|
|
|
Posted on May 29, 2003 Not
All Are Created Equal: Aldemaro
Romero* and Christina Jones *Present address:
Department of Biological Sciences, Arkansas State University, P.O. Box 599,
State university, AR 72467, USA, aromero@astate.edu,
to whom correspondence should be sent Abstract Environmental
programs have traditionally lack definition of their nature and unifying
principles. In order to ascertain how these programs are presently
constituted in U.S. institutions of higher education, we surveyed 1060
environmental programs/departments between September 2002 and May 2003.
The states with the highest number of those programs/departments were New York
(100), Pennsylvania (92), California (77), Ohio (56), Massachusetts (55), and
while those with the lowest numbers are Idaho and Wyoming (0), North Dakota (1),
South Dakota, Arkansas, and Hawaii (2), Delaware (3), Oklahoma and Utah (4).
However, when the state population is taken into account and the number
of program per 1,000,000 inhabitants is calculated, the results vary greatly for
the ones that were at the top in absolute numbers but remain basically the same
for those that were at the bottom in absolute number. Thus, the states
with the highest number of programs/departments per 1,000,000 inhabitants are
Vermont (30.82), the District of Columbia (17.52), Montana (16.49), Maine
(15.45), Alaska (15.53), and Rhode Island (10.28), and while at the bottom we
find Idaho and Wyoming (0), Arkansas (0.74), Oklahoma (1.15), Texas (1.56),
North Dakota (1.58), Hawaii (1.61), Florida (1.62), and Kentucky (1.71). The
names Environmental Science and Environmental Studies are, by far, the most
common ones being, between the two of them, 47.62% of the program names.
They are followed by engineering (11.04%), Health/Toxicology (7.61%), and
Biology/Ecology/Conservation (6.87%). Between
1900 (the year of the first program created) and 1958, only 14 programs were
established. For the period 1959-1999, there is a dramatic increase in the
number of programs being created. There are two big "waves" in
the creation of programs: one between 1965 and 1976 (with a high peak in
1970) and another starting 1988 and, probably, continuing to this date, with a
peak in 1997. Representatives of the programs surveyed, cited students and
faculty demand as the most common reason behind the creation of those programs. The
high diversity of names and emphases found in this study is consistent with the
premise that Environmental Studies is a field where there is a lack of unifying
principles and clarity of what environmental studies programs should be.
This is a continuous project to be updated on a yearly basis. Introduction There is some uncertainty
about Environmental Studies (ES) as an academic field and about how to design
environmental programs for institutions of higher education (Soulé & Press
1998, Maniates & Whissel 2000). In general, the status of ES programs
(ESPs) is characterized by competing proposals. There is neither agreement
as to the characterization of the domain nor a basis for identification and
selection of accurate and appropriate subject matter of ESPs (Bennett 1996). Traditionally, most ESPs
have been envisioned as an integrating concept that draws elements from many
traditional disciplines, but actual integration or synthesis of that knowledge
has been difficult to define and/or achieve. Thus, it is not always
possible to ascertain when that integration is accomplished. No consensus
has been reached on whether ES Studies is a field that can be described as an
area for professional and technical preparation, interdisciplinary,
multidisciplinary, metadisciplinary or a discipline in itself (Caldwell 1983,
Horning 1996, Jacobson & McDuff 1998, Mattes 1994, McLaughlin 1994, Newell
& Green 1982, Schneider 1997, Wilke 1995). Furthermore, whether or not
its teaching must include certain ethical values and what those values should
be, have also been a source of discussion (Hunn 1996, Kim & Dixon 1993, Orr
1990). Despite all these
shortcomings, there is evidence that ESPs are increasing in number and
importance among institutions of higher education (Kettl 1999, Romero et al.
2000, Maniates & Whissel 2000). Yet, there have been, to our
knowledge, only four extensive, in-depth survey of environmental
programs/departments in U.S. academic institutions (Romero et al. 2000, Maniates
& Whissel 2000, Romero et al. 2001, Romero & Eastwood, 2002). Some
past statistical analyses on their number in higher education have always been
vague (e.g., Brough 1992). The major goal of this
paper is to analyze on a yearly bases as many environmental programs in U.S.
institutions of higher education as possible as a continuation of our previous
work (Romero et al. 2000, 2001, Romero and Eastwood, 2002).
We continue to study the following characteristics: 1) geographic
distribution; 2) number of programs per institution; 3) how those programs
define themselves by name (e.g., environmental studies, environmental science,
etc.); 4) emphases of those programs by areas of knowledge (natural sciences,
social sciences, humanities, interdisciplinary); 5) degree offered (B.A., B.
Sc., Masters’, Ph.D.); 6) whether internships and study away/abroad
opportunities were offered and if any of those was required; 7) vital statistics
(number of students enrolled, number of students graduated in 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002 number of faculty involved in those programs and the status of those
faculty, i.e., number of faculty that: a) were assigned to the
environmental program/department, whether they were b) full-time, c) shared with
other departments/programs, d) part-time faculty,
8) year in which the environmental program/department was created, and 9)
why the program was created. For
this edition, we have also made some inquiries on the operating budgets of those
programs. Materials
and Methods We define as an
environmental program/department any of those that use the word environmental in
their title, from the standard environmental studies, science, and engineering
to the less common environmental journalism or law. We also include those
that although their names do not carry the word environmental, define themselves
as environmental in nature in their advertisement material. Much of the data presented
in this study was collected in the last three years from the previous editions
of this paper (Romero et al. 2000, Romero et al. 2001, Romero and Eastwood
2002). In addition to the methods
used then, we obtained the most recent information through direct contact with
the administrators of the programs themselves via email and telephone.
Administrators of programs for which we had information previously were
asked to provide updates, and those who we contacted for the first time were
asked to complete the entire survey. We
also visited the websites of particular colleges and universities, and consulted
Rodenhouse (2000). Direct responses
(about 50% of the programs surveyed) were compiled.
For those that did not reply to our request for information we based the
data provided in this paper on their advertised information either in their web
pages or in their brochures. When
there was no advertised information in a specific category, we assumed no
changes and left the information as it was in Romero and Eastwood (2002).
Each program was treated as an individual entry for statistical purposes
even when there was more than one program for the same academic institution. Data collection was
carried out between September 2002 and May 2003. To locate the
programs/departments, we used online search engines such as Peterson’s guide
to graduate schools (www.petersons.com) and
Peterson’s CollegeQuest for undergraduate programs (www.collegequest.com).
We also used other sites that carry extensive lists of higher education programs
in the environmental arena, such as the web page of the Committee for the
National Institute of the Environment (www.cnie.org) and Second Nature (http://www.starfish.org).
We also looked at Brillault (2000) as a source for environmental law
programs. Other programs were
located through their web pages by typing in the words environment or
environmental and matching those with the words program and/or department in the
following search engines: Excite, HotBot, LookSmart, Lycos, Snap,
About.com, and Google. In order to locate programs/departments that were
more recently created and for which information was not readily available in the
sources cited above, we have been scrutinizing job advertisements for academic
positions in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Science since September 1999.
Results
and Discussion General: Results are
compiled in Table 1. We present information on a total of 1060
programs/departments in 578 institutions of higher education. 324 of them
were colleges and the rest universities, independent graduate schools, and/or
law schools. Those programs are
listed alphabetically according to the name of the academic institution to which
they belong. At the end of
this Table we list the URL address from each program from which we obtained the
initial information, whether or not people from that program/department
responded to our survey, the name of the person we contacted or who at least
appeared as responsible for the program/department based on his/her title
(program director/coordinator, chair), and the email address of that
program/department that we used or at least appeared to be the one for
contact/further inquiry for that program. Click here for Table 1 Geographic Distribution:
The second column on Tables 1, identifies the location of the institution by
state. The programs/departments per state are summarized in Table 2.
In order to see whether these numbers really represent any level of interest for
these kinds of programs in the academic institutions of these states, they must
be correlated to the population in those states. Using also U.S. Census
Bureau data (http://www.census.gov) as for 1 July 2002, we divided the number of
programs/department by the population of that state and region. Table 2. Number of
Environmental programs/departments per state/population
This table shows that in
absolute numbers, the states with the highest number of programs/departments are
New York (100), Pennsylvania (92), California (77), Ohio (56), Massachusetts
(55), and while those with the lowest numbers are Idaho and Wyoming (0), North
Dakota (1), South Dakota, Arkansas, and Hawaii (2), Delaware (3), Oklahoma and
Utah (4). However, when the state
population is taken into account and the number of program per 1,000,000
inhabitants is calculated, the results vary greatly for the ones that were at
the top in absolute numbers but remain basically the same for those that were at
the bottom in absolute number. Thus, the states with the highest number of
programs/departments per 1,000,000 inhabitants are Vermont (30.82), the District
of Columbia (17.52), Montana (16.49), Maine (15.45), Alaska (15.53), and Rhode
Island (10.28), and while at the bottom we find Idaho and Wyoming (0), Arkansas
(0.74), Oklahoma (1.15), Texas (1.56), North Dakota (1.58), Hawaii (1.61),
Florida (1.62), and Kentucky (1.71). Of the above, the data for
the District of Columbia needs to be qualified. The reason is that we can
assume that a large number of people enrolled in these types of programs in D.C.
institutions are actually residents of either Maryland or Virginia. We produced four maps:
the first indicates the absolute number of programs/departments per state (Fig.
1). The second (Fig. 2) represents the number of programs per region of
the United States. Those regions were defined using the U.S. Census Bureau
definition for states comprising six U.S. regions: Northeast, South,
Midwest, West, West Coast, and Alaska and Hawaii (www.census.gov). We
also produced a third map (Fig. 3) in which the programs/departments are shown
in relation to 1,000,000 people for each state. Figure 1:
Environmental Programs/Departments by State
Figure 2:
Environmental Programs/Departments by Region
Figure 3:
Environmental Programs/Departments by State/Population
Programs by name: We
compiled the programs/department names based on the ones for which there were
three or more using a particular denomination. They were:
Environmental Studies, E. Science, E. Engineering, E.
Biology/Ecology/Conservation Biology, E. Health/Toxicology, E.
Policy/Analysis/Planning, E. Management, E. Law, E. Chemistry, E. Education,
Natural Resources/Management, E. Economics/Economics Management, E. Geology.
When the name of the program was dual (e.g., Environmental Science/Studies), we
used the most inclusive denomination (Environmental Studies) unless they had two
clearly distinct tracts (e.g., environmental science and environmental
engineering). We created a column for "others" when there were
fewer than four carrying a particular name. The results of programs
according to their name are summarized in Table 3 and represented in Fig. 4. Table 3. Environmental
Programs/Departments according to their own denomination (May 2003).
Figure 4:
Environmental Programs/Departments - May 2003, n=1257
The names Environmental
Science and Environmental Studies are, by far, the most common ones being,
between the two of them, 47.62% of the program names. They are followed by
engineering (11.04%), Health/Toxicology (7.61%), and
Biology/Ecology/Conservation (6.87%). Although the number for
"Others" seems high, the reason is the huge diversity of names given
to many programs. In order to determine if
there is a dependence between the name of the environmental programs and the
nature of the institution, a chi-square test was performed. The null
hypothesis was that the names given to environmental programs are independent of
the type of academic institution in which they are found. We found that
the names "Environmental Studies" and "Environmental
Science" are much more commonly used in college settings while
"Environmental Engineering" is more common among universities (p.<
0.5). Notice that the total number
(n) reported for this statistical analysis is higher than the total number of
programs mentioned for this study; the reason for that is that more than one
program reported a combination of two or more names cited here. Area of Knowledge:
In order to ascertain the particular area of knowledge on which different
programs could be placed and whether or not they have any degree of
interdisciplinarity, we analyzed their course requirements. If 75% or more
of the courses required were within a particular area (natural sciences vs.
social sciences vs. humanities) then the program was categorized as belonging to
that area of knowledge. Otherwise they were categorized as belonging to
two or more areas of knowledge, but also using the 25% of courses within a
particular area as the litmus test. Thus, programs that were classified as
fully interdisciplinary were those that contain at least 25% from each of those
fields of knowledge. For the accounting of courses, courses that by itself
were interdisciplinary in nature such as the capstone seminar were not assigned
as belonging to any particular area of knowledge. The results of this
analysis are summarized in Table 4 and Fig. 5. Table 4. Programs by
actual are of knowledge they emphasize.
Figure 5:
Environmental Programs/Departments Emphases - May 2003
Again, the vast majority
of environmental programs fall within the natural sciences realm (54.91%).
There are 243 programs (35.22%) interdisciplinary in nature because of combining
two or all three areas of knowledge, but only 36 (5.20%) are fully
interdisciplinary by combining all areas of knowledge. By degree offered: Results
of compiling information about degree offered are summarized in Table 5 and Fig.
6. Table 5. Number of
programs according to the degree they offer
Figure 6: Degrees
Offered - May 2003
As suspected from the high
number of natural sciences-based programs, the larger proportion of
undergraduate programs offered a Bachelor's in Science degree. Notice that
the sum is higher than the number of programs identified for this study.
The reason is that many programs offer more than one degree. Also, this
figure is not complete, since we did not receive explicit information from some
programs regarding the degree they offer and, thus, they were left in blank. Internships/Study
Away-Abroad Programs: Results of the survey are summarized in Table 6. Table 6.
Programs/Departments according on whether they offer/require internships and
study away opportunities.
The figures shown in Table
6 represent a lower number of the actual internships and study away/abroad
programs offered at those institutions because a number of programs did not
return our surveys in that regard. Yet, it is safe to assume that most
programs include internships opportunities and that about one third of them
require that internship to be completed as part of the graduation requirements.
Study away/abroad opportunities also seem to be fairly common. We could
not find any single program that requires taking such opportunities as their
graduation requirements. Demographics: Table
7 summarizes the demographics for those programs that responded to our request
for information in this area. It includes number of students enrolled,
number of graduates since 1998, number of full-time faculty involved in the
program, number of faculty assigned to that program and/or department, number of
faculty shared with other department/program, and number of part-time faculty
working in that program/department. For this compilation, we used data
only from the programs/departments that responded to our survey. Table 7. Vital statistics
of those programs/departments that responded to our survey.
*These are gross
underestimations since the numbers depend upon the responses to interviews. These are, by far, the
most problematic statistics to obtain. First, the data depend entirely on
feedback from the person in charge from the program. Those statistics are
highly variable because of the continuous flow in the number of students and
faculty assigned to a program at a particular time. Finally, the
interpretation of what means "shared" faculty with
"full-time" (tenure track or none-tenure track?), part-time (for the
program itself or for the entire institution?) varies drastically among
institutions. Given than less that the programs responded to our survey,
they could safely be extrapolated multiplying them by two, yet taking into
consideration the above-referred shortcomings. It seems that the only way
to obtain more accurate statistics in this regard is via phone interview where
the meaning of our categories can be better explained. The number of institutions
for which we have graduate information in 1998 is 335, for 1999 it is 46, for
2000 it is 43, and so on. Because
of these large discrepancies in sample size, the only statistic that is somewhat
interesting here is the average number of graduates per program (for which we
have information) across the three years. In
1998, average number of graduates was 23.7, in 1999 it was 38.7 and in 2000 it
was 33.1. There are really not
enough data to make any claims about a trend, especially since the institutions
for which we have graduate information in one year may not be in the same set as
that for another year. This means
that any change, like graduate numbers from a large university in 1999 not
reporting their information for 2000 would skew these averages.
Year of creation:
Based on the information provided by those who responded to our survey, we used
the year in which the program/department was created by the academic authorities
irrespective of whether the program was initiated in effect that very same year. To see if there are
historical patterns in the creation of those programs, we displayed the number
of programs/departments created per year in two figures. Fig. 7 shows the
number of programs/departments created between 1900 (the first year for which a
program was created) and 1958. Fig. 8 shows the number of programs/departments
created between 1959 and 1999. The cut-off date of 1959 was selected
because before that year very few programs/departments were created and they
appeared very parsimoniously while beginning in 1959 at least one
program/department was created every year. We did not find information
about programs that after being created may have been eliminated and, thus, if
that has been the case, those possible programs have not been taken into
consideration. Figure 7:
Chronological 1900-1956
Figure 8:
Chronological 1959-1999
Although they represent
less than half of all the programs, patterns are clearly defined. For
example, between 1900 (the year of the first program created) and 1958, only 14
programs were created. Only one year, 1944, shows more than one being
created the same year. Only between 1948 and 1950 and between 1955 and
1956 we see programs being created in consecutive years. For the period 1959-1999,
there is a dramatic increase in the number of programs being created.
There are two big "waves" in the creation of programs: one
between 1965 and 1976 (with a peak in 1970) and another starting in 1988 and,
probably, continuing to this date, with a peak in 1997. The lower
number of programs reported for 1999 is probably lower than the actual number
since more recent programs are more difficult to locate. The publicity
material is less noticeable; some may not have even developed a web page of
their own. Is there any explanation
for this swing in the creation of programs? Fig. 9 points out to major
events that took place in environmental issues per year. The first peak
(1965) coincides with the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.
The next peak, 1968, coincides with the publication of Paul and Anne Ehrlich’s
The Population Bomb. The big peak for 1970 coincides with the creation of
the Environmental Protection Agency (which was also the year of the enacting of
the Clean Air Act and the creation of the League of Conservation Voters).
There is a dramatic drop in programs created for 1971 (the year Greenpeace was
formed) and a rebound for 1972 (the year of the enacting of the Clean Water Act,
the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
publication of Club of Rome’s The Limits of Growth). It drops again for
1973, the year of the enacting of the Endangered Species Act, and from then on
there is steady decline with a low for 1977. Until virtually 1992, the
creation of new programs seem to be stabilized despite big ecological news in
the media in 1978 (Love Canal), 1979 (Three-Mile Island), 1988 (Exxon Valdez),
and the public uproar by the policies implemented in 1982 by Ronald Reagan's
Interior Secretary James Watt. The latter should not be underestimated
because that triggered a exponential increase in membership among environmental
organizations. Figure 9:
Chronological 1959-1999 with Major Events
However, these data may
lead to false conclusions such as that the creation of the EPA convinced college
and university administrators about the need of offering careers that would
satisfy public sector demand for those professionals. Although that might
have been the case for some institutions, the decision on commitment of faculty,
staff, and financial resources is not something that takes place within a few
months period in academic institution given the complex governance system (i.e.,
multiplicity of committees with a say in such matters, approval by the board of
trustees, etc.) that operates in most of them. A much safer parsimonious
interpretation is that those were the years of rise in environmental awareness
and that colleges and universities were competing for students with expectations
to graduate with a degree in that area. The low plateau reached between
1977 and 1991 coincides with the country's preoccupation on other matters
(Watergate, the U.S. hostages in Iran, the more conservative views in government
during the Reagan administration). The resurgence observed from the early
1990's may well be explained by two factors: 1) the increased
respectability of environmental careers as a source of professionals needed not
only in government but also in the private (e.g., consulting firms, in-house
environmental professionals) sector as well as in the increasingly
professionalized non-profit organizations; 2) Interdisciplinary programs became
more and more acceptable, particularly among Liberal Arts Colleges. Program
Inception Environmental programs in
the U.S. were created for a variety of reasons.
Among the 90 respondents to our question as to why the institution began
its environmental programs, the main reasons cited by these institutions were
student demand (39 schools), faculty demand (21 schools)[1], and the growing job market for environmental careers
(13 schools). The fourth most common response was that the program was added in
response to a major environmental event, such as an oil spill, the formation of
the EPA, or Earth Day. There were
some very unique responses as well. Alabama
A&M initiated its program in 1969 to attract more African Americans to the
natural sciences. Dordt College in
Iowa cites that an environmental program fits with the Christian belief that
humans are to care for the earth as their reason for starting the program in
1985. While several respondents
named need for an interdisciplinary program as a reason for starting up, only
the University of Colorado at Denver noticed a lack of interdisciplinary skills
among its faculty with different backgrounds.
It began its environmental program in 1970 to, in some sense, force the
faculty to learn to relate to one another. The student and faculty
demand responses are somewhat unrevealing in that there are probably other
underlying reasons why the students and faculty were demanding such programs at
the times they were. Nonetheless,
it is important to note how many institutions responded to this demand by
actually creating programs. In this
case, it is clear that the students and faculty had a voice in their
institutions’ curriculum process. Interestingly,
20 of the 23 institutions that cited student or student and faculty demand as
their reason for starting a program are small colleges.
This perhaps demonstrates the larger student voice at such institutions
than at large universities. Conclusions The high diversity of
names and emphases found in this study is consistent with the premise that this
is a field where there is a lack of unifying principles and clarity of what
environmental studies programs should be. Based on the information we have
been able to access, we suspect that patterns regarding graduation requirements
(e.g., number of courses) and tracks (majors, minors, cores, etc.) are even more
diverse which reflects the lack of consensus of what are/should be environmental
studies in general as a discipline. We plan to continue this
study every year not only aimed to maintain information current, but also to
improve the quantity and quality of information as discussed about by conducting
phone interviews with those responsible for programs. We encourage our readers
not only to forward their general comments on this article, but also to update
the information we have on their academic institution. Acknowledgments We thank all the
faculty/administrators who responded to our request for information about their
programs/departments. Their names can be found in Table 1. Molly
Brandt, Phoebe B. S. Vanselow, Joel E. Creswell, Amanda Stern, and Katherine
Benz worked on the 2000 version of this report; Amanda Stern and Kathryn Benz
worked on the 2001 version; Hanne Eastwood worked on the 2002 version. Joshua
Young of Macalester College provided help with the statistical analysis.
Ann Esson prepared the manuscript in its current web format. Literature
Cited Bennett, B. Y. 1996.
Metaphor and Curriculum Theorizing in Environmental Studies. Temple University
Graduate Board, Ph.D. Dissertation, 81 pp. Brillault, M.R. 2000.
Assessment of Law Schools with Environment and Natural Resource Programs.
Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1):276-281. Brough, H. 1992.
Environmental Studies: Is it Academic? World Watch. Jan.-Feb.: 26-33. Caldwell, L. K. 1983.
Environmental Studies: Discipline or Metadiscipline? The Environmental
Professional 5: 247-259. Horning, J. F. 1996.
Training the Next Generation. Environment. June: 28-30. Hunn, J. L. 1996. Toward a
Reconstructive Education: An Environmental Studies Curriculum for the University
Level. San Diego State University, Master Thesis, 185 pp. Jacobson, S. K. & M.
D. McDuff. 1998. Training Idiot Savants: The Lack of Human Dimensions in
Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology 12(2): 263-267. Kettl, D. F. 1999. In
Pollution research, Universities Can Bridge the Critical Gap Between Science and
Policy. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 26 February 1999, p. B8. Kim, H. S. & J. P.
Dixon. 1993. Subject Indicators to Present the Nature and Limit of Environmental
Studies in US Graduate Schools. The Environmentalist 13(2): 137-144. Maniates, M.F. & J.C.
Whissel. 2000. Environmental studies: The sky is not falling. BioScience
50(6):509-517. Mattes, K. B. 1994. How to
Study the Environment? Harvard Magazine March/April 1994: 28-32. McLaughlin, Jr., C. H.
1994. Development Environmental Literacy Through Technology Education.
Technology Teacher 54(3): 30-34. Newell, W. H. & W. J.
Green. 1982. Defining and Teaching Interdisciplinary Studies. Improving College
and University Teaching 30(1): 23-30. Orr, D. W. 1990.
Environmental Education and Ecological Literacy. The Education Digest 55(9):
49-53. Rodenhouse, M.P. (Ed).
2000. 2000 Higher Education Directory. Falls Church, Virginia: Higher Education
Publications, Inc., 812 pp. Romero, A., M. Brandt, P.
Vanselow, & J. Creswell. 2000. Not all are created equal: An analysis
of the environmentally-related programs/departments in U.S. academic
institutions until December 1999. Macalester Environmental Review (www.macalester.edu/environmentalstudies/MacEnvReview/equalarticle.htm). Romero A. & H.
Eastwood. 2002.
Not all are created equal: An analysis of the environmental
programs/departments in U.S academic institutions until March 2002.
Macalester Environmental Review (http://www.macalester.edu/environmentalstudies/MacEnvReview/equalarticle2002.htm). Romero A., A. Stern, &
K. Benz. 2001. Not all are created equal: An analysis of the environmental
programs/departments in U.S academic institutions until March 2001.
Macalester Environmental Review (http://www.macalester.edu/environmentalstudies/MacEnvReview/equalarticle2001.htm). Schneider, S. H. 1997.
Defining and Teaching environmental literacy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
12(11): 457. Soulé, M. E. & D. E.
Press. 1998. What is Environmental Studies? BioScience 48(5): 397-405. Wilke, R. 1995. Environmental Literacy and the College Curriculum. Colleges and Universities Have a Challenge to Meet. EPA Journal: Spring 1995: 28-30.
[1] Note that those schools that responded with “student and faculty demand” were added into both the “student demand” and “faculty demand” categories. |
|
Home | Articles | Book Reviews | Submit Article | Subscribe |
