Teaching Sustainability in Planning and Design Education

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Hye Yeon Park	--	2036	2022-08-18 02:45:58	\|
2	Changed description.	Hye Yeon Park	-27 word(s)	2009	2022-08-18 03:05:23	\| \|
3	format correct	Vivi Li	+ 14 word(s)	2023	2022-08-18 04:14:01	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su14159485

Education for sustainable development (ESD) benefits school improvement and individual students, allowing them to ask critical questions about the status quo, clarify their values, and think systemically. In the fields of planning and design, including urban planning, regional planning, landscape architecture, and urban design, sustainability is vital to address the development dilemmas of environmental protection, urban development, economic activity, and social expectations. Design and planning decisions must consider a wide range of activities representing the goals of preservation, development, economic opportunities, social justice, and many others.

sustainability education for sustainable development (ESD) curriculum design higher education pedagogy planning and design education

1. Introduction

Over the last decade, sustainability has emerged as a central theme of higher education institutions ^[1]^[2], along with the belief that education could be a vital aspect of strategy for sustainable development ^[3]. Accordingly, the United Nations decade of education for sustainable development emphasized incorporating the theory and practices of sustainable development into education ^[4]. These movements caused the advance of a new paradigm in the education field: education for sustainable development (ESD) ^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]. Currently, ESD has become a contemporary consideration at all levels of education, including higher education ^[8]. ESD benefits school improvement and individual students, allowing them to ask critical questions about the status quo, clarify their values, and think systemically ^[9]. It also provides a meaningful real-world focus, helping students to be aware of the value of their lives and making schools improve themselves ^[10] (Barratt Hacking et al., 2010). Above all, students can gain direct sustainability experiences through ESD learning approaches ^[4]. These ESD features have helped researchers to recognize it as a vital way to attain sustainability ^[11]^[12].

In this entry, researchers have referenced the concept of ESD from the framework of UNESCO, which emphasizes encouraging learners’ transformative action and structural changes by providing people with the skills to guarantee their living ^[13]. Additionally, researchers have accepted the argument in the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development that “sustainability requires the enforcement of wider responsibilities for the impacts of decisions” ^[14]. Based on this foundation, researchers follow the purpose of ESD in nurturing future generations who can make informed decisions and take responsible action to resolve complex problems ^[15].

Universities act as significant educational conduits for the resolution of sustainable issues. Their primary roles, including research, teaching, and outreach, support sustainable development and the goals of ESD at the institutional and community levels ^[16]. Over 600 universities worldwide have developed diverse educational programs focused on sustainability and sustainable development ^[17]. Notably, a wide array of fields has tried to incorporate ESD into academic areas, such as economics, environment, engineering, and the arts. Along with these trends, planning-related disciplines have increasingly embraced the concept of sustainability, which is also emerging as a new planning stream ^[18].

In the fields of planning and design, including urban planning, regional planning, landscape architecture, and urban design, sustainability is vital to address the development dilemmas of environmental protection, urban development, economic activity, and social expectations ^[19]. Design and planning decisions must consider a wide range of activities representing the goals of preservation, development, economic opportunities, social justice, and many others ^[19]^[20].

Given the increasing importance of design and planning-related professions and the long-term environmental effects of their decisions and tasks ^[21], the concept of sustainability into the teaching of planning and design programs should be integrated ^[22]^[23]^[24]. There is a significant body of research expanding the understanding of sustainability in planning and design education and identifying and selecting strategies to teach future planners and designers ^[25]^[26].

In order to identify ESD pedagogical approaches in planning and design courses, researchers conducted a two-step research procedure. First, preliminary background research on publications was performed to understand ESD approaches, experiences, and challenges comprehensively. Second, this entry examined how educators introduced the concept of sustainability in planning and design teaching and the teaching methods employed ^[27]. Specifically, researchers have examined teaching methods, pedagogical approaches, and the benefits and challenges of teaching sustainability.

2. ESD Approaches in Planning and Design Education

To identify ESD approaches when teaching sustainability in design and planning education, researchers examined the teaching methods used, as well as the benefits and challenges described in the revised articles. Compared to the preliminary research results, the findings after the PRISMA protocol showed 24 ESD learning approaches with specific purposes for design and planning education (Table 1). In many cases, the pedagogical strategies implemented consist of a combination of approaches. For instance, some cases combine action-oriented with transformative approaches ^[28], while in other examples, courses combine problem-based and project-based learning approaches to provide students with practical experiences in community service projects ^[29]^[30]. The following descriptions offer some examples of eight innovative ESD learning approaches that are not found in the preliminary research stage.

Table 1. 24 ESD approaches in planning and design education courses.

	24 ESD Approaches in Planning and Design Courses
1	Action-oriented (n = 7)	Action competence and transformative learning, action research, action-oriented transformative pedagogical approach, active learning constructivist approach, active learning (n = 3)
2	Interdisciplinary (n = 6)	Interdisciplinary and crosscultural setting, interdisciplinary approach, interdisciplinary education, interdisciplinary (urban planning education in post-social transitional countries (UPEPSTCs)), interdisciplinary (multidisciplinary) (n = 2)
3	Problem-based learning (n = 6)	Problem- and project-based learning (PPBL), problem-based learning (n = 3), problem solving approach (n = 2)
4	Project-based learning (n = 5)	Project-based learning (PBL) and service learning (SL), project-based learning (PBL) (n = 4)
5	Experiential learning (n = 4)	Experience-based learning, experiential learning (n = 3)
6	Place-based learning (n = 4)	Place-based learning, Place-based education (PBE) and experiential learning, Place-based education (n = 2)
7	Participatory action research (n = 3)	Participatory (sustainable architectural design studios (SADS), participatory action research (n = 2)
8	Service learning (n = 3)	service learning approach (n = 3)
9	Transformative (n = 3)	Transformative learning (n = 3)
10	Crosscultural (n = 2)	Multicultural education, crosscultural collaboration
11	Collaborative (n = 2)	Collaborative learning, Collaborative action research
12	Integrative (n = 2)	Integrative approach (n = 2)
13	Case-based learning	Case method teaching
14	Competency-based	Competency-based approach
15	Experimental studio	Experimental green design studio
16	Future-oriented	Future-oriented learning
17	Holistic approach	Holistic and human rights-oriented approach
18	Learning network	Learning network approach
19	Performance-oriented	Performance-oriented architecture
20	Self-regulated	Self-regulated learning
21	Solution-oriented	Solution-oriented sustainability learning (SOSL)
22	The burn model	Burn model sustainability pedagogy
23	Three-fold framework	A ‘three-fold’ framework of activities on the environment (self-reported outcome)
24	Transdisciplinary	Transdisciplinary approach

2.1. Experimental Studio (Green Design Studio)

The experimental studio includes teaching sustainable green methods of design and construction through design projects and living lab experiments. This learning approach requires students to design given extreme wind conditions and conduct a workshop in a living lab situation to experiment with and test environmental solutions, such as energy efficiency ^[31].

2.2. The Burn Model of Sustainability Pedagogy

The burn model “integrates ecological design, systemic and interdisciplinary learning, multiple perspectives, an active and engaged learning process, and attention to place-based learning” ^[32]. It focuses on applying sustainability pedagogy from diverse perspectives with practical suggestions for teaching sustainability. Teaching modes include large or small group discussions, meeting guest speakers, field trips, and journal writing ^[32].

2.3. A Three-Fold Framework of Activities on the Environment

This approach aims to “promote multiple learning outcomes to enable students (of any age) to participate in various learning experiences.” The three-fold framework focuses on education for the environment and in/from the environment, including basic knowledge, investigation, environmental concerns, values, and attitudes. Specifically, it involves lectures, fieldwork, investigations, data analysis, class presentations, discussions on human impact on the environment, ethical issues and questions, etc. ^[33].

2.4. Learning Networks

Learning networks pursue “bottom-up approaches as well as self-organization, while the organizational, educational, and technological components are activated to encourage self-directed learning processes jointly” ^[34].

It emphasizes open communication and supports “the transition of the educational system that would be difficult to accomplish within traditional organizational frameworks” ^[34]. Teaching includes essays, discussion forums, writing research proposals and group presentations, collaboration with regional players, and a virtual seminar ^[34].

2.5. Future-Oriented Learning

Future-oriented learning pursues “the experimental-innovative game-based futures curriculum design” and aims to “participate, facilitate, collaborate, and play with students in the classroom world, like less lecture, more play” ^[35]. This approach emphasizes a game’s strength in spatial planning and understanding sustainability. Players or learners can “interact with artifacts, test ideas, attempt their strategies, and adapt to changing conditions as the game progresses to fulfill their goals” ^[35]. The teaching method consists mainly of the contents of the games, such as exploring images of the future, collaborative activities, mapping the future, graphical visualization of direct and indirect results according to future development, making headline news, and having debates ^[35].

2.6. Performance-Oriented Learning

The performance-oriented approach emphasizes “an interdisciplinary approach to establishing adequate starting positions for tackling compound sustainability problems through design” ^[36]. It connects design thinking and systems thinking to address a broad scope of actors and stakeholders and also pursues expanding the remit far beyond human-centric design. Teaching content includes interviews with locals and visitors, collaboration with stakeholders and students, field trips, and analysis ^[36].

2.7. Solution-Oriented Learning

The solution-oriented learning approach consists of “competencies-based and experiential learning, which allows students to learn while transforming” ^[37]. This approach aims to change passive learning to active, transformative, participatory, and project-based learning. It offers students the opportunity to learn about informed sustainability problems and build the capability to solve them. During the course, instructors offer students an overview of sustainability problems, involving collaborations with experts and stakeholders, field trips, making products, such as plans, policies, reports, and webpages, developing scenarios and visualizations of urban futures, boot camps, small group exercises, and incorporating external facilitators ^[37].

2.8. Participatory Action Research (PAR)

PAR approach is a design studio with participatory and social features. It pursues more practical knowledge to complement theoretical knowledge by integrating real sustainability issues into design projects. The course content in PAR involves small group projects and discussions, field trips, presentations, workshops with experts, critical design approaches, concept mapping, and reflective journals ^[38]^[39]^[40].

3. ESD Approaches with Methods

One of the study’s objectives is to understand how different teaching methods or modes support different ESD pedagogical approaches. This combination of tactics (teaching modes) with strategies (approaches) offers a valuable framework to articulate and integrate different ways to teach sustainability in design and planning education.

Figure 1 shows the frequency of use of each teaching mode for each of the 24 approaches identified. The top five pedagogical approaches recognized in design and planning education are teaching through action-oriented approaches (n = 7), interdisciplinary approaches (n = 6), problem-based learning (n = 6), project-based learning (n = 5), and experiential learning (n = 4). Overall, pedagogical approaches seem to be more focused in teaching sustainability through practice and learning-by-doing activities ^[38]^[39]^[40]. These practice and experiential strategies rely on group projects, collaboration with local communities, NGOs, industries, and other institutions, and sharing through group presentations ^[16]^[30]^[34]^[41]^[42]^[43]^[44]^[45]. Teaching through lectures is still among the dominant teaching modes.

Figure 1. The framework of ESD approaches and teaching modes or methods in planning and design courses.

4. Benefits and Challenges of Teaching Sustainability

This entry identified 22 benefits, strengths, and positive outcomes described by the authors of these articles after their experience in teaching sustainability (Figure 2). These authors documented benefits through surveys, workshops, or direct feedback from students. The most notable benefits are developing problem-solving skills, obtaining critical thinking, development of design and planning abilities, and building collaboration skills ^[46]^[47]^[48]^[49]^[50], shown the blue color in Figure 2. Additionally, students addressed complex real-life issues during these courses. The study assumes that considering real and complex issues through sustainability courses can help future planners and designers to develop stronger critical thinking skills.

Figure 2. Benefits of teaching sustainability in planning and design education.

Figure 2 shows that teaching sustainability also helps students to develop design and planning abilities, such as design thinking ^[51]^[52]. The implementation of sustainability teaching in planning and design also faces some challenges and restrictions. Figure 3 shows the main issues, barriers, and challenges that instructors and students have faced while employing ESD approaches in their courses. The need for significant amount of time and effort to develop learning opportunities to teach sustainability is the most significant problem and need specific guidance stated in the articles reviewed, shown the blue color in Figure 3. Higher demands are placed on instructors in the classroom, such as requiring a lot of time and effort, requiring specific guidelines, and using environmental restrictions. Team- or project-oriented difficulties frequently appeared while conducting ESD in design and planning education. Ultimately, the complex and long-term issues that define the core of sustainability views also affect how sustainability can be taught. Efforts to incorporate long-term views, interdisciplinary perspectives, or participatory processes, require longer term studies, time to discuss and assimilate issues, and sometimes a more supportive administrative structure to carry these efforts to successful outcomes.

Figure 3. Challenges of teaching sustainability in planning and design education.

References

Du, X.; Su, L.; Liu, J. Developing sustainability curricula using the PBL method in a Chinese context. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 80–88.
Stein, S. The Ethical and Ecological Limits of Sustainability: A Decolonial Approach to Climate Change in Higher Education. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 2019, 35, 198–212.
Yli-Panula, E.; Jeronen, E.; Lemmetty, P. Teaching and Learning Methods in Geography Promoting Sustainability. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 5.
Buckler, C.; Creech, H. Shaping the future we want: UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014). Final. Rep. Summ. UNESCO 2014, 3, 9–10. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1682Shaping%20the%20future%20we%20want.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2020).
Barlett, P.F.; Chase, G.W. Sustainability on Campus: Stories and Strategies for Change; Peggy, F.B., Geoffrey, W.C., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004.
Blewitt, J. Understanding Sustainable Development, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2014; pp. 1–38.
Kishita, Y.; Uwasu, M.; Hara, K.; Kuroda, M.; Takeda, H.; Umeda, Y.; Shimoda, Y. Toward designing sustainability education programs: A survey of master’s programs through semi-structured interviews. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 953–972.
Bedawy, R.E. Embedding Sustainable Development into Higher Education: A Case Study from Egypt. Int. Rev. Manag. Bus. Res. 2014, 3, 465–484. Available online: https://www.irmbrjournal.com/papers/1395805752.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2019).
Tilbury, D. Education for Sustainable Development: An Expert Review of Processes and Learning; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2011; p. 132.
Barratt Hacking, E.; Scott, W.; Lee, E. Evidence of Impact of Sustainable Schools; Department for Children, Schools, and Families (DCSF): Nottingham, UK, 2010; pp. 3–10. Available online: https://purehost.bath.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/163994352/Barrat_Hacking_Scott_Lee_2010_evidence_impact_sust_schools.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2019).
Kates, R.W. What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 19449–19450.
Komiyama, H.; Takeuchi, K. Sustainability science: Building a new discipline. Sustain. Sci. 2006, 1, 1–6.
UNESCO. Framework for the implementation of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) beyond 2019. In Proceedings of the General Conference 40th Session, Paris, France, 3 September 2019; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000370215 (accessed on 8 February 2020).
WCED. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. In Proceedings of the 56th World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Berlin, Germany, 29–31 January 1987; Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2020).
Chen, S.-Y.; Liu, S.-Y. Developing Students’ Action Competence for a Sustainable Future: A Review of Educational Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1374.
Leal Filho, W.; Manolas, E.; Pace, P. The future we want: Key issues on sustainable development in higher education after Rio and the UN decade of education for sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015, 16, 112–129.
von Hauff, M.; Nguyen, T. Universities as Potential Actors for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2014, 6, 3043–3063.
Beatley, T.; Manning, K. The Ecology of Place: Planning for Environment, Economy, and Community; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
Wheeler, S.M. Planning for Sustainability, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–17.
Khan, A.Z.; Vandevyvere, H.; Allacker, K. Design for the Ecological Age: Rethinking the Role of Sustainability in Architectural Education. J. Archit. Educ. 2013, 67, 175–185.
Sandercock, L. THE PLANNER TAMED: Preparing planners for the twenty first century. Aust. Plan. 1997, 34, 90–95.
Hurlimann, A.C. Responding to environmental challenges: An initial assessment of higher education curricula needs by Australian planning professionals. Environ. Educ. Res. 2009, 15, 643–659.
Stauskis, G.; de Vries, J. A Comprehensive Methodology for Assessing the Quality of Landscape Architecture Study Programmes in European Higher Education Institutions. Landsc. Archit. Art 2018, 12, 33–42.
White, S.S.; Mayo, J.M. Environmental Education in Graduate Professional Degrees: The Case of Urban Planning. J. Environ. Educ. 2005, 36, 31–38.
Martin, E.; Beatley, T. Our Relationship with the Earth: Environmental Ethics in Planning Education. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 1993, 12, 117–126.
Cincera, J.; Biberhofer, P.; Binka, B.; Boman, J.; Mindt, L.; Rieckmann, M. Designing a sustainability-driven entrepreneurship curriculum as a social learning process: A case study from an international knowledge alliance project. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 4357–4366.
Ahmad, S.Z.; Abu Bakar, A.R.; Ahmad, N. An evaluation of teaching methods of entrepreneurship in hospitality and tourism programs. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2018, 16, 14–25.
Maruna, M.; Milovanovic Rodic, D.; Colic, R. Remodelling urban planning education for sustainable development: The case of Serbia. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2018, 19, 658–680.
Kricsfalusy, V.; George, C.; Reed, M.G. Integrating problem- and project-based learning opportunities: Assessing outcomes of a field course in environment and sustainability. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 24, 593–610.
Wiek, A.; Xiong, A.; Brundiers, K.; van der Leeuw, S. Integrating problem- and project-based learning into sustainability programs: A case study on the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2014, 15, 431–449.
Dabaieh, M.; Lashin, M.; Elbably, A. Going green in architectural education: An urban living lab experiment for a graduation green design studio in Saint Catherine, Egypt. Sol. Energy 2017, 144, 356–366.
Burns, H.L.; Kelley, S.S.; Spalding, H.E. Teaching sustainability: Recommendations for best pedagogical practices. J. Sustain. Educ. 2019, 19, 1–16. Available online: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1059&context=elp_fac (accessed on 10 August 2020).
Mintz, K.; Tal, T. The place of content and pedagogy in shaping sustainability learning outcomes in higher education. Environ. Educ. Res. 2018, 24, 207–229.
Dlouhá, J.; Macháčková-Henderson, L.; Dlouhý, J. Learning networks with involvement of higher education institutions. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 95–104.
Chen, K.-H.; Hoffman, J. Serious Play: Transforming Futures Thinking Through Game-based Curriculum Design. J. Futures Stud. 2017, 22, 41–60.
Hensel, M.; Santucci, D.; Hensel, D.S.; Auer, T. The lampedusa studio: A multimethod pedagogy for tackling compound sustainability problems in architecture, landscape architecture, and urban design. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4369.
Wiek, A.; Kay, B. Learning while transforming: Solution-oriented learning for urban sustainability in Phoenix, Arizona. Current Opinion in Environmental. Sustainability 2015, 16, 29–36.
Grover, R.; Emmitt, S.; Copping, A. Reflecting on sustainability: Coproducing a critical framework for sustainable design in the architectural studio. High. Educ. Pedagog. 2019, 4, 41–63.
Chen, K.-H. Transforming Environmental Values for a Younger Generation in Taiwan: A Participatory Action Approach to Curriculum Design. J. Futures Stud. 2019, 23, 79–96.
Mohamed, K.E.; Elias-Ozkan, S.T. Incorporating sustainability principles into architectural design education: Results of an experimental design studio. J. Green Build. 2019, 14, 143–158.
Aktas, C.B.; Whelan, R.; Stoffer, H.; Todd, E.; Kern, C.L. Developing a university-wide course on sustainability: A critical evaluation of planning and implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 216–221.
Leal Filho, W.; Shiel, C.; Paço, A. Implementing and operationalising integrative approaches to sustainability in higher education: The role of project-oriented learning. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 126–135.
Lockrey, S.; Bissett Johnson, K. Designing pedagogy with emerging sustainable technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 70–79.
Karwat, D.M.A.; Sherman, L.S.; Cole, L.; Badiane, K.C.; Coseo, P.J.; Larsen, L.S. A Lesson in Service Learning and Community Engagement. Mich. J. Sustain. 2013, 1, 151–159.
Eppinga, M.B.; de Scisciolo, T.; Mijts, E.N. Environmental science education in a small island state: Integrating theory and local experience. Environ. Educ. Res. 2019, 25, 1004–1018.
Howlett, C.; Ferreira, J.-A.; Blomfield, J. Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2016, 17, 305–321.
Coppens, T.; Pineda, A.V.; Henao, K.; Rybels, S.; Samoilovich, D.; De Jonghe, N.; Camacho, H. Innovating Education for Sustainable Urban Development through Problem Based Learning in Latin America. J. Probl. Based Learn. High. Educ. 2020, 8, 1–18.
Kinoshita, A.; Mori, K.; Rustiadi, E.; Muramatsu, S.; Kato, H. Effectiveness of Incorporating the Concept of City Sustainability into Sustainability Education Programs. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4736.
Persov, E.; Yehuda, R.U.; Kantor, R.; Pelman, B. PBL 2.0. Interdisciplinary, multicultural transformative sustainable education for design students. Des. J. 2017, 20, 1224–1240.
Nichols, J.; Adams, E. Sustainability Education in the Interior Design Curriculum. Educ. J. Sustain. Educ. 2010. Available online: http://www.jsedimensions.org/wordpress/content/sustainability-education-in-the-interior-design-curriculum_2011_03/ (accessed on 1 March 2021).
Stibbe, A. The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy: Skills for a Changing World; Villiers-Stuart, P., Stibbe, A., Eds.; Green Books: Cambridge, UK, 2009; p. 2. Available online: http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/stibbe-handbook-of-sustainability (accessed on 1 March 2021).
Gosselin, D.; Burian, S.; Lutz, T.; Maxson, J. Integrating geoscience into undergraduate education about environment, society, and sustainability using place-based learning: Three examples. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2016, 6, 531–540.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Others

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Hye Yeon Park

Carlos V. Licon

Ole Russell Sleipness

View Times: 589

Update Date: 23 Aug 2022

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm