education, as a more specific form and paradigm of environmental education, is a response to social and human concerns about the environment and our relationship with it. “The term geoeducation brings together all the principles and concepts that one must follow to transmit geological knowledge related to the geological elements and phenomena of the planet and originating from natural and man-made causes” [173] (p. 819), [174] (p. 6). Geoenvironmental education adopts a contemporary perspective that includes not only biotic and abiotic elements but also cultural aspects. It serves as the primary vehicle for imparting knowledge while underscoring the importance of the geological heritage and geoconservation [52] (p. 4). Moreover, it plays a pivotal role in nurturing environmental responsibility instilling a code of geoethics [5] (pp. 31–45, 77–79), [151] (p. 21).

Geoscience education is fundamental for “…the awareness of what nature means to human development, which is necessary to transform a student into a responsible citizen” [175] (p. 337) as well as for the acquisition of geoethics [5,77].

The above question can be answered through the perception of environmental education—essentially any education in any context, such as formal, informal, and non-formal education throughout the life span [176,177]—which triggers essential questions about nature (the environment) in trainees and encourages them to investigate and then develop their positions [178].

By scrutinizing the interplay between geosciences, society, and the environment, geoethics offers solutions and valuable methodologies that shape people’s perceptions and relationships with the planet. It places a heightened emphasis on all forms of life and geological resources, portraying a worldview that is comprehensive, exploratory, designable, and experiential [37]. This contemporary approach grounded in locality and informed by geoethics, helps to fortify the connections between people and the land, as well as between places and their memories [37].

In addition, this approach helps students to understand the “interdependence between their lives, the local community, and the local environment” [179] (p. 128), [180] building a society that is responsive to place, in the context of discussions about the place and belonging [181] and place-based education [39,89,98,103,106].

Gray [163] (pp. 228–230) argued that “geodiversity cultivates a sense of place” and that “places contain spiritual, historical, and cultural references”. A multidimensional concept encapsulates this aim, “sense of place”, which is embedded in the conceptual framework of geoenvironmental education and reflects how people perceive and feel the place of any scale and nature, including the meanings and significance they attach to it and how strongly they are connected to it [3,125]. Sense of place includes the connection to a place and the importance that the place has for everyone. It is a contemporary intended learning outcome, as its strengthening is a condition for cultivating environmental attitudes, a predictor of environmental behavior and action [34,35,134].

In summary, as we navigate the challenges of the “Anthropocene Era” [182,183,184,185], it becomes imperative to embrace updated geoenvironmental management strategies. This approach, guided by geoethics, aims to shape an educational framework that equips citizens with the necessary tools to grapple with the intricacies of contemporary environmental issues [17]. The ultimate goal is to ensure that our development aligns with the principle articulated by the United Nations in 1987: “Development that meets the needs of the present will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own” [186]. These strategies should cultivate predictors of environmental behavior and action [31,187] through responsible environmental behavior, political action, and the acquisition of individual and collective capacity for action [188]. Bridging environmental knowledge and values [189,190] with geoethics [4,5,37,44] is a way to promote appropriate human behaviors and practices between humans and the Earth [44], thereby advancing the concept of “sustainable geocentric human practices” [12,191] within the framework of anthropocentrism and the principle of responsibility [45]. This integration also lays the foundation for achieving sustainable governance of the Earth system [17].

5.2. Summary of Key Findings from This Review

The information preserved within rocks and minerals encapsulates the remarkable narrative of Earth’s 4.6 billion-year history. Geoscientific knowledge empowers individuals to steward over eight billion fellow human beings [192]. A nuanced interconnection exists among nature, resources, the environment, economic activities, growth, sustainable development, and social welfare. Upholding this interrelationship is paramount for the ongoing existence and prosperity of both Earth and humanity [144].

Geoethics subscribes to an anthropogenic perspective, prioritizing human beings as the focal point of ethical considerations. In this ethos, known as “anthropos”, the emphasis lies on the obligations towards fellow human beings [193]. Through the lens of geoethics, there is an opportunity to evaluate behaviors, raise awareness of alternative human pursuits, and even steer economic growth and development models onto more sustainable paths [144].

In addition, natural diversity encompasses both biotic elements, denoted as biodiversity, and abiotic elements, known as geodiversity, forming the mesh of geoconservation [194]. Geological heritage refers to in situ geosites and ex situ geodiversity elements [194] (p. 120). Geoheritage holds the potential to serve as a conduit for cultivating a broader conservation ethic through the implementation of educational programs with a more general focus on interpretation, education, and enjoyment [157]. Tilden [161] (p. 38) have noticed that “through interpretation, understanding; through understanding, appreciation; through appreciation, protection”.

The environment should be regarded as a valuable and preservable resource, a shared responsibility, a problem to be addressed and resolved, a system to be comprehended for informed decision-making, a habitat to be understood and nurtured, a biosphere in which we coexist over time, and a societal concern that requires active community involvement [195]. There is a pressing need to identify common ground for integrating ideas, experiences, and proposals on how geosciences can provide additional services to society to enhance responsible human interaction with the Earth system [196]. Geoenvironmental education offers fertile ground for promoting geoethics through its intended learning outcomes or through the adoption and combination of evolving geoethical education practices.

Our review revealed a small but increasing volume of documents reflecting the emerging status and interest in geoethical education as a scientific discipline over the years. The records showed a multidisciplinary engagement with geoethics involving different fields, such as geoscience [7,143,145,148,149,159], sustainability [17,144,153,154], geoheritage [52,147,157], geoconservation [142,156], and geoeducation [141,146,150,151,152,155,158] which is in line with the transdisciplinary nature of geoethics.

All records (n = 22) are centered on the educational spectrum, including formal [7,17,52,141,142,143,145,146,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,157,158,159], non-formal [144,145,150,155,156], and informal [52,142,147] contexts. These datasets have primarily focused on geoethics and geoenvironmental education. This emphasis highlights the role of geoethics in shaping responsible practices and attitudes among students and professionals in geosciences [7,141,142,143,145,146,151,152,153,157,159].

Some records revealed the need for increased familiarity with geoethics concepts [7,52,144,158], which are seen as opportunities to integrate geoethics into formal education to increase ethical awareness [52,141,142,143,148]. Several studies advocate the integration of geoethics into formal education curricula [7,146,149,150,152,153,158]. The incorporation of geoethical principles is essential for the development of responsible and geoethically aware citizens who can contribute to sustainable development and environmental protection [7,17,52,141,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,153,154,156,158].

Several records have highlighted the link between geoethics and sustainable development. This connection highlights the importance of ethical considerations in the pursuit of sustainable practices and the integration of geoethics into educational curricula to promote responsible decision-making [7,142,146,147,149]. The records also highlighted the promotion of geoethical values such as responsibility [151,152,153], inclusiveness, sustainability, and conservation. Initiatives focused on the enhancement of natural sites [142,148,154,156], and geotourism [147] highlight the importance of environmental stewardship in geoethics.

In response to global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic [155], some records suggested using historical events [142,155] to promote holistic and geoethical education. This reflects the adaptability of geoethics in addressing contemporary issues and promoting a comprehensive understanding of Earth-system dynamics.

5.3. Identification of Research Gaps

Our review has illuminated several research gaps that offer guidance for future inquiries in the realm of geoethics. These gaps serve as signposts for navigating the interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary landscape of geoethics. We acknowledge, however, that our review has focused primarily on the link between geoethics and education.

The multidisciplinary nature of geoethics suggests the potential for cross-disciplinary collaboration to address complex environmental challenges. However, there is a research gap in understanding how collaboration efforts between geoscientists and professionals from other disciplines can lead to innovative and sustainable solutions.

In addition, this review briefly mentioned the application of geoethical principles in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, more research should be done to explore how geoethics can address other global challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, lack of geodiversity, and environmental justice.

While there is an emphasis on promoting awareness of geoethics, there is a need for a more systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of awareness programs and initiatives. Research is needed to assess the impact of these programs in raising awareness, influencing behavior, and promoting a culture of responsibility and ethical conduct among geoscientists, the public, and trainees in different contexts, from schools to universities.

Another aspect relates to the continuing advancement of geotechnologies. There needs to be a greater focus on addressing the ethical considerations associated with emerging technologies in geosciences. Research is needed to explore the ethical implications of geospatial technologies, artificial intelligence, and data-driven decision-making.

Finally, while some evidence suggests a gap in student awareness of geoethics, longitudinal studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of geoethical education. Research is needed that follows students over time or in short-term programs to assess the lasting impact of geoethical education on attitudes, behaviors, and decision-making in the geosciences. The current literature provides insights from educators and researchers, but there is a gap in understanding students’ perspectives on geoethical education. The existing literature needs to comprehensively explore the relationship between geoethics and the sense of place. Research is needed to understand how individuals’ links to specific geographical locations influence their ethical considerations in geoscientific practices. Investigating the role of place attachment, meaning, and identity or identifying predictors of pro-environmental behavior, within the geoenvironmental context, could fill this gap.

5.4. Future Research Directions

Future research directions could explore the potential of interdisciplinary approaches involving fields beyond traditional geosciences. Collaborations between geoscientists, ethicists, social scientists, and policy-makers are needed to develop comprehensive frameworks that address environmental challenges from multiple perspectives. By exploring the role of geoethics in influencing environmental policies and regulations, we could explore how ethical considerations in geosciences can contribute to the development of robust policies for sustainable resource management, climate change mitigation, and environmental conservation. In this context, geoethical dimensions of public geoscience communication could lead to effective strategies for geoscientists to communicate complex scientific information to diverse audiences and to develop models of participatory geoethics that involve local communities in decision-making processes related to geoenvironmental issues through community engagement initiatives.

Another possible avenue is to conduct global comparative studies on geoethics awareness, education, and practices in different countries and regions. This could shed light on cultural differences, educational strategies, and policy implications, contributing to a more globally inclusive understanding of geoethics. Moreover, conducting longitudinal studies is a way to assess the long-term impact of geoethical education on students’ ethical decision-making and professional practices. In formal education, it is challenging to adopt student-centered approaches in geoethical education by incorporating the perspectives and voices of students. Exploring their experiences, values, and expectations in relation to geoethical considerations is a prerequisite for designing educational programs that are responsive to their interests and concerns, as the contemporary pedagogical frameworks require.

With regard to the objective of our review, about the relationship between geoethics and sense of place, it is necessary to develop and validate assessment tools to measure the effectiveness of geoethical education in order to implement geoenvironmental education curricula or programs. Reliable and robust qualitative and quantitative indicators are essential to assess changes in knowledge, attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors related to ethical considerations in geoenvironmental education or, more generally, in geosciences. Future research should explore the integration of sense of place within the framework of geoethics and geoenvironmental education. Investigating how individuals’ connections to specific places, from neighborhoods to entire ecoregions, such as protected areas or even UNESCO Global Geoparks, influence geoethical considerations in geoscientific practices could provide valuable insights and serve the United Nations’s seventeen sustainable development goals by strengthening local populations’ cognitive and emotional ties to the geoenvironment.

These research directions could expand the emerging scientific discipline of geoethics and contribute to scholars and stakeholders advancing geoethics for societal, academic, and educational progress and benefit.

6. Conclusions

Citizens highly value science and require a comprehensive understanding of pressing environmental challenges. Promoting geoethics is crucial to raising public awareness about the significance of geosciences in everyday life. The preservation of geological heritage and the promotion of geoconservation are essential for both enabling scientific research and fostering public appreciation for the complexity of the geoenvironment and the unique evidence of Earth’s history.

Natural areas, urban landscapes, ecoregions, protected areas, and UNESCO Global Geoparks play pivotal roles in human well-being by providing essential ecosystem services and promoting geoethical values among populations. Active citizen involvement and collaboration among scientists, policy-makers, and stakeholders are essential to imbue sites and geosites with meaning, serving as places for knowledge, recreation, enjoyment, and ecosystem conservation.

Geoethics should be the central focus of geosciences, complemented by the development of critical thinking skills and effective educational practices. The Anthropocene epoch, characterized by significant human impact on the Earth system, necessitates innovative and proactive approaches. Positive emotions play a key role in increasing awareness by fostering subjective and affective connections to specific territories, both small and large.

Enhancing citizens’ quality of life and promoting environmental protection are outcomes of geoenvironmental education. Through standardized approaches and strategies, cultivating a sense of place among individuals, particularly students, can counter atomistic behaviors, restore equilibrium conditions, and pave the way for a more sustainable and resilient future.