• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Environmental Education in Graduate Professional Degrees: The Case of Urban Planning

Posted on: Sunday, 24 July 2005, 03:01 CDT

ABSTRACT:

Environmental education (EE) is a prominent aspect of graduate- level master's programs in urban and regional planning. This article draws on the results of a survey of 66 environmental planning educators in urban and regional planning programs to show what types of EE are most prevalent in these graduate professional programs and in planning practice. The authors examine the relative importance of foundational and applied knowledge topics in both master's-level planning education and in seeking employment in the field of environmental planning. Environmental planning educators generally believe that applied knowledge topics are more important than foundational topics for students.

KEY WORDS: environmental education, environmental planning, planning pedagogy, planning practice

Environmental education (EE) is a key element of many graduate programs in urban and regional planning. The Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) describes environmental planning as one of five primary substantive areas of planning practice (ACSP, 2000). Of the 69 schools accredited by the Planning Accreditation Board (PAB) and the Canadian Institute of Planners, 86% offer environmental planning as an area of specialization at the master's degree level (ACSP). Whereas environmental planners may focus on many different aspects of practice, EE is clearly a significant aspect of the academic and professional training provided in these graduate professional programs.

Despite this curricular prominence, there has been little discussion as to how urban and regional planning programs approach environmental planning education. Is there a particular emphasis within these graduate specializations? Deknatel (1984) and White and Mayo (2004) have pointed to a distinct diversity of approaches for teaching environmental planning. What remains is further analysis of how planning educators have adapted EE to their needs and what that information suggests about the role of EE in graduate professional education.

As we report in this article, our survey of planning educators asked what types of EE are most prevalent in graduate professional planning programs and in planning practice. By making distinctions between curricula and practice, we illustrate how current discussions of EE effectiveness are reflected in the field of urban and regional planning. The sections that follow discuss the emergence of environmental planning curricula and debates surrounding them with respect to similar curricula in environmental studies, the methodology and results of the aforementioned survey, and an assessment as to how these results contribute to larger discussions of EE, particularly at the graduate professional level.

Curriculum Development and Debate: Environmental Studies and Environmental Planning

Environmental studies became prominent at the college and university level following the surge in public concern over environmental issues that arose in the 1970s (Schoenfeld & Disinger, 1978). Unlike the traditional resource management fields, the numerous environmental studies programs formed during the 1970s attempted to broaden the scope of analysis to include multidisciplinary perspectives. Although environmental studies and EE are not equivalent, the former represents a significant application of the latter.

This period of burgeoning public environmental awareness also coincided with a more clearly focused emphasis on the natural environment in planning education than in the past. Ian McHarg's landmark work, Design With Nature (1969), strongly influenced both the pedagogy and practice of environmental planning. McHarg showed how community planning could and should be guided by ecological processes; as these ideas took root, opportunities to study environmental planning increased. By 1984, nearly half of all graduate planning programs recognized by the ACSP offered some type of environmental planning specialization (ACSP, 1984).

Already drawing from many disciplines, planning has shown that it is capable of successfully integrating environmental concerns into its purview (Deknatel, 1984). By 2000, in fact, the ACSP described environmental planning as one of the five primary areas of planning practice (ACSP, 2000). Environmental planning curricula thus presumably provide the knowledge and skills necessary to enter professional practice.

As both undergraduate- and graduate-level environmental curricula continue to develop and thrive, environmental educators are increasingly debating the desirable characteristics of such programs of study. Most of this debate has focused on degree programs in environmental studies, but the issues are applicable to environmental planning as well. Commentators such as Soule and Press (1998), for example, have questioned what constitutes a proper environmental studies curriculum. As these authors point out, such questions are complicated because there is no readily identifiable canon to inform environmental curricula. Moreover, the value-laden nature of some environmental concepts complicates decisions as to what the essential elements of study should be (Jickling, 1994, 2003). Soule and Press urged environmental studies programs to strive for clear depth and focus so as to avoid becoming "hyper- diverse shallow curricula" beset by ideological differences (p. 397).

Graduate programs in urban and regional planning have been comparatively quiet in these particular debates. Although planners have provided general views in a sizeable literature that addresses the proper core components of planning education (e.g., Alexander, 2001; Baum, 1997; Carter, 1992; Friedmann, 1996; Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999; Seltzer & Ozawa 2002), specific examinations and recommendations concerning the content of planning specializations, such as environmental planning, are uncommon.

Among the pedagogical analyses of environmental planning, two of the most comprehensive are the work of Deknatel (1984) and White and Mayo (2004). Based on surveys of faculty members in graduate-level planning programs, Deknatel and White and Mayo showed that environmental planning curricula are quite diverse. Deknatel examined what he called "substantive,""area," and "procedural and functional" orientations in environmental planning courses. His survey found that "there does not appear to be a dominant orientation in the teaching of environmental planning. . . . Approaches are more diverse than might have been expected" (p. 123). White and Mayo revisited and extended Deknatel's study by developing an explanatory model for predicting the learning expectations for various types of environmental planning knowledge. They discovered that faculty members in larger universities, those housed in schools of architecture, and those offering a separate specialization in environmental planning found the knowledge topics explored in the survey to be more important than their counterparts found them to be. Deknatel and White and Mayo, however, illustrated that planning programs continue to offer a variety of approaches to understanding the environmental implications of planning activities.

As to appropriate curricular trajectories, Martin and Beatley (1993) suggested that environmental ethics should serve as a touchstone for education in environmental planning. Other commentators have argued for an emphasis on environmental justice (Washington & Strong, 1997) or negotiation (Susskind, 2000) within courses and curricula. Susskind concluded, "In the final analysis, it is extremely difficult to organize a complete environmental planning curriculum within a single academic program or professional school. Students need access to faculty from a panoply of fields" (p. 169).

This lack of common ground within environmental planning pedagogy may well be rooted in the fact that the work of environmental planners (much like the work environmental studies graduates will ultimately pursue) is quite diverse. Their work may include air quality management, brownfields redevelopment, or watershed and open space planning. Work in any of these areas may occur at the local, state, national, or international level (Susskind, 2000). As a result, although environmental planning has become a common aspect of both education and practice, some observers have described the field as "highly fragmented" (Ortolano, 2000, p. 144).

What remains is to investigate further how graduate planning programs have organized their environmental planning specializations and how they approach the depth and focus of study that others have recommended. The research issues here examine environmental planning curricula that have a primarily foundational or a primarily applied focus. Because professional degree programs such as those in urban planning prepare students to become practitioners, we examined respondents' perceptions of emphases both within curricula and in the workplace.

Theoretical Construct

As shown in Table 1, the theoretical taxonomy illustrates the relationships between types of knowledge with learning and employment expectations. As we hypothesized, foundational knowledge topics related to learning address theoretical principles, whereas those topics related to employment focus on actual \problem analysis. Applied knowledge topics related to learning involve implementation methods, and those same topics related to employment involve practice applications.

This structure of what planners need to know and for what purpose is akin to how accredited planning programs operate today. At the beginning of their studies, planning students learn theoretical principles as a cogent means to introduce them to environmental planning. For environmental planning students in particular, ecological concepts, environmental economics, environmental philosophy, environmental psychology, and sustainability provide rational constructs that enable them to conceive what theoretically constitutes environmental planning. Later, they learn how to apply environmental topics to their world of practice through implementation methods. Environmental design, geographical information systems (GIS), environmental impact assessment (EIA), environmental policy and law, and site planning each have rational methods for analyzing problems that enable students to prepare alternative actions and plans. But the world of learning is separate from the world of employment. Environmental planning academicians realize that the knowledge priorities students have for developing an understanding of environmental planning in their education are not necessarily what they need to get a job and to succeed initially in practice.

TABLE 1. Contingent Relationships Between Knowledge Types With Learning and Employment Expectations

In professional practice, environmental planners must balance the theories they espouse with the actions they take (Argyris & Schon, 1976). On the one hand, foundational knowledge topics provide both scientific as well as ideological perspectives to analyze issues. On the other hand, environmental practitioners face real problems that require them to apply specific skills to solve specific problems. As a result, they must constantly reevaluate how they plan in order to become effective.

Method

We designed a survey, pretested it, and sent it to 136 planning academics (see White & Mayo, 2004). Survey recipients represented the total number of persons listed in the most recent ACSP school guide (ACSP, 2000) who were part of the core faculty in accredited planning programs that offered a master's degree specialization in environmental planning. Also, each of the recipients had indicated that environmental planning was one of his or her areas of specialization. The survey explored individual, organizational, and curricular characteristics with respect to the respondents themselves, their universities, and the environmental planning curricula their programs offered. Sixty-six usable surveys were returned, for a response rate of 49%.

The survey asked respondents to assess 10 knowledge topics using a 4-point scale of importance ranging from 1 (not important), 2 (somewhat important), 3 (important), to 4 (very important). We developed these topics on the basis of the aforementioned environmental studies and environmental planning literature, our own teaching experience, and informal discussions with others who teach environmental planning at the graduate level. Respondents were able to list additionally important curricular elements in an open-ended question.

The 10 topics in the survey are categorized as either foundational knowledge or applied knowledge. Foundational knowledge provides the basis of an understanding of environmental problems. The foundational topics are ecological concepts, environmental economics, environmental philosophy, environmental psychology, and sustainability. Applied knowledge topics are subjects that put basic knowledge into practice. They are environmental design, GIS, EIA, environmental law and policy, and site planning.

This distinction between foundational and applied knowledge is important to professional degree programs, such as those in urban and regional planning. Just as medical school students study anatomy prior to studying surgery, planning students must master basic knowledge concepts before they learn to apply those concepts. The PAB, which governs the accreditation process for urban and regional planning programs, highlights this distinction as one between "knowledge components" and "skill components" (PAB, 2001).1

Respondents ranked the importance of the foundational and applied knowledge topics in two ways. First, they indicated how important each topic is for the knowledge that environmental planning master's students are expected to gain in their degree. Second, they indicated how important the same topics are for attaining successful employment in environmental planning.

Results

Table 2 illustrates the knowledge topics that environmental planning educators consider important contingent on the types of knowledge that planning graduates will use in their work, either in school or with an employer. Table 2 reveals overall patterns by reviewing the weighted averages for the four contingencies within the theoretical taxonomy. Environmental planning educators generally believe that applied knowledge topics are more important than foundational topics for students. These academicians also generally believe that applied knowledge topics are more important for students acquiring a job than for what they learn during their planning education. In summary, the applied skills that environmental planning students accrue toward the end of their professional education are more valuable to their learning and potential employment than the foundational learning they usually receive at the beginning of their graduate education.2

TABLE 2. Importance of Knowledge Topics With Expectations for Environmental Planning

There are finer interpretations of these generalized results because some knowledge topics explain these generalized results, whereas others do not. For foundational knowledge topics, environmental planning educators believe that environmental economics and environmental psychology are significantly important for students acquiring a job. However, these same educators do not have different expectations between learning and employment for ecological concepts, environmental philosophy, and sustainability. Planning educators may find environmental economics to be important to employment because federal environmental statutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, require practitioners to conduct various economic efficiency analyses (Randolph, 2004).

Environmental psychology merits attention because it was significant but rated lowest for both learning and employment. Although environmental psychology had the lowest rating among all the knowledge topics for employment expectations, planning educators may feel that adjusting environmental plans to meet the psychological needs of real clients is more important in practice than in the classroom.

For applied knowledge topics, planning educators consider students developing skills in GIS, EIA, and site planning to be significantly more important for employment than for learning about environmental planning. There are no important differences for environmental design or environmental policy and law. Planning educators often hear from both students and practitioners that GIS is essential for obtaining an entry-level planning job, regardless of specialization, although some evidence suggests this is not the case (Ozawa & Seltzer, 1999). This significant difference is likely explained by the dissonance between what educators believe is necessary for learning and for getting a job. Skills in EIA and site planning are technical abilities that enable environmental practitioners to justify their planning recommendations for site- specific problems (Randolph, 2004). Environmental planning educators particularly value EIA and site planning skills because these techniques are easily transferable from one planning problem to the next.

Discussion

The results of our survey show that the importance of learning expectations is less than employment expectations and that foundational knowledge is less important than applied knowledge, but these findings are only part of the story. Environmental planning educators were asked what it takes for students to become employed, but as planners progress in practice, the skills they draw on most heavily change. New environmental planners may spend a great deal of time with GIS, EIAs, and SP because they are often expected to perform as technicians. But environmental planners who move into management positions must assess how their agencies and firms can become more effective. In this light, developing new philosophical positions, understanding sustainability issues, and reassessing ecological concepts may be more critical than the technical skills needed at the onset of professional careers. These planners will increasingly blend technical and political skills. They become hybrid planners. The results of this survey reveal the short-range need of knowledge topics rather than environmental planners' long- range needs of these forms of knowledge in practice.

Environmental planning educators who focus on their students' short-range knowledge needs are not necessarily short-sighted. They realize that most environmental planning graduates will enter the profession in a primarily technical capacity; only later will these students develop the need for more advanced political skills. But continuing education may be necessary to meet long-range needs. Many environmental planners need to update technical skills, but as they enter management, their technical skills will not offer them the solutions that they will need to address broader and more complex issues. At that point, the foundational knowledge topics will likely provide the basis for not only answering questions to key issues but also, and perhaps more importantly, shaping the key questions that need to be asked. Environmental planners may ne\ed continuing educational courses that require them to return to the foundational knowledge they gained in their graduate education.

To the extent that academic programs in environmental studies and environmental planning have evolved in tandem over the past 30+ years, similarities between their pedagogical approaches are evident. Educators in both environmental studies and environmental planning programs seek to provide their students with an education that fits the broad and diverse nature of environmental problems. At the same time, they appear to recognize the need to maintain an internal coherence to their curricula.

Because environmental planning is a specialization within an urban planning professional master's degree, it is not surprising that environmental planning educators place considerable emphasis on knowledge and skills that will best help students transition into the workplace. The survey results described here show that these educators place a clear priority on the applied knowledge that they see as most important to a beginning planner's career. Foundational knowledge may serve more as a critical "bookend," in that it appears to be necessary for both a planner's entry into more applied methodologies and for that person's eventual career development. That continuing education may play a role here is a point worthy of further investigation.

Future research could also explore the ways that other disciplines view the relative importance of foundational and applied environmental knowledge. Such research would need to attend to four potential limitations of the current study. First, the actual topics for foundational and applied knowledge may differ substantially from one environmental field to the next. Second, research at a level other than higher education, such as elementary or secondary education, may find these knowledge topic distinctions less useful. The desired end product of a particular level of EE will influence the specific knowledge topics to achieve that end. Third, simply asking environmental educators to rate the relative importance of these knowledge topics provides only part of the story. Determining the actual knowledge and skills environmental professionals need in their careers, for example, would require investigation of employers as well. Finally, surveys themselves may provide only limited insight into the choices described here. Interviews with environmental educators could provide a much richer understanding of the decisions that guide curricular development.

Ongoing discussions concerning the proper focus of environmental curricula are vital because environmental educators will be able to engage important questions as to the substance and breadth of knowledge that will serve students best. In addition, these educators can respond to changes in the field. Environmental planning master's degrees offer one model for developing a curriculum that trains students in the substantive topics they need to grapple with environmental problems, both as students and as practitioners. Of course, each academic program with an environmental emphasis must assess its own strengths and capacities in order to shape curricular specifics most effectively, but this task, if performed with care, can yield effective results.

NOTES

1 The nexus between foundational and applied knowledge are the strategies we use, singularly or in combination, to intervene in a particular problem. In planning, these strategies include (a) comprehensive rational planning (b) advocacy planning, (c) apolitical politics, (d) critical planning theory, (e) strategic planning, and (f) incrementalism (Benveniste, 1989).

2 In the open-ended question, survey respondents mentioned nine topics more than once. The foundational topics were environmental history, environmental justice, international issues, and natural hazards. The applied topics were communication skills; negotiation, collaboration, and conflict management; public involvement; risk analysis; and watershed planning. Although applied topics were mentioned more frequently than foundational topics, it should be noted that only eight of the sutvey respondents (12%) selected the most frequently mentioned topic-negotiation, collaboration, and conflict management. This suggests that our preselected knowledge topics were indicative of current environmental planning education. For additional discussion of this element of the survey, see White and Mayo (2004).

REFERENCES

Alexander, E. R. (2001). What do planners need to know? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 2(7(3), 376-380.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1976). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP). (1984). Guide to undergraduate and graduate education in urban and regional planning (4th ed.). Atlanta, GA: Author.

Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP). (2000). Guide to undergraduate and graduate education in urban and regional planning (11th ed.). Atlanta, GA: Author.

Baum, H. S. (1997). Social science, social work, and surgery: Teaching what students need to practice planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 179-188.

Benveniste, G. (1989). Mastering the politics of planning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carter, E. J., Jr. (1992). Toward a core body of knowledge: A new curriculum for city and regional planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12(2), 160-163.

Deknatel, C. Y. (1984). Choices of orientation in teaching environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 3(2), 118-125.

Friedmann, J. (1996). The core curriculum in planning revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 15(2), 89-104.

Jickling, B. (1994). Why I don't want my children to be educated for sustainable development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 23(4), 5-8.

Jickling, B. (2003). Environmental education and environmental advocacy: Revisited. The Journal of Environmental Education, 34(2), 20-27.

Martin, E., & Beatley, T. (1993). Our relationship with the earth: Environmental ethics in planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 12(2), 117-126.

McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature. New York: Natural History Press.

Ortolano, L. (2000). U.S. urban environmental planning. In L. Rodwin & B. Sanyal (Eds.), The profession of city planning: Changes, images and challenges 1950-2000 (pp. 144-160). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.

Ozawa, C., & Seltzer, E. P. (1999). Taking our bearings: Mapping a relationship among planning practice, theory, and education. Journal of Planning Education ana Research, 18(3), 257-266.

Planning Accreditation Board (PAB). (2001). The accreditation document: Criteria and procedures of the Planning Accreditation Program. Des Moines, IA: Author.

Randolph, J. (2004). Environmental land use planning and management. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Schoenfeld, C., & Disinger, J. (Eds.). (1978). Environmental education in action-II: Case studies of environmental studies programs in colleges and universities today. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 152 557)

Seltzer, E., & Ozawa, C. P. (2002). Clear signals: Moving on to plannings promise. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22(1), 77-86.

Soule, M. E., & Press, D. (1998). What is environmental studies? BioScience, 48(5), 397-405.

Susskind, L. (2000). Environmental planning: The changing demands of effective practice. In L. Rodwin & B. Sanyal (Eds.), The profession of city planning: Changes, images and challenges 1950- 2000 (pp. 161-173). New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.

Washington, R. O., & Strong, D. (1997). A model for teaching environmental justice in a planning curriculum. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 16(4), 280-290.

White, S. S., & Mayo, J. M. (2004). Learning expectations in environmental planning: Predictions and interpretations. Journal of Planning Education Research, 24(1), 78-88.

Stacey Swearingen White is an assistant professor in and James M. Mayo is professor and chair of the Graduate Program in Urban Planning at the University of Kansas.

Copyright HELDREF PUBLICATIONS Spring 2005

Source: Journal of Environmental Education, The

More News in this Category