Most graduate planning programs offer a specialization in environmental planning, yet there has been little recent discussion of environmental planning pedagogy. This article draws on the results of a survey of planning educators to determine trends and patterns in environmental planning curricula. It develops an explanatory model for predicting the learning expectations for various types of knowledge that are part of environmental planning education in U.S. and Canadian planning programs. This model uses individual, organizational, and curricular characteristics to predict the substantive environmental planning topics taught in graduate planning programs.
Alexander, Ernest R.2001. What do planners need to know?Journal of Planning Education and Research20 (3): 376-380.
2.
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 1984. Guide to graduate education in urban and regional planning. 4th ed.n.p.: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
3.
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. 2000. Guide to undergraduate and graduate education in urban and regional planning. 11th ed.Atlanta, GA: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning/City Planning Program, Georgia Institute of Technology.
4.
Baum, Howell S.1997. Social science, social work, and surgery: Teaching what students need to practice planning. Journal of the American Planning Association63 (2): 179-188.
5.
Braddock, R. D., J. Fien, and R. Rickson. 1994. Environmental studies: Managing the disciplinary divide. The Environmentalist14:35-46.
6.
Briassoulis, Helen. 1989. Theoretical orientations in environmental planning: An inquiry into alternative approaches. Environmental Management13 (4): 381-392.
7.
Carter, Emanuel J., Jr.1992. Toward a core body of knowledge: A new curriculum for city and regional planners. Journal of Planning Education and Research12 (2): 160-163.
8.
Daily, G. C., ed. 1997. Nature’s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
9.
Deknatel, Charles Y.1984. Choices of orientation in teaching environmental planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research3 (2): 118-125.
10.
Ehrlich, Paul R., and Anne H. Ehrlich. 1996. Betrayal of science and reason. Washington, DC: Island Press.
11.
Fischer, Claude S.1975. Toward a subcultural theory of urbanism. American Journal of Sociology80 (6): 1319-1341.
12.
Fischer, Claude S.. 1995. The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentieth-year assessment. American Journal of Sociology101 (3): 543-577.
13.
Friedmann, John. 1996. The core curriculum in planning revisited. Journal of Planning Education and Research15 (2): 89-104.
14.
Godschalk, David R.1971. Editor’s introduction. Journal of the American Institute of Planners37 (4): 210.
15.
Gottlieb, Robert. 1993. Forcing the spring: The transformation of the American environmental movement. Washington, DC: Island Press.
16.
Jickling, Bob.1994. Why I don’t want my children to be educated for sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Education23 (4): 5-8.
17.
Marsh, William M.1998. Landscape planning: Environmental applications. 3rd ed.New York: John Wiley.
18.
Martin, Evelyn, and Timothy Beatley. 1993. Our relationship with the earth: Environmental ethics in planning education. Journal of Planning Education and Research12 (2): 117-126.
19.
McHarg, Ian.1969. Design with nature. New York: Natural History Press.
20.
Moseley, Christine. 2000. Teaching for environmental literacy. The Clearing House74 (1): 23-24.
21.
Munson, B. H.1994. Ecological misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education25 (4): 30-34.
22.
Orr, David W.1992. Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
Ortolano, Leonard. 1997. Environmental regulation and impact assessment. New York: Wiley.
24.
Ortolano, Leonard. 2000. U.S. urban environmental planning. In The profession of city planning: Changes, images and challenges 1950-2000, ed. Lloyd Rodwin and Bishwapriya Sanyal, 144-160. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
25.
Ozawa, Connie, and Ethan P. Seltzer. 1999. Taking our bearings: Mapping a relationship among planning practice, theory, and education. Journal of Planning Education and Research18 (3): 257-266.
26.
Perloff, Harvey S.1957. Education for planning: City, state and regional. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
Planning Accreditation Board. 2001. The accreditation document: Criteria and procedures of the planning accreditation board. May. http://showcase.netins.net/web/pab_fi66/accredoc.may01.pdf (accessed February 3, 2004).
28.
Schoenfeld, Clay, and John Disinger, eds. 1978. Environmental education in action—II: Case studies of environmental studies programs in colleges and universities today. Columbus: The Ohio State University/ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
29.
Seltzer, Ethan, and Connie P. Ozawa. 2002. Clear signals: Moving on to planning’s promise. Journal of Planning Education and Research22 (1): 77-86.
30.
Soule, Michael E., and Daniel Press. 1998. What is environmental studies?BioScience48 (5): 397-405.
31.
Susskind, Lawrence. 2000. Environmental planning: The changing demands of effective practice. In The profession of city planning: Changes, images and challenges 1950-2000, ed. Lloyd Rodwin and Bishwapriya Sanyal, 161-173. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University.
32.
Thayer, Robert L., Jr.2003. Life Place: Bioregional thought and practice. Berkeley: University of California Press.
33.
Washington, R. O., and Denise Strong. 1997. A model for teaching environmental justice in a planning curriculum. Journal of Planning Education and Research16 (4): 280-290.
