Fostering Circularity from the Classroom: Sustainability Practices and Waste Management in the Chocó Andino Biosphere Reserve

Abstract

The Chocó Andino Biosphere Reserve in Ecuador faces growing challenges associated with food consumption and waste management in rural contexts. However, the role of educational institutions in promoting sustainable practices in these territories has been scarcely studied. This paper analyzes how rural schools contribute to circularity processes in food and waste management, shaping what we conceptualize as school trajectories toward circularity. A mixed methodology was applied in four public institutions in the Reserve. The quantitative component consisted of characterizing and measuring the weight, composition, and generation of waste, while the qualitative component was based on observations and semi-structured interviews with administrators and teachers. The results indicate that recyclable dry fraction constitutes the predominant fraction across schools, revealing an overlooked but significant potential for reuse and recycling in rural educational settings. They also reveal that sustainable practices within the schools are primarily supported by pedagogical leadership and active community participation. These practices shape environmental learning trajectories in which care and co-responsibility become integrated into everyday school life. The findings contribute empirical insights on the sociocultural determinants of circular food behavior in contexts of the Global South.

1. Introduction

Contemporary food systems are at the center of multiple crises that feed into each other. Ecological degradation, climate change, food insecurity, massive food waste, and growing dependence on ultra-processed products form a web of tensions that goes beyond sectoral approaches [1,2,3,4].

In the Global South, food and environmental challenges take on intensity when combined with historical structures of inequality that limit both institutional capacity and access to basic infrastructure [5]. The precariousness of storage, transport, and waste management systems not only increases food losses but also reveals the fragility of the region’s nascent circular systems [6]. At the same time, the expansion of a homogeneous global food paradigm is eroding traditional practices, weakening the sociocultural sustainability of diets, and reinforcing dependence on productivist models with high environmental and health impacts [7]. Far from being isolated phenomena, these dynamics constitute a structural framework through which food consumption, waste generation and environmental pressures materialize in everyday institutional settings, including rural schools [8,9].

In Ecuador, these tensions take on an even more critical nature. As a megadiverse country, it faces the dual challenge of conserving its natural heritage while ensuring the food security and well-being of its population. This tension is particularly evident in vulnerable territories such as the Andean Chocó. The Chocó Andino de Pichincha, located along the western slopes of the Ecuadorian Andes, is a UNESCO-designated Biosphere Reserve and one of the world’s most biologically and culturally significant montane ecosystems. Spanning approximately 2869 km², nearly 30% of Pichincha province, this region encompasses a vast altitudinal gradient (500–4784 m) and includes diverse ecosystems ranging from cloud forests to páramos. It is home to hundreds of endemic plant and animal species, including over 270 bird species, 140 amphibians, and more than 3200 vascular plants, many of which are critically endangered [10,11].

Beyond its biological richness, the Chocó Andino provides essential ecosystem services such as freshwater provision, slope stabilization, carbon sequestration, up to 250 tons of CO₂ per hectare in some forest zones [12], and agricultural productivity through crops like coffee, cocoa, and tropical fruits [13]. Local and regional governance efforts, including those led by the Mancomunidad del Chocó Andino (MCA), youth and school networks, and conservation NGOs, demonstrate how community engagement, ecological knowledge, and multi-scalar governance are converging to promote sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in one of the world’s most threatened tropical biodiversity hotspots [14]. Embedded within this ecological landscape are deeply rooted cultural and ancestral traditions, especially those of the Yumbo people, whose ceremonial centers, culuncos (ancestral trails), and agricultural systems are preserved across over 600 archeological sites [15,16]. According to the 2022 Ecuadorian Population and Housing Census, approximately 119,343 people inhabit the region, 24.45% of whom are between 15 and 29 years of age. Among them, some are engaged in agroecology, artisan production, and communal rituals that reflect strong cultural stewardship and place-based knowledge [13].

In this context, rural educational institutions are strategic actors in addressing the tension between conservation and food security in megadiverse territories such as the Andean Chocó. Through environmental education processes rooted in everyday life, schools can promote transformative practices related to food production, consumption, and management. In this way, they not only fulfill an educational function, but also become spaces for social and cultural experimentation where local knowledge, community values, and collective actions aimed at sustainability converge [17,18].

Environmental education has undergone a conceptual shift that has taken it from being a mechanism for transmitting ecological information to becoming a field focused on shaping values, practical skills, and capacities for collective action for sustainability [17]. This shift is particularly relevant in rural contexts, where community life maintains a close relationship with ecosystems and, at the same time, faces structural limitations in access to resources, infrastructure, and decision-making spaces [19,20]. It is not just a matter of “teaching ecology” in peripheral settings, but of recognizing that these territories embody both the vulnerability and the transformative potential of sustainability [20,21].

Recent literature recognizes that schools, particularly in rural contexts, are not passive recipients of policies, but actively participate as actors that produce social innovation by coordinating with other community actors and generating sustainable solutions from the territory [22]. These transformations are enhanced by participatory methodologies that promote situated learning and shared responsibility for environmental problems, as shown by experiences of education for sustainable development in African institutions [23]. In this process, school leadership is crucial, as it facilitates the collective construction of sustainable practices and guides the educational community toward the Sustainable Development Goals [24]. Finally, environmental education is understood not as an isolated subject, but as a community and intercultural framework that links school life with collective practices and values oriented towards sustainability [25].

Within this framework, food systems provide a privileged setting for observing how this articulation between education, culture, and sustainability materializes. Agroecological pedagogy and circular practices not only regenerate ancestral knowledge but also reconfigure food sovereignty relationships in rural communities by promoting dialog between different types of knowledge and situated education [26,27]. Complementarily, the notion of food circular behavior allows us to understand school routines as nodes of transition towards sustainability, shifting attention from individual attitudinal changes to broader frameworks of environmental and territorial justice [28].

In summary, research on environmental education in rural contexts shows a shift toward approaches that prioritize community participation, knowledge dialog, and practice centered on food systems. This field opens the door to broader debates on how educational and behavioral interventions can promote circularity and sustainable food consumption in various settings, a rapidly expanding field that has been the subject of attention in different international contexts [29,30,31].

Extending this line of inquiry, several recent studies illustrate how education and behavioral interventions promote circularity in food systems and reduce waste across diverse age groups and settings. For instance, Ref. [32] evaluated the impact of a food education session in a Portuguese school canteen, finding that such interventions can significantly reduce vegetable plate waste. Additionally, Ref. [33] investigated children’s understanding and engagement with sustainable food packaging disposal at a UK science event, revealing strong interest, 77% of participants expressed willingness to change future behavior, though many still struggled to correctly identify disposal bins for different packaging types. Complementing these findings, Ref. [34] explored circularity in food waste management in a primary school in Spain, underscoring how structured waste management practices enhance both learning and resource reuse. Extending beyond formal education, Ref. [35] offered a systematic review of sustainability measures in school feeding, highlighting strategies like menu planning, composting, recycling, vegetarian options, and food donation as effective tools for minimizing food system impacts. Furthermore, immersive technological approaches such as VR experiences demonstrate promising potential: Ref. [36] developed an interactive virtual escape room to simulate food purchasing and disposal decisions, resulting in significant improvements in participants’ knowledge, confidence, and intention toward sustainable behavior. Together, these studies converge on the importance of combining educational, behavioral, and technological strategies to promote sustainable food consumption and circular food systems among young learners. However, empirical evidence from rural schools located in megadiverse and protected territories, particularly in Latin America, remains limited.

While environmental education in rural contexts is recognized as a driver of sustainability, challenges remain regarding its actual reach. Some authors warn that educational interventions, if not accompanied by institutional and structural transformations, are unlikely to achieve sustained changes in consumption habits [37]. There is also debate as to whether approaches focused on individual motivation are sufficient or whether it is essential to analyze practices in their collective and situated dimension, taking into account local norms, infrastructures, and cultures [37,38]. Similarly, food circularity appears to be an ambivalent area: while some studies highlight the regenerative potential of agroecology and local knowledge, others emphasize that without political support, infrastructure, and solid governance, these initiatives can become fragmented or vulnerable [39]. These tensions reveal a field traversed by debates between the pedagogical and the structural, the individual and the collective, the local and the institutional, shaping a critical framework for understanding how rural schools can be hubs of transition towards more sustainable food systems.

This study represents a pioneering effort in the rural context of the Chocó Andino Biosphere Reserve, marking one of the first initiatives in Ecuador, and among the few in Latin America, to investigate food consumption patterns and waste management within schools situated in protected areas. By analyzing the composition and handling of food waste in four schools of the region and exploring the role of school authorities, teachers, and parents in shaping environmental practices, this research aims to highlight the strategic role of educational institutions in promoting transitions toward sustainability, food literacy, and circular practices. In doing so, it contributes to the growing body of knowledge on consumer behavior and sustainability within agri-food systems, particularly in underrepresented rural and biodiversity-rich territories. The findings are expected to offer critical insights on shared values, pedagogical leadership for developing context-specific educational and policy strategies that align with broader goals of environmental sustainability and responsible food consumption.

Drawing on fieldwork conducted in schools located within the Biosphere Reserve, the findings are expected to generate critical insights into shared community values and pedagogical leadership. These insights will inform the development of context-specific educational and policy strategies that not only resonate with local socio-environmental realities but also align meaningfully with broader global goals of environmental sustainability and responsible food consumption.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection of Schools

The study was conducted in the Chocó Andino Commonwealth, a UNESCO-designated Biosphere Reserve located in Pichincha Province near Quito, Ecuador. This region is characterized by exceptional biodiversity and notable environmental vulnerability. A purposive sampling approach was used to select four educational institutions for an in-depth assessment of their solid waste management practices, ensuring representation across the school network of the region. For confidentiality and consistency, the institutions are referred to as School 1, School 2, School 3, and School 4, all located within the parishes that comprise the Chocó Andino Commonwealth.

The selection of these institutions was based on three criteria: demographic relevance, demonstrated institutional commitment, and the presence of pre-existing sustainability practices. Taken together, these criteria were applied within the structural and territorial conditions of the Chocó Andino Commonwealth, where the number of public educational institutions is limited and their spatial distribution is conditioned by geographical, environmental, and administrative factors. Accordingly, the study adopts an intentional and comparative sampling approach, aimed at prioritizing the analytical diversity of organizational and pedagogical trajectories towards circularity over statistical representativeness. In doing so, the methodological strategy allows for an in-depth examination of differentiated institutional configurations within the same territory, rather than establishing general statistical inferences.

With respect to demographic relevance, these four schools represent the largest educational communities within the “Distrito de Educación 17D01—Noroccidente”, according to a census carried out in February 2023 as part of a related research initiative [40]. Together, they encompass 2223 members of their educational communities, resulting in substantial waste generation and positioning them as critical focal points for this study. Their geographic distribution within the Chocó Andino Commonwealth is depicted in Figure 1.

Institutional commitment to environmental sustainability further supported their selection. The four schools have a documented history of engagement in environmental education initiatives led by governmental and non-governmental organizations, which has strengthened their institutional capacities and earned them regional and national recognition [41,42]. For example, School 3 has implemented school gardens and composting activities following its participation in the Education for Sustainable Development program. Likewise, the remaining schools have participated in the Red de Instituciones Academia E-STEM 2022, implementing projects such as organic fertilizer production, biodigesters, and solar energy systems [42]. Since 2023, all four institutions have also designated specific areas and facilities for the installation and operation of composters and biodigesters, evidencing a growing institutional commitment to biodegradable-organic waste management. These practices were verified through direct field observations and semi-structured interviews.

Despite these notable efforts, no systematic assessments had been conducted regarding the generation, characterization, or potential valorization of solid waste within these institutions. This gap underscored the need for the present study and justified the selection of these four schools as case examples for advancing sustainable waste management in the region.

2.2. Study Approaches and Techniques

This study adopted a sequential and integrated mixed-method-designs to examine waste practices and circularity processes in rural schools, combining quantitative evidence on waste generation and composition with qualitative insights into institutional and organizational dynamics and actors’ perceptions. In the first phase, a quantitative characterization of per capita generation and composition of solid waste was carried out using a standardized sampling and classification protocol. In a second phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key actors in the educational communities, based on a common script that combined open-ended questions with predefined responses (dichotomous and multiple choice). This integration made it possible to relate quantitative and qualitative evidence at the level of each school, examining consistencies and tensions between the material profiles of waste generation and the practices, organizational arrangements, and institutional dynamics reported by the actors. In this way, the qualitative results not only complemented the reading of the quantitative data but, in several cases, empirically reinforced its interpretation, providing an integrated basis for identifying strengths, challenges, and differentiated trajectories of school circularity.

Regarding the first phase, the characterization consisted of the systematic collection of numerical data related to solid waste composition and generation rates. The quartering method was employed in accordance with the guidelines of the “Proyecto de Gestión de Residuos Sólidos y Economía Circular Inclusiva” (GRECI) developed by [43]. This method ensured the generation of representative and manageable samples for analysis. Between February and June 2025, waste generated during regular academic days was collected at each school. High school students participated by recording weights and volumes of samples. The collected waste was homogenized on an impermeable surface and arranged in a circular pattern. It was then divided into four equal portions, with two opposite quadrants discarded and the remaining two combined to form a reduced sample. This procedure was repeated until a suitable weight or volume for handling and characterization was obtained. The final sample was manually segregated into biodegradable organic, recyclable, and non-recoverable residual fractions. On this matter, the term “biodegradable organic waste” refers exclusively to biodegradable food waste, including food scraps and other putrescible residues generated during food preparation and consumption. “Recyclable dry fraction” includes paper, cardboard, plastic packaging, beverage containers, and other dry materials with recovery potential. “Residual (non-recoverable) waste”, defined as materials that cannot be reused or recycled under current local, legal, and infrastructural conditions and are therefore disposed of in a landfill. Each fraction was weighed separately to determine the percentage composition of the waste [43]. This protocol was applied consistently across a full academic week (five days) in each of the four schools.

The analysis was based on the primary data obtained from the solid waste characterization performed in each school, and was organized using Microsoft Excel (version 365; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). The percentage composition of the waste was determined and classified into three main categories: biodegradable organic, recyclable, and non-recoverable residual waste; specifically, the percentage of each waste type was calculated by summing the masses of separated waste collected during the five-day school week; subsequently, the mass of each specific category was divided by the total accumulated waste mass and multiplied by 100. Additionally, per capita waste generation—expressed as the amount of waste produced per person per day—was calculated; this metric was determined by dividing the total mass of each waste category by the five-day academic period, and subsequently normalizing by the total population of the educational community at each institution (School 1: n = 635; School 2: n = 587; School 3: n = 629; and School 4: n = 372). Quantifying the biodegradable organic fraction with precision was especially important, as it enabled the estimation of its potential for nutrient reintegration into soils, supporting local food production and contributing to the closure of nutrient flows within the sustainable food systems of the Chocó Andino Commonwealth.

In addition, to explore processes, motivations, and challenges related to waste management, a total of 12 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders from the four schools. Participants were selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling based on their engagement in environmental initiatives and familiarity with the topic, ensuring the relevance and depth of the collected information. Interviews took place between August and September 2025 following a semi-structured guide designed to maintain consistency while allowing flexibility to probe or adapt questions as necessary. Ethical procedures were strictly followed: informed consent was obtained before each interview, guaranteeing confidentiality and the responsible use of information. The interview guide was reviewed and validated by expert professors in qualitative research to strengthen content validity. All interviews were audio-recorded for transcription and analysis, with complementary field notes taken to support interpretation and triangulation. These semi-structured interviews combined open-ended questions with predefined closed-ended items. To derive the results related to solid-waste management practices, the textual data underwent a thematic analysis. Key responses were categorized and coded based on the question type: binary (Yes/No) responses were used to determine the participation in solid-waste management activities across four schools, while multiple-choice responses were analyzed to determine the solid-waste management strategies most intensively implemented. The frequency of these coded responses was then calculated to determine the prevalence of each identified factor across the surveyed population. In parallel, the analytical process focused on exploring stakeholder perceptions regarding the implementation of environmental projects, with special attention to categories such as ethics and values related to waste management, internal management practices, influences of local or ancestral worldviews, and operational or cultural barriers. Finally, and based on the integrated reading of both types of responses, the analysis examined how current practices contribute to the use of biodegradable organic waste within sustainable food systems, identifying evidence of nutrient cycle closure and support for circular economy strategies at both school and community levels.

3. Results

This section presents the main findings from the quantitative and qualitative analyses conducted in the schools of the Chocó Andino Commonwealth. The quantitative results describe the composition and generation rates of solid waste, showing that the recyclable dry fraction (paper, cardboard, plastic packaging, and beverage containers) constitutes the predominant stream across all four schools. At the same time, the biodegradable organic fraction represents a smaller share of the waste generated, but it has significant potential for recovery through composting and biodigestion within sustainable food systems. Complementarily, the qualitative insights obtained through observations and interviews deepen the understanding of the perceptions, practices, and institutional factors that shape waste management at the school level. Together, these approaches provide a coherent view of current conditions, challenges, and opportunities for strengthening circularity and environmental education within the participating institutions.

3.1. Solid Waste Indicators

The waste characterization carried out in the four schools generated detailed evidence on per capita waste generation and percentage composition by type. The analysis revealed differences among institutions that reflect variations in school size, consumption patterns, and existing management practices. Figure 2 presents the per capita waste generation for each school, enabling comparison of individual contributions across school communities. Additionally, Figure 3 illustrates the proportional distribution of the main waste fractions—biodegradable organic, recyclable, and non-recoverable—allowing for the identification of composition patterns and the potential for valorization through recovery or composting initiatives.

Figure 2 and Figure 3 collectively provide a comprehensive overview of the solid-waste profile generated by the four schools in the Chocó Andino Commonwealth. As shown in Figure 2, per capita waste generation varies notably across schools, reflecting differences in student population sizes, daily consumption patterns, and the maturity of existing waste-management routines. These variations are further contextualized by the waste-composition analysis presented in Figure 3, which reveals that recyclable dry fraction waste constitutes the predominant fraction in all four schools, surpassing biodegradable organic residues. This waste stream is largely composed of materials with high recovery potential, particularly paper, plastic, cardboard, and multilayer packaging, demonstrating an important opportunity to strengthen recycling practices. Together, these findings highlight both the magnitude of daily waste generation and the composition trends that influence the feasibility of valorization pathways. While biodegradable organic matter remains an important component with clear potential for composting initiatives, the marked predominance of recyclable materials underscores the need to reinforce source separation, enhance collection systems, and integrate circular-economy actions into school routines.

On the other hand, Figure 4 illustrates how students, teachers, and other community members, from the four schools, participate in solid-waste management activities, including biodegradable organic waste valorization practices and recycling actions.

Figure 5 presents the distribution of responses from the four schools regarding the solid-waste management strategies most intensively implemented on their campuses. The results allow for a comparative visualization of the emphasis placed on biodegradable organic-waste valorization practices versus recycling efforts, as well as the extent to which schools report the absence of clear waste-management strategies.

Figure 4 synthesizes the extent to which members of the school communities—students, teachers, and other institutional actors—participate in activities related to solid-waste management. Across all four schools, participation patterns reveal a moderate but uneven engagement in practices such as biodegradable organic waste valorization and recycling. While some schools demonstrate consistent involvement in composting, vermiculture, or biodigestion processes, others show more frequent participation in recycling actions, particularly of paper, plastic, and cardboard. Notably, occasional involvement remains the most common response, indicating that although environmental initiatives are present, participation is not yet fully institutionalized as a routine part of school life.

Figure 5 complements these findings by highlighting the specific waste-management strategies perceived as most active or visible within each school. The distribution of responses reflects a strong emphasis on recycling practices, particularly in institutions with established teacher-led or community-supported initiatives. Biodegradable organic waste valorization is also well represented, especially in schools where biodigesters or composting systems have been installed as part of broader sustainability programs. However, a notable proportion of respondents report the absence of clear or consistent waste-management strategies in their institutions. This aligns with the variable participation levels observed in Figure 4 and suggests that, despite existing efforts, implementation remains fragmented and highly dependent on leadership, resource availability, and the continuity of past projects.

3.2. Socio-Educational Dynamics of School Circularity

The interviews conducted in the four rural schools of the Chocó Andino reveal that circularity does not emerge as an imposed policy, but rather as an educational process woven into everyday life. The schools do not simply reproduce external environmental management models; instead, they reinterpret them through their own practices, combining local knowledge, community values, and experiential learning. As one teacher explained, “here we learn by caring, not just by teaching” (Interviewee 2). This statement shows that care functions as a practical pedagogical principle, integrating environmental learning into everyday school relationships and activities rather than into formal or curricular content. This suggests that circularity is grounded in relational and everyday practices embedded in school life, rather than in externally imposed prescriptions.

Building on this relational understanding of circularity, the findings show that transformations toward sustainable practices are nurtured within the micro-dynamics of school life, where routine becomes pedagogy. Rather than teaching about the environment, school communities produce environment through their habits, rituals, and relationships. “Every action counts”, a teacher emphasized, “because students see that what we do leaves a mark” (Interviewee 11). These school trajectories toward circularity unfold through three interdependent dimensions: (1) material practices and situated learning, where waste becomes a resource and care becomes routine; (2) ethical–pedagogical leadership, which embodies values and mobilizes collective will; and (3) community resonance, through which school experiences extend into households and local territories. Together, these dimensions configure a socioecological transition that links learning, ethics, and community from the perspective of place-based practice.

3.2.1. The School as a Space for Circular Practice

The analysis of the interviews indicates that circularity is expressed primarily through a set of material practices embedded in daily school routines. The four participating schools engage in actions ranging from waste separation and classification to compost and organic fertilizer production, maintenance of school gardens, and the reuse of plastic containers for learning activities. These are not isolated initiatives; rather, they have been progressively incorporated into school routines through informal agreements, defined schedules, and responsibilities assigned to student groups.

In this context, circularity is not taught as a curricular topic but learned through action. The interviews show how environmental tasks become part of school dynamics, fostering practical learning and shared responsibility. As one interviewee stated, “they no longer just clean; now they learn to care” (Interviewee 1). This semantic shift from “cleaning” to “caring” reveals a reinterpretation of tasks traditionally associated with school maintenance, which are now seen as educational practices. However, these learning experiences take place in spaces and activities that are not always recognized by the institution or explicitly integrated into the school’s pedagogical organization. Another added, “they don’t wait for instructions anymore; they separate [the waste] themselves” (Interviewee 2), reflecting growing appropriation of school spaces and increasing autonomy in waste management.

These routines reveal emerging processes of environmental institutionalization. In some schools, composting is included in the weekly timetable, and the resulting product is used to enrich school gardens or educational orchards. As one participant noted, “composting is already part of the schedule” (Interviewee 8). Such practices transform waste management into a formative experience in which students directly observe the relationship between consumption, waste, and ecological regeneration.

The interviews also highlight a deeper pedagogical dimension: the transformation of waste into a resource serves as both a symbolic and material mediation of environmental learning. “What used to be trash now feeds the gardens” (Interviewee 4), a teacher remarked, referring to the visible materialization of ecological cycles within the school setting. Others described how each class maintains its own “green corner”, a space that functions as a marker of commitment and responsibility (Interviewee 8).

Although the level of consolidation varies across schools, a common trend toward linking environmental action with school culture is evident. Some schools have environmental committees or internal programs that provide continuity, whereas others still rely heavily on individual teacher motivation. Nevertheless, across all cases, the implemented actions reflect a principle of educational self-organization geared toward sustainability. As one interviewee summarized: “We work with what we have, but what we have teaches us” (Interviewee 6). This testimony reflects a logic of sufficiency in which material limitations are transformed into learning opportunities. However, it also shows that scarcity is incorporated into the daily functioning of the school, which ends up taking on pedagogical compensation tasks in the face of external structural limitations.

Overall, the findings show that circularity operates not merely as a set of techniques but as an emergent organizational framework. Through these practices, schools redefine their role as mediating spaces between knowledge, environment, and community, creating concrete conditions for transition toward more sustainable forms of production and consumption.

3.2.2. Teacher Leadership as a Driver of Transition

The consolidation of circular practices within schools relies heavily on the presence of pedagogical leadership exercised through daily practice. The interviews reveal that environmental transformations do not originate from institutional mandates or external programs but from the individual and collective commitment of teachers who integrate sustainable actions into their everyday work. This leadership does not operate through formal hierarchy but through coherence and accompaniment, generating pedagogical authority through example.

As one interviewee expressed, “this grows from vocation; you teach what you practice” (Interviewee 3), summarizing the logic of learning by modeling. Another highlighted the horizontal nature of this leadership: “There are no hierarchies here; if you don’t pick up a leaf, I will” (Interviewee 10). In both cases, leadership emerges not as imposition but as a relational practice that builds legitimacy through visible actions.

Empirical evidence shows that this leadership translates into internal organizational forms that ensure continuity of environmental initiatives. Teachers assign responsibilities among classes, schedule composting activities, and coordinate the maintenance of green spaces or management of recyclable materials. As one participant stated, “If we don’t do it, nobody will” (Interviewee 7). This statement highlights a form of leadership based on personal responsibility and ethical commitment, but it also reveals an organizational dependence on specific actors. In this context, the continuity of practices is dependent on the permanence and availability of those who promote them.

Teacher leadership also plays a key role in pedagogical integration. Environmental actions are used to foster cross-cutting learning—from scientific observation to peer cooperation. By promoting experience-based activities, teachers create environments in which students connect knowledge with responsibility. As another interviewee noted, “It all depends on the teacher’s commitment; if they live it, students make it their own” (Interviewee 9).

In sum, the findings indicate that sustained environmental learning depends not only on resource availability but also on educational leadership capable of transforming isolated actions into organizational structures. This ethical–pedagogical leadership constitutes the human foundation that maintains circular practices, anchors them within the learning process, and embeds them in school culture as enduring components of environmental education.

3.2.3. The Community as an Extension of the Classroom

Teacher leadership extends beyond the school campus. The interviews show that it reaches the community, generating new forms of cooperation among schools, families, and local authorities. Teachers describe organizing joint activities to maintain common spaces, collect specific waste streams, or share composting knowledge. “The community organizes itself to work with the students” (Interviewee 5), a participant noted, highlighting the participatory nature of these efforts. These processes represent early expressions of local educational governance, with schools acting as mediators between learning and collective action.

The outward projection of circular practices into households also indicates a shift in the dynamics of educational influence. Several interviewees reported that students become transmitters of sustainable habits: “At home they now separate waste because the children insist” (Interviewee 1). Environmental learning, initially situated within the school, thus becomes a mechanism of social reinforcement through which school-based knowledge reshapes domestic and community-level behaviors.

Nonetheless, the interviews also reveal structural limitations that challenge the sustainability of these initiatives. Lack of coordination with municipal services, irregular waste collection, and insufficient infrastructure generate discontinuities. “When the truck doesn’t come, everything piles up; trash becomes trash again” (Interviewee 6), an interviewee observed, underscoring the dependency between educational practice and territorial waste-management systems. This account highlights an operational limitation of circularity practices in schools when there is a lack of consistency with regional waste management systems. In this context, educational practices are conditioned by external infrastructure, generating disruptions that are beyond the direct control of the school community.

Despite these constraints, the participating schools have become local references for environmental action. In several cases, parish or community authorities have invited teachers and students to lead awareness campaigns or reforestation activities. “We want to show everyone how each person becomes responsible for their own waste” (Interviewee 10), a participant explained. This external recognition confirms the school’s role as an articulating node between education and territory, generating social legitimacy through everyday practice.

Overall, the findings show that school circularity is a process that transcends institutional boundaries, linking pedagogical practices, local infrastructures, and community networks. Schools function as mediating spaces where environmental learning becomes social action and where knowledge circulates bidirectionally—from community to classroom and from classroom to community. In this way, environmental education acquires a territorial dimension that integrates values, knowledge, and practices into a shared socioecological transition.

4. Discussion

The waste composition observed in rural schools of the Chocó region, where biodegradable organic fraction represents 14–37%, recyclable dry fraction 53–77%, and non-recoverable residual waste 8–27%, reveals patterns that both converge with and differ from findings reported in similar Latin American and international contexts. Studies conducted in rural settings of Ecuador typically report a predominance of biodegradable organic waste; for example, Ref. [44] documented that household waste in the rural parish of Fátima (Ecuadorian Amazon) consisted of 66% biodegradable organic matter. This proportion is considerably higher than that found in the Chocó schools, suggesting that school environments may generate comparatively more packaged or manufactured waste than rural households, a pattern that points to the relevance of students’ consumption habits and the presence of single-use packaging in school settings, while requiring further empirical confirmation.

When compared with waste-characterization work in other educational settings, the results also exhibit notable distinctions. Research conducted in an Ecuadorian lower-secondary school by [45] identified structural limitations in institutional waste-management practices, including insufficient communication and lack of established separation systems. These systemic barriers, which are common in rural schools, may contribute to the relatively high fraction of non-recoverable waste (up to 27%) identified in the Chocó schools. International institutional studies point to similar trends: for instance, an audit performed in a South African university setting found that only 3.9% of generated waste was non-recoverable when systematic segregation was implemented [46], highlighting the potential for diversion if adequate infrastructure were available.

More broadly, the predominance of recyclable dry fraction (53–77%) observed in the Chocó schools is consistent with the challenges documented across rural low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where waste recovery systems tend to be limited. Ref. [47] emphasize that rural LMIC contexts frequently lack effective separation at source, collection logistics, and recycling channels, resulting in higher proportions of potentially recyclable materials being discarded as mixed waste. The situation in the Chocó region appears to reflect this pattern, suggesting that improving local capacity for material recovery could substantially reduce the three types of waste produced.

Overall, the comparatively low biodegradable organic fraction and the elevated presence of recyclable materials in the Chocó schools align with broader findings from rural educational and community environments where waste-management infrastructure is insufficiently developed. These results underscore the importance of implementing school-based separation systems, educational interventions, and local recycling or composting initiatives to enhance waste recovery and reduce the volume of residual waste.

The patterns observed across the four participating schools reveal a solid-waste management landscape shaped not only by structural constraints but also by the active engagement of educational communities. One of the most salient findings is the prominence of recyclable materials such as paper, plastic, cardboard, and beverage containers. This composition draws attention to the particular material configuration of school environments, positioning the predominance of recyclable materials as a key element for understanding school-based waste-management dynamics. Consequently, the high proportion of recyclable waste suggests significant opportunities to strengthen separation at source, reuse activities, and local recycling circuits—especially when these actions are linked to school-based environmental education initiatives. At the same time, the comparatively lower generation of biodegradable organic waste underscores the need to reassess food provisioning practices and their implications for circularity within school food systems.

Building on this, participation patterns among students, teachers, and school staff further highlight the centrality of routine engagement in shaping environmental practices. Although the intensity of participation varies among schools—from consistent involvement to more occasional practices—the results indicate a general willingness to take part in waste-related activities when responsibilities are clearly assigned, designated spaces exist, and pedagogical purposes are made visible. This reinforces existing literature showing that environmental actions embedded in daily routines, rather than isolated or sporadic activities, are more likely to produce durable behavioral changes. Nevertheless, the predominance of “regular” and “occasional” participation responses reveals not only motivation but also structural limitations, pointing to the need for institutional strategies that formalize and stabilize circular practices over time.

In addition, the perception that environmental leadership is shared—where teachers emerge as the most frequently recognized drivers of initiatives, followed by students and school authorities—adds further nuance to these dynamics. This distributed leadership model is consistent with qualitative insights from the study, in which pedagogical leadership, modeling behaviors, and intergenerational collaboration are repeatedly emphasized. Teachers, in particular, appear as key agents who not only initiate sustainability practices but also ensure their continuity by integrating them into classroom routines and promoting shared responsibility. Meanwhile, student involvement—especially in tasks such as waste separation—contributes to a peer-learning environment that strengthens commitment and reinforces pro-environmental identities.

Furthermore, differences across schools in the types of waste-management strategies implemented reflect variations in infrastructure, institutional priorities, and community engagement. While some schools show a clearer orientation toward biodegradable organic-waste valorization—through composting, vermiculture, or biodigestion—others emphasize recycling or report the absence of consolidated strategies. These contrasts highlight the need for context-specific interventions that build on existing strengths while addressing gaps in technical capacity, space availability, and local waste-collection systems. The coexistence of highly engaged and less structured practices within the same territory illustrates that the transition toward circularity is uneven but evolving, driven not by standardized programs but by situated, community-based processes.

Taken together, these findings make it possible to understand school circularity not as a linear maturation process but as a set of differentiated institutional trajectories shaped by the interaction between two key dimensions: (a) the degree of development of ecological practices (their diversity, stability, and scope) and (b) the level of internal organization (leadership, clarity of roles, continuity, and community ownership). This perspective underscores that circularity depends not only on the existence of technical practices but also on how these practices become assembled with organizational structures and community dynamics.

An analytical reading of the trajectories of school circularity reveals that their differences are shaped by specific combinations of structural conditions and agency capacities present in each institution. Structural conditions refer to the availability and continuity of infrastructure, the existence of spaces and resources, and the degree of organizational formalization of environmental practices. Agency capacities, on the other hand, are expressed in teaching leadership, pedagogical commitment, collective ownership of the environmental problem, and the ability of school actors to sustain routines and responsibilities over time. The comparative analysis shows that when both dimensions are coherently articulated, circularity practices tend to stabilize and expand; conversely, when this articulation is weak or asymmetrical, initiatives remain fragmented, depend on specific actors, or exhibit high levels of discontinuity. This interaction is key to understanding the heterogeneity of trajectories observed among schools that share the same territory.

From this standpoint, School 1 exhibits a consolidated trajectory, with evidence of waste separation, recycling, composting, and the use of biodigesters. Interview data indicates coherent leadership, clear role distribution, and strong collective ownership. Here, ecological practices and institutional organization reinforce each other, forming a stable circularity system. This case suggests that the stability of circularity practices does not depend solely on the availability of infrastructure, but also on its coordination with teaching leaders capable of institutionalizing these practices in shared school routines that are sustained over time.

By contrast, School 2 presents a fragile trajectory. Although some isolated actions were mentioned, respondents repeatedly emphasized the absence of clear strategies. Interviews revealed a lack of assigned responsibilities, discontinuity, and limited institutional ownership. Thus, practices fail to consolidate, and the minimal organizational support restricts the possibility of establishing a functional school circularity system.

Meanwhile, School 3 develops a diversified trajectory, supported by a broad repertoire of practices such as vermicomposting, biodigesters, waste separation, recycling, and tetrapack collection. Interviews show strong teacher commitment and daily engagement, although internal tensions and uneven organization were also noted. Circularity in this school evolves through an environmental culture that sustains initiatives beyond rigid formal structures.

Lastly, School 4 displays a conditional trajectory. Although practices such as waste separation and vermicomposting are present, institutional organization remains weak. Interviews revealed a lack of consensus regarding the environmental problem, and actions depend largely on the initiative and commitment of specific individuals. Consequently, circularity operates only under particular conditions—functioning when key actors drive activities but lacking structures that ensure stability or continuity. This pattern shows that, in the absence of shared organizational structures and minimum institutional agreements, individual agency is insufficient to ensure the sustainability of practices, even when key actors have motivation and technical knowledge.

These four trajectories can be visualized through a two-dimensional matrix in which the horizontal axis represents the level of development of ecological practices (low–medium–high), and the vertical axis represents the level of development of organizational arrangements (low–medium–high). This schematic representation synthesizes how each school combines these factors and occupies a distinct position within the territorial circularity system (Figure 6).

For analytical purposes, school trajectories were classified based on each school’s relative position in two empirical dimensions derived from the quantitative and qualitative evidence in the study. The level of development of ecological practices was established by considering, in a comparative manner, (i) the diversity of practices implemented (e.g., waste separation, composting, biodigestion, recycling), (ii) their degree of continuity over time, and (iii) their integration into the school’s daily routines. Schools were classified as low level when practices were isolated, sporadic, or discontinuous; medium level when there was moderate diversity of partially sustained actions; and high level when practices were multiple, stable, and regularly integrated into school operations.

Complementarily, the level of development of organizational arrangements was defined as the degree to which the school has structures, agreements, and forms of internal coordination that allow for the organization, maintenance, and continuity of environmental practices over time. This dimension was operationalized using criteria such as (i) the presence and stability of leadership, (ii) clarity in the distribution of roles, (iii) continuity of responsibilities, and (iv) the existence of collective ownership of environmental initiatives. A low level was assigned when actions depended mainly on individual initiatives and lacked stable structures or agreements; a medium level when there was shared leadership or basic agreements, but with limitations on continuity; and a high level when clear organizational arrangements, distributed responsibilities, and institutional commitment that transcended specific actors were observed.

Moreover, the findings invite a critical dialog with theoretical frameworks on sustainable practices, transformative learning, and socioecological transitions in rural territories. The heterogeneity observed across schools confirms, at least partially, the notion that environmental practices depend on specific socio-material configurations [37,38]. Schools 1 and 3 demonstrate consistent alignment between meanings, competencies, and infrastructures. However, the situation in School 4 introduces a dimension that existing literature has not fully explored: even when infrastructure and practices exist, the absence of a shared understanding of the environmental problem prevents them from becoming institutionally embedded. This suggests that the stability of circular practices requires a foundational cognitive agreement—namely, a shared recognition of the existence, relevance, and urgency of the issue. Without this interpretive framework, practices may persist in isolated forms or depend on individual actors but cannot evolve into a coherent school system.

Similarly, while the institutional fragility of School 2 aligns with structural limitations described by [5] in rural territories, the data indicates that precariousness cannot be explained solely by material or administrative constraints. In this school, the environmental problem is indeed recognized; however, the difficulty lies in the absence of designated responsibilities, lack of continuity, and weak mechanisms for collective ownership. This highlights that fragile trajectories arise not only from external limitations but also from internal deficits related to task distribution and institutional stability.

Conversely, the presence of robust and diversified practices in Schools 1 and 3 supports transformative learning perspectives advanced by [17,18]. Yet, the findings also demonstrate that such learning depends not only on curricular innovations or pedagogical intention but on organizational stability, expressed through structured routines, clear responsibilities, and continuity over time. This extends existing frameworks by showing that transformative processes emerge not only in the classroom but also from how institutions organize and sustain environmental practices in their everyday functioning.

Furthermore, the agroecological experiences in Schools 1 and 3, including biodigesters, vermicomposting, waste separation, and recycling, reinforce propositions by [26,27] regarding agroecology as relational ecology. However, the experience of School 4 underscores that the mere presence of such practices does not guarantee meaningful learning when there is no shared understanding that legitimizes them. This reveals an additional dimension often overlooked in the literature: pedagogical agroecology requires not only infrastructure or environmental practices but also basic shared meanings that situate these activities within a collective educational project.

Finally, although the leadership dependence observed in School 4 aligns with arguments by [22,23] regarding educational agency in fragile contexts, the results show that such individualized leadership produces a specific form of instability. When practices rely primarily on the initiative of particular individuals, their continuity becomes tied to the permanence and motivation of these actors, limiting their integration into institutional dynamics. This highlights that while leadership can activate environmental processes, it does not guarantee their sustainability unless it is translated into shared structures and commitments.

The findings show that socioecological transitions in rural, megadiverse contexts do not depend exclusively on technical practices or devices, but rather on the articulation among infrastructures, cognitive agreements, internal organization, and community ties. Consequently, the study offers a more nuanced understanding of educational circularity, not as a uniform or progressive state, but as a situated assemblage of school configurations that reflect the conditions, capacities, and cultural meanings each educational community constructs within its own territory.

5. Conclusions

The results show that circularity in rural schools depends less on specific infrastructure or techniques and more on the articulation between teaching leadership, internal organization, and community ties. When these dimensions converge, environmental practices are incorporated in a stable manner into school life and generate differentiated trajectories toward sustainability, depending on the institutional and territorial conditions of each educational center. This approach provides a more nuanced understanding of the role of rural schools in megadiverse territories, highlighting them as actors capable of activating localized socio-ecological transitions.

The findings indicate that advancing circularity in rural schools of the Chocó Andino does not primarily depend on introducing new infrastructure or external programs, as basic waste-management facilities and technical assistance are already in place. Instead, the central challenge lies in ensuring sustained use, methodological improvement, and institutional consolidation of existing systems. In several schools, composters, biodigesters, and separation points are available but operate irregularly or depend on the initiative of specific individuals. In this context, strengthening coordination between schools, local governments, and waste-management systems should focus on mechanisms that guarantee continuity rather than expansion. This includes stabilizing recently established school-level coordination roles, reinforcing periodic technical follow-up to improve operational methods, and aligning school routines with municipal collection schedules to prevent disruptions in daily practices. By prioritizing the effective and consistent use of existing infrastructure, these linkage mechanisms directly address the barriers identified in the study and support the long-term consolidation of circular practices in rural educational settings.

From a reflective perspective, the results presented here should be read with certain limitations inherent to the study design and analytical scope in mind. First, the results are based on four educational units, which restrict their statistical generalizability but allows for a dense and situated understanding of school circularity practices in rural and megadiverse territories. Second, the limited nature of the research cycle, without longitudinal follow-up, prevents the evaluation of the stability, transformation, or institutionalization of these practices over time. Finally, the study focuses on internal school dynamics, leaving open the analysis of how these circularity trajectories interact with broader scales of territorial governance. These limitations open up a future research agenda aimed at expanding the comparative scale, incorporating long-term follow-ups, and exploring the articulation between school, territory, and governance, to gain a deeper understanding of the transformative potential and sustainability of circular practices in rural contexts in the Global South.