J.E. DeSteiguer and R.G. Merrifield
J.E. DESTEIGUER is a Research Associate and R.G. MERRIFIELD is Director of the Institute of Renewable Natural Resources at Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University. This article is adapted from a paper presented to the FAO Advisory Committee on Forestry Education, which met in Djakarta, October 1978.
A generation ago forestry in North America had as its primary objective the management of the forest as a source of wood. Today the scope of forestry is broader and there is concern that the forest be managed in an environmentally acceptable manner for a broad range of goods and services.
The reasons for change are certainly of interest to forestry educators and we have all heard them-intellectual inquiry into natural resources, rising per caput income, increased leisure time, physical mobility, growing urban influence and widespread discovery of the outdoors by the populace (Beale, 1970). The resulting changes in the profession of forestry have not occurred in a vacuum, but rather because of greater social change.
Probably the most significant social phenomenon to have an impact on professional forestry curricula was the era of environmental concern which began in the early 1960s. Educators in a broad spectrum of fields began to capitalize on this wave by marketing a variety of courses and curricula in environmental fields. Enrolments in the natural resource profession began to soar, largely because of a new interest in environmental concerns. Students who ten years earlier might have majored in the liberal arts began a strong migration toward natural-resource curricula. This group included some very bright but not strongly career-oriented young people who added a new intellectual dimension to professional educational programmes. Forestry schools moved rather deliberately into this emerging market. Forestry as such was sufficiently environmentally oriented to attract a large number of majors as well as masses of students from other majors who were seeking electives with an environmental flavour.
The environmental emphasis in forestry schools assumed several forms. New courses were added to cover subjects not treated in existing courses or to provide service courses to students from other fields. Regrettably and inevitably some courses of questionable value were offered simply to capture a portion of the new environmental market.
Modifications in the profession have affected the instruction of forestry. Non-traditional programmes reaching nontraditional audiences is the dominant topic of discussion at meetings of educators (Foil, 1978). Responding to the altered social environment, employers and students have called for a broadening of the instructional curricula. Even among educators, some have called for a discarding of the more vocational course offerings (Avery, 1967). The need has been voiced for environmental education.
To what degree have forestry curricula 'been broadened to include environmental education; and what is the future of forestry environmental education in North America? Insight into these questions was obtained through a questionnaire which was mailed to the North American colleges and universities offering professional forestry programmes. The purpose of this article is to present the salient findings of these questionnaires.
But, first of all, two terms must be clarified. One is environmental education. In recent years the word "environment," like the word "ecology," has been misused. Although frequently used they are rarely defined in the context of their usage. So then, what is "environmental education?" In an article on the subject they wrote for American Forests magazine in 1971, Schultz and Thompson implied that an environmental education is one in which the separate resource disciplines are integrated so that the professional forester will not be indifferent to the broad, overall environmental consequences of his forest management activities.
The second term requiring clarification is "forestry environmental course." For the questionnaire, a forestry environmental course was de" fined as one in which the primary learning emphasis is one or the following:
-The environmental impact of forest practices.
-The study of environmental law and policy related to forestry.
-Integrated resource or land-use planning.
Specifically excluded from this definition were forestry survey courses offered to non-forestry majors, and courses which have traditionally been a part of forestry curricula. One might rightfully contend that some traditional forestry courses, such as silvics, are environmental courses, but the purpose of the questionnaire and the definition was to isolate those environmental courses which have been offered to broaden traditional forestry curricula.
The questionnaires were mailed to 53 professional forestry schools in the United States and Canada. They were primarily aimed at determining the extent of environmental course offerings, and plans for additional courses. The descriptive analysis presented here is based on the responses of 47 (89 percent) of the schools. For presentation of the data, five geographic regions have been designated: northeast, north-central, southern, western United States, and Canada. Additionally, the semester hour is the unit of measurement for the data presented in this study. In the North American educational system, the number of semester hours allocated to an individual college course represents the number of hours of instruction which the student receives in one week. For example, a three-semester-hour course is taught for three hours each week during the semester. A semester generally lasts 15 weeks, thus the typical three-semester hour course involves about 45 hours of instruction.
Forty-two (89 percent) of the respondents indicated that they offered some type of environmental courses. Of the remainder that did not offer environmental courses, two were located in the north-central, and three were in the southern regions. Some of the schools began adding environmental courses as early as the 1950s, but most were initiated after 1965.
In both the United States and Canada, 1975 was the peak year for new environmental course offerings. The trend between 1965 and 1975 was one of increased semester hours of environmental courses offered each successive year. The exceptions were 1971 and 1973, when the number of new course hours fell below previous-year averages. Since 1975 semester hours of new environmental courses have steadily decreased.
Each of the five North American regions has a pattern of new environ mental course offerings which is similar to the composite trend. There are, however, some notable regional differences. The northeastern region and Canada were the last to begin environmental courses. The north-central and western regions were the first to initiate these courses, and both show a relatively stable trend of new course offerings in each year. The southern region has had, possibly, the most erratic trend of new course offerings over the 14 year period. The trend of new environmental course offerings bears an interesting similarity to recent annual total enrolment in US forestry schools (Flinchum, 1978). Enrolment continued to climb during the early 1970s, reaching a peak of 22 345 in 1975. In recent years the enrollment, like new environmental course offerings, has begun to decline.
The typical North American forestry school offers an average of 20 semester hours of environmental courses. Fourteen of these hours are electives for both undergraduate and graduate students: six hours are required. Thus, the curricula have been broadened through the introduction of environmental courses, but in a manner which makes most of the courses optional for the student. The data also indicate that environmental courses are emphasized at the undergraduate, rather than the graduate, level. Twelve semester hours of these courses are offered to undergraduates, while only eight hours are available to graduate students.
Educators began to capitalize on the new wave by marketing a variety of courses and curricula on the environment. Some courses of questionable value were offered simply to capture the new market.
How much attention is being given to the environment?
Average semester hours per school of environmental courses offered by forestry schools in the United States and Canada in 1978.
|
Average semester hours per school |
||||
|
Region |
Undergraduate |
Graduate |
||
|
Required |
Elective |
Required |
Elective |
|
|
US |
3 |
12 |
1 |
12 |
|
US |
7 |
8 |
5 |
8 |
|
US |
1 |
7 |
0 |
7 |
|
US |
5 |
6 |
3 |
3 |
|
Canada |
4 |
7 |
0 |
0 |
|
US and Canada |
4 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
United States regions include schools that responded to the survey as follows:
Northeastern: Maine, Penn State, Rutgers, State University of New York, Vermont, Yale, West Virginia.
North-central: Illinois, Iowa State, Michigan, Michigan Tech., Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio State, Purdue, Southern Illinois, Wisconsin (Madison), Wisconsin (Stevens Point). Southern: Clemson, Duke, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana State, Louisiana Tech. Mississippi State, North Carolina State, Oklahoma State, Stephen F. Austin, Tennessee, Texas A & M, V.P.I.
Western: University of California at Berkeley, Colorado State, Humboldt State, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Arizona, Oregon State, Utah State, Washington State. Canada includes schools that responded to the survey as follows: British Columbia, Lakehead, New Brunswick, Toronto.
IN A NORTH AMERICAN WOODLAND How deeply rooted is environmental consciousness in young foresters?
Although the typical school offers an average of 20 semester hours of environmental courses, individual school totals can vary markedly. As previously noted, five of the schools offer no environmental courses, but, at the other extreme, one school in the north-central region offers 104 semester hours of environmental courses, the greatest total for any school. The school with the second largest total is located in the southern region and offers 74 hours of environmental courses.
Regionally, the north-central and northeastern regions offer the most semester hours of environmental courses, each with an average of 28 per school. Western-region schools offer 17 hours, a considerably lower average per school than the two northern regions. Southern-region schools have an average of 15 semester hours of environmental courses, the lowest for any of the US regions. The Canadian schools average 11 semester hours, all al the undergraduate level.
Many of the schools reported that environmental courses enhanced the employment opportunities of their students. However, relationships between the regional course offerings and the principal types of employers are difficult to establish. For example, the southern-region schools depend primarily upon forest industry as an employer of their students (Robie, 1978), and these schools offer the fewest semester hours of environmental courses. In contrast, the western schools offer the second fewest course hours, and they depend heavily upon. public forestry as an employer of their students. A similar inconsistency is found between the northeastern. and north-central regions. Both regions offer an average of 28 hours of environmental courses, but the northeast looks to private industry as a principal employer, while the public sector is the primary employer for the north-central region.
The reason most frequently mentioned for the addition of environmental courses was that these courses were essential to a complete forestry education. This reason was cited by more than 50 percent of the respondents. Some qualified that response, stating that recently there had been greater inducement to furnish their graduates with a more complete understanding of the environmental impacts of forest management practices, and that this inducement had come from a variety of sources, most of which were outside the forestry school. Some of' the sources mentioned' were potential students, legislators and employers.
The titles of the environmental courses indicate that they cover a broad spectrum of subject matter. For example, some deal with specific quantitative approaches to solving environmental problems, while others discuss the philosophy of environmental protection. The geographic scope of the courses also varies. Some courses deal with the environmental impacts of forestry within a single state, while others address the question of world resource management. Many of the courses focus on the physical effects of environmental degradation, and some extend this to include economic, social and political considerations. The great variety of course offerings indicates. to some degree, a searching on the part of forestry educators to determine the appropriate elements of environmental education.
Twenty-three of the schools (nearly 50 percent) offer a degree or option in environmental management, conservation of natural resources, or some related field. The purpose of these degree programmes is to provide the student with an environmental perspective which extends beyond traditional timber management. Some respondents noted that the generalist nature of these degrees may limit the employment potential of the students who receive them. As one forestry dean noted, most of his students with the generalist degree found work in nonprofessional jobs.
Thus, in summary, the data indicate that professional forestry schools in North America have attempted to broaden traditional forest management curricula through the introduction of environmental courses and degree programmes. Most new courses were initiated during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Recent years have shown a decline in the number of new courses offered. The schools in the north-central and northeastern regions offer considerably more environmental courses than the schools in the western and southern regions, and Canada. More environmental course hours are offered to undergraduates than to graduate students, and most of the courses are electives.
When asked about future environmental course offerings, 65 percent of the respondents stated that they expected the current number of courses to remain relatively stable, 24 percent expected an increase, while the remaining 11 percent could foresee a decrease. The differing responses were spread randomly about the five geographic subdivisions.
The rapid expansion of environmental course offerings seems to have ended in North American forestry schools. But the environmental era has probably made a permanent mark on forestry education.
The majority group cited a number of reasons for expected stability in the number of present course offerings. Some of the reasons were based on practical considerations such as burgeoning student enrolment, or a limited number of faculty. Many, however, felt as though the "environmental era" had peaked, and there would be less future pressure to expand environmental course offerings. Some stated that students had become more vocationally oriented and wanted to return to the traditional forestry core courses. This group also feels that new material can be incorporated into existing courses. The group that predicted an increase in future course offerings also cited several reasons for their opinions. Among these reasons were the need to enhance the student's appreciation of environmental matters, outside pressure to increase environmental teaching, and a need to increase the employment opportunities of their students.
The minority group which envisions a decrease in environmental courses restated many of the same views held by the group that predicts stability. The reason most frequently given by the minority group for decreasing course offerings was that the peak interest in the environment had passed. Some stated that the need for environmental courses indicated improper instruction in the traditional forestry courses. One respondent also mentioned the occurrence of what might be termed an "environmental backlash" on the part of students and faculty as they examine the social and economic trade-offs which result from extreme environmental pressures.
It appears as though the period of rapid expansion of environmental course offerings has ended for the North American forestry schools. Without question, however, the environmental era of the 1960s and 1970s has left a permanent mark on forestry education. New courses have been introduced and old courses have been modified to deal with the questions of environmental quality. No doubt there remains much to be done in the area of environmental education, but future change will likely come about in the framework of existing curricula.
AVERY, T.E. 1967 Changing patterns in forestry education. J. Forestry, 65 (1): 34-35.
BEALE, JOHN A.1970 Forestry in the environmental decade. J. Forestry, 68 (10): 639-641.
FLINCHUM, E. MITCHELL. 1978 enrollment and degrees in forestry. J. Forestry, 76 (6): 358-359.
FOIL, R. RODNEY. 1978 The university environment and forestry education. J. Forestry, 76 (5): 281-283.
SCHULTZ, A. JAY and WILLIAM P. 1971 THOMPSON. A new era in environmental education. American Forests, 77 (4): 28-31.
STOLTENBERG, CARL H. 1969 Forestry education: opportunities for innovation. J. Forestry, 67 (12): 876-877.
ROBIE, EDWARD F.1978 Employment of 1977 forestry graduates. J. Forestry, 76 (6): 355-357.
