Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405

www.cleanerproduction.net
Educating for sustainability: opportunities in undergraduate
engineering
Fiona S. Crofton
*
The ORCAD Consulting Group Inc., 101330 West 2nd Street, North Vancouver, B.C. Canada V7M 1E1
Abstract
Awareness of the complex and interrelated environmental, economic and social problems in our world is increasing; the sus-
tainability debate no longer focuses on whether changes are necessary but on what kind of changes are needed and how they can
be carried out. Engineers are increasingly looked to for sustainable solutions yet nd themselves less than adequately prepared to
provide answers. Education is consistently identied as one of the key strategies for facilitating sustainable development; the required
shift in the thinking, values and actions of individuals and institutions calls for efforts to make sustainability concerns a central
theme of all education. This paper examines ways to better prepare engineers for the challenges of sustainable development and
to increase the effectiveness of their solutions. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In many ways the effectiveness of engineering edu-
cation is beyond dispute. Engineers have responded to
societal needs for transportation, sanitation, health care,
communication, energy production, waste management,
and pollution control systems. Sustainable development,
however, poses an array of problems that go far beyond
what is generally found in the textbooks or experiences
provided as part of engineers formal training. The prob-
lems to be addressed are more complex, clients are more
differentiated and extend beyond the immediate
user/client of engineering services, and there is an
increasing demand for engineering solutions which
respond to a variety of social and political challenges.
Business wants a competitive edge both in design and
cost solutions; consumers want more convenient,
reliable, safe, affordable products; government and
society at large want solutions to economic, social and
environmental problems and assurance that technologi-
cal solutions are developed with full understanding of
the social, economic and environmental contexts and
without negative impacts on these contexts. Tension and
conict exists between the interests and goals of these
overlapping constituencies and must be mediated. The
* Tel.: +1 604 985 8318; fax: +1 604 985 7385.
E-mail address: orcad@sustainability.com (F.S. Crofton).
0959-6526/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0959- 6526( 00) 00043- 3
intense demands and expectations from business, con-
sumers and government are increasingly focused on the
engineering profession.
The demands require that engineers understand and
effectively respond to sustainable development chal-
lenges. Unfortunately, research [1] reveals that engin-
eers knowledge, skills and/or practices for sustainable
development are decient or problematic in a number
of areas; as a result, engineers ability to contribute to
sustainable development effectively is compromised.
Challenges in practice have been discussed elsewhere
and will not be considered here explicitly. Rather, this
paper considers ways in which sustainability concerns
could be given higher priority and better integrated in
engineers preparatory education.
A brief overview of the concept and principles of sus-
tainable development is provided. Goals of engineering
education are reviewed and new goals attentive to sus-
tainability demands are proposed. Evidence of gaps
between the real and ideal provide the impetus for nd-
ing ways to better incorporate sustainability concerns
into engineers preparatory education. Options for
incorporating sustainability into the curriculum are
examined; examples and recommendations for optimiz-
ing the success of approaches are offered.
398 F.S. Crofton / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405
2. Sustainable development
More than 10 years after popularization of the terms
sustainable development and sustainability, it may
seem unnecessary to dene them especially for those
who have been working to facilitate movement towards
sustainability, and in a journal that aims to help ensure
a sustainable environment. Nonetheless, it is true that
people have slightly different interpretations of sus-
tainable development. In the main, differences exist in
the degree to which interpretations tend to emphasize
certain themes. Some emphasize support for economic
growth and development; others, protecting environmen-
tal quality while permitting economic development; and
a third group, recognizing limits to growth, population,
and consumption. Such variations may seem unimport-
ant excepting that interpretations inform and underlie
strategies and proposals for change. For example, the
ways engineers interpret sustainable development has
been found to be a factor in engineers choice of strategy
emphasis (e.g. resource management, controls and safe-
guards, or altering consumption patterns) [1].
Interpretation and strategy emphasis may vary neces-
sarily by virtue of the particular problem or context.
Nevertheless, it is important to ensure that a conceptual
framework for sustainable development encompasses an
inclusive and clear set of key goals and principles
intended to guide action. An extended discussion of the
concept and principles of sustainability is outside the
scope of this paper; it is expected that, for the purpose
and audience of this paper, the simple representation of
sustainable development presented in Fig. 1 should be
sufcient. It should be emphasized, however, that in this
representation, the ultimate goal of sustainable develop-
Fig. 1. A simple representative of sustainable development goals and requirements.
ment is seen to be human health and well-being. Some
have raised objections to the emphasis on human health
and well-being arguing that human health is dependent
on the health of the biosphere and, therefore, protection
of the environment should be the primary goal. While
there is no disputing this dependency, declaring environ-
mental protection as the ultimate goal leaves open the
option of eliminating overly destructive species (like
humans) from the planet; this option is unlikely to
receive serious consideration.
3. Goals of engineering education
Safeguarding (and also improving) human health and
well-being has long been of paramount importance to
the engineering profession. As such, it should not be sur-
prising to nd sustainability goals and principles encom-
passed by engineering codes of practice. Detailed analy-
sis of policy documents, codes of ethics and practice of
the Canadian engineering profession reveals that goals
and underlying requirements of sustainable development
are well-aligned with those encompassed by the engin-
eering profession. Review of similar documents in the
United States, Australia and international engineering
associations indicates a high degree of similarity in the
expectations of engineers. Further, there are many indi-
cations that policies and acts governing the engineering
profession are increasingly attentive to sustainability
concerns and related requirements.
The policies and codes of ethics and practice are here
considered as a consensus of desired norms and as rep-
resenting many of the ideals of the engineering pro-
fession. One would hope, perhaps even expect, that these
399 F.S. Crofton / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405
ideals inform engineering education and guide curricu-
lum development; at the very least, they should provide
a measure by which we can assess the gaps between the
real and the ideal. Unfortunately, despite an extensive
review of documents and articles concerned with engin-
eering education, and undergraduate education in parti-
cular, a clear and consistent picture regarding the pur-
pose of engineering education (beyond fullling a
licensing requirement) and the kinds of competencies
expected of graduates does not emerge. Instead, one will
nd goals variously attentive to skills, knowledge,
expansion of laboratories and research facilities,
improvement of pre-entry programs, faculty training and
such; goals that were the equivalent of long lists of
multiple and various intended competencies; goals that
were so vague as to provide little information as to their
substance;
1
and different perspectives on the importance
of various educational objectives.
2
Despite this goals confusion, some information gained
from such a review is helpful. For example, there is gen-
eral agreement that undergraduate engineering education
must provide both specialized and general knowledge
and skills; that knowledge/content areas should include
mathematics, natural and physical sciences, engineering
sciences and design, management, economics, communi-
cation and ethics; and that technical, organizational,
managerial, interpersonal, problem-solving and planning
skills should be included. Further, it appears that under-
graduate engineering education is to fulll three some-
what different functions: (a) provide a general, basic
education for the professional engineer (professional
requirement); (b) prepare graduates for immediate pro-
ductivity (industry requirement); and (c) prepare gradu-
ates for advanced study (academic requirement). It is less
clear, however, what emphasis should be given to each
knowledge, skill or function area; what kinds or degrees
of competency are expected (and how they are related
to the various functions); how the knowledge and skill
areas are to be integrated; or how they serve to prepare
engineers to full professional obligations dened by
basic tenets of codes and policies, or by the call to sus-
tainable development itself.
Answers to these questions might be gleaned from a
more detailed examination of a diversity of engineering
programs each inuenced by such things as local needs,
institutional constraints (e.g. funding, facilities, human
resources), and faculty member interests and values.
Some such studies have been undertaken. The ndings
1
Problem-solving is one example of a generally agreed-upon
competency requirement, though it is not entirely clear what kind of
problems may be the focus or what kind of strategies might be included
in their solutions.
2
For example, differences between two prioritized lists of goals
one generated by academics, the other by industry are immedi-
ately apparent.
are not very encouraging. Despite the efforts and even
great strides of a number of individuals, colleges and
universities, it appears that education about the interde-
pendence of systems and forming a sustainable relation-
ship between humans and the environment is still not a
priority in higher education [2] in general, nor is it well-
integrated into the engineering curriculum [1,3,4].
Results of engineering curriculum analyses in light of
the ideals of the profession argue for change. Evidence
that engineers lack certain knowledge and skills they
believe are necessary to effectively respond to sus-
tainable development challenges also suggests changes
are required. Making sustainability a priority and inte-
grating sustainability concerns into education may well
be seen as imperative. Engineering educators, however,
are continually challenged by (a) new advances in
science, technology and engineering; (b) shifting societal
demands; (c) different and changing expectations and
priorities for engineering education revealed by industry,
practising engineers, colleagues, and students; and (d)
reports that the half-life of much of engineers body
of knowledge is about ve years and shrinking [5,6]. We
cannot reasonably expect that all knowledge and skills
required can be obtained through conventional edu-
cation, and certainly not through undergraduate engin-
eering programs alone. It is clear that lifelong learning
is required to keep pace with changes, but what should
be learned, when and for what ultimate end?
4. The vision
Sustainability implies a new, broader set of boundary
conditions of contemporary decision-making. In parti-
cular, it calls for a consideration of expanded time
and space horizons and an examination of cross-disci-
plinary effects during the process of transforming the
earths resources into goods and services that meet
human needs and wants [7].
Our knowledge of ecosystems and the interdepen-
dence of technology and society is rapidly increasing.
Engineers will need a good grasp of global systems and
ecosystem principles; an understanding of risks and
impacts (social as well as environmental) associated with
solution options; and a command of tools and techno-
logies needed to guide decision-making and responses to
inevitable challenges. Without a long-term vision of the
professional engineer which simultaneously addresses
the goals, principles and underlying requirements of both
sustainability and engineering, it is difcult to enter into
a discussion of where engineering education should go
from here. Existing codes and policies, and new and
evolving engineering guidelines for sustainability, can
form the basis of the articulation of a long-term vision.
400 F.S. Crofton / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405
We should expect the vision to be one where consider-
ation of sustainable development is an integral part of
an engineers training and, subsequently, an integral part
of every engineers general practice.
Current goals, objectives and contents of each phase
of engineering education (undergraduate, engineer-in-
training, continuing education) will need to be re-exam-
ined and aligned with the vision in an ongoing manner.
The goals and objectives which emerge must be such
that they can (a) guide the curriculum plannerdesigner
in developing an effective curriculum; (b) guide the
teacher in choosing or creating appropriate learning
experiences; (c) inform the pre-service and in-service
learner about what they are expected to learn; and (d)
provide a basis for evaluating program success and
ongoing progress. Taking into account the paramount
obligations of professional engineers and the parallel
ideals/requirements of sustainable development and pro-
fessional engineering practice, it is here proposed that,
whatever else it may accomplish, engineering education
should ensure that learners:
Develop and maintain understanding of the meaning,
goals and issues of sustainable development;
Identify and account for individual and cumulative
social, environmental and economic implications of a
decision or process based on an understanding of the
systemic nature of the world, the interconnectedness
of natural and human systems, and a concern for fair-
ness and equity;
Identify short and long term consequences of
decisions or plans in the context of both immediate
priorities as well as long term concerns (anticipatory
thinking extending to future generations);
Identify and account for direct and indirect conse-
quences for people and ecosystems based on an
understanding of the global nature of the world and
how local and regional issues are part of the whole;
Assess alternative concepts, designs and methods in
ways which reect holistic thinking and integration;
Develop an understanding of a variety of perspec-
tives, the ways values and beliefs embedded in these
perspectives may be divergent or convergent, and the
ways decisions depend on both facts and values; and
Develop communication, collaboration and related
skills necessary for constructive involvement with
other professionals, a range of stakeholders and the
public in general.
5. Curriculum options
As social, technological, economic, and ecological
systems have grown more complex, the demand for tech-
nological and organizational expertise has increased. In
particular, people with a broad interdisciplinary outlook
(specialists of the general) are being sought out to
offer systemic approaches that are capable of dealing
with the complexity of the problems and the tasks we
face [8].
As previously noted, achieving the ideals of the engin-
eering profession, inclusive of those pertaining to sus-
tainable development, is a lifelong undertaking. Each
stage of an engineers education and professional career
will call for different kinds of focus in personal and pro-
fessional development. What focus should be taken now,
in undergraduate engineering, to improve the ability of
graduates to meet their professional obligations and the
ideals of an educated engineer?
Various studies
3
indicate that undergraduate engineer-
ing education is primarily focused on the technical and
there is little opportunity to develop broader knowledge
and skills. Given that technical engineering expertise is
insufcient for responding to the complexity of problems
associated with sustainable development, and that engin-
eers both need and demand knowledge and skills from
multiple disciplines, interdisciplinary efforts are essen-
tial. This then is one place to start. However, launching
interdisciplinary efforts in an environment dominated by
departments built around discipline specialties, and
where technical values of efciency, utility, order, con-
trol and precision are primary, is neither simple nor easy.
There are essentially three approaches for developing
interdisciplinary knowledge and skills and, more
specically, for incorporating sustainable development
knowledge and skill requirements into engineering pro-
grams: (a) students can take courses offered by depart-
ments outside of engineering (e.g. courses in philosophy,
business, economics, sciences/ecology); (b) special
courses can be offered within engineering; and (c) the
content and skills can be integrated within existing
courses. Each approach has its own particular kinds of
challenges and requirements in order to be effective in
achieving educational goals for sustainability. Chal-
lenges, examples and recommendations for increasing
approach effectiveness are discussed in the following
sections.
Smorgasbord programs, where students select from
a number of courses offered outside the engineering
school, are a common approach to providing students
with an expanded knowledge base; however, they are
not usually sufcient. First, engineering students,
immersed in very demanding, grades-competitive, tech-
nically oriented courses, tend to choose courses that will
give them easy credits. Second, even if students have
interest in particular courses, course schedules or pro-
3
See, for example, study reports as well as additional studies refer-
enced and/or summarized in Crofton [1] and in Dickinson and Crof-
ton [9].
401 F.S. Crofton / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405
gram demands often prevent them from enrolling. Third,
courses provided by faculty external to engineering are
not specically designed for, or attentive to, engineering
issues and concerns; as a result, students may be unable
to transfer their learning to the engineering context effec-
tively. Nonetheless, it is one option.
The smorgasbord approach may serve well enough for
exposing engineering students to other disciplinary
knowledge (multi-discipline approach) and some aspects
of a liberal arts education but, from a sustainability per-
spective, we need more bang for the buck. In order
to increase the potential of this approach to serve the
educational aims of sustainability, it is important to
identify those courses that legitimately and effectively
contribute to the development of cross-disciplinary per-
spectives and interdisciplinary knowledge and skills, and
then ensure that these courses are dominant among
courses chosen to fulll students complementary studies
requirements. In general, courses identied should be
those that develop and exercise such skills as: infor-
mation and/or data collection; analysis and reporting;
alternative scenario mapping; perspective reconciliation;
problem-solving and decision-making under conditions
of uncertainty; and a range of communication skills
including debate and conict resolution.
More specically, courses external to engineering that
are attentive to sustainable development should be ident-
ied and examined for appropriateness. Fortunately,
non-engineering faculties and departments are also seek-
ing to incorporate sustainability and related issues into
their curricula and their efforts may do much to mitigate
the challenge to engineering schools. Examples include:
Psychology and Sustainable Development (Psychology,
Hofstra University); Strategies for Sustainable Develop-
ment (courses by this title are offered in the business
schools at both McGill and University of Michigan);
Environmental Justice (Sociology, Brown University);
Western Environmental Policy (History, California Insti-
tute of Technology); and Economy, Environment and
Community (Economics, Tufts University).
Other opportunities arise from courses which are out-
side engineering and offer different disciplinary perspec-
tives on technology issues. Such courses include, for
example: Biotechnology, Nature and Society (Biology,
Tufts University); Hanford Social and Environmental
History (Sociology, Washington State University); Stra-
tegies for Environmental Management (this course at the
University of Michigans Business School addresses sus-
tainable technology development); Environmental Ethics
(alternative technology is among the issues considered
in this Philosophy course at the University of Alberta).
These courses, by attending specically to technology
issues, will likely be more valuable to the engineering
student than general introductory courses in sociology,
business or philosophy. As more sustainability and tech-
nology-related courses are developed, more opport-
unities to increase the effectiveness of the smorgas-
bord approach will become available. The challenge
that remains is one of ensuring that neither prerequisite
requirements nor scheduling constraints will inhibit
engineering students access to these courses.
Prerequisite concerns, time-tabling challenges and
learning transfer can often be more easily addressed
within the engineering school itself. The second
approach, development of special courses within engin-
eering, is already utilized by engineering programs. For
example, many engineering programs include such
courses as Writing Skills for Engineers; Engineering
Communication (usually limited to technical writing and
oral presentations, i.e. one-way communication); History
of Engineering; Technology and Society; and Environ-
mental Engineering. In order to ensure students have an
understanding of the principles and means of sustainable
development, it is not surprising that some schools (e.g.
University of B.C., Georgia Institute of Technology,
Cornell University) have initiated, or are now initiating,
courses specically on Sustainable Development for
engineers. One such course is offered as an example.
This course illustrates course evolution, the way Internet
technology can be used to deliver and transform edu-
cation (and overcome time-table challenges), and the use
of external resources.
The Civil Engineering Department at the University
of British Columbia offered its rst Introduction to Sus-
tainable Development course in January 1995.
4
The
course is a required course for all undergraduate civil
engineering students and, as of 1998, also qualies as a
course fullling one of the complementary studies
requirements for all engineering students. Offered once a
year, the course was developed as a series of 35 lectures
initially. Speakers drawn from various sectors spoke on
numerous topics, including: ecological limits, social
structures, economic well-being, ethics, fundamental
economicenvironmental conicts (using case studies
from sheries and forestry), governance and democracy,
public consultation, involvement of grassroots organiza-
tions, environmental policy development, environmental
law, and professional responsibility.
Concurrently, and external to the university, edu-
cational materials targeting the same content areas but
requiring much higher levels of student participation and
engagement with the material and intended for Web-
based delivery were under development. Subsequent
to discussion and acceptance of a private-sector proposal
to the university, the materials were adapted, and a web-
based version of the sustainability course was developed
for the UBC undergraduate engineering audience. The
4
The Georgia Institute of Technology also offered its rst introduc-
tory course in January 1995. Titled Introduction to Sustainable Devel-
opment, it focused on economic, ethical, technological and ecologi-
cal dimensions of sustainability.
402 F.S. Crofton / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405
Web-based course
5
is structured around the following
main topics:
1. The Problem (in keeping with engineers professional
self-identication as problem-solvers);
2. Sustainable Development: differing perspectives,
goals, principles;
3. Systems: including systems theory, natural systems,
human systems (including values, governance and
economics), and systems interaction (including eco-
logical footprint);
4. Formal and Informal Responses to Sustainable Devel-
opment: full-cost accounting (triple bottom-line),
roles and inuence of multi-stakeholders, consensus
decision-making;
5. Engineering Means and Mechanisms (including stud-
ent case studies): life-cycle analysis, decision-making,
scenario-mapping, risk assessment, ethics; and
6. Sustainable Development and You: roles of engineers,
expectations, codes, guidelines.
In 1997 and 1998 the Web-based course was offered
twice a year, once a year running parallel with the face-
to-face lecture version. Comments received from stu-
dents in the Web course during these years were mostly
positive and primarily focused on class discussion and
new ways of thinking. It should be emphasized, how-
ever, that during this period students chose to enroll in
the Web-based version of the course. As of January
1999, and in part as a trial, only the web-based version
of the course was offered. This was a more signicant
test of the Web-environment: How do students respond
overall to a course they are required to take in a Web-
based environment? Once again, the most frequent posi-
tive comments were concerned with class discussion,
particularly student-to-student exchanges:
I liked the opportunity to have discussions with fellow
students.
I liked the way people carried on discussion. I guess
we feel more free to do that when using the Internet.
I like the way it was done over the Net. I think it
helps improve our written skills and also made it a lot
easier to say what you thought... Often in a classroom
environment people dont feel comfortable saying
what they think for fear of bitter based [sic] rebuttal
from some Im-so-much-smarter-than-everyone-else
classmate.
To read and respond to other peoples assignments
was good because it led to discussion and perhaps re-
evaluation of some ideas (crucial to sustainable
5
Further information and detail on the Web-based curriculum can
be found at www.sustainability.com/orcad/sdeng/intro.htm
development).
I think the greatest learning potential came from read-
ing other students posts because many included inter-
esting information not specically mentioned in the
readings.
Students also offered positive feedback about the kind
of thinking that occurred and was supported:
Gives us room to think and asks us to do what we
seldom think of which is good for us since engineers
connect to the world; assignments were related to the
real world.
I liked that it focused and kept reminding me about
the environment and that it is important to take into
account SD issues.
It made me think more about the world around me
I always knew the environment was important but
I never really thought about how important it was
truly becoming to preserve it.
style of thinking presented is essential for civil
engineers.
Not all of these comments arise from the fact that the
course utilizes a Web-based environment. Many of the
comments are really a consequence of instructional
design that integrates or weaves together topics inten-
tionally and explicitly; incorporates content engagement
activities; includes theory-into-practice tasks focused on
personal contexts; and emphasizes student-to-student
interaction. Although Internet and Web-based techno-
logies provide additional opportunities to increase inter-
action and students active engagement in learning, such
design features are not exclusive to a Web-based learn-
ing environment. In fact, an understanding of the pur-
pose and benets of these design features led to changes
in the 1998 design of the face-to-face version as well:
linkages and points of connection across topics were
made more explicit, and opportunities for student
engagement and participation increased.
Although all students responding provided positive
comments, most also indicated their dislikes and all had
recommendations for change or improvement. Although
some students liked the online chats, others did not.
Some students pointed to technical problems (e.g. access
to a computer; ISP providers; formatting on a bulletin
board; glitches) and found the online environment
somewhat frustrating as a result. Two students stated
they just generally preferred a classroom over an online
environment and were unhappy that a choice was not
available. That said, technical issues and the online
environment were not dominant features of the negative
feedback. Only two other areas of complaint appeared
in the responses and both dominated the negative com-
403 F.S. Crofton / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405
ments received. The most frequent negative comments
(70% of responses) were concerned with readings: too
much; scientic content too detailed; terms and
theories were at times at too high a level for us. One
comment was striking in its recognition of the difference
in the voice of other disciplines: The readings were
sometimes quite confusing. Not that the ideas are com-
plicated, it is their wording that is quite different from
ours. (Readings have since been altered for quantity and
a course companion text, which will reduce the dupli-
cation in concept discussions often found in articles on
sustainability, is under development.)
Instructor feedback was the other primary area of
complaint. During the course, feedback was provided to
students by way of a detailed discussion of the overall
strengths and weaknesses of the collective set of student
responses to an assignment. Students were also pointed
to examples of Web postings that did a good job of
fullling requirements, and recommendations for focus
and change in future posts were provided. Those stu-
dents who had specic questions were encouraged to
contact the instructor; independent of this, the instructor
also contacted students if signicant problems or dif-
culties were apparent. This style of feedback was in part
due to logistics (i.e. time demands), and in part intended,
explicitly, to facilitate students engagement in self-
reection and assessment. Although students understood
that given the number of assignments (about 30 in total
including debates and opinion pieces) and the number
of students (100116 during the course), personal feed-
back on each assignment was not realistic, there were
still those who wanted more personal feedback to know
exactly what you did wrong and where you can
improve; to see what ideas of mine were good; and
if were on the right train of thought. No changes to
the general feedback approach are planned, but the
importance of self-reection and assessment, and the
existing individual support mechanisms, are now more
frequently stated and highlighted throughout the course.
The UBC course continues to be offered as a Web-
based course; the classroom version is no longer avail-
able.
6
As noted previously, the course has been opened
to engineering students outside the civil engineering
department; there is discussion about making the course
available to non-engineering students as well.
It must be made clear that the special course approach
requires both will, and individuals with resources and
experience to develop such courses. The addition of
courses in an already crowded curriculum, however,
must be considered carefully; this approach, given the
problems of coping with changing demands and growth
in knowledge, could result in a continuous expansion of
6
A similar course currently being developed for Cornell University
will include a classroom component.
programs. If the objective is to develop students abili-
ties rather than simply add knowledge, the approach will
only be relevant if new courses are consistent with the
educational goals and overall structure and composition
of the curriculum. Moreover, while discussion of issues
concerned with administration and management of an
online course of this kind is somewhat outside the scope
of this paper, sufce it to say that delivery of an online
course requires additional attention to such things as:
timing and effectiveness of registration procedures; pro-
vision of computers and online access; technical assist-
ance; and copyright issues.
It may be true that a new body of knowledge must
be created to deal with the human and social context of
technology from an engineering perspective as Vander-
burg [10] suggests. It is true that new approaches are
required for dealing with new and growing bodies of
knowledge especially as they pertain to sustainable
development. The third alternative, integrating sus-
tainable development and non-technical knowledge and
skills into existing programs, appears to be both practical
and effective [11,12].
Evidence that individual instructors are utilizing this
approach can be found in, for example: courses on power
and energy systems where a broader range of energy
sources, as well as conservation and multi-stakeholder
issues, are considered; building technology courses that
incorporate principles of green design; and storm
water management courses which examine the impacts
of watershed activities on stream corridor health in order
to determine which structural measures are appropriate.
These examples illustrate the ways sustainability can be
addressed and applied in the context of a particular sub-
ject. Rather than merely adding more information, they
shift problem-solving parameters and the focus for best
practice approaches. Such courses are expected to be
even more effective if they are natural extensions of an
introductory foundation course on sustainability.
Unfortunately, courses such as those listed above are
not yet as pervasive as we might wish them to be, and
they are often primarily focused on the environmental
aspects of sustainability. In order to ensure that sus-
tainable development is fully addressed and well-rep-
resented across a curriculum, the overall composition of
the existing curriculum must be examined. A valuable
way to start is to trace fundamental principles and key
concepts, and dene linkages (topic by topic, course by
course) throughout the curriculum. Although a rather
daunting and time-consuming task, this undertaking can
help identify strengths and weaknesses of existing
courses/programs and target areas for change.
There are several ways to incorporate sustainability
issues into courses and assist in the creation of a new
body of knowledge. Design courses are an obvious place
to consider economic, environmental and social objec-
tives and ethical issues. One option is to increase the
404 F.S. Crofton / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405
curricular emphasis on design by incorporating design
problems into existing courses (including rst year
courses) and increasing the number of opportunities to
learn about design in undergraduate programs. Other
strategies include:
Focusing on issues, problems and/or solutions related
to sustainable development in which engineers may
be involved or may be expected to contribute, and
highlighting the ways that course content (knowledge
or skills) is needed to understand and effectively
respond to sustainable development;
Identifying, developing, and using cross-disciplinary
problems, case studies, projects and simulations that
both reveal sustainability issues and are likely to help
develop interdisciplinary knowledge and skills; and
the use of cooperative learning and collaborative
teaching approaches, whose advantages and gains are
already well-documented. (Barchilon et al. [13] and
Bellamy et al. [14] are among those who discuss the
advantage of such approaches).
An example of an integrative approach which incorpor-
ates many of these recommendations is the involvement
of students in design charrettes. A design charrette refers
to an intensive design workshop involving people work-
ing together under compressed deadlines. A recent 3-
day design charrette centered on South East False Creek
(SEFC) in Vancouver, B.C. provides a specic case
example.
7
The charrette concerned the redevelopment of
an 80 acre waterfront site recently removed from indus-
trial use. The site represents the last undeveloped water-
front land in the urban core, and the City Council has
directed that this land be developed to incorporate and
ideally model sustainable development principles.
Twenty-one professional architects, landscape architects,
engineers, developers and plannerregulators (including
four out-of-city participants), along with twelve students,
were organized into three design teams charged with
providing various design options for helping a sus-
tainable community evolve in the SEFC. It should be
noted that including engineers in the mix did require
some argument at rst; in the end, however, all teams
noted the ways in which engineers contributions sig-
nicantly and favorably transformed the ways in which
the site plans developed.
Teams were provided with a design brief outlining
constraints and performance criteria pertaining to such
things as: built form; site access, movement and trans-
portation; water and waste handling and management;
energy; and community buildings and services. Prior to
the charrette, and as part of their university course work,
7
Further information and a synopsis of the SEFC Charrette can be
found at: www.sustainability.com/orcad/misc/wsefc1.htm
student participants were involved in a design studio that
focused on the SEFC and utilized the same design brief
as the one used for the charrette. This prior involvement
is not essential for student participation in a charrette but
we learned that it helped other participants to view stu-
dents as important resources and empowered students to
become more active members of the team. It also pro-
vided students with opportunities to experience a setting
more like a design ofce than a classroom, and to partici-
pate with recognized leaders from a number of different
professions and regions.
The use of design charrettes, particularly in sus-
tainable community planning, seems to be increasing in
popularity. All participants in the SEFC charrette stu-
dents and professionals alike reported learning a great
deal about sustainability, community, and cross-disci-
plinary collaboration. Given the educational and other
benets of charrette participation, it is worth looking for
opportunities to participate, and/or creating such opport-
unities within the university itself.
It should be noted that some faculty members have
expressed concern about their knowledge of sustainable
development (especially outside the strictly technical or
environmental realm) and/or their ability to use cooper-
ative or more innovative teaching and learning
approaches effectively. Others question whether their
investment would be warranted. One way to address
these issues simultaneously is to identify individuals
and/or programs who have successfully addressed the
sustainability-related and more non-technical objec-
tives of engineering education. In particular, those that
have integrated various disciplinary interests, knowledge
and skills should be identied. In so doing, increased
value is placed on the efforts, and those identied
receive recognition and acknowledgement that is often
much-needed. Further, the exemplary models then pro-
vide faculty with incentive and ideas for incorporating
social, economic, environmental and leadership issues,
as well as communication and group process skills,
within existing programs. Their work also provides a
basis for developing professional re-training materials.
6. Conclusion
Students, educators and practicing engineers alike
must seek out opportunities to have their assumptions
challenged and guard against meek or resigned accept-
ance of beliefs and practices that can and should be
changed. Initiative and leadership are essential compo-
nents of creating change. We cannot be expected to
change the world but we can be expected to try. We can
expect the changes we desire will occur gradually; we
should not expect that they will occur in the absence of
initiative and leadership. Engineering educators, engin-
eering schools and professional associations can do
405 F.S. Crofton / Journal of Cleaner Production 8 (2000) 397405
much to support and encourage initiative and leadership,
to set new standards, and to help engineers contribute to
sustainable development more effectively. Awareness
and understanding cannot be taken for granted. They
have to be cultivated through learning and reection and
then translated into action. Learning takes time. Reec-
tion takes time. While we must be patient, we must also
be serious in our intention to learn and make more learn-
ing opportunities available.
This paper has provided some ideas and suggested
some pathways for increasing engineering students
opportunities for learning about sustainability. Hope-
fully, these ideas encourage you to continue (or begin)
to undertake initiatives and exhibit leadership which
helps to increase engineers understanding of sustainable
development and the effectiveness of their contributions.
I look forward to our collective progress.
References
[1] Crofton F. Sustaining engineering: rationale and Directions for
preparing engineers for sustainable development. SFU, Burnaby,
1995. Includes reports of her studies and summaries of others.
[2] Cortese T. Engineering education for a sustainable future. In:
Engineering Education and Training for Sustainable Develop-
ment Conference, Paris, France, 1997.
[3] Crofton F, Mitchell C. Role models and environmental education:
the good, the bad, and the MIA. In: ASEE 1988 Conference,
Seattle, 1998.
[4] Crofton F. Engineering education as if sustainability mattered.
Keynote at Waves of Change 10th Australasian Conference of
Engineering Education, Gladstone, Queensland, 1998.
[5] Pennoni C. Mandatory continuing professional development for
re-licensing of engineers. Journal of Professional Issues in Engin-
eering Education and Practice 1993;119(4):33845.
[6] Poirot J. Meeting professional development needs in large con-
sulting rms. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Edu-
cation and Practice 1993;119(4):3337.
[7] Hodge T, Nesbit S. Moving towards sustainability: the new pro-
fessional imperative. Innovation Journal of the Association of
Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of BC 1999;3(6):167.
[8] Lenk H. Toward a pragmatic social philosophy of technology and
the technological intelligentsia. In: Durbin PT, editor. Research
in philosophy and Technology, Vol 7, 1984, 35.
[9] Dickinson J, Crofton F. Human resource study of the Canadian
Consulting Industry. Ottawa: HRDC, 1994.
[10] Vanderburg W. Preventive engineering as a response to the glo-
balization of technology. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Canad-
ian Conference on Engineering Education, 1990.
[11] Beasley D, Bishop E, Huey C. A process for curriculum renewal
and innovation. In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 1994.
p. 140712.
[12] Bernold L, Bingham W, McDonald P, Atia T, Rihani R. Towards
an holistic approach to teaching and learning in civil engineering.
In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 1994. p. 124652.
[13] Barchilon M, Kelley D. Using teaming and collaborative teaching
to strengthen learning and pedagogy. In: ASEE Annual Confer-
ence Proceedings, 1994. p. 266870
[14] Bellamy L, Evans D, Linder D, McNeill B, Raupp G. Active
learning, team and quality management principles in the engin-
eering classroom. In: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings,
1994. p. 1547.