Abstract
Ecological Civilization (EC) represents a constituted effort on the part of China to utilize its developing regional linkages to promote a form of globalization that places the bioeconomy as a foundational core of sustainable global development. This article first outlines how China, through a unique form of state-centric globalization-through-regionalism, has continued to develop cooperative networks based on global trade, infrastructure, and educational exchanges. Second, signaling a fundamental shift within the higher education (HE) landscape, we outline that the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), and its ever-increasing number of open and inclusive university partnerships, represents a rich avenue for people-to-people exchange within a third-space for scientific collaboration. Third, within both a shifting HE landscape (and the scholarly push to engage with a new postdigital scientific/philosophical paradigm) China’s pursuit of EC constitutes a form of biodigitalism which conceptualizes the bioeconomy as a pursuit of technological advancement that preserves and strengthens humanity’s intimate relationship with the natural world. Finally, we argue that building a BRI-ESD community undergirded by the biodigital ecopedagogy of EC will provide both the curriculum and educational space to more fully enact UNESCO’s ESD 2030 framework.
In 2007, the Brookings Institute noted that Central Asia, with its large repositories of material resources, its centrality within the Eurasian super-continent, and its rapidly expanding Eurasian trade and capital flows belied its potential as a hub of transnational exchange between highly educated populations like Russia, India and China (Linn, 2007). While the region represents an important nexus of material and human resource exchange, competing geopolitical interests in the region and beyond (see US and UK energy/security interests) continued to view the overall stability of Central Asia as a vaulted prize of ‘great game’ power diplomacy (Linn, 2007). Keen to ‘hedge’ itself against the crisis and shocks inherent to a global economic system that was largely managed and controlled by US interests, China has (for almost two decades) sought to diversify its supply networks by building rail links, pipelines, shipping ports, airports and the like throughout the Eurasian continent (Friedberg, 2018). When China’s President Xi Jinping announced the ‘One Belt, One Road’ Initiative (bri) in 2013, it was understood as the most significant international development program of the 21st century (Buckley, 2019). Peters notes that the bri represents a new development and modernization strategy by the Chinese government to promote peace and cooperation, openness and inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefit amongst the countries that comprise the land and sea routes linking Eurasia (2020b). However, the bri yet remains ‘an amorphous, dynamic entity’ (Buckley, 2018), which has continued to highlight a novel development paradigm known as infrastructuralism aimed at promoting open, accessible globalizing institutions (material, ideological) and patterns of transnational developmental reform (Peters, 2020a). This incompleteness and commitment to openness may be witnessed within China’s continued willingness to rethink the bri in the face of both domestic and international pushback (Buckley, 2019). Specifically, Li outlines that the bri exhibits its commitment to open political and developmental reform, through its ongoing coordinated pursuit of socio-economic interconnectedness between its own state and local development goals and a principled, fundamental concern for regional/global political, social and eco-civilizational development (2018). Li also outlined that any path towards promoting the bri as a truly global paradigm of development-driven civilizationalism must first address contending strategies aimed at solidifying a cogent Eurasian geopolitical identity. One such contending vision is Russia’s own plans for Eurasian civilizationalism – the Greater Eurasian Partnership (2018). While some scholars remain hopeful that a continued development of networked linkages between Chinese-led and Russian-led cooperation organizations may align the two strategies, Krapohl, Vasileva-Dienes outline that there also exists a ‘second great game’ being played out within Central Asia (2020). The authors further note that regional organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (sco) and the Eurasian Economic Union (eaeu) are being used as strategic instruments of power projection which prevent the development of a genuine Central Asian regionalism (2020). Commenting on how this global great game over resources, supply chains and markets continues to be played out on a continental scale, Parag Khanna (2021) posits that rather than Orwell’s Oceania, East Asia and Eurasia, today we have North America, Europe and Asia, a multipolarity of super-regional entities whose complex intertwinement proscribe a monolithic classification. Thus, while globalization and regionalism interact in ways that are not altogether harmonious, they need not be wholly contentious, especially as concerns the functionalists understanding that regionalism and globalism are complementary, with the development of the former being necessary for the development of the latter (Yilmaz, Li, 2020). Specifically, Yilmaz & Li outline that the bri signals a new trend in global interaction which utilizes preexisting regional linkages (political, cultural, economic), established during past forms of ‘old’ globalization, to promote material and ideational networks of communication between business, diplomacy and education which foster a ‘new’ globalization based in China’s unique understanding of global governance (connectivity, tolerance, inclusiveness, harmony, peace, holism in world affairs) (2020). Thusly, China’s bri seeks to overcome the previous era of globalization, whose regionalism withered away at state sovereignty, by advancing a form of state-driven ‘globalization-through-regionalism’ (Krapohl, Vasileva-Dienes, 2020) that instead knits a tight web of interdependence across the developing world (Khanna, 2021).
Geopolitical Transformation of he Internationalism: bri Education as a ‘Third Space’
The bri’s notion of infrastructuralism does not simply include ports, railways and the like, but rather in seeking Khanna’s aforementioned ‘web of interdependence’, China has sought to deepen its relationships through a multifaceted concern for: infrastructure, finance, policy, trade, and what it calls ‘people-to-people exchange’ (Ruby, Li, 2018). It is in this people-to-people exchange that we have witnessed China’s commitment to cross-cultural exchange as a means to ensure an open, and accessible form of globalized human resource development. Speaking with Times Higher Education’s Research Excellence Summit: Eurasia, Susan Robertson noted that many universities across Europe and Central Asia are looking to China for potential collaboration, stating that the bri’s continued development of new university partnerships along the old Silk Road is ushering in “a new world of higher education” (McKie, 2018). Specifically, the Chinese government’s efforts to solidify the bri’s abstract concepts of ‘openness, inclusiveness, mutual learning and benefit’ may be partially witnessed through university alliances such as the 2015 University Alliance of the Silk Road (uasr) (Peters, 2020b). As of the time of this writing, the uasr website lists over 150 universities partnerships within 32 different member countries.1 While these university alliances signal a shifting axis of higher education away from the west and towards China, the Ministry of Education’s 2016 ‘Education Action Plan for the Belt and Road’ provides a platform for mutual interconnectedness through people-to-people exchange which has not yet reached its full potential. Specifically, looking towards the future, as the bri continues to mature, bri Education as a ‘third space’ will become more important as a source of regional integration, interconnectivity, security, ideas and innovation. As highlighted by Peters, through its university alliances and scientific partnerships (Chinese Academy of Sciences [cas], Alliance of International Science Organizations [anso]), China’s unique vision of ‘knowledge for development’ entails the continued pursuit of next generation (5G/6G technology, ai, deep learning, quantum computing) sci-tech innovation grounded within themes of eco-sustainability, climate change and biodiversity (2020b).
China’s Shift Towards Green Infrastructure Development: Ecological Civilization
During the past forty odd years of ‘reform and opening up’, Xie (2020) outlines four discrete historic periods or ‘leaps’ in China’s development of environmental protections. Aimed at developing a policy synthesis towards the establishment of environmental principles of sustainability, the concept of “Ecological Civilization” (ec) became an explicit goal of the 17th National People’s Congress in 2007.2 Moreover, during China’s fourth ‘leap’ (2009–2018) in environmental protection reforms, the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China unveiled the Master Plan of Ecological Civilization System Reform (Xie, 2020). President Xi stressed (at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee in 2013), that China would implement ‘ecological civilization reforms’ – towards reconciling contradictions between economic development and the environment (Zhang, 2015). These reforms include;
- –ecosystem conservation; technological innovation for sustainability; regulatory systems for ec; Awareness, education and participation, including from civil society; and, organisational leadership, including through international cooperation.
- –green development, circular development and low-carbon development
- –cutting carbon intensity; increase non-fossil primary energy consumption; increasing forest coverage; managed grasslands and wetlands; scientific development of marine resources
- –technological innovation and structural adjustment – away from heavy industries to strategic emerging industries; circular economy
Furthermore, The Second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation (brf)3 in 2019, outlined the important cooperative principle of ec including;
- –Principle of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits
- –Better policy coordination for facilities connectivity, unimpeded trade, financial integration and people-to-people bonds.
- –Major emphasis on ‘open, green and clean cooperation’
- –Sustainability approach and support for UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
- –Economic growth, social progress and environmental protection in ‘a balanced way’
ec should be understood as the ccp’s new policy paradigm aimed at dramatically improving environmental regulations, reducing pollution, and transforming industries by adopting novel green technologies and higher environmental standards. Enshrined in the Constitution of the prc in 2018, ec is a philosophy and vision for a green and prosperous future based in values and concepts that shape and guide China’s development in the ‘new age’ (Hanson, 2019).
Specifically, ec is being used by China to provide a coherent conceptual framework for a shift towards green infrastructure development that meets 21st century challenges. (Hanson, 2019).
In 2015, Foreign Policy reported on a London School of Economics study which showed that China’s commitment to a ‘green revolution’ (moving away from heavy industry combined with a newfound concern for the environment) was already producing tangible results in the form of reduced carbon emissions (Johnson, 2015). While nations around the globe are still mired in Covid-19 -related economic downturns, China’s commitment to ec was clearly evinced by President Xi’s remarks at the 75th annual U.N. General Assembly, where he reaffirmed that China would continue to pursue a “green recovery of the world economy in the post- Covid era” (Volcovici, 2020). In his video speech at the United Nations General Assembly President Xi Jinping also announced that China aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. He also pledged 3.4 trillion yuan for China’s New Green Infrastructure with commitments to reduce reliance on coal, making the pursuit of a clean energy revolution central to the government’s next Five-Year Development Plan (2021–2025). The five year plan outlines a dozen new green initiatives aimed at meeting six specific targets on the path towards promoting ec including; protection and optimization of geo-spaces; a shift towards eco-friendly working conditions; energy utilization efficiency; a constant reduction in pollutant emissions; and a more robust and resilient ecological protections.4 The coincidence of a new green deal by Europe and the US, with the participation of China, working cooperatively together in a new age of internationalism (in accord with the Paris Agreement) may well herald a “new green age” that at last takes sustainability seriously (Peters et al., 2020c).
Ecological Civilization through Long-Term Technological Convergence: the Bioeconomy
Bioeconomy is the sustainable and innovative use of biomass and biological knowledge to provide food, feed, industrial products, bioenergy, and ecological and other services. As such, it has the function of providing sufficient food of adequate quality and renewable resources to a growing population and at the same time making sustainable use of natural resources. (2018)
While the broad-scope of this definition may somewhat limit its explanatory potential, it allows us to reflect upon the contemporary use of the term bioeconomy within regional contexts. Take for example the EU, whose “Bioeconomy Strategy and Action Plan” understands bioeconomy to mean the use of renewable resources (crops, forests, fish, animals, micro-organisms) to produce food, materials and energy, within a circular, low-carbon economy, creating new value chains within greener more effective industrial processes which protect biodiversity while strengthening and modernizing the EU industrial base.6 In 2016, the US also released its “Strategic Plan for a Thriving and Sustainable Bioeconomy”, highlighting that biotechnological innovation in pursuit of abundant, renewable bioenergy can contribute to a more secure, sustainable, economically-sound future by providing clean energy that reduces US dependence on fossil-fuels while generating US jobs which revitalize rural America.7 Yin Li, the Deputy Director-General of the Bureau of International Cooperation, cas, outlined that the development of the bioeconomy became a top priority for China beginning in 2006.8 This priority for the bieconomy can be seen within the 2010 “Decision of the State Council on Accelerating the Fostering and Development of Strategic Emerging Industries” which outlines the pursuit of biotechnical innovations that promote the development of a market system based in energy efficiency, energy conservation, pollution prevention, cyclical utilization of resources, within an overall concern for the protection of the environment as a foundation for China’s future social and economic development.9 These regional understandings frame a globalizing trend towards a concern for the bioeconomy, bringing us once more to the understanding that preestablished regional frameworks support the process of civilizational development within a networked, multi-polar process of globalization. Specifically, within the three poles identified by Parag Khanna as constitutive of contemporary supra-continental regionalism, there exists a cogent understanding, the bioeconomy as a biodigital concept which concerns the promotion, development and utilization of emergent biotechnological innovation for sustainable economic development. However, as recently stated within a 2019 report prepared for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (uscc) titled, China’s Biotechnology Development: The Role of US and Other Foreign Engagement, the pursuit of biotechnological innovation is viewed as a zero-sum game which understands China’s economic, political, and security evolution as “not aligned with American interests”.10 Thusly, Germany’s Federal Minister of Education and Reserch, Anja Karlizcek, asserts the importance of understanding that a transition towards the bioeconomy is a regional proposition that is dependent on both local conditions and global thinking, with Yan Li noting that an unlocking of the enormous potential of the bioeconomy first requires the need for mindset transformation.11 In line with this understanding of the need for transformative regional-global linkages, ec constitutes a biodigital vision of the bioeconomy which respects regional economic, political, cultural concerns (state-driven) while advocating for a civilization-spanning economic development based in sustainable, resource conservation on a global scale. Furthermore, as ec was developed as a means to accelerate action on unsdg 2030, at both the national and global level, ec allows for pre-existing pathways of regional bioeconomic development to align with globalized environmental and developmental conventions (Hanson, 2019). Peters et al. have previously noted that scientists are now developing a new conceptual framework of the bioeconomy based in a synergistic concern for global and national sustainability policies, and that key to this development is a review of the role of Education for Sustainable Development (sdg4) in meeting the needs and implications of the bioeconomy within a postdigital-biodigital context (2021c). With this understanding in mind, the following chapters develops the understanding that Higher Education offers a ‘third space’ to explore concepts and convergences, and points of intersection towards the development of ec as a biodigital ecopedagogy of a new globalized bioeconomy.
Building the bri-esd Community
In order to thoroughly implement the overall deployment of the Party Central Committee and the State Council on accelerating the construction of ecological civilization, establish and improve the standard system of ecological civilization construction…improve the standardization level of ecological civilization construction, and promote high-quality development. Implement the “One Belt One Road” initiative, jointly seek the construction of global ecological civilization, based on national conditions, learn from advanced foreign experience, promote international exchanges and cooperation in the standardization of my country’s ecological civilization construction, and promote mutual compatibility between standard systems.13
Moreover, in 2018 the Ministry of Education held a conference titled “Towards a New Era-International Industry-Education Integration + High-level Appli cation-oriented University Construction Project Sino-US Green Education Cooperation Seminar” in Chongqing, China. The overall aim of this conference was to deepen educational integration in the hopes of producing new opportunities for green education innovation and development. The conference outlined the following important themes for the future of green education within the he context:
- –The development of new disciplines and professions, such as ecological protection, new energy, environmental improvement, and climate change response, or changes in traditional disciplines and professions, will provide opportunities for the development of green education.
- –Institutions of higher learning should be committed to cultivating talents for sustainable development and promoting sustainable technological innovation and application, promoting the development of urban green industries and the sustainable development of traditional industries in order to achieve sustainable economic development.
- –Green schools, green communities, and green cities develop together, and universities are the best promoters and links.14
This has now become an important theme. For instance, the International Office at Beijing Normal University held the ‘Educational Cooperation and Development under the Belt and Road Initiative Framework’ on 2–4 December 2020 with the Institute of Education of National Research University, Higher School of Economics, in Russia where education scholars from Belt and Road countries were invited ‘to discuss the policy, practice, and cooperation in the fields of teaching and research collaboration, vocational and adult education, education for international students, teacher education, and other inspiring innovation based on experiences and ideas of each other.’ The sessions were dedicated to three sub-themes: 1) bri Countries’ Education Response to covid-19: Experiences and Reflection; 2) Talent Training and International Cooperation in bri countries; and 3) Building up Quality Teaching Force: Policies and Practices from bri Countries.
As the foundation of a nation’s power, its prosperity, and the happiness for its people, education has an essential role in society. Education builds bridges for people from the Belt and Road Initiative (bri) countries, while talent training provides support for policy communication, facility connectivity, unimpeded trade, and financing among them. The first two decades of 21 Century have witnessed more and more educational communication and cooperation among the bri countries and a series of challenges. Under the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, how do the education systems in bri countries respond to the pandemic, what experiences and lessons have learned, and how should countries adjust to the new normal and strengthen the international cooperation should be the top priority for policy-makers, researchers and educators. Promoting of joint construction of Belt and Road Education is also considered as an important approach to realize the sdg 4 in countries involved. How to build up an education community among bri countries and how to work out a new framework for educational cooperation which reflects the needs of each country, engages participation of all stakeholders and reach to a win-win development? These questions guide the two leading educational research institutions in China and Russia, the Faculty of Education at Beijing Normal University and the Institute of Education of National Research University “Higher School of Economics” in Russia to host the 2020 One Belt One Road Education Forum jointly.15
This was a Zoom conference which welcomed four high-level speakers on each theme. Peters was an invited speaker, giving a presentation ‘Towards Greater Educational Cooperation and Sustainable Development under the bri’ that began by noting the shifting axis of Higher Education toward China in a post-American world in which bri can be considerd a different form of globalization and internationalism – neither a form of Liberal Internationalism nor neoliberal, in that:
- –The market does not rule – ‘command investment economy’; central policy, decentralised initiatives;
- –The state provides the vision and the infrastructure framework for development;
- –State-led infrastructure investment banks;
- –New state, society, with large scale university partnerships.
Peters listed the following bri principles throughout his December 3rd (2020c) presentation:
- 1.Effective living history – The new Silk Road based on five connectivities, incl. education and digital infrastructures
- 2.‘Chinese infrastructuralism’ as a new model of development – transport and network services; theory of innovation; ‘webs of knowledge’; new biodigital technologies
- 3.‘Opening up’ – rebuilding the Silk Road is a massive mega-infrastructural project larger than the US Marshall Plan after the Second World War with development of new financial institutions (Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Silk Road Fund and the New Development Bank)
- 4.‘Eurasia’ as a geo-political concept based on Sino-Russian led engagement with Belt countries along six main corridors
- 5.New Chinese internationalism – Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (sco), Eurasian Economic Union (eaeu).
- 6.Interconnectivity – 5 five mega-infrastructure networks: The Silk Road Economic Belt; The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road; The Ice Silk Road (with Russia); G4 Super Grid (Electricity); The Digital Silk Road.
- 7.People-to-people – Preexisting genetic traces from 1000 years ago; Cultural and educational developments; Scientific and research-based exchanges and collaborations; Vocational skills tied to regional interests & development; Cross-border common interests in sustainability
- 8.Civilizational State – ‘Ecological or Green civilization’; Dialogue of civilizations (not ‘Clash of civilizations’); Chinese world diplomacy and leadership; Concern for the future of humanity as a whole.
It was noted that ‘Educational International Cooperation and Sustainable Development’ should follow guidelines of the 2019 brf, specifically, the stated principles of extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, better policy coordination for facilities connectivity, unimpeded trade, financial integration and people-to-people bonds with a major emphasis on ‘open, green and clean cooperation’. The ccp’s launching of a new policy paradigm, “ecological civilization,” aims to dramatically improve environmental regulations, reduce pollution, and transform industries by adopting new green technologies and higher environmental standards.16 The “green shift” can be reconciled with new transborder infrastructure development mega-projects through long-term recognition of “technological convergence” especially info- and biodigital technologies unified at the nano-level – ‘bioinformationalism’ and biodigital technologies as they now operate in the bioeconomy.
The coincidence of China, Europe, and US new green deal policies, together with the international cooperation of many nations, at a point in 2021 when Covid-19 is peaking in second wave infections and deaths, seems like a promising intersection of regional and global intentions, not only to make real progress towards climate targets but also to create an international ‘civilizational’ culture of collaboration based on biodigital technologies and their implications and contribution to the bioeconomy. The bioeconomy is central to achieving many of the UN Sustainable Development Goals: it is central to satisfying food and energy security, climate protection, to innovative industrial transformation and also entails transitioning to sustainable consumption.17
Some futurists consider the convergence of bio-, nano-, and information technologies, along with the neuro- and cognitive sciences, a transformation that will prove as powerful as the Industrial Revolution. Taken from the National Academy of Sciences (nas) book titled, Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences (2006, p.195), Michael Morgan’s understanding of ‘Converging Technologies’ (Figure 1) provides the following helpful conceptualization.
‘Converging Technologies’
Citation: Beijing International Review of Education 3, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/25902539-03010001
Moreover, within the aforementioned nas book, the chapter ‘Advances in Technologies with Relevance to Biology: The Future Landscape’ mentions a comprehensive list of new advanced technologies that will influence bioeconomy and will increasingly drive the process of sustainability.
These advances will also help to frame ‘Education for Sustainability, 2030’ the new unesco roadmap:
The esd for 2030 Framework is a useful roadmap as the basis for Eurasian educational cooperation with an emphasis on convergence of biotechnologies and digital technologies at the nano-level (Biodigital Technologies) that informs the notion of bioeconomy as a self-renewing basis for the environment that will protect and synthetically enhance the environment.
In this space there is also room for a new curriculum theory for ‘ecological civilization’ where the emphasis is placed on the development of he programs, school curricula and eco-pedagogies, based on esd for 2030 framework, with the added notions of ec, and biodigital technologies for the bioeconomy. The new ecological curriculum would also identify priorities and necessary conceptual frameworks and skill sets required to develop teacher education degree programs in esd, as well as new research networks based on citizen and student science (‘citizen science’).
Summary of esd for 2030 Framework.
Citation: Beijing International Review of Education 3, 1 (2021) ; 10.1163/25902539-03010001
source: unesco, 2020, p. 54References
Birner, R. (2018). Bioeconomy Concepts. In I. Lewandowski (Ed.), Bioeconomy: Shaping the Transition to a Sustainable, Biobased Economy (pp. 17–38). essay, Springer International Publishing.
Buckley, P. J. (2018). Review of China’s belt and road initiative: Changing the rules of globalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 51, 279–281.
Friedberg, A. L. (2018). Globalisation and Chinese Grand Strategy. Survival, 60(1), 7–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2018.1427362.
Hanson, A. (2019). (working paper). Ecological Civilization in the People’s Republic of China: Values, Action, and Future Needs (Ser. ADB East Asia Working Paper, pp. 1–24). Manila, PHL: Asian Development Bank.
Johnson, K. (2015, June 8). China’s Green Revolution. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/08/chinas-green-revolution-emissions-climate-coal-stern/.
Khanna, P. (2021, January 12). The next wave of globalization: Asia in the cockpit. Nikkei Asia. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/The-Big-Story/The-next-wave-of-globalization-Asia-in-the-cockpit.
Knox, J. (2019). What Does the ‘Postdigital’ Mean for Education? Three Critical Perspectives on the Digital, with Implications for Educational Research and Practice. Postdigital Science and Education, 1(2), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-019-00045-y.
Krapohl, S., & Vasileva-Dienes, A. (2020). The region that isn’t: China, Russia and the failure of regional integration in Central Asia. Asia Europe Journal, 18, 347–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-019-00548-0.
Lewandowski, I., Gaudet, N., Lask, J., Maier, J., Tchouga, B., & Vargas-Carpintero, R. (2018). Bioeconomy Concepts and Research. In I. Lewandowski (Ed.), Bioeconomy: Shaping the Transition to a Sustainable, Biobased Economy (pp. 5–16). essay, Springer International Publishing.
Li, Y. (2018). The greater Eurasian partnership and the Belt and Road Initiative: Can the two be linked? Journal of Eurasian Studies, 9(2), 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2018.07.004.
Linn, J. F. (2007, November 29). Central Asia: A New Hub of Global Integration. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/central-asia-a-new-hub-of-global-integration/.
McKie, A. (2018, September 4). Belt and Road ‘shifting axis of higher education towards Asia’. Times Higher Education (THE). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/belt-and-road-shifting-axis-higher-education-towards-asia.
National Academy of Sciences. (2006). Advances in Technologies with Relevance to Biology: The Future Landscape. In Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences (pp. 139–211). essay.
oecd. (2009). The Bioeconomy to 2030: designing a policy agenda.
Peters, M. (2020a). The Chinese dream: educating the future. Routledge.
Peters, M. A. (2020b). China’s belt and road initiative: Reshaping global higher education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(6), 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1615174.
Peters, M. A. (2020c). Towards Greater Educational Cooperation and Sustainable Development under the BRI. Talent Training and International Cooperation in BRI countries. Beijing; Beijing Normal University, Moscow; National Research University (Higher School of Economics).
Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2021a). Biodigital Philosophy, Technological Convergence, and Postdigital Knowledge Ecologies. Postdigital Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00211-7.
Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2021b). Postdigital-biodigital: An emerging configuration. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1867108.
Peters, M. A., Jandrić, P., & Hayes, S. (2021c). Biodigital technologies and the bioeconomy: The Global New Green Deal? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1861938.
Ruby, A., & Li, A. (2018, April 16). China’s overseas investment should not neglect education. Times Higher Education (THE). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/chinas-overseas-investment-should-not-neglect-education.
UNESCO. (2020). Education for sustainable development: a roadmap.
Volcovici, V. (2020, September 22). China calls for global ‘green revolution’ as Trump goes solo on climate. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-assembly-climatechange/china-calls-for-global-green-revolution-as-trump-goes-solo-on-climate-idUSKCN26D2DH.
Xie, Z. (2020). China’s historical evolution of environmental protection along with the forty years’ reform and opening-up. Environmental Science and Ecotechnology, 1, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2019.100001.
Yilmaz, S., & Li, B. (2020). The bri-Led Globalization and Its Implications for East Asian Regionalization. Chinese Political Science Review, 5, 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41111-020-00145-2.
Zhang, C. (2015, September 30). China’s New Blueprint for an ‘Ecological Civilization’. – The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2015/09/chinas-new-blueprint-for-an-ecological-civilization.
German Federal Cabinet adopted the new National Bioeconomy Strategy on January 15th, 2020, https://www.bmbf.de/files/bio%c3%b6konomiestrategie%20kabinett.pdf.