A.

DEFINITIONS: Community Development, Community-

based Education about the Environment
A. 1.APPLYING U. S. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS LESSONS1

Background
The impetus for this paper comes from a desire to bring together elements of
community development and youth and adult education and apply them to
community-based environmental education. In particular, this effort is geared
toward attempting to establish a model, or models, that will aid U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and local (county) Cooperative Extension professionals to better
collaborate in support of community-based education about the environment.

Community Development
A common definition of community development is not simple to attain, nor is it
universally agreed upon. Part of the confusion rests with the fact that community
development is both process and product. The practice of community development is
not one focused solely on material resource development, nor is it devoted
exclusively to systems for addressing community needs. Jones and Silva (1991)
consider an integrated model of community development that includes problem
solving, community building, and systems interaction. Stated another way, they
posit that a truly integrated approach assesses the problem, goes on to build
community capacity, and importantly, addresses the problem.

Community refers to the focus of the interest at question. In fact, community of

interest is a useful characterization of the term. It implies more than merely a
physical place, although it can, and often does include a geographic element. It may,
however, reference a discrete collection of persons about which a common interest is
shared, yet they may be collected from far different places, not necessarily even
corresponding about their shared interest. The community of interest need not be
made up of similar perspectives. Indeed, it often is made up of diverse perspectives
surrounding a common issue.

As difficult as community is to define, finding a common definition of development

may be more problematic. The field of community development grew in large part
out of the industrialization model of the mid-1900s. Yet, the term development in
contemporary community development means far more than industrial or economic
development. The best substitute for the word "development," in this context, are
terms that are more supportive of process concepts such as advancement; betterment;
capacity building; empowerment; enhancement; and nurturing.

1
Paper developed by Greg Wise, Extension Community Development Agent and Associate
Professor, University of Wisconsin-Extension – Sauk County specifically for the EPA/USDA
Partnership project. Contributor: Elaine Andrews, Extension Environmental Education Specialist,
Environmental Resources Center, University of Wisconsin-Extension. 1998.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 1
The various authors writing about the process of community development each offer
a definition of community development itself. While a universal definition is
difficult to produce, Chris Maser’s definition of community development may be
most fitting for consideration in this context. In Maser's definition community
development efforts build “the capacity of people to work collectively in addressing
their common interests” (Maser, 1997). Other definitions from source and secondary
articles (most notably, Christenson and Robinson, Jr., 1980) have been assembled in
Table 1 (at the end of this paper). Together, they offer a sense of the breadth of
thought and application present in the field of community development.

The Genesis of Community Development

Scholars identify the professional practice of community development as a post-
World War II event (Batten, 1957; Cary, 1979; Cawley, 1989; Sanders, 1970). The
earliest projects evolved from the efforts of industrialized countries to assist
emerging nations in their development. While basic concepts and underlying
principles were already known, new in the second half of the 20th Century was the
articulation of professional practice.

Cary (1979) traces the earliest foundation of community development to a set of

principles — felt need, extensive citizen involvement, consensus, and local decision
making. The wide appeal of democratic principles and practical application has
resulted, according to Cary, in a community development practice in which these
principles are repeated over and over again with only modest refinement. Cary
suggests that the result is a lack of theoretical or empirical underpinning for the
profession. In detailing the history of community development practice, Cary credits
the outreach efforts of land grant universities and programs of adult education and
community betterment for contributing to the evolution of today’s community
development practice.

Cawley (1989) also links the genesis of academic and practitioner models of the
community development process to roots in both the fields of community
development and adult education. He sees the common thread in the focus on
community as the arena for engaging persons, groups and organizations.

Sanders (1970) cites the ancestry of community development as a union of

community organization and economic development. Community organization
activities grow out of societal responsibility coupled with local action. Satisfying
economic development needs requires an application of a process — stages of
change necessary in order to reach desired goals. Sanders defines contemporary
community development as “the linkage of community organization, which stresses
local action and use of local resources, with economic development, which
emphasizes national planning, careful allocation of resources, and systematic
movement toward well-defined goals.” Sanders provides another insight which
might explain some of the lack of a common understanding of community
development. Sanders (1958) notes that there are four ways of viewing community
development. Community development is a process moving by stages from one

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 2
condition to the next. The emphasis is on what happens to people. Community
development is a method, a way of working toward the attainment of a goal. The
emphasis is on an endpoint. Community development is a program, whereby if
procedures are carried out, activities will be accomplished. The emphasis is on
activities. Finally, community development may be viewed as a movement, a cause
to which people become committed. The emphasis is on inciting to action.

Batten wrote in 1957 that what is [new] in community development practice, is the
emphasis (rather than the principles) on local needs and welfare of the people (as
opposed to material resource development). Batten emphasized the concept of
community empowerment as a means of identifying issues, managing change, and
facilitating community-based solutions.

In Search of a Model
Perhaps because the profession of community development is somewhat void of a
significant theoretical and empirical foundation, but rather, was built on a tradition of
successful and pragmatic application of locally supported initiatives, it is difficult to
find seminal writings on recommended models. Another complicating factor is the
highly localized application of community development initiatives. Rather than a
strong federal or even state role in the development and administration of a model or
models, U.S. community development experience has been an entrepreneurial effort
on the part of communities or regions. Some lead state agencies have urged local
initiatives that resembled community development models, but this has not been
wide spread. The closest thing to a national effort may be a loose confederation of
state cooperative extension outreach efforts. However, these efforts vary from state
to state both in the type of programs supported and the level of support offered.

Cawley (1989) traces application of the community development model from roots
in a problem-solving approach. Problem solving in the community development
process generally refers to a systematic approach to identifying needs, establishing
shared goals and objectives, and working collectively toward the successful
implementation of an agreed upon agenda. In the process paradigm of community
education, both the process and the outcome are important. The process is important
in terms of “empowering” the people involved to successfully embrace change and
enhance their ability to deal with both the immediate issue and future situations. The
outcome is important in that particular issues are successfully addressed. Subtle
differences exist in the detail of steps and semantics used to describe variations of
the problem-solving paradigm for the community development process. However,
each is based on a shared core theme.

In his book Three Models of Community Organization Practice, Rothman (1972)

similarly detailed approaches to community problem solving. The locality
development or process model stresses self-help involving a broad cross-section of
people in determining and solving their own problems. The second model is the
social planning model. This approach stresses identifying serious community
concerns and methods of solving substantive problems. It involves a greater reliance

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 3
on technical assistance. The social action model involves assisting disadvantaged
populations (those lacking power and influence) in overcoming their deprivation.
Conflict, confrontation, action, and negotiation are tactics employed in this model.
The author (and other professional commentators) suggests that situations call for
employing a mix of tactics, rather than a simplistic model.

An interesting approach to teasing out a “model” of community development was

provided by a content analysis of articles published in the Journal of the Community
Development Society, the major forum for community development professionals
(Christenson, 1989). In conducting the content review of Journal articles,
Christenson detailed three major themes (similar to the Rothman characterization):
(1) self-help, non-directive, or cooperative theme; (2) the technical intervention,
planning, or assistance theme; and (3) the conflict or confrontation theme.
Christenson notes that at the most general level, most of the articles had an
underlying theme relating to the “betterment of people.” He also notes that most
articles defined community development as “people initiating a social action process
to improve their situation … through a variety of methods such as self-help,
technical assistance, and conflict.” In conclusion, Christenson agreed with
Rothman's conclusions noting that artificially categorizing articles into the three
themes masks the reality that most successful community development efforts
borrow a bit from each theme.

In their article Problem Solving, Community Building and Systems Interaction: An

Integrated Practice Model for Community Development, Jones and Silva (1991)
confirm that most community development models identify problem solving as the
core element. Typcially, problem-solving phases are defined as: (1) identifying the
problem; (2) determining how to address it; (3) addressing the problem; and (4)
evaluating the results of the intervention.

Jones and Silva (1991) argue that successful community development efforts are
more truly an integrated practice model of community development. They see this
model as one that utilizes problem-solving (borrowing from the process model) to
generate action; community building (drawing from elements of the social planning
model) to establish broad ownership for that action; and systems interaction
(bringing characteristics of the social action model) to give necessary direction to the
action.

Strategic Planning & Visioning

Community strategic planning and visioning efforts have become popular in the
1990s (Gordon, 1993). Principles of successful strategic planning and visioning,
derived from case studies and literature published in a recent research publication
Community Visioning/Strategic Planning Programs: State of the Art (Walzer, et al,
1995), include:
(1) Having a clear vision of what one can and wants to accomplish
(2) Accurately assessing the strengths and limitations of the community
(3) Creating goals and objectives which will result in achieving the vision

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 4
 (4) Establishing a set of strategies and action plans for accomplishing
community goals and objectives
(5) Exhibiting perseverance and follow-up on all details and over time
(6) Continually evaluate and take corrective action when programs require
redirection.

Among other key findings, the report describes requisite ingredients for initiating
and carrying out successful locally-based efforts; principally, local ownership of the
effort, an emphasis on vision, and adaptive means of implementation. This report is
one of a handful that contributes new insights (moving beyond planning to visioning)
to an evolving community development discipline.

One example of a community visioning/strategic planning program applied to a

community economic development process is Take Charge: Economic Development
in Small Communities (Ayres, et al, 1990). This model sets out to engage
community members in answering these three questions: (1) Where Are We Now?;
(2) Where Do We Want To Be?; and (3) How Do We Get There?

Another model in this same genre is the Green Communities Assistance Kit prepared
by the EPA’s Region III office (McDowell, 1997). Green Communities is defined as
a “capacity-building” effort designed to “help local communities take charge of their
own environmental quality issues” “to help citizens and community leaders solve
problems and make decisions in ways that integrate environmental, social, and
economic issues at the local level.” The Green Communities process adapts the Take
Charge model and suggests working through four questions as a guide: (1) Where
Are We Now?; (2) Where Are We Going?; (3) Where Do We Want To Be?; and (4)
How Do We Get There?

The strategic planning premise of these models includes elements of the traditional
community development model of problem solving. Strategic planning provides the
basis for many kinds of community development efforts, not only those limited to
economic development and environmental protection.

In describing substance abuse prevention efforts, Chavis and Florin (1990) make the
case that a community development approach to addressing social problems is
essential to bringing together all sectors of the community in a true collaborative
partnership. The authors assert that the linkages that can be forged and maintained
by comprehensive community involvement, cooperation and collaborative problem
solving are necessary to engage key interest groups and the broader community.
They note that the key ingredient to using the community development approach
successfully in substance abuse prevention programming is to engage in meaningful
community participation, a central theme in the community development approach.

Kaye and Wolff (1997) describe the application of coalition building and community
development to community-based health issues (based on innovative grassroots
efforts to tackle health and quality of life issues in communities). They make a

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 5
distinction between models which are community-based and those which engage in
true community development and suggest moving from a paternalistic betterment
model to one of authentic empowerment.

These are just a few examples of a number of community development approaches

used to address not just traditional economic development matters, but issues as
diverse as public health concerns, housing, leadership and organizational
development, and youth at risk.

Innovative approaches
New and innovative approaches to the basic concept of community development are
emerging. Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) suggest a critical paradigm shift in the
manner in which community development’s needs assessment methodology is
employed. Rather than focussing on what is wrong with a community (and listing all
of what needs improvement), the authors provide a guide to community building that
begins with indentifying assets: individual and organizational skills and capacities.
Their guide lays out five steps in the community-building process: mapping assets,
building relationships, mobilizing for [economic] development and information
sharing, convening the community to develop a vision and a plan, and leveraging
outside resources to support locally driven development.

Cornelia Butler Flora (1997) has best-detailed contemporary innovations in

community development theory and practice in a brief, but seminal discussion of the
newly evolved approach to working with communities. Butler stresses that rather
than a mere semantic twist, the change in vocabulary means a change in attitude and
approach. In short, Flora notes the following changes in community development:
! From community development to community empowerment.
! From needs assessment to asset mapping.
! From clients to citizens.
! From strategic planning to strategic visioning.
! From deficiencies to capacities.
! From dependency to interdependency.
! From industrial recruitment to building from within.
! From outside evaluation to internal monitoring.

These changes spell out a refined community development model that can be applied
to a myriad of issues in the community, including education about the environment.

Summary
It may be difficult to find universal definitions for community and development.
Community development may ultimately have too many different meanings to make
it universally acceptable as a vehicle for supporting education about the environment
at the community level. But for our purposes, the practice of community
development (or advancement, betterment, capacity building, empowerment,
enhancement, or nurturing) provides clues for improving the success of partnerships

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 6
of federal experts, local facilitators and concerned community interests to identify,
discuss and resolve local environmental concerns.

Common themes of the community development practice in the U.S. occur

throughout the many resources identified to prepare this paper. Key aspects are
summarized in Table 2. These characteristics are already applied to a variety of
community issues including economic initiatives, but more and more often are also
used to address community vision, leadership, public health, housing concerns.
Natural resource managers and environmental educators can benefit from these
successes in the effort to develop contemporary approaches to community-based
education about the environment.

TABLE 1
Select Definitions of Community Development
“The deliberate attempt by community people to work together to guide the future of their
communities, and the development of a corresponding set of techniques for assisting
community people in such a process.” (Bennett, 1973)

“An educational approach which would raise levels of local awareness and increase confidence
and ability of community groups to identify and tackle their own problems.” (Darby & Morris,
1975)

“A series of community improvements which take place over time as a result of the common
efforts of various groups of people. Each successive improvement is a discrete unit of
community development. It meets a human want or need.” (Dunbar, 1972)

“Finding effective ways of helping and teaching people to develop new methods and to learn
new skills. This process is, however, done in such a way as to retain community control and
community spirit.” (Frederickson, 1975)

“A process of creating special community organizations throughout society which will be

responsible for channeling demands to centers of power, to distributors of benefits.”
(Hammock, 1973)

“A process, as a method, as a program, and as a movement; or as a set of purposes.”

(Hauswald, 1971)

“The process of local decision-making and the development of programs designed to make their
community a better place to live and work.” (Huie, 1976)

“All of the efforts made to establish and maintain human interaction while improving the
appropriateness of the physical setting to that interaction. Underlying values to this
development are the recognition of the individual’s right to select the extent of community or
privacy and the group’s right to identify its own needs for community development.” (Koneya,
1975)
An open system of decision making, whereby those comprising the community use democratic
and rationale means to arrive at group decisions to take action for enhancing the social and
economic well-being of the community.” (Littrell, 1975)

“An educational process designed to help adults in a community solve their own problems by

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 7
group decision making and group action. Most community development models include broad
citizen involvement and training in problem solving.” (Long, 1975)

“The involvement of people and the coordination and integration of all efforts directed at
bettering conditions.” (Lotz, 1970)

“The capacity of people to work collectively in addressing their common interests.” (Maser,
1997)

“The process which basically initiates and develops structure and facilitates program
development that includes users of the program. I identify Community Development in the
context of initiating and of developing supportive human relationships.” (Miles, 1974)

“A process in which increasingly more members of a given area or environment make and
implement socially responsible decisions, the probable consequence of which is an increase in
the life chances of some people without a decrease in the life chances of others.” (Oberle,
Darby, & Stowers, 1975)

“Facilitating those cultural mechanisms that provide for shared experience, trust, and common
purpose.” (Parko, 1975)

“A process. Our concern is with the life process -- continuity, adjustment, and fulfillment, and
finally the self-sufficiency of the people.” (Pell, 1972)

“The active voluntary involvement in a process to improve some identifiable aspect of

community life; normally such action leads to the strengthening of the community’s pattern of
human and institutional interrelationships.” (Ploch, 1976)

“The active involvement of people at the level of the local community in resisting or supporting
some cause or issue that interest them.” (Ravitz, 1982

“Many community development efforts are essentially efforts to help community residents
understand what is happening and recognize some of the choices they face in order to achieve
the future community they desire.” (Shaffer, 1990)

“People who are affected by change participate in making it ... A system provides for
communication among all groups in the community, including open discussion of issues,
feelings, and opinions. The community understands its problem-solving process and needs no
further instruction.” (Vaughn, 1972)

“A situation in which some groups, usually locality based such as neighborhood or local
community ... Attempts to improve its social and economic situation through its own efforts ...
using professional assistance and perhaps also financial assistance from the outside ... and
involving all sectors of the community or group to a maximum.” (Voth, 1975)

“A process of helping community people analyze their problems, to exercise as large a measure
of community autonomy as is possible and feasible, and to promote a greater identification of
the individual citizen and the individual organization with the community as a whole.”
(Warren, 1978)

“A public-group approach dedicated to achieving the goals of the total body politic.” (Weaver,
1971)

“Acts by people that open and maintain channels of communication and cooperation among
local groups.” (Wilkenson, 1979)

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 8
 TABLE 2
Key Characteristics of the Community Development Process

$ Participation comes from a broad cross section of the community.

$ Deliberations are made on the basis of well-informed participation.

$ Decisions are the result of consensus or democratic majority rule decision-making.

$ The process purposefully fosters group building, leadership development and capacity
building (process objective) as an essential element, while striving to successfully
address a substantive issue as well (product objective).

$ Processes are largely focused on a purposeful and systematic approach to addressing a

local concern(s).

$ Community issues or problems are investigated holistically, linking issues and

appreciating the complexities of the community in assessing and resolving the issue.

$ Processes are flexible and not rigidly structured to only deal with an initial concern.

$ U.S. community development processes have a strong reliance on professional staff

facilitation and coordination.

$ Successful U.S. efforts are characterized as being locally initiated and entrepreneurial,
although broad models may be championed by community colleges, state extension
programs, or state or regional agencies furthering programmatic agendas.

$ The genesis of efforts is often a locally perceived crisis or potential crisis, although some
initiatives arise from subtle mandates from broader units of government, opportunities to
gain additional resources, or simply the pride of a key champion.

$ Greater competition for diminishing resources (and the general “devolution” of

government-sponsored programs from broader to more local governments) has thrust
communities into situations of coordination and collaboration in order to address
important issues.

$ The community development process is increasingly being used as the mechanism for
integration in these opportunities.

Summarized by Greg Wise, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, from articles by

forty authors referenced in the Appendices to the report "An EPA/USDA Partnership to Deliver
Community-based Education," 1998.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 9
REFERENCES

Ayres, J., et al. 1990. Take Charge: Economic Development in Small Communities. The North
Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Batten, T. 1957. Communities and Their Development. Oxford University Press, London.

Bennett, A. 1973. Professional Staff members’ Contribution to Community Development. Journal of

the Community Development Society. Vo. 4, No. 1: 58-68.

Cary, L., ed. 1973. Community Development as a Process. University of Missouri Press, Columbia,
Missouri.

Cawley, R. 1989. From the Participants’ Viewpoint: A Basic Model of the Community Development
Process. Journal of the Community Development Society. Vol. 20, No. 2: 101-111.

Chavis, D., Ph.D. and P. Florin, Ph.D. 1990. Community Development, Community Participation,
and Substance Abuse Prevention. Two papers prepared for the Prevention Office, Bureau of Drug
Abuse Services, Department of Health, County of Santa Clara, California.

Christenson, J. and J. Robinson, Jr., eds. 1980. Community Development in America. Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Christenson, J. 1989. Themes of Community Development. Community Development in Perspective.

Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Darby, J. and G. Morris. 1975. Community Groups and Research in Northern Ireland. Journal of the
Community Development Society. Vol. 10, No. 2: 113-119.

Dunbar, J. 1972. Community Development in North America. Journal of the Community

Development Society. Vol. 7, No. 1: 10-40.

Flora, C. 1997. Innovations in Community Development. An article in the September 1997 Rural
Development News (Volume 21, Number 3), a publication of the North Central Regional Center for
Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Frederickson, H. 1975. Strategy for Development Administration. Journal of the Community

Development Society. Vol. 6, No. 1: 88-101.

Gordon, D. 1993. Strategic Planning for Local Government. International City/County Management
Association, Annapolis Junction, Maryland.

Hammock, J. 1973. The Economically Distressed Community: Organization- Building and Political
Modernization. Journal of the Community Development Society. Vol. 4, No. 2: 12-19.

Hauswald, E. 1971. The Economically Distressed Community: A Synoptic Outline of Symptoms,

Causes and Solutions. Journal of the Community Development Society. Vol. 2, No. 2: 96-105.

Huie, J. 1976. What Do We Do About It? – A Challenge to the Community Development Profession.
Journal of the Community Development Society. Vol. 6, No. 2: 14-21.

Jones, B. and J. Silva. 1991. Problem Solving, Community Building, and Systems Interaction: An
Integrated Practice Model for Community Development. Journal of the Community Development
Society. Vol. 22, No. 2: 1-21.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 10
Kaye, G. and T. Wolff, Ph.D. 1997. From the Ground Up: A Workbook on Coalition Building and
Community Development. AHEC/Community Partners, Amherst, MA.

Koneya, M. 1975. Toward an Essential Definition of Community Development. Journal of the

Community Development Society. Vol. 6, No. 1: 4-12.

Kretzmann, J. and J. McKnight. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward
Finding and Mobilizing A Community’s Assets. ACTA Publications, Chicago, IL.

Litrell, D. 1975. The Theory and Practice of Community Development. Community Development
Concepts, Curriculum Training Needs. A Task Force Report to the Extension Committee on
Organizational Policy. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

Long, H. 1975. State Government: A Challenge for Community Developers. Journal of the
Community Development Society. Vol. 6, No. 1: 27-36.

Lotz, J. 1970. Training in Community Development. Journal of the Community Development

Society. Vol. 1, No. 1: 67-75.

Maser, C. 1997. Sustainable Community Development: Principles and Concepts. St. Lucie Press,
Delray Beach, Florida.

McDowell, S. 1997. Green Communities Assistance Kit. Available from U.S. EPA Region 3 on the
internet at www.epa.gov/region03/greenkit/index.html.

Miles, L. 1974. Can Community Development Education and Community Education be

Collaborative? Journal of the Community Development Society. Vol. 5, No. 2: 90-97.

Oberle, W., J. Darby, and K. Stowers. 1975. Implications for Development: Social Participation of
the Poor in the Ozarks. Journal of the Community Development Society. Vol. 6, No. 2: 64-78.

Parko, J. Jr. 1975. Re-discovery of Community: Neighborhood Movement in Atlanta. Journal of the
Community Development Society. Vol. 6, No. 1: 46-50.

Pell, K. 1972. The Role of OEO in Community Development. Journal of the Community
Development Society. Vol. 3, No. 2: 54-61.

Ploch, L. 1976. Community Development in Action: A Case Study. Journal of the Community
Development Society. Vol. 7, No. 1: 5-16.

Ravitz, M. 1982. Community Development: Challenge of the Eighties. Journal of the Community
Development Society. Vol. 13, No. 1: 1-10.

Rothman, J. 1972. Three Models of Community Organization Practice. Strategies of Community

Organization. Peacock Press, Itasca, Illinois.

Sanders, I. 1958. Theories of Community Development. Rural Sociology. Vol. 23 (Spring): 1-12.

Sanders, I. 1970. The Concept of Community Development. Community Development as a Process.

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.

Shaffer, R. 1990. Building Economically Viable Communities: A Role for Community Developers.
Journal of the Community Development Society. Vol. 21, No. 2: 74-87.

Vaughn, G. 1972. Evaluating a Community Development Institute. Journal of the Community

Development Society. Vol. 3, No. 1: 30-39.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 11
Voth, D. 1975. Problems in Evaluating Community Development. Journal of the Community
Development Society. Vol. 6, No. 1: 147-162.

Walzer, N., et al. 1995. Community Visioning/Strategic Planning Programs: State of the Art. The
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.

Warren, R. 1978. The Community in America, 3rd ed. Rand McNally, Chicago, Illinois.

Weaver, J. 1971. The University and Community Development. Journal of the Community
Development Society. Vol. 2, No. 1: 5-12.
Wilkinson, K. 1979. Social Well-being and Community. Journal of the Community Development
Society. Vol. 10, No. 1: 4-13.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 12
A. 2.ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION versus
COMMUNITY-BASED EDUCATION

How does environmental education relate to community-based education

about the environment?

Themes of environmental education

Environmental education has largely been defined through international meetings
sponsored by the United Nations. The most famous of these was known as the
Tbilisi conference.2 A 1982 UNESCO definition of the purpose of environmental
education explains that it is education designed, "to aid citizens in becoming
environmentally knowledgeable and above all, skilled and dedicated citizens who are
willing to work, individually and collectively, toward achieving and/or maintaining a
dynamic equilibrium between quality of life and quality of the environment."

It is important to note that environmental education definitions have never been

limited to school-age youth. They apply to citizens of all ages. A summary of topics
generally included in the field of environmental education includes skills and
knowledge relating to these goals: ecological foundations, conceptual awareness of
issues and values, investigation skills, evaluation skills, environmental action skills,
socio-political knowledge.3

Recently, environmental education literacy has been described by four themes:4

1. Knowledge of environmental processes and systems
2. Inquiry skills
3. Skills for decision and action
4. Personal responsibility

2
Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education. 1978. “Toward an Action
Plan: A Report on the Tbilisi Conference on Environmental Education.” A paper developed by the
FICE subcommittee on Environmental Education. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing
Office, Stock No. 017-080-01828-1.
3
Goals for environmental education have been the topic of lengthy debate over many years.
Key summaries have been provided by the following authors: Ronald Gardella, Environmental
Education Curriculum Inventory Forms A and B, 1986; Harold Hungerford, R. B. Peyton, R. J. Wilke,
Goals for Curriculum Development in Environmental Education in “Journal of Environmental
Education, 1980; North American Association of Environmental Education background papers on
education standards, 1995; Charles Roth, Definition and Clarification of Environmental Literacy,
ASTM Environmental Literacy Project, 1990.
4
Courtesy of documents published by the North American Association for Environmental
Education, D. Simmons, Project Director.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 13
Community - based environmental education:
• Relates directly to local topics, problems or issues
• Provides practical actions which relate to individual or group-identified needs
• Results in environmental management actions which stem from the community
rather than from requirements directed at the community.

When environmental educators practice their profession in the community, they need
to:
1. Bring the local community context into environmental education design and
delivery to provide education experiences which support all aspects of
environmental education theory:
$ Knowledge of environmental processes and systems
$ Inquiry skills
$ Skills for decision and action
$ Personal responsibility
2. Reflect a new orientation towards management of the environment by
ecological systems rather than by single natural resource topic, e.g. management
by watersheds rather than by trout habitat.
3. Design education experiences which motivate youth and adults to learn, i.e.
experiences which are relevant to personal life interests and needs.
4. Provide opportunities for individuals to learn and practice new skills for
protecting or managing the environment.

Goals for community-based education about the environment

When developing goals for an environmental education initiative focused on a
community concern, address these questions:
$ Community of interest
$ who are the people in this community and which people will be affected by
the education program?
$ what are their roles, needs, and interests?
$ what are the characteristics of the place?
$ Knowledge and skills
$ what do people usually need to know related to this topic?
$ Target audience
$ who should participate?
$ what are their skills, wants and needs?
$ Key players
$ who must be included in designing a program or resource which matches the
education opportunities?

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 14
A. 3.COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION - RESEARCH
AND DEFINITIONS

Berger, Ida, E. and Ruth M. Corbin. 1992. Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and
Faith in Others as Moderators of Environmentally Responsible Behaviors. Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing, 11(2), 79-89.
The authors use a 1989 environmental opinion poll of the Canadian population
to examine the influence of perceived consumer effectiveness and faith in the
efficacy of others on the relationship between environmental attitudes and
consumer behaviors. Results support the concept that "Consumers need to be
empowered to rely on their own capabilities to achieve valued environmental
outcomes."

Booth, Elizabeth Mills. 1996. Starting With Behavior - A Participatory Process for
Selecting Target Behaviors in Environmental Programs. GreenCOM, Academy for
Educational Development, 1255 23rd St., NW, Washington, DC 20037.
The author worked with technical assistance from GreenCOM and a local team
in Ecuador to design, test and implement a methodology for monitoring and
measuring observable changes in behavior related to sustainable use of land in
buffer zones surrounding an ecological reserve. A participatory process for
selecting target behaviors includes: define the ideal behavior, conduct research
with “doers” and “non-doers,” select and negotiate target behaviors, and
develop strategies which reflect findings. Factors which influence the adoption
of ideal behaviors were applied to specific case studies to learn through
example. Factors include: availability of appropriate technologies to support the
practice, policies and laws that support the behavior change, events
(antecedents) to set the stage for or trigger behavior (knowledge, skills),
consequences that strengthen the behavior, perceived consequences, perceived
social norms, and perceived skills.

Byers, Bruce A. 1996. Understanding and Influencing Behaviors in Conservation

and Natural Resources Management. African Biodiversity Series, No. 4.
Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program, A USAID funded consortium of
World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and World Resources Institute. c/o
World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St. NW, Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20037.
Summarizes the role of behavior in conservation and natural resource
management through a model including: 1) assessment and research; 2)
planning; 3) implementation. At each stage, educators consider: Conditions -
social and ecological; Behaviors - decisions, practices, actions; Factors -
determinants, motivations, influences; Actors - participants, stakeholders,
audiences; Activities - programs, projects, transactions; Resources - money,
staff, time. Evaluation is integral at each step.

Behavior factors include: identifying critical behaviors, then focusing on a few

using a positive perspective; understanding the flexibility of certain behaviors;
understanding perceived benefits and barriers to behavior choices. Sorting out

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 15
 factors that could influence a certain behavior can be accomplished with a
"Social Assessment" process as used by the World Bank.

A chapter on methods and tools for social research describes and provides
examples for research tools which involve community members: surveys,
questionnaires, observation, interviews, focus groups, community meetings,
maps and transects, calendars, matrices - contrast and trend, Venn diagrams,
wealth or well-being ranking, prioritization, decision trees, flow diagrams.
Methods include: Rapid Rural Appraisal, Participatory Rural Appraisal,
participatory research, participatory planning.

De Young, Raymond. 1989. Exploring the Difference Between Recyclers and Non-
Recyclers: the Role of Information. Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 18(4),
341-351.
This study found no difference between the attitudes of recyclers and non-
recyclers. Those who did not value recycling (as demonstrated in attitude
studies 6 months prior to the initiation of community recycling) participated in
recycling activities as often as those who did value recycling. As a result, the
author recommends that environmental education focus on how to turn
intentions into actions, rather than on changing attitudes.

De Young, Raymond. 1993. Changing Behavior and Making It Stick: The

Conceptualization and Management of Conservation Behavior. Environment and
Behavior, 25(4): 485-505.
Due to the complexity and ubiquity of environmental issues, the need to find
strategies to change conservation behavior while minimizing the need for
repeated intervention continues to challenge environmental education program
developers. Environmental education professionals have used the following
techniques of intervention: informational techniques, positive motivational
techniques and coercive techniques. Five evaluation techniques should be used
to measure the impact of the intervention technique on behavior change:
reliability, speed of change, universality, generality, and durability. Under these
criteria, positive motivation techniques produce the best results, especially if
they focus on intrinsic motivation. Commitment strategies provide this
opportunity reliably producing both quick and durable behavior change.

Dwyer, William O., Frank C. Lemming, et al. 1993. Critical Review of Behavioral
Interventions to Preserve the Environment: Research Since 1980. Environment and
Behavior, 25(3): 275-321.
Authors note that from 1970-1990, behavioral intervention studies that focus on
environmentally relevant behavior peaked in 1977 and then steadily declined
into 1990. The research was restricted to behavior-change interventions and
obtained 54 intervention studies with antecedent and consequence strategies.
They concluded that over the past decade, much of the research did not allow
for meaningful comparisons among other interventions while few studies
included critical follow-up procedures. Without follow up, techniques that

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 16
 produce long-term behavior change may be overlooked. Authors note some
accomplishments from the 1980's research.

The techniques that have resulted in consistent behavior change are antecedent
conditions, commitment, modeling, and goal-setting strategies. The authors
then offer several specific suggestions to address the methodological problems
and general research.

Gigliotti, Larry M. 1990. Environmental Education: What Went Wrong? What Can
Be Done? Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1):9-12.
The author argues that although environmental education has been successful at
producing ecologically concerned citizens, people are generally unwilling to
change their personal lifestyles in ways which are necessary to solve some
environmental problems. Citizens who have learned misconceptions or myths
about the environment have criticized the behavior of others's, but lack the
knowledge and conviction to change their own behaviors. Gigliotti states that
every citizen needs a basic understanding of ecological principles, information
on the alternatives and consequences of actions, and information on possible
individual action. To help change the myth that people are separate from the
environment, environmental education messages must make the connection
between environmental information and individual actions and solutions to
environmental problems.

Health & Environment Digest, Vol. 9, No. 9, January 1996.

Ken Sexton, “Environmental Justice: Are Pollution Risks Higher for
Disadvantaged Communities?”
Kenneth Olden and Gerald Poje, “The Emergence of Environmental Justice as a
National Issue”
Victor Sidel, Barry Levy, Beverly Johnson, “Environmental Injustice: What
Must Be Done?”
These three feature articles make a variety of points about environmental justice
of interest to community-based education planners.

To get a better understanding of environmental justice issues, Sexton

recommends investigating each concern from three perspectives: a) What are
the differential effects of class and race on health risk from the pollutant?; b)
How do class and race affect exposure and susceptibility factors?; c) How do
exposure and susceptibility factors affect health risk?

Olden and Poje note that the size of the disparity between the health status and
risks of the overall population versus disadvantaged groups shows that at least
some of the illnesses are preventable. Environmental and occupational
exposures are likely to play a prominent role in this disparity.

Sidel, Levy and Johnson argue that more attention to eliminating environmental
risks would benefit everyone’s health. Meanwhile, more effort should be made

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 17
 to involve disadvantaged groups in policy decisions. This can be accomplished
through: a) working with community organizations or creating new
organizations; b) insisting that environmental decisions affecting communities
be made in partnership with community residents; c) demanding equity in
clean-up and enforcement; d) collaborating with local businesses to find
acceptable alternatives to environmental risks; e) developing sustainable
communities that do not require excess risk for economic well-being.

Howe, Robert W. and John Disinger. 1988. Environmental Education That Makes A
Difference - Knowledge To Behavior Changes. In ERIC/SMEAC Environmental
Education Digest, Columbus, OH 43212 (614) 292-6717. EDO-SE-90-12.
Students who are given the opportunity to engage in long-term, realistic
environmental issues tend to demonstrate responsible environmental
behavior. Authors describe several variables involved in developing this
accountability. Such individuals exhibit: (1) knowledge of relevant
environmental concepts; (2) knowledge of environmental problems and
issues; (3) concern for the quality of the environment; (4) knowledge of
action strategies that may be used for resolving an issue; (5) belief that
their action can make a difference; (6) commitment to take action; and (7)
experience in action-based activities. Authors then list three sets of
materials shown to have a significant effect on student's learning and
behavior: (1) Conservation and Children (National diffusion Network,
1988); (2) Investigating and Evaluating Environmental Issues and Actions:
Skills and Development Modules (Hungerford, 1988); and (3) Decisions for
Today and Tomorrow: Issues in Science-Technology-Society (Iozzi, 1987).

Hungerford, Harold R. and Trudi L. Volk. 1990. “Changing Learner Behavior

Through Environmental Education.” Journal of Environmental Education. 21(3): 8-
21.
Research into environmental behavior has not been able to show that increased
knowledge will change human behavior. To achieve responsible citizenship
behavior, individuals must be given the opportunity to develop the sense of
"ownership" and "empowerment." Individuals who act have "expressed an
intention to take action" and "possess a desire to act". Authors also found that
to change learner behavior, strategies should be implemented across all grade
levels. The cooperation of nonformal education agencies as well as local and
regional educational resources would maximize this opportunity for success.

Jansen, Lawrence. 1995. “Citizen Activism in the Foundations of Adult

Environmental Education in the United States,” Convergence, Vol. XXVIII, No. 4.
Jansen encourages the strengthening of the partnership between
community/national conservation groups and adult educators to create informed
and involved citizens. In his view, educators have not lent their expertise to
environmental activists and environmental groups have not taken advantage of
educator’s knowledge about community development, adult learning,
psychology, leadership development, and educational programming.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 18
 Adult educator’s experience can assist in taking environmental education to
diverse populations, going beyond the traditional audience for environmental
issues. To translate awareness into action, education should “heighten citizens’
consciousness of place and community. . . . Community-based education,
logically, can accomplish this when imbued with community values, problems,
resources and potential.”

Effective, enduring leadership is missing among environmental groups. Adult

educators can help bring organizations together for sharing ideas and
collaborating on strategies. Cooperative Extension can work with community
learning centers, local government and local planning groups to develop
community volunteer leadership programs, such as peer leaders.

Katzev, Richard D. and Anton U. Pardini. 1987. “The Comparative Effectiveness of

Reward and Commitment Approaches in Motivating Community Recycling.”
Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 17(2): 93-113.
This study investigated the value of commitment to an environmental action.
Various study components compared: commitments vs. monetary incentives,
single request vs. multiple requests for commitment, and verbal commitments
vs. written commitment. Another study by Theodore Wang and Richard Katzev
explored the individual vs. group commitment option. (1990. Group
Commitment and Resource Conservation: Two Field Experiments on Promoting
Recycling. Journal of applied Social Psychology, Vol. 20(4): 265-275.) Results
showed that commitments work better than monetary incentives for their ability
to produce short term involvement and enduring behavior change.
Commitments must be explicit for a specific action. They are enhanced if they
are individual, public, written, and voluntary. Commitments to a specific act
may lead to a more generalized commitment.

McKenzie-Mohr, Doug. 1996. Promoting a Sustainable Future: An Introduction to

Community-Based Social Marketing. National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy, 1 Nicholas Street, Suite 1500, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 7B7.
This booklet summarizes research about social marketing and explains how to
apply results in the community setting. It draws on research that indicates that
initiatives to promote behavior change are most effective when they are carried
out at the community level and involve direct contact with people. People
trained in social marketing techniques have proved to be three to four times
more effective in encouraging changes in behavior than they were prior to
training. Internal and external barriers must be identified in order to develop a
social marketing strategy to remove the barriers.

Some factors which act as predictors to behavior are: a) Consistency and

commitment - people behave consistently (once agreeing to a small request,
they are more likely to comply with a larger request on the same topic) and are
more likely to take action if they have made a commitment to the action; b)

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 19
 Prompts (slogans targeting specific behaviors, point of purchase education); c)
Social norms are often a source of behavior information for individuals -
education programs should stress the high participation rates of others or
provide opportunities for people to observe others choosing the behavior; d)
Communicate effectively - using vivid language, a credible source, tailor the
message to the audience, model behavior; e) Remove external barriers - these
must be identified; f) Identify barriers by research and real life confirmation of
findings; g) Test appeal of proposed strategy to change behavior.

White, Susan and John Senior. 1994. “The Ripple Effect - A New Approach to
Environmental Education for Adults,” Adults Learning.
White and Senior argue that motivation for environmental action would be
improved if incorporated into schemes that addressed self-interest and
emphasized personal or small-scale actions. They encourage educators to find
personally relevant opportunities rather than depend on large-scale or crisis
issues.

Weintraub, Bernard A. 1995. “Defining A Fulfilling and Relevant Environmental

Education,” Urban Education, Vol. 30, No. 3.
Weintraub analyzes the terms “environment” and “education” separately in
order to develop conclusions about how to make environmental education
effective within a community setting.

“Environment” must be defined in a way that recognizes the needs of both

people and Earth. In addition to resources like iron and lumber, this definition
allows landscapes, open space, safe drinking water, and air quality to be
considered natural resources. “A community’s natural resources can be defined
to be the Earth-derived benefits that are necessary for that social organization to
achieve, to maintain, and to promote its collective identity.”

Therefore, the definition of environment is individual and community specific.

Environment is “the totality of natural resources of concern to a given
community.” The community’s environment is therefore an extension of the
community’s identity. “Environmental management is a shorthand way of
describing the range of behaviors in which a community engages to attain, to
protect, to enhance, and to distribute natural resources in accordance with and in
promotion of its identity.” The community that is committed to responding to
the needs of its members will correct the discrepancies between what actually
occurs in the community and what the community feels ought to be.

Effective environmental management will include an attempt to gather all

relevant information about community members’ needs, including the
community’s relationship with the Earth and the affects of the relationship on
community members and the Earth. Formal and informal methods are
recommended to clearly highlight areas of strength and areas of dissatisfaction.
Community relationship to the global environment and to the needs of future

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 20
generations should also be considered. This system will result in a dynamic and
community specific understanding. The healthy community environment will
provide for complexity, flexibility and social integrity. Parallel needs include
heterogeneity which allows for resiliency, capacity to adapt, security for
community members.

Education is designed to “ensure a work force with the skills to continue and to
improve on the work started by others, a populace that has the problem-solving
skills to respond to the unexpected, and a citizenry with values that will
preserve the society and force it to become better.” Education seeks to inculcate
the links between individual and community fulfillment. “An education
concerned with community and individual fulfillment values problem-solving
skills.”

The basis of environmental education is to make the connection between

communities and environmental management and decision-making. Unless
education focuses on the many individual behaviors which result from thinking
of ourselves as separate from the environment, a true change in the relationship
between communities and the Earth will not take place. Environmental
education must be a process in which the concepts associated with sound
environmental management are refined as part of the education. Environmental
education can be “understood to be a vehicle for exploring and promoting a
community-specific standard.” “Environmental education is a method of
supporting the continuing evolution of the relationship of communities to the
Earth.”

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 21
A. 4.RESOURCES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON EDUCATING FOR
SUSTAINABILITY

There are many resources which provide ideas and information about educating for
sustainability: that is, addressing economic, social, and environmental aspects of the
community. The following resources were reviewed because of their significance,
because they exemplify a community-based approach, and because they reference
many other resources. See also Appendix G which provides Canadian and
International education models and references as collected and summarized by
EcoLogic & Associates of Nova Scotia, Canada.

Independent Publications

Andrew Blowers, ed. 1993. Planning for a sustainable environment - A report by

the Town and Country Planning Association, England.
Goals of sustainable development identified by the Planning Association:
1. Conservation of resources
a. Maintenance of a continuing supply of resources for future
generations
b. Efficient use of non-renewable energy and mineral resources and
recycling
c. Development of renewable alternatives
d. Protection of biological diversity
2. Built development in harmony with the natural environment
a. Minimizing the consumption of energy and scarce natural resources
b. Maintaining the productivity of land
c. Buildings designed for long life, adaptability, and low resource
consumption
d. Form and location of human settlements to minimize adverse impacts
on nature
e. More energy-efficient and less polluting transport systems
3. Protection of environmental quality
a. Avoidance or reform of processes that pollute or degrade air, water
and soil
b. Restoration of areas degraded or grossly polluted
c. Protecting and enhancing the regenerative capacity of the land
d. Elimination of processes that endanger human health
e. Safeguarding the integrity and continuity of natural ecosystems
4. Social equity as between individuals, societies and generations
a. Devising patterns of trade, aid and investment that diminish
inequalities
b. Reducing extremes of wealth and poverty which inhibit
environmental care
c. Restraining the rich and powerful from unsustainable resource
exploitation

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 22
 d. Encouraging forms of economic development that reduce social
inequality
5. Changing values and attitudes through participation in environmental
decisions
a. Developing greater sharing of responsibility among all levels of
decision making, from local to international
b. Encouraging and empowering local initiatives to achieve
sustainability goals
c. Promoting more widespread knowledge about environmental
problems and actions needed to counteract them

Chris Maser. 1997. Sustainable Community Development - Principles and

Concepts. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
This author provides a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how community
development goals can relate to sustainability initiatives. Direct quotes are
provided to assist in following the logic of this approach.

“A local community serves five purposes:

1. Social participation - where and how people are able to interact with one
another to create the relationships necessary for a feeling of value and self-
worth
2. Mutual aid - services and support offered in times of individual or familial
need
3. Economic production, distribution, and consumption - jobs, import and
export of products, as well as the availability of such commodities as food
and clothing in the local area
4. Socialization - educating people about cultural values and acceptable norms,
and
5. Social control - the means for maintaining those cultural values and
acceptable norms” (p. 100)

“Sustainable community development means building the capacity of people to

work collectively in addressing their common interests in the local society
within the context of sustainability - that which is sustainable biologically,
culturally, and economically.” (p. 123)

“Cultural capacity is a chosen quality of life that is sustainable without

endangering the productive capacity of the environment The more materially
oriented the desired lifestyle of an individual or a community, for example, the
more resources are needed to sustain it and the smaller the human population
must be per unit area of landscape. Cultural capacity, then, is a balance
between the way we want to live, the real quality of our lifestyle and our
community, and the number of people an area can support in that lifestyle on a
sustainable basis.” (p. 136)

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 23
 Essential elements of sustainability (p. 14)
1. Understand and accept the inviolate physical principles governing nature’s
dynamics.
2. Understand and accept that we do not and cannot manage nature
3. Understand and accept that we make an ecosystem more fragile when we
alter it
4. Understand and accept that we must reinvest in living systems even as we
reinvest in businesses
5. Understand and accept that only a unified systemic world view is a
sustainable world view. In a unified systemic world view, reality consists
of organic and unified wholes that are greater than the simple sum of their
parts:
a. Everything exists in relationship to everything else
b. Every relationship is dynamic, constantly adjusting itself to fit
precisely into all other relationships
c. All relationships, including non-monetary ones, have value
d. Everything, including humans and nonhumans, is interconnected,
interdependent, and interactive
e. All relationships are systems supporting systems
f. The whole is functionally greater than the sum of its parts
g. Processes have primacy over components
h. A system is defined by how it functions, not by the shape, number, or
arrangement of its component parts
i. The integrity of the environment and its ecological processes has
primacy over human desires when such desires would destroy the
system’s integrity for future generations
j. Nature determines the limitations of human endeavors
k. The relevancy of knowledge depends on its context
6. Accept our ignorance and trust our intuition, while doubting our
knowledge
7. Specify what is to be sustained
8. Understand and accept that sustainability is a continual process, not a fixed
end point
9. Understand, accept, and be accountable for intergenerational equity
10. Understand, accept and be accountable for ecological limitations to land
ownership and the rights of private property.

Publications from the President's Council on Sustainable Development

National Forum on Partnerships Supporting Education about the Environment.

1996. Education for Sustainability: An Agenda for Action, Chapter 4 -
"Opportunities for Partnership: Nonformal Education," Policy Recommendation 6 -
Nonformal Education
A demonstration project of the President’s Council on Sustainable
Development. "The collective power of people to shape the future is greater

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 24
now than ever before, and the need to exercise it is more compelling.
Mobilizing that power to make life in the twenty-first century more democratic,
more secure, and more sustainable is the foremost challenge of our generation."

Chapter 4 - "Opportunities for Partnership: Nonformal Education," Policy

Recommendation 6 - Nonformal Education:
Expand public access to opportunities to learn about sustainability issues as they
relate to the private, work, and community lives of individuals.
Action 8 - Support a campaign to raise public awareness of sustainability,
convey information on indicators of sustainable development,
and encourage people to adopt sustainable practices in their daily
lives.

Action 9 - Establish an extension network to enhance the capacity of

individuals, work forces, and communities to live sustainably.
9.1 Establish a national Sustainable Development Extension Network
(SUDENET) to foster access to information, technical expertise, and
collaborative strategies that result in action taken by local
communities. The formation, structure, management, leadership, and
implementation of a Sustainable Development Extension Network
will be based on the following principles:
# Research-based technology is generated and applied as determined by
community needs.
# Transfer of technology to communities and individuals is based on an
appropriate combination of education plus technical and financial
support aimed at user adoption.
# Management processes for identifying needs, setting priorities, and
building coalitions and partnerships are inclusionary.
# Targeted and focused assistance responds directly to local
communities and needs.
# Existing research, education, and extension management and delivery
systems are utilized, redefined, and expanded
# Alternative implementation strategies and organizational participation
models are provided.
# Consistency in substance among programs and the results from
programs are based on a verified set of principles and outcomes.
# Management and design of the structure and process are not
dominated by any one entity, but developed through a collaborative
process of common goals and definition of unique organizational
roles.
9.2 Formulate a comprehensive set of recommendations outlining the essential
elements necessary for operating a successful Sustainable
Development Extension Network.

Action 10 - Encourage partnerships and activities that support community

visioning and assessment activities.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 25
 10.1 Create a national program in partnership with the National Council of
Mayors, the National Governor’s Association, or the National
Association of Counties, that will provide educational resources and
leadership training in support of community visioning and
assessment.
10.2 Develop incentives that will support efforts by communities to
manage visioning processes, assess their effectiveness, and share the
lessons learned with other communities.

Action 11 - Infuse sustainability into work force development and lifelong

learning efforts.

Action 12 - Encourage lifelong learning about sustainability at the individual,

household, and community level.

The President's Council on Sustainable Development. 1997. Task Force reports.

President's Council on Sustainable Development, 730 Jackson Place, NW,
Washington, D. C. 20503, 202/408-5296, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/PCSD>.
Eco-Efficiency, Energy and Transportation, Natural Resources Management
and Protection, Population and Consumption, Public Linkage, Dialogue, and
Education, Sustainable Agriculture, and Sustainable Communities.

The President's Council on Sustainable Development. 1997. From Classroom to

Community and Beyond: Educating for a Sustainable Future. Report of the Public
Linkage, Dialogue, and Education Task Force.
The report stresses that the nation will see progress towards sustainability if we
can: build upon what is already working, identify success stories and share them
as models, form productive partnerships to work for the common good and
address constraints, and educate individuals and communities for sustainability.
Key recommendations are:
1. Formal education reform - Encourage changes in the formal education
system to help all students, educators, and education administrators learn
about the environment, the economy, and social equity as they relate to all
academic disciplines and to their daily lives.
2. Nonformal education and outreach - Encourage nonformal access to
information on, and opportunities to learn and make informed decisions
about, sustainability as it relates to citizens' personal, work, and
community lives.
3. Strengthened education for sustainability - Institute policy changes at the
federal, state, and local levels to encourage equitable education for
sustainability; develop, use, and expand access to information technologies
in all educational settings, and encourage understanding about how local
issues fit into state, national, and international contexts.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 26
The President's Council on Sustainable Development. 1996. Sustainable America,
A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the
Future. World Wide Web site for full text:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/pcsd/index.html
Sustainability goals identified by the Council are listed below. In the Council
report, each goal is followed by statements which reflect indicators of progress.
1. Health and the Environment - Ensure that every person enjoys the benefits
of clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment at home, at work, and
at play.
2. Economic Prosperity - Sustain a healthy US economy that grows
sufficiently to create meaningful jobs, reduce poverty, and provide the
opportunity for a high quality of life for all in an increasingly competitive
world.
3. Equity - Ensure that all Americans are afforded justice and have the
opportunity to achieve economic, environmental, and social well-being.
4. Conservation of Nature - Use, conserve, protect, and restore natural
resources - land, air, water, and biodiversity - in ways that help ensure
long-term social, economic, and environmental benefits for ourselves and
future generations.
5. Stewardship Ethic - Create a widely held ethic of stewardship that strongly
encourages individuals, institutions, and corporations to take full
responsibility for the economic, environmental, and social consequences of
their actions.
6. Sustainable Communities - Encourage people to work together to create
healthy communities where natural and historic resources are preserved,
jobs are available, sprawl is contained, neighborhoods are secure,
education is lifelong, transportation and health care are accessible, and all
citizens have opportunities to improve the quality of their lives.
7. Civic Engagement - Create full opportunity for citizens, businesses, and
communities to participate in and influence the natural resource,
environmental, and economic decisions that affect them.
8. Population - Move toward stabilization of US population.
9. International Responsibility - Take a leadership role in the development
and implementation of global sustainable development policies, standards
of conduct, and trade and foreign policies that further the achievement of
sustainability.
10. Education - Ensure that all Americans have equal access to education and
lifelong learning opportunities that will prepare them for meaningful work,
a high quality of life, and an understanding of the concepts involved in
sustainable development.

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 27
National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, Canada

McKenzie-Mohr, Doug. 1996. Promoting a Sustainable Future: An Introduction to

Community-Based Social Marketing. National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy, 1 Nicholas Street, Suite 1500, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1N 7B7.
This booklet summarizes research about social marketing and explains how to
apply results in the community setting. See Appendix A. 3. for a more detailed
summary.

United Nations publications

The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), The

International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and The United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP). 1996. The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide, An
Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning. ICLEI Local Agenda 21
Initiative, City Hall, East Tower, 8th Floor, Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 2N2
In the forward, Elizabeth Dowdeswell, Executive Director for the United
Nations Environment Programme, asks: How can sustainable development be
made meaningful at the local level? How can we develop systems to involve
the stakeholders in devising appropriate solutions to local environment and
development issues? How can the quality of municipal services be improved
and integrated to address the environmental, economic, and social prospects of
the communities? The Guide provides a planning framework to help answer
these questions. According to the authors, planning should include five
components: partnerships, community-based issue analysis, action planning,
implementation and monitoring, evaluation and feedback. Each section
explains procedures, provides work sheets or resources, and illustrates concepts
with community-based case studies. Reference and explanation to many
valuable planning tools are included, such as: Rapid Urban Environmental
Assessment, setting targets and triggers for action planning, creating effective
structures for accomplishing actions, the UNCHS Indicators Project (UN
Conference on Human Settlements).

UNESCO, Agenda 21, Chapter 36, Promoting Education, Public Awareness and
Training. Report of the Secretary General to the Commission on Sustainable
Development, 1996.
Sustainable development is a process of bringing economic, community and
ecological development processes into balance with each other.
1. Economic development
a. Sustain economic growth
b. Maximize private profit
c. Expand markets
d. Externalize costs
2. Community development
a. Increase local self-reliance

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 28
 b. Satisfy basic human needs
c. Increase equity
d. Guarantee participation and accountability
e. Use appropriate technology
3. Ecological development
a. Respect carrying capacity
b. Conserve and recycle resources
c. Reduce waste

An EPA/USDA Partnership to Support Community-Based Education.

DISCUSSION PAPER APPENDIX A. DEFINITIONS 29