Abstract
Increasingly, employers are seeing the need to have employees who have capabilities in sustainability. The hope is that there will be a sufficient number of appropriately educated people to enter the environment profession to meet the needs of these employers and the community. For some two decades a range of university programmes in Australia have been graduating a steady stream of environment professionals. However, recent data for the preferences expressed by prospective students for environment and sustainability related programmes indicates that there has not been a growth in the popularity of these programmes as might be expected from the public awareness of environmental issues. Rather, there has been a trend of reduced popularity. If the future needs of employers and the broad community for environment professionals is to be met, increased numbers of young people will have to be attracted to the university programmes. Without going into specifics, the article provides some broad suggestions for what could be done.
INTRODUCTION
We have a clear message from employers about the need for their employees to have capabilities in sustainability. A 2010 survey of over 760 United Nations Global Compact member CEOs indicated that, compared with 2007 when sustainability was identified as emerging on the periphery of business issues, sustainability had become ‘truly top of-mind for CEOs around the world’ (Lacy et al. 2010). Further, 76 per cent said it was important that companies should include sustainability objectives in employee performance assessment; and 49 per cent said they already did this. As an example, one commented that ‘Future capabilities will be very different and will put a premium on lateral thinking and cross-functional, collaborative problem solving’ (ibid.: 44). Of particular relevance to educational institutions was that 88 per cent of the respondents said it was very important or important for educational systems to develop mindsets and skills needed for future leaders to address sustainability, because 76 per cent reported that performance on sustainability issues will be a very important differentiator in recruiting talent. A poignant conclusion from the survey was that:
… CEOs see a critical need for business schools and education systems to focus on developing the next generation of managers and business leaders with the knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors to manage sustainability issues as an integral part of the way they think about business. (ibid.: 49)
The ‘growth in jobs with a green tinge’ (MacPherson 1992: 437) has seen an expansion in the range of environmental careers past the traditional bio-physical focus. As Environmental Careers (2005, no page) notes:
New areas of expertise are developing, such as environmental auditing and assessment, environmental management and environmental engineering. They in turn generate the formation of new professional bodies or associations to represent them, such as the Society for the Environment. They create more recognised qualifications and career structures, so reinforcing the status of environmental careers.
A few years later this direction was again noted in an overview of global green job trends and future demand (UNEP 2008: 13), where it was concluded that there is ‘tremendous potential’ for green jobs. This optimism has been noted in several reports (e.g., Ghani-Eneland and Renner 2009; Global Insight 2008; Pew Charitable Trusts 2009), while the types of jobs involved is wide-ranging; for example, Parkes and Helmer (2009) identify some 140 possibilities, ranging from trades-people to professionals. Specifically, in Australia for almost two decades there has been interest in the development of jobs in the environment sector, as reported by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and the Arts (1994), the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage (2003) and NIEIR (2003).
Recognition of the role of environmental jobs has come from decades of growth of environmental awareness and management generated by the world-wide environment movements and the resulting environment professions. Reeves suggests that the ‘environmental movement has gone from strength to strength as it has transformed into a bone fide professional sector’ (2010: 28). This growth has been such that by 2010 the European Federation of Associations of Environmental Professionals had become a network organization of over 45,000 environmental professionals and experts in European countries.
This suggests a relatively large number of professionals working in the environmental fields. Yet, concerns about a shortage of environmental professionals have been expressed for over a decade. In the mid-1990s, the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (1994) identified a lack of environmental professionals, a concern repeated at the end of the 2000s by Hinton (2009); while Redfern (2010), focusing on Australia, noted that of those working in the environmental sector ‘30% of firms report a shortage of environmental professionals’ (no page). The situation at the regional level was similar according to the Asian Development Bank (2010) which identified that ‘capacity assessments … point to a severe shortage of environmental professionals’ (no page), with China providing a specific instance (Sustain Angel 2012).
The question is whether sufficient people will be entering the environment profession to meet this demand. Prior to the wide-spread development of environment degrees through the 1990s and 2000s, those working as environmental professionals had usually moved into the environmental field after having completed an undergraduate degree from a range of disciplines (e.g., engineering). With the availability of environmental degrees over the past two decades, environmental professionals increasingly take this direct route to their profession. Hence, the availability of these degree programmes is critical to the supply of future environmental professionals. Equally important is whether sufficient numbers of people are applying to these programmes to provide the graduates needed by the community.
There has been some discussion of the growth in the number of environmental degree programmes offered by Australian universities (e.g., Cosgrove and Thomas 1996; Harvey et al. 2002; Linke 1979) so we can see that the potential to educate environmental professionals exists. However, clear information about the popularity of this area of education has been difficult to find. To reduce the deficit, this article reviews data related to the applications for places in environment and sustainability programmes in Australia.
The review is limited to undergraduate programmes to focus on the popularity of the profession for young people, mainly those moving from secondary schooling to universities. The review does not look into the numbers of older people who are attracted to the profession and often enter through a career change facilitated by completing a postgraduate environment programme. If the data indicates growth in the popularity of environment programmes, we can expect that there is a reasonable chance that the supply of environmental professionals will meet the demand that is foreseen. If such growth is not evident, it suggests efforts will be needed to improve the popularity of the environment programmes to meet the expected demand.
To provide a context for the Australian data, the following section outlines overseas trends. As with data for Australian programmes, that for other nations was not readily found. However, the limited data for similar cultures and economies of North America and United Kingdom provide a point of reference for the Australian situation.
ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMMES: NORTH AMERICAN AND UNITED KINGDOM
A 2008 survey by the US Council of Environmental Deans and Directors showed that ‘the last two decades have seen extraordinary growth in the creation of new educational programmes; two-thirds of the programmes included in the survey were established after 1990 and about a quarter since 2001’ (Vincent 2009: 8). The survey also indicated varied reasons for the establishment of the programmes. Perhaps, surprisingly, employer demand/employment opportunities were noted less frequently than other factors, such as, faculty initiatives and student demand, response to local/regional environmental concerns and response to national/global environmental concerns or administrative initiatives. Importantly, the survey response indicated that the majority of programmes reported a strong enrolment growth from 2003 to 2008. Apparently this growth translated into a slight rise in the number completing environmental science and studies programmes (see Figure 1). This trend was noticed also in related programme areas. With a specific focus on natural resources programmes, Sharik and Lillieholm (2010) analyzed undergraduate enrolments between 1980 and 2009. Following a steady downward trend beginning in the mid-1990s, enrolments began to increase steadily from 2003 and continued through to the end of the study period (2009); ultimately this demand eclipsed enrolments in other more traditional fields such as forestry, wildlife and fisheries.
The experience in Canada is similar, but shows a stronger demand for environment programmes. In the period 2001–2008, there was an increase in the proportion of enrolments in environment programmes, relative to the total university enrolments, from 9.4 per cent to 9.9 per cent (Environmental Careers Organization 2011). During the same period, the number of graduations from environmental programmes increased, especially between 2005 and 2007 (see Figure 1).
Across the Atlantic in Britain, Smith observed some similarities, specifically that ‘undergraduate environmental sciences programmes have experienced varying fortunes over the last 20 years’ (2011: 27). The growth of public interest in environmental problems in the late 1980s led to increased interest in environmental programmes, importantly:
…there was a surge of interest in the recruitment to environment programmes around 1990 related probably to two things, a resurgence of public interest in the environment and a period of rapid expansion nationally of undergraduate student provision. The remainder of the 1990s saw a falling away in student demand leading to some programme closures. …the new millennium has witnessed a modest increase in student applications but also a tendency towards the closure of smaller programmes … (Smith 2011: 27)
Across the range of disciplines, the early years of the twenty-first century, specifically between 2002 and 2005, saw ‘a small but steady increase’ in applications to, and enrolments in, universities in the United Kingdom (Blumhof and Holmes 2008: 9). Looking particularly at the physical sciences, enrolments increased, but were low compared to other discipline areas. Blumhof and Holmes (2008: 9) observed that ‘as a component of the sciences, environmental science showed a slight increase in student numbers, while enrolments in environmental science single honours programmes saw a slight decline’.
Subsequently, Smith (2011: 28) suggests that public interest in environmental issues of the late 1980s ‘has not been duplicated in the period between 2005 and 2010 when the focus on climate change again brought the environment to the public’s attention’. While there has been some growth in demand for environment programmes, this is less than anticipated from previous experiences of ‘environmental boom-times’. Smith speculated that this change was associated with: poorer employment prospects for graduates generally; a perception that jobs in environmental sciences are difficult to find and that renumeration for environmental jobs is relatively low. To enhance recruitment for environmental science programmes, respondents to a survey proposed that emphasis be given to raising awareness of environmental science, especially in secondary schools, while highlighting the potential career path of graduates (Blumhof and Holmes 2008).
The reason for the recent lack of interest in environmental science programmes, Smith suggests, is that the trend in universities to create larger academic structures has affected environmental science programmes; because multi- or inter-disciplinary programmes like environmental science operate best in smaller academic units where interconnections can be developed and supported. As a result ‘… the net effect of recent change has probably been to lower the profile and influence of the subject within universities at a time of increasing public interest in and concern for the environment’ (Smith 2011: 28).
Overall then, the experiences in North America and the United Kingdom indicate variability in the popularity of environment programmes. However, the most recent trends suggest a levelling of demand, or at best a slight increase.
COLLECTING DATA RELATED TO ENVIRONMENT, OR SUSTAINABILITY, PROGRAMMES IN AUSTRALIA
Initially university programmes were established with titles related to ‘environment’ (e.g., see Cosgrove and Thomas 1996). Responses to the Brundtland Report (WCED 1987), Agenda 21, the international agreement coming from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNED Forum) and university related initiatives such as the Talloires Declaration (University Leaders for a Sustainable Future 2001) have led to the development of programmes with ‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainable’ in their titles and would represent delivery of education for sustainable development (ESD).
The evolution of environmental education (EE) through to ESD has been charted by McKeown and Hopkins, who note that the initial focus was exclusively on matters to do with the physical environment. With discussion of broader concerns for education in the early 1990s (i.e., in connection with Agenda 21), the ‘overall intent had moved from environmental protection and pollution reduction to addressing the needs of both environment and society’ (2003: 119). Similarly, differences are seen by Tilbury (2004: 103), who suggests that ESD ‘differs from the commonly practised environmental education approaches in that it goes beyond addressing values and attitudes of the individual to build their capacity for instigating and managing change’.
That there are differences between EE and ESD is acknowledged by McKeown and Hopkins who comment that ‘some people insist ESD is a large umbrella under which EE fits, and others insist the opposite, that sustainability is part of EE’ (2003: 123). They note that there is no resolution to this, since the outcome of the argument depends on the perspectives of those involved in the discussion. In the end, the authors conclude that EE and ESD have similarities, and will influence one another. Taking this point further, McKeown and Hopkins (2005: 221) propose that ‘the goals and dreams of environmental educators are similar to those of educators involved in ESD; both carry a vision for a better world’; specifically the dreams include that communities leave smaller ecological footprints, are more just and equitable, and that the ‘well-being of the environment, society, and economy are balanced’ (2005: 221). Tilbury (2004) also notes the close connection of environmental educators in the development of ESD curriculum.
Overall then, while differences between EE and ESD have been identified, the overlaps are also stressed. Hence for the purposes of this broad investigation of applications for environment and for sustainability programmes in universities, we need not be concerned about differences, and can consider programmes bearing these names to be part of the same broad grouping.
Across this broad group of programmes, a lack of consistency in data collection has made it difficult to assemble comparable long-term trends. The source of consolidated data is the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE) and their annual reports, titled variously ‘Undergraduate Applications and Offers’ or ‘Undergraduate Applications, Offers and Acceptances’ onwards from 2008 (e.g., DIISRTE 2012). Earlier data are held by the relevant state tertiary admissions centre, but these data are not readily obtainable.
Also, the data are not always precise. To assess the attractiveness of a programme, a clear measure is the number of ‘first preferences’ (or ‘highest preference’) for the programme, while the number of ‘total preferences’ 1 is another reasonable indication. Ideally, these data would be available for specifically identified environment and sustainability programmes. Fortunately highest preference data are available; however, on an Australia-wide basis DIISRTE assembles data under broad categories of ‘Field of Education’ (FoE) (see Figure 2 for the list of FoEs). Sub-categories of these fields are sometimes sufficiently fine to identify an environment programme, such as ‘FoE 39901 Environmental Engineering’. Unfortunately others, such as FoE 90309 Human Geography suggest a relationship to environmental studies, but there is no guarantee that a programme coded to this subfield taught environmental studies. Further, coding for the subfields for some fields, for example, engineering, is difficult or impossible as applicants may not be required to specify a major at the time of application.
Environment and sustainability programmes are included in a range of FoEs (and subfields) covering the sciences, engineering, education and social sciences. To gain some insight of the trends in applications, I have, where possible, used data that were specific to environment and sustainability programmes, but where this detail was not possible, data for the broad FoEs have been used. Specifically, the four FoEs most relevant to this review are: Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies; Engineering and Related Technologies; Natural and Physical Sciences and Society and Culture. This means that the data and results are far from representing statistical precision. While desirable, such precision is not critical if we are to gain an understanding of the trends in the popularity of the programmes and in understanding where future research attention is needed. For example, even at this early stage it is clear that we need more research on the development of a reliable data base of the applications and enrolments in the specific environment and sustainability programmes.
So the Australia-wide FoE data provide a broad indication of the number of applications for environment and sustainability programmes, but we have to recognize that data about other programmes are likely to be included; and these programmes may have been included because of discipline and philosophical similarity, or because of administrative convenience for the data collectors. In addition, however, more precise data are available, but not consistently across Australia. These data are the first (i.e., highest) and total applications for those programmes that are specifically titled environment or sustainability. For three states (Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia) such data were available and have been presented alongside the broader ‘indicative’ data obtained from the FoE data sets.
The next section presents the data that have been assembled. DIISRTE (formally Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, DEEWR) was the major source through their reports (noted earlier) and by running reports on their data for selected subfields, for the national and state and territory data (Harrison 2012; and Ow 2012). As already mentioned, for Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, data for first and total preferences were available through the relevant state tertiary admissions centre; this allowed identification of specific environment and sustainability programmes for inclusion in the aggregate of applications for the state. For example, regarding Victoria, from the detailed data through the Victorian Tertiary Admission Centre it was possible to identify programmes with titles:
Civil and Environmental Engineering Conservation and Land Management Engineering Environmental Engineering Sustainable Systems Environment Environmental Engineering Environmental Management Environmental Management and Ecology Environmental Science Natural Resources Education Outdoor Environmental Education Outdoor Recreational Education Sustainability Management Sustainability, Environmental Sustainability Wildlife and Conservation Biology
Aggregation of the first and total preferences for each programme enabled trends for applications for the whole state to be developed.
POPULARITY OF ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMMES IN AUSTRALIA
Australia as a Whole
Applications for university programmes have increased since the beginning of the 2000s, although with a flattening in the mid to late period and a strong growth since 2008 (see Figure 3). However, as indicated in Figure 3, trends in popularity of environment and programmes have not followed the later increase. These data show that only those environment programmes associated with the field of ‘Natural and Physical Sciences’ may show an increase in recent years. In comparison to these increases, little or no change has been seen in the popularity of programmes in Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies, or Society, Culture and Creative Arts.
While data for only 2009–2012 were available for investigation of some subfields that have a direct relation to Environment and Sustainability, Figure 4 illustrates a picture similar to the broad FoE data. Applications for Environmental Studies rose from 1,444 and returned to 1,450, while for the other subfields there were small rises: Environmental Engineering rose from 124 to 144, and Human Geography from 143 to 168; Ecology and Evolution rose slightly from 112 to return to 115. Subsequently, when examining the data for the states and territories, since the subfield environmental studies paralleled trends in the others, and had the largest numbers of applicants; it was taken as the indicator for trends in the data for the subfields.
Data in Figure 5 indicate the general rise in the total number of highest preferences, or applications, across Australia for the relevant FoEs.
Australian Capital Territory
Broadly speaking the data (shown in Figure 6) indicate a similar situation to the Australian data (Figure 3). The only field showing an increase is the Natural and Physical Sciences, while Society and Culture shows a recovery after the 2010 fall. During this period total applications for all programmes offered in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) was essentially stable, changing from (approximately) 5,460 to 5,470.
New South Wales
The data, shown in Figure 7, again indicate a similar situation to the overall Australian data (Figure 3). The fields of Sciences and Engineering show an increase, while Society and Culture indicates a flattening out after an initial fall. During this period total applications for all programmes offered in the state increased from (approximately) 73,500 to 78,760.
Northern Territory
With its smaller numbers, the data show more volatility than for other jurisdictions. Apart from Environmental Studies, all fields show some increases, although Engineering is the more consistent (see Figure 8). During this period total applications for all programmes offered in the Territory increased from (approximately) 2,150 to 2,630.
Queensland
A change in data recording leads to the presentation of the data in two forms (see Figures 9a and 9b). In Figure 9a, data for first and total preferences for specific environment programmes were available, and these indicate that first preferences were essentially level over the short period to 2007, while total preferences dropped noticeably. For 2008 to 2010, increases in the FoE data (Figure 9b) for Engineering and Related Technology, Natural and Physical Sciences and Society and Culture suggest there may have been an increase in applications for environment programmes (compared with Figure 9a) or that other programmes associated with these FoEs experienced the increases; given that applications for Environmental Studies remained flat, the latter interpretation is more likely. During this period, 2005 to 2012, total applications for all programmes offered increased from (approximately) 47,400 to 54,850.
South Australia
Similar to other jurisdictions, increases in applications for Engineering and Related Technologies and in Natural and Physical Sciences are evident; see Figure 10. Unlike others though, applications for Society and Culture were flat, and those for Environmental Studies decreased. During this period, total applications for all programmes offered increased from (approximately) 21,130 to 23,800.
Tasmania
Unlike other jurisdictions, as indicated in Figure 11, applications for Engineering and Related Technologies and for Natural and Physical Sciences programmes are effectively flat, while applications for Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies, and Society and Culture all rose slightly. The subfield Environmental Studies fell very slightly. This compares with the rise of total applications across all FoEs from (approximately) 9,250 to 11,720 for the period.
Victoria
Data presented in Figure 12a indicate that overall popularity for the environment programmes has increased over the decade reported, but have shown a flattening off since 2011. Trends for total and first preferences have similar patterns. A major contribution to the rise was that in 2008 the ‘new generation’ Environment programme at the University of Melbourne took applications, almost doubling the number of applications from all other programmes; under the Melbourne programme, studies lead to six professional areas. 2 Also, prior to 2009 a number of science based programmes had not been included. Where all the data are considered, 2010–2012, the increases, especially in first preferences, are more modest.
When data for FoEs are considered, in Figure 12b, the increase in Natural and Physical Sciences stands out against small increases in Agriculture and in Society and Culture, with small decreases in Engineering and Related Technologies and Environmental Studies. These changes can be compared with the increase in total application for all programmes offered from (approximately) 62,200 in 2005, to 64,380 in 2009, up to 68,580 in 2012.
Western Australia
From the data in Figure 13a, both first and total preferences show a slight increase to 2010, then a drop in 2011. Looking at the broader FoE data, Figure 13b, as in other jurisdictions, a strong growth in applications for Natural and Physical Sciences is evident, and along with most states, an increase in Society and Culture. Decreases in applications for Agriculture and Environmental Studies are also consistent with some other jurisdictions. These changes can be compared with the slight increase in total application for all programmes offered over the period from (approximately) 18,650 to 19,300, after a high of 20,830 in 2010.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE DATA
Variability in the popularity of environment and sustainability programmes is not surprising if we see there is a connection between the popularity of professions, expressed in employment opportunities, and the public’s interest in their areas of activity, as expressed in the media’s coverage of environmental matters. This variability has been evident in Britain and the USA, perhaps less so in Canada. Since the mid-2000s the trends in these three countries indicate that environment programmes have retained a consistent popularity (they have ‘held their own’) or have increased somewhat in popularity.
The overall picture for Australia is generally similar. Across the three FoEs that principally cover environment programmes (Agriculture, Environmental and Related Studies; Natural and Physical Sciences and Society and Culture) over the past decade we see that their popularity has essentially been constant. While there has been some increase in the applications for programmes in the Natural and Physical Sciences, the data available were not sufficiently detailed to indicate if this was due to increased popularity of programmes that are closely associated with the environment profession (such as Environmental Science), or to popularity of other disciplines (such as Chemistry or Earth Science). Even so, it does not seem that any increases have kept pace with the substantial growth between 2008 and 2012 of around 26 per cent in total applications in Australia, for programmes covering all disciplines at Australian universities (see Figure 3).
Looking at the trends in the states and territories, there is variability in the applications associated with all the FoE trends. The exception is for Natural and Physical Sciences where all jurisdictions except for Tasmania show some increase. There is slightly more variation for Engineering and Related Studies, with increases or flat-lining being prevalent, although there is a slight decrease in Victoria. With the smallest numbers of applications Agriculture, Environment and Related Studies, and Environmental Studies both show little change over the period across the jurisdictions; however, there has been a decline for Agriculture in Western Australia. The Australia-wide results for Society and Culture show a general decline in applications, but considerable variability across the jurisdictions, with falls in Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales, being essentially flat in Northern Territory, South Australia and Victoria, but rises in Queensland and Western Australia.
Overall the FoE data indicate no dramatic changes, and this could be interpreted as there being a consistent, but not necessarily strong, interest in the environment programmes. It may be that the increase in Natural and Physical Sciences applications represents a growing demand from programmes like Environmental Science 3 (but we cannot claim that as definite because of the range of disciplines covered by this FoE). Where we have data for the environment programmes specifically (i.e., data for first and total preferences from Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia), we have a better picture of the popularity of those specific programmes. For first and total preferences in the three States for which data were available (Figures 9a, 12a and 13a), the pattern of first preferences has been similar to that of total preferences. However, the extent of the trends has been that the trend for total preferences has been greater and more noticeable. In summary, in Queensland the decrease in total preferences from 2005 to 2007 was much greater than for first preferences; in Western Australia total preferences again showed a steeper decline than first preferences; while in Victoria, total preferences showed a much greater increase than did first preferences. Given that there may be a variety of reasons for students indicating a preference for a programme, 4 a focus on the first preferences is, intuitively, more likely to represent the clear preference an applicant will have, and therefore the popularity of the programme. Taking this approach we see that there was a degree of consistency across the states since between 2005 and 2007 applications were reasonably stable, and the subsequent rise in Victoria was reflected in Western Australia, although much less pronounced. However, the 2011 decrease in Western Australia was only slightly reflected in the Victorian data for 2012.
These trends have been occurring at the same time that environmental issues continue to be regularly in the public arena. Whether this coverage is related to a series of media articles about climate change, for example, the melting of permafrost (Arup 2012a; Cubby 2012), and global warming (Anon 2012), or aspects of biodiversity (Arup 2012b; Howden 2012), it would be difficult to find a day, or media outlet, where an environmental issue was not covered. So the situation in Australia echoes that in Britain described by Smith (2011), that is, great community awareness of environmental matters, but not an equivalent popularity of related university programmes. Importantly for those concerned about the environment profession, awareness does not seem to generate concern, at least for young people in Australia. This point is illustrated by the 2012 Mission Australia ‘Youth Survey’ which discovered that ‘The Environment’, as ‘Most important issue in Australia today’ had decreased from the most important issue in 2010 (37.8 per cent response), and in 2011 (37.4 per cent), to sixth most important issue in 2012 (17.5 per cent) (Mission Australia 2012: 20). For 2012 the most important issue was ‘The economy and financial matters’, followed (in decreasing rank) by ‘Population Issues’, ‘Alcohol and drugs’, ‘Politics and societal values’ and ‘Equity and discrimination’.
All this indicates that if these trends continue, environment and sustainability programmes are most unlikely to attract greater numbers of students. Yet this would be happening in parallel with increasing need for people to be working to prevent, or at least moderate, the negative trends identified for environmental quality, and to help humans and other species adapt to environmental changes. It would also be in parallel with the current need that is seen internationally (discussed in the Introduction) for the education of environmentally ‘literate’ professionals.
What is to be done? There is no simple ‘solution’. Broadly an increase in public interest regarding environmental issues would seem to be a critical component in highlighting the need for environment professionals and hence their education thought university programmes. However, academics and universities have little influence here, so we need to consider options where we can make positive contributions. A start would be to have more precise research about the applications rate for the environment and sustainability programmes; then we would be able to assess the depth of the problem, monitor trends, and hence see if actions were leading to a ‘solution’.
Second, to reverse the apparent current situation and ensure that a body of environment professionals is available in the future, universities will have to do a much better job of attracting students to their programmes. In this context, the proposals of Blumhof and Holmes (2008), regarding promotion of environmental programmes to school students and explaining the options for environment careers, should be considered seriously. Given that the youth survey found that the most important issue is ‘The economy and financial matters’ (Mission Australia 2012), it suggests that young people are concerned about their economic future and, presumably, jobs. From industry and the government, there is a strong message that there are employment opportunities for environmentally literate professionals, so this is a message that can be given to prospective students.
In relation to any promotion strategy a third avenue of action will be important. That is to conduct research to understand why most young people are not applying for environment and sustainability programmes. Such information would help in the design of actions to reduce perceived disincentives to applying, and help outline the advantages.
Partners in any strategies to promote opportunities for employment in the environment profession should be in the profession itself. As this is an Australia-wide issue, and is of direct relevance to several professional associations highly concerned with environmental issues (e.g., Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand, Engineers Australia, Planning Institute of Australia) there is clearly a need for the universities and the associations to develop a strategy to attract future students to the range of environment and sustainability programmes. Given the trends in the data for applications and that for the concern young people have for the environment, such a strategy is most urgently needed.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The initial collection of data by Amy Brown and the assistance of Mrs Harrison and Mrs Ow, of the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, in abstracting selected data sets, are gratefully acknowledged. Further, the insightful editorial comments of Sue Gordon are greatly appreciated.