Advancing sustainable development through education in a Thai local community

As communities confront increasing environmental and social challenges, there is a growing need to understand how sustainability can be advanced locally through inclusive, community-based approaches. In May 2024, an international research program organized by the Sustainable Community Development Network (SCDN) brought together academics, professionals, and students from eight countries to explore such questions in Ban Nong Bua, conducting a series of case studies. This coastal village in western Thailand, with a population of approximately 1,750, relies economically on agriculture, fishing, and tourism (Makkos et al., 2025). In recent years, the community has launched sustainability efforts to address local challenges. Against this backdrop, our research focused on the social dimensions of sustainability and examined how education contributes to sustainable community development in Nong Bua, drawing on local perspectives and practices across formal, non-formal, and informal educational settings.

Education is a cornerstone of Sustainable Development, equipping individuals and communities with the skills and knowledge to address local challenges and take collective action (Ogbonnaya and Ann, 2023). It ensures that future generations can access similar opportunities and is central to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 4: “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” (UN, 2024a). Yet progress remains limited, constraining achievement of the 2030 Agenda. As both a goal and catalyst for all other SDGs (UN, 2024b), education has become central to sustainability through Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).

Although Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has been extensively studied internationally, most research has focused on formal education systems and national policy frameworks. Far less attention has been paid to community-based, non-formal learning contexts, particularly in rural Thai communities. This represents a significant gap in understanding how local actors mobilize education and social practices to advance sustainability.

While considering global principles, this article explores how educational principles related to sustainability can be applied in local contexts, focusing on the community of Nong Bua, Thailand. Using a participatory ethnographic approach, the study investigates how local leaders perceive and promote the role of education in driving sustainable development, with special attention to non-formal and community-based strategies that have received limited focus so far.

Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions:

1. What role does education play in the sustainable community development of Nong Bua?

2. How can local leaders promote sustainable development in the community through educational initiatives?

By exploring the specific challenges and opportunities in Nong Bua, this study offers insights into the transformative potential of Community-based Education for Sustainable Development (CBESD) initiatives.

As follows, Chapter 2 outlines the Literature Review, introducing key concepts and debates on the topic. Chapter 3 presents the Research Design, followed by Chapter 4, which details the Results and the conceptual model of the role of Education in SCD. Chapter 5 provides the Discussion and the Practical Implications, while Chapter 6 summarizes the Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Directions.

Sustainable Community Development (SCD) balances economic growth, social equity, and environmental protection at the local level. Building on the Brundtland Report's definition of sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN, 1987, p. 16), SCD localizes this principle through participation, empowerment, and good governance (Morshidi, 2016; Bakare, 2013), aiming at “mutual benefit” between community and environment (Morshidi, 2016, p. 5).

Education is central to this process: it enables people to recognize shared needs and take collective action toward addressing them. According to Zachariou and Symeou (2009), community-based educational initiatives help residents understand the implications of their actions on local ecosystems and promote not only environmental awareness but also intergenerational communication and participatory action. Such programs empower people to collaborate with local groups in identifying needs and developing solutions that improve the quality of life in the community (Zachariou and Symeou, 2009) and enhance participation in democratic processes and policymaking (Ogbonnaya and Ann, 2023). Likewise, through education, children and young people act as agents of change in community initiatives, advocating for transformative learning experiences that position them as active contributors to sustainability efforts (Percy-Smith and Burns, 2013). These perspectives show that education is not merely supportive but constitutive of community development.

Efforts to promote sustainable development through education led to the concept of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), outlined in Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 (Agbedahin, 2019), which prioritizes reorienting education, raising awareness, and promoting training (UN, 2024a, b). Defined by UNESCO (2009, p. 8) as “an approach to teaching and learning based on the ideals and principles that underlie sustainability,” ESD builds the knowledge, skills, and values needed for sustainable societies, adapting across formal, non-formal, and informal settings. These principles have been operationalized through global and national initiatives, such as the ESD Toolkit (McKeown, 2002), which supports communities in aligning curricula with local sustainability goals. Table 1 summarizes ESD's global and regional evolution from 2006 to 2025 and the Thai implementation.

In Thailand, global ESD frameworks were implemented through a series of national development plans and educational reforms focused on curriculum management and administration, closely linked to the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy, which aims to balance economic, social, and environmental goals (Nuamcharoen and Dhirathiti, 2017). Beyond instrumental objectives, ESD training programmes were organized for schools and practitioners, often incorporating elements of community involvement. These implementations remain consistent with the country's 20-Year National Strategies (2018–2037), which emphasize decentralization, increasing self-management of communities, and collaboration among the private sector, civil society, and local communities (Kaewpanya et al., 2021). While most ESD initiatives and related studies have focused on the formal education context (Nuamcharoen and Dhirathiti, 2017; Preededilok, 2017; Suriyankietkaew and Hallinger, 2018), policy frameworks increasingly recognize local communities as key sites of educational and social progress, integrating cultural and participatory approaches at the core of sustainability education.

One of the main theoretical debates within ESD concerns its transformative versus instrumental orientation. Transformative learning theory defines learning as a process of critically reassessing and transforming one's “frames of reference” to develop a more inclusive and reflective worldview (Mezirow, 2008, p. 26 as cited in Lehmann et al., 2025, p. 3). Building on this foundation, scholars argue that education for sustainable development must move „from learning how to understand to learning how to act and transform” (Schnitzler, 2019, p. 243). O'Grady (2023) concretizes transformative learning within an ESD framework, showing that higher education often remains at the stage of understanding rather than transformation. He argues that adopting transformative learning requires educators to critically reassess their roles and prepare students for profoundly different learning experiences. Importantly, transformation is not confined to professional practice: it has an intrinsically personal dimension, challenging both educators and learners to confront their values. This broader understanding links transformative learning to lived experience and community life, extending ESD beyond the formal educational sphere toward more participatory and socially grounded forms of learning.

Schnitzler (2019) reveals that the transformative aspect within ESD remains underdeveloped. He describes the bridge between the two as valuable yet weak, calling for the creation of spaces for collaboration and action, where reflection and experience lead to transformation. In such collaborative learning spaces, learning occurs “in relationships” and through “shared ownership” (p. 247), emphasizing participation, dialog, and co-creation as key to transformation. Sterling (2025) identifies a tension between a process and a product view of education, calling for “education beyond ESD” (p. 11) that fosters systemic rather than instrumental change. As he explains, “ESD may be seen as a precursor and agency to deeper and more wholesale systemic change across educational policy and practice” (p. 8). Yet this broader potential is often overlooked, leaving ESD constrained by instrumental aims rather than fulfilling its transformative role.

While calls for transformation have gained prominence, ESD implementation continues to face structural and contextual challenges. In Malaysia, Abidin et al. (2023) examined the perspectives of school leaders and identified four key barriers: encouraging positive attitudes, acquiring ESD knowledge, developing systems thinking, and adapting curricula to local contexts. They argue that overcoming these challenges requires supportive systems and innovative partnerships. In Indonesia, Alam and Hamzah (2025) found that collaborative curriculum design and parental engagement can enhance sustainability-related behavior, yet such efforts remain largely confined to formal schooling. Overall, these studies show that ESD still tends to prioritize curriculum and behavioral outcomes over participation and transformation.

Building on this, transformative learning offers a lens to reimagine ESD as a participatory and context-responsive practice, evolving through shared reflection and action. This opens pathways for non-formal and community-based approaches, where transformation emerges through collaboration and locally grounded learning.

Another major theme in recent research is the integration of cultural factors and local knowledge into ESD. Lehmann et al. (2025) argue that culture should be integrated as the fourth pillar of the sustainability framework, alongside the social, economic, and environmental dimensions. Their findings show that by including cultural perspectives, transformation emerges as an ongoing process of learning that extends beyond individuals to their communities. Similarly, Capelo et al. (2014), examining ESD in East Timor, demonstrate that context-sensitive and participatory indicators are essential for making education relevant and actionable. Their study shows that when communities participate in defining what sustainability means for them, educational goals become socially owned and responsive to local needs. Taken together, these insights highlight that integrating culture and local knowledge strengthens ESD's transformative potential.

In the Thai context, similar principles are reflected in community-based tourism (CBT). The National Tourism Policy Committee (2019) promotes CBT as a tool for national development, aiming to “create a learning process and lead to sustainability of the environment, local culture, and quality of life” (p. 10). It links community development and education by positioning communities as co-managers and learners in sustainability. Kontogeorgopoulos et al. (2014) show that CBT – “managed and owned by the community, for the community” – functions as both an economic strategy and a learning process, raising awareness of local ways of life (p. 110). While critics note persistent inequalities that limit community control (Blackstock, 2005; Butcher, 2012), success in Thailand depends on supportive conditions and local leadership (Kontogeorgopoulos et al., 2014). Together, these examples illustrate sustainability as a continuous educational process, where participation and local practice foster collective learning and transformation.

A growing body of research conceptualizes sustainability learning as a community-wide endeavor rather than a school-based intervention (Sterling, 2025; Zachariou and Symeou, 2009; Wals, 2011). Aligning with this perspective, UNESCO Bangkok's Reflect–Share–Act initiative (2021) offers the most comprehensive articulation of Community-based Education for Sustainable Development (CBESD). The framework encourages communities to reflect on local sustainability issues, share knowledge and experiences, and act collectively toward solutions. It positions ESD as a social practice and reframes learning as occurring “everywhere for everyone as an ongoing process” (UNESCO Bangkok, 2021, p. 10). By that, it operationalizes Sterling's (2025) vision of learning communities and Schnitzler's (2019) bridge between transformative learning and ESD, illustrating how transformation unfolds through collaboration and collective reflection in local contexts.

In this view, community-based ESD recognizes local people as essential partners in learning. Thailand's national strategies reflect this perspective by positioning communities as key sites of educational and social progress and integrating cultural and participatory approaches into sustainability education (Kaewpanya et al., 2021). Nuamcharoen and Dhirathiti (2017) study this at Thailand's Bansankong School, where schools and communities co-produce learning through local culture, dialog, and shared problem-solving. By embedding community issues and practices – such as organic food production and local marketplaces – into education, ESD enables mutual learning and benefit: it strengthens community identity and turns learning into collective action for sustainable development. Comparable approaches appear elsewhere in Southeast Asia: Nurlaela et al. (2024) applied an Asset-Based Community Development model in Indonesia and demonstrated that transformative skills education enables local communities to manage environmental assets sustainably. Nuttavuthisit (2017) similarly showed that vocational and non-formal education in Myanmar and Vietnam fosters sustainability through collaborative networks linking schools, local authorities, and businesses.

Taken together, these studies mark a shift from ESD as an institutional reform agenda toward ESD as community practice, building on collective reflection, participation, and local action. Across the reviewed literature, three insights emerge: first, ESD's transformative ambition cannot be realized through top-down, formal implementation alone; second, integrating cultural perspectives, local knowledge, and community participation enhances its contextual and transformative power; and third, research in Southeast Asia underscores the role of local leadership and collective agency in linking learning with social action. The CBESD framework synthesizes these trends, positioning education as an ongoing and situated process.

Yet important questions remain regarding how such community-based, non-formal, and informal learning processes operate in practice and how local actors sustain participation. This study addresses that gap by examining how local leaders in a Thai village facilitate education for sustainable development through participatory, culturally embedded forms of learning that connect formal, non-formal, and informal contexts, thereby exploring the lived processes through which ESD becomes community practice.

The participatory ethnographic research design employed in this study was conducted as part of a 10-day international research initiative in Nong Bua, Thailand. An interdisciplinary collaboration between academics, students, and practitioners resulted in diverse case studies. During this time, data collection was guided by the methodology of Grounded Theory (Strübing, 2021) to enable a comprehensive understanding of the local context.

Data collection unfolded on two complementary levels. While the entire research group actively participated in program activities and group discussions, a smaller research team, also taking part in these activities, focused specifically on education and complemented the overall data collection with interviews. During the stay in Thailand, active participation in program events and community activities constituted the primary empirical basis. Participant observations were continuously recorded in field notes and reflected on jointly by the interdisciplinary group. The preparation of field notes followed the methodological principles of qualitative social research (Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr, 2021). All activities were related to sustainability, with the emphasis on Sustainable Community Development (SCD) rather than on education per se. Examples of activities included participation in local campaigns and festivals, day programmes at a primary school, and visits to local farms and plantations applying sustainable concepts. On this level, each participant engaged with their own research interest under the shared theme of the international research program. Group discussions brought together diverse, multiprofessional perspectives, enabling multilayered reflection as experiences from different disciplinary backgrounds were related to one another. This interdisciplinary exchange proved particularly insightful in the context of sustainability and education, as complex social and ecological interrelations could be apprehended from multiple professional viewpoints. The experiences and reflective processes initiated in the field fed, in a more implicit manner, into later data interpretation by shaping the researchers' sensitivity to local dynamics.

On a second level, the smaller research team deliberately refined an education focus and planned qualitative research components accordingly. The focus on education was chosen within this smaller team and maintained throughout the stay. Observations were complemented by semi-structured, guide-based interviews specifically oriented toward educational issues. Semi-structured interviews allowed flexibility in exploring participants' perspectives while following a guiding framework (Strübing, 2021). These interviews enabled discussions of field experiences in the context of education with key actors from the local education sector. Conducted in a narrative style and using simple language, the interviews aimed to make local perspectives accessible. The substantive focus was on the meaning of education and sustainability as general concepts and in the specific community context as well. In this way, participatory experience was linked with deeper analytical reflection, contributing to the substantive saturation of the data.

This study specifically focuses on the two interviews conducted with two local leaders from Nong Bua, offering an in-depth examination of their perspectives. The two interviewees were selected purposively due to their central roles as community leaders and key actors in local educational initiatives, ensuring that their perspectives provided meaningful insights into educational challenges and opportunities in the community. Although this represents a limited number of voices, the central role of these leaders within the community, particularly in organizing and managing educational initiatives and shaping education, allows for drawing meaningful conclusions about local challenges and opportunities. To ensure anonymity, names and identifying details are omitted. A Thai colleague with strong English language skills assisted as a translator to overcome the language barrier. Interviews form the primary data source, and insights from observations and group discussions also informed the analysis and enriched the interpretation. Data collection and analysis followed the Grounded Theory methodology as outlined by Strübing (2021), which conceptualizes theory development as a stepwise abstraction grounded in empirical data. In the course of the study, the researchers actively chose to apply Grounded Theory not only as a coding tool but also as a model-building approach.

The combination of observations, semi-structured interviews, and reflective discussions enabled methodological triangulation and contributed to data saturation, as key themes were examined from multiple perspectives and across different contexts. Due to the limited duration of the fieldwork, a stepwise theoretical sampling in the field could only be applied to a limited extent. Instead, a broad range of observations were made and interviews were collected, and the principles of theoretical sampling were subsequently applied during the analysis phase (Helfferich, 2011).

In the following, key concepts from Grounded Theory and their application will be explained. Data analysis proceeded through the three core coding procedures: open, axial, and selective coding. During open coding, the transcripts and observations were examined line by line to identify emerging concepts. Axial coding reassembled the data by relating categories and subcategories, structured by the coding paradigm (Strübing, 2021), which includes causal conditions, context, intervening conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences. Selective coding then focused on identifying the core category that gives coherence to the model: Education for Sustainable Community Development. To improve clarity and structure, thematically related categories were grouped into super categories, higher-order constructs that organize more specific subcategories under a shared theme. Some categories were further conceptualized as multidimensional constructs, defined by properties and dimensions, though this approach was applied selectively where it added analytical depth.

The core principle guiding the coding process was the constant comparative method, which involves continuously comparing data with other data segments to refine categories and identify emerging patterns. Interpretation was treated as a continuous process rather than a final step. In line with Strübing (2021), it involved reconstructing meaning, surfacing latent structures, and remaining attentive to the participants' cultural and social context. Memos supported this process by capturing shifts in understanding and guiding theory development. All coding decisions were systematically documented to ensure transparency and traceability.

Practicing methodological reflexivity, the authors remained critically aware of their positionality as researchers with a European background. Their perspectives were shaped by different academic and cultural traditions. Rather than impose Eurocentric assumptions, they sought to understand local meanings of sustainability and education on their terms. As temporary guests in the field, they reflected on the potential influence of their background and emphasized cultural sensitivity throughout data interpretation.

During the interviews, it became evident that the term “sustainability” has not yet resonated deeply within the community. However, this does not mean that the community lacks sustainable principles or practices. Instead, it was mostly described as “taking care”, which applies to various levels of life, aiming to create a “good foundation”, a “good life”, and a strong connection to their “homeland”. During the interviews, it became apparent that while the concept of sustainability, defined in this way, may be unfamiliar to educational initiatives, the underlying sustainability values and practices are already embedded in the community's daily life.

The analysis of the data using the Grounded Theory coding paradigm (Strübing, 2021) resulted in the development of a conceptual model that explains how educational initiatives can effectively engage and include community members in sustainable development efforts. This model is composed of core categories derived inductively from the data. While the properties and dimensions of these categories are not detailed in the model, they underlie the categories and help to shape the relationships and interactions between the components. Together, the categories form an integrated framework that helps understand the role of education in sustainable community development.

The development of the model was guided by the study's research questions, while the structure of the model and Figure 1 followed the coding paradigm proposed by Strübing (2021, p. 27), incorporating its principal functional elements (context, intervening conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences), while the content and visual representation were developed by the authors based on the empirical data.

At the center of the model is the core category: Education for Sustainable Community Development. The core category represents the central phenomenon that connects all other elements within the framework. Surrounding this core are five interconnected super-categories: Inequality, Community, Resistance to change, Strategies and Participation, and Mindset. Each represents broad thematic areas derived from the data. These super-categories encompass more specific main categories that emerged during coding, reflecting the complex and dynamic nature of education's role in fostering sustainability at the community level.

To demonstrate how the model functions in practice, we use the example of the Trash Stop Campaign, an educational initiative led by a local community leader in Nong Bua (context). This project aims to increase community involvement (Participation – interaction) in protecting the environment by encouraging residents to take collective responsibility (Mindset – consequence) for waste management. Recognizing resistance to change (Resistance to change – causal conditions) within the community, the leader drew inspiration from external examples and focused on motivating local participation. Weekly voluntary clean-up events (Strategies – actions) are organized where adults and community leaders act as role models, especially influencing younger generations. The waste collected is sorted and sold, with the proceeds supporting vulnerable community members (Community – intervening conditions) through food and other essential aid.

This initiative represents a non-formal educational strategy that promotes sustainable awareness and respect for local natural resources and culture. It builds a stable foundation and a mindset based on shared ethical values and invites everyone in the community to participate actively. Over time, this collective action contributes to shifting mindsets, encouraging participants to see themselves as responsible community members committed to sustainability. The campaign's success is celebrated in community events that bring together schools and residents, further inspiring engagement and reinforcing social bonds. The inclusive and open nature of the initiative creates a positive feedback loop, benefiting both the environment and the community.

The following chapters provide a more detailed explanation of the identified categories and their connections.

In this study, a distinction is made between context and intervening conditions, following the Grounded Theory coding paradigm based on Strübing (2021) to better explain the factors shaping educational initiatives.

Context refers to the broader structural and environmental background in which education takes place. Here, Inequality represents this super-category of context, which education seeks to address by fostering equity and inclusion. The category captures the geographic, economic, and social differences (jobs, income, and access to education) within Nong Bua. For instance, the divide between seaside and mountainous areas influences access to education and resources. The sea represents a natural resource that provides people living on the seaside with more job opportunities, whether through the fishing trade or jobs in tourism. As a local leader noted, “Most kids don't even graduate 6th grade” from the mountainous area, and “they just don't want to go to school anymore”. Many families and children prioritize work over education, as they realize they can earn money early on, which they see as more important than schooling. This shows how economic necessity and social realities create barriers to education.

Community is marked as an intervening condition in the coding paradigm. This means it acts as a mediating force that influences how education programs interact with and respond to the unequal context. The Community super-category includes cultural traditions, local events, social networks, and collective values that shape educational practices and participation. Intervening conditions can either reduce or reinforce inequalities, affecting the success of sustainable education efforts. As a best practice, cultural traditions and local events can be mentioned, which provide opportunities to integrate sustainability principles. A local festival was organized with concerts and dance performances, and it was combined with a fundraising campaign to improve the local water supply system in regions where it is needed.

In the model, actions and interactions are central components that shape how individuals and communities respond to their circumstances. These are represented by the super-categories Strategies and Participation.

Participation goes beyond mere involvement; it embodies both taking action and taking care, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and empowerment. Through volunteering and community-driven initiatives, individuals take on active roles in shaping their community's future.

1. Taking action refers to proactive contributions such as organizing events, participating in projects, and driving efforts to improve the community's quality of life. This ensures residents are not passive recipients but co-creators of collective progress.

2. Taking care emphasizes mutual support, caring for fellow community members, creating a sense of belonging, and protecting the environment and local natural resources.

By combining these two aspects, participation helps build trust, unity, and a sense of belonging in the community. The model illustrates how educational initiatives build on these qualities, empowering individuals to take responsibility while strengthening their connection to both the community and the environment. This dual focus on action and care contributes to a sustainable way of living and establishes a foundational mindset.

The super-category Strategies includes the practices and responses that emerge as actors engage with their context (marked by Inequality) and navigate intervening conditions (such as community structures and resources). Here, Strategies refers to the diverse educational initiatives through which sustainable development is actively pursued, involving formal, non-formal, and informal learning environments.

Formal education, delivered through school, is the foundation of these strategies, as it offers structured, long-term learning and plays a key role in embedding core values in the mindset of young people, which aligns with the broader goals of sustainable community development.

Non-formal strategies are considered successful, as they include targeted initiatives and projects designed to meet specific needs.

1. The Trash Stop Campaign, which has been detailed above, promotes environmental protection through practical engagement in waste management. It shows how community-driven educational efforts can raise awareness and build social bonds.

2. Another example, the Behavioral Project, supports individuals with a history of imprisonment or addiction by providing re-education and training. This project promotes social reintegration by linking education with employment opportunities. According to a local leader, several participants have achieved great success in their new professions. One such success story is a woman who, after learning baking skills, was able to start a new life and now runs a successful bakery in the community.

3. Finally, the New Gen initiative focuses on preventing school dropouts by encouraging peer support and empowering students to motivate one another. The key aspect is that peers who have achieved academic success come back to the local school as role models and mentors, sharing their own stories to show the benefits of staying in school. Through their examples, students can see what they can become “if you study hard” highlighting the real-life impact of education on future opportunities.

Informal strategies operate through everyday social interactions. Volunteering and donation-based activities reinforce the notions of taking care and taking action. Local leaders and role models emerge as influential figures within the community: their presence and behavior deliver values and inspire sustainable practices without requiring formal instruction. They motivate others through their leadership and actions to adopt sustainable practices, thereby strengthening the community's commitment to shared goals.

These connected strategies work together to empower individuals to take responsibility for sustainability efforts and actively participate in the community's progress. A local leader emphasized the importance of education, stating: “Education is still the most important aspect that the community needs the most”. In this context, education, in all its forms, serves as a powerful tool for driving sustainable development at the local level.

In line with the paradigm, the super-category Mindset can be understood as a consequence of the actions and interactions (such as specific strategic initiatives and participation) within the community, and an indirect consequence of education for sustainable development. As one local leader put it: “Education is not only about the degree or the job requirements, it's also about the mindset, and the school's role is to ensure this “anchor” is established”. Thinking about education as a means for creating a specific mindset highlights how education actively shapes individuals' perceptions, values, and decisions. This involves encouraging sustainable thinking and integrating sustainability values across different types of education. Elementary schools are particularly significant in this context, as they lay the foundation for long-term attitudes and behaviors. By understanding sustainable thinking as an anchor, communities can align educational efforts with sustainability goals.

While schools serve as the main institutional setting, educational efforts also target adults and community leaders, reinforcing the mindset across generations. Understanding education for sustainable development as the cultivation of a sustainable mindset means that sustainability encompasses more than just economic advancement; it involves fostering a deeper sense of care and responsibility for the community's social, cultural, and environmental progress. By promoting this mindset, the community embraces education as a tool for collective empowerment, ensuring that decisions and actions are consistently aligned with shared goals. With the Mindset super-category, the model highlights how education enables individuals to internalize these principles.

However, having a sustainable mindset alone is not enough. As one of the local leaders mentioned, communities require a sustainable foundation to support and maintain sustainability: a combination of education, employment opportunities, health, and infrastructure. These form the structural backbone of development. Taken together, mindset and foundation form the internal and external dimensions of the consequence: a community that not only thinks sustainably but is equipped to act on it. Education thus contributes not just to knowledge acquisition but to creating the ethical and material conditions necessary for sustainable development.

Education plays a central role in advancing Sustainable Community Development (SCD) by fostering collective learning, empowerment, and participation at the local level. In Nong Bua, sustainability is not understood through abstract terminology but as a lived practice expressed in the principles of taking care and taking action. These values, deeply rooted in cultural and social life, form the moral foundation of community-based sustainability and connect environmental, social, and cultural dimensions. Addressing the first research question – “What role does education play in the sustainable community development of Nong Bua?” The findings show that education acts as both a catalyst and a connective force in community development. It fosters a sustainable mindset, promotes participation, and enables collective action across formal, non-formal, and informal contexts. In formal education, schools nurture an “ethical anchor” that shapes long-term attitudes and provides a foundation for sustainable living. Non-formal pathways, such as volunteering, donations, and traditional celebrations, engage diverse groups in addressing local challenges, including inequality, pollution, or youth dropout. Through informal learning, this mindset is reinforced by role models and community leaders. Addressing the second research question – “How can local leaders promote sustainable development through educational initiatives?” The study finds that local leaders mobilize cultural traditions, non-formal activities, and community networks to transform education into a participatory and action-oriented process that strengthens long-term sustainability.

The findings also provide empirical support for UNESCO Bangkok's Reflect–Share–Act (2021) framework, showing how reflection, cooperation, and shared responsibility emerge organically from community-led initiatives. Nong Bua demonstrates that transformation in ESD occurs collectively – through relationships, dialog, and social practice – rather than solely through individual cognitive change. This perspective contributes to debates on the transformative versus instrumental orientation of ESD (Schnitzler, 2019; O'Grady, 2023; Sterling, 2025). While instrumental approaches focus on measurable outcomes or curricular reform, Nong Bua exemplifies the transformative potential of community-driven education rooted in participation and local meaning-making. It also supports the argument that culture represents a “fourth pillar” of sustainability (Lehmann et al., 2025; Capelo et al., 2014), illustrating that education achieves transformative depth when embedded in shared cultural identity and local practice. In this way, the study bridges transformative learning theory and SCD, conceptualizing education as a constitutive social force that enables collective action toward sustainable futures.

The model developed by the authors (Figure 1) illustrates how such educational initiatives aim to reduce inequalities and equip individuals and communities to address social, economic, and environmental challenges. The potential of community-oriented and participatory approaches becomes evident, emphasizing education's ability to empower communities through ownership and active involvement in local initiatives. This corresponds with the principles of CBESD (UNESCO Bangkok, 2021), where reflection, cooperation, and shared action create lasting transformation.

Building on these findings, the following section outlines practical recommendations derived from both empirical evidence and theoretical insights, translating the conceptual implications into actionable strategies for educators, policymakers, and community stakeholders.

The recommendations are grounded in the principles of Agenda 21 (UN, 1992) and align with the ESD for 2030 framework (UNESCO, 2020). To effectively address local sustainability challenges, it is essential to tailor educational initiatives to each community's unique needs and context.

Education should be closely aligned with local realities, reflecting the geographic, cultural, and socio-economic conditions of the community. Local governance can promote sustainability by drawing on existing cultural practices – such as festivals, community events, and local traditions – which serve as natural learning spaces. Schools can connect classroom learning with lived experience by involving students in projects that address local environmental and social issues, such as volunteering initiatives, like in the example of Trash Stop Campaign. These participatory practices empower learners of all ages with the skills and mindset needed to act sustainably, bridging the gap between knowledge and everyday action.

Public awareness depends on the creation of inclusive spaces for dialog and shared learning that foster a collective identity around sustainability. Local authorities play a key role in facilitating community events that bring together residents, leaders, and experts to exchange ideas and co-develop initiatives. Partnerships with local businesses – such as in promoting community-based tourism – can further strengthen these efforts. Highlighting and celebrating existing sustainable practices reinforces community identity and shared responsibility. Initiatives like the Behavioral Project, illustrate how education can generate long-term social and economic value. Local media, storytelling, and cultural gatherings can further enhance reflection, collaboration, and community ownership of sustainability practices.

Training programs should equip individuals and leaders with the competencies needed to support sustainability in their communities. This includes vocational training, teacher education, and leadership programs that integrate community-based ESD principles. Such programs should adopt a multi-perspective approach – combining cultural, ecological, social, and educational dimensions – while emphasizing participatory and inclusive learning accessible to all members of society, including marginalized groups. Examples such as the New Gen Initiative demonstrate how practical, inclusive training can involve the community in these intergenerational learning processes. On-site training in rural or remote areas could further facilitate collaboration among groups. Stronger partnerships between governmental and non-governmental organizations are essential to ensure the long-term sustainability and relevance of these initiatives.

The insights and recommendations presented above form a bridge between the empirical findings and the study's broader theoretical and practical implications. By situating education within local realities, promoting participatory and culturally grounded learning, and reinforcing local leadership, these strategies operationalize the principles of CBESD. The following section synthesizes these insights, highlighting the study's contribution, limitations, and directions for future research.

This study advances the theoretical understanding of CBESD by highlighting community-centered, non-formal, and informal approaches to sustainability learning. Using participatory ethnography, it provides empirical evidence of how education mediates social, cultural, and ecological interactions through collective and transformative processes that reshape community practices and relationships. Transformation in this context is understood as a collective and relational process – one that reshapes community practices, mindset, and relationships rather than merely transmitting knowledge. The study clarifies the dynamic linkages between education and SCD, positioning CBESD as a means of overcoming the limits of formal, instrumental ESD. Overall, it frames education as a participatory, culturally grounded, and transformative process enabling communities to learn and sustain change collectively.

As noted in Chapter 3, this study has several limitations. Its focus on a single community in Nong Bua, Thailand, restricts the generalizability of the findings to other socio-cultural contexts. The ten-day fieldwork provides only a snapshot, without capturing long-term or seasonal dynamics. While local leaders' perspectives are emphasized, the voices of youth and marginalized groups remain underrepresented. Moreover, as a qualitative study, it offers rich contextual insights but does not measure the long-term impacts of these educational initiatives.

Rather than serving as a prescriptive design, the model emerging from this study offers a flexible interpretive structure that can be used to explore how education unfolds in different local contexts. As a first version, it may inspire the development of similar models aimed at deepening the understanding of how social, cultural, and ecological factors interact across multiple levels. Future research may refine this framework by analyzing how education functions as a core transformative process within SCD. Moreover, the model could be of help in designing ESD initiatives while considering transformative and community factors. Finally, it could help to explore how CBESD can be further embedded in local practice.

To expand the research scope and methodology, future studies should employ mixed-methods or longitudinal designs and compare urban, rural, and international contexts to gain deeper insights into how community-centered education adapts to diverse conditions. Studies could also examine how these strategies affect both immediate and intergenerational sustainability outcomes. Comparative and cross-cultural research would help assess the transferability and long-term impact of such initiatives. To enhance inclusivity and measurability, future work could integrate diverse community perspectives and combine ethnographic insights with quantitative evidence.

The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to Prof. Dr Miklós Bánhidi for organizing the international research program during which this study was conducted and for his valuable comments on the manuscript. Special thanks are extended to Peggy Sontisiriklit for translation support and assistance in overcoming language barriers. The authors also warmly thank all research participants and project organizers whose contributions made this work possible.