University!Graduate!Syllabi!for!Urban!Studies,! a!comparative!perspective:!china,!eu,!world!

Transcription

1 UniversityGraduateSyllabiforUrbanStudies, acomparativeperspective:china,eu,world DeliverableD6.2AFinal OliviaBinaandLuisBalula(ICSAULisboa) MartaVaranda(ISEGAULisboa) JosefineFokdal(UniversityofStuttgart) Withcontributionsfrom: AndreaRicciandNicolaPiccioni(ISIS) SebastienGoulardandMiguelElosua(CNRS) Specialthanksto ZhiLiu(PekinUniversity) GiulioVerdini(Xi AnJiatongLiverpoolUniversity) July2015

2 CitingthisURBACHINAReport:Bina,O. 1,Balula,L. 1,Varanda,M. 2,Fokdal,J. 3 (2015)University GraduateSyllabiforUrbanStudies:acomparativeperspective:China,EU,World URBACHINAWP4 Deliverable,15July ICSVUniversityofLisbon; 2 ISEGVUniversityofLisbonandSOCIUS; 3 UniversityofStuttgart. ProjectInformation ProjectAcronym:URBACHINA Projectfulltitle:"SustainableUrbanisationinChina:HistoricalandComparativePerspectives, MegaVtrendstowards2050" Grantagreementno: Startingdate:01/03/2011 Duration:48months Commissionedby:DirectorateGeneralforResearch,EC LeadPartner:CNRS 2

3 TABLEOFCONTENTS PREMISE INTRODUCTION CONCEPTUALANDANALYTICALFRAMEWORK EMBEDDINGEDUCATIONFORSUSTAINABLEURBANDEVELOPMENTINTOEDUCATIONSYSTEMS THEDESIGNVPOLICYVMANAGEMENTDIMENSIONSINURBANSTUDIESEDUCATION URBANSTUDIESEDUCATION(USE)FORSUSTAINABLEURBANDEVELOPMENT(SUD):ENABLINGFACTORS,CHALLENGES, SIGNSOFPROGRESS FOCUSONCHINA METHODOLOGYFORACOMPARATIVEANALYSISOFPROGRAMSINURBANSTUDIES SELECTIONOFPROGRAMSINURBANSTUDIES COLLECTIONOFDATA:NETNOGRAPHY+SURVEY )Netnography)...) )Survey)...)14 4.COMPARINGPROGRAMSINEU,CN,ROW ANALYSESOFPROGRAMS:GENERALOVERVIEWDATA )Programs )Orientation)...) )Educational)Skills)enabling)Sustainable)Urban)Development)...) )Objectives)supporting)SUD,)Ethical)values,)CrossO)InterO)or)TransOdisciplinarity)...)17 4.2ANALYSESOFDATAONCOURSESWITHINPROGRAMS )Key)sustainability)topics)covered)by)courses)...) )Dominant)typologies)of)courses)...) )Further)survey)results)...)25 5.DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONSANDRECOMMENDATIONS

4 4 PREMISE ThisreportpresentstheresultsofTask%6.3:%Review%and%recommend%improvements%to%University% level%syllabuses%on%urbanization,thescopeofwhichwasdiscussedandextendedattheurbachina projectmeetingandiiiinternationalconferenceinkunming(3v5june2013),reinforcingthe sustainabilityandcomparativedimension.followingthepresentationofpreliminaryresults,itwas agreed:1)tofocustheanalysisonthesustainabilitydimensionwithinurbanstudies,and2)to expandthesetofcasestudiestothreegeographicalgroupings:china(cn),europe(eu)andtherest oftheworld(row). 1. INTRODUCTION EducationforsustainabilityhasrecentlyemergedasanurgentcrossVcurricularpriorityandalsoa challengetohighereducationinstitutionsallovertheworld.inthewakeoftheunitednations declarationofthedecadeofeducationforsustainabledevelopment(desd,2004v2014),advocating theneedforuniversitiestoaddressthecomplexityofcurrentrealvworldcontextsbyembedding sustainabilityinalllearningareasacrossthecurriculum(unesco2014),notionsofsustainabilityand sustainabledevelopmenthavebeenincreasinglyinstitutionalizedandincorporatedintothecurricula ofhighereducationinstitutions(dymentetal2014).overthedecade,manyuniversitiesworldwide haveindeedadaptedtheirsyllabisoastointegratesustainabilityconceptsintotheirprograms' curricula.however,thishasbeenaslowprocess(lozano2010),educationforsustainabilityisstill lackingaconsistentinterdisciplinaryconceptualframework(jabareen2012),andacoherent curriculumforsustainabilityandsustainabledevelopmentremainsachallenge(ryanetal.2010).as UNESCOrecentlyrecognized,afullintegrationofsustainabilityvalueshasyettotakeplaceinmost countries(unesco2014),whichimpliesthatfurthereffortsarerequiredtoensurethat sustainabilityandsustainabledevelopmentbecomeanintegralpartoftheacademicculture. Withinthiscontext,urbanstudieseducation(USE) bywhichwemeanthevariousacademic programsassociatedwiththestudyof,andplanningfor,urbanareasandtheirregions,andtaught withdifferentfocusesinarangeoffaculties(e.g.architecture,planning,geography,engineering, economics) playsakeyrole.duringtheunsummitforsustainabledevelopmentinriodejaneiro (2012),governmentsagainrecognizedtheneedtosupporthighereducationinstitutionstosecure theresearch,innovationandskillsthattheywillneedtoadvancenationalsustainabledevelopment objectives(unesco2014).suchneedbecomesespeciallyevidentwhenconsideringthepaceand scaleofurbanizationindevelopingcountries.urbanizationisamongstthemostsignificantglobal trendsofthe21 st centuryandprovidesthe"settingandunderlyingbase"forglobalchange(un Habitat2012).Thus,USEiscalledupontopromoteacomprehensiveunderstandingofurban processesandurbanizationdynamics,advancinganacademiccultureofsustainabilityand,in particular,enablingsustainableurbandevelopment(sud),bywhichwemeanenvironmental justice,economicimprovementandsocialequityasreflectedonurbansystems(i.e.,buildings, towns,citiesandtheirinfrastructures).therelationshipbetweenuseandsudisthefocusofthis study. Respondingtoanincreasingcomplexityofsocialandspatialinteractionsinaglobalizedsociety,the focusonsudhasextendedthetraditionalconcernsofuse astaughtbymostconventional

5 5 programsinarchitecture,planning,orurbandesign fromphysicaldesigntopolicyandsocial sciencetopics(dimitrova2014).professionalurbanpractitionersincreasinglyneedtodealwith emergingethicalconcernsrelatedtosocial,environmentalandeconomicissues,aswellas governancechallenges,formerlyneglectedbycanonicalurbanstudies.futuregraduateswillalso needtorespondtonewsocietalchallengesandexpectationsbydealingwith"complexity, uncertainty,change,otherdisciplines,people,environmentallimits,wholelifecosts,andtradevoffs" (Cruickshanketal2012:249).SomemasterVlevelprograms(MAorMSc)inurbanstudiesare reportedlyrespondingtothesechallengesbyquestioninglongvestablishedtenetsofurbanplanning (e.g.treatingcitiesasproductsinsteadofdynamicprocesses),promotingcriticalthinking,exploring informalurbanisms,communityvbuildingandprogressivecollaboration,aswellasevolvingtowards moreintervortransvdisciplinarycurricula(silkes2014). USEhasevolvedtoencompassmanydifferentacademicbackgrounds.Therehavebeeninitiativesto defineasetofcommonvaluesandprinciplestoguidescholarshipinuse,suchasthe"statement"in thecharteroftheassociationofeuropeanschoolsofplanning(aesop)whichestablishedthe"core requirementsforahighqualityeuropeanurbaneducation"(aesop,1995)followedtodaybyall memberschools.concernedwitharoleforplanningeducation,thestatementemphasizesthatit mustinvolve: thescientificstudyofandtrainingincreativeconceptualandpracticalthinkingontherelation betweensocietyandenvironmentatvariousterritoriallevelsandinthesearch,developmentand advancementofopportunitiesforpurposefulinterventioninthatrelationtoensuresustainable development(aesop,1995). Planning'sultimategoalisthereforetoguaranteethesustainabledevelopmentofsocietyand environment.however,accordingtounhabitat,in2009,eventhoughsustainabledevelopmentwas taughtalreadyinamajorityofplanningschoolsworldwide,curriculumreformtowardssustainability wasstillmissinginmanyschools.therewereschoolsthattaughtthetechnicalandanalyticalaspects ofplanningbutdidnotincorporatethedesignandpolicyapproaches,othersthatdidnotincludethe participatorycomponentandothersstillwhichdidnoteffectivelyintegrateissuesofsustainability, globalization,socialequityorclimatechange(unhabitat2009). Theoverallaimofthefollowinginquiry partofalargerstudyonurbanizationtrendsineuropeand China(URBACHINA,see: istocarryoutacomparative reviewofasampleofpostvgraduatelevelcurriculainurbanstudiesineurope(eu),china(cn)and therestoftheworld(row),inordertoexaminehowcurrentpostvgraduateprogramsinurban studiesarepreparingthenextwaveofcityvshapers,andaskthecorequestion:howaresustainable challengestourbandevelopmentbeingacknowledgedandaddressedinpostagraduate(master level)urbanstudiesprogramsacrosstheworld? Thenextsectiondescribestheconceptualframeworkofthestudyandsummarizestheresultsofour detailedreviewofliteratureoneducation,identifyingenablingfactors,challengesandsignsof progressinuseandsud.onthisbasiswedefinedthekeyelementsofouranalyticalframework: Programs overallorientation; EducationalskillsthatwillenablefuturegraduatestopromoteSUD; Objectivesandsubjectmatterssupporting:SUD;anethicalperspective;andtheneedfor interdisciplinarity; SustainabilitytopicscoveredbyCore&ElectiveCourses; Dominanttypologiesofcourses.

6 Section3describesthemethodologyfortheselectionof25urbanstudies programsandthe methodofdatacollection.section4presentstheresultsofthecomparativeanalysisofthe25 programsintermsofthekeyelementsoftheanalyticalframework.section5discussesthe significanceofthedatacollected;andsection6drawstheoverallconclusionsofthecomparative analysis,includingelementsofgoodpracticefortheframingofacademicprogramsinurbanstudies capableofpromotingsud. 2. CONCEPTUAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Embedding education for Sustainable Urban Development into education systems Ouranalyticalframeworkwasshapedonthebasisofacomprehensivereviewoftheacademic literatureoneducationinurbanstudiesandeducationinsustainabledevelopment(seefigure1 below),whichidentifiedthemajorchallenges,enablingfactorsandsignsofprogresstodatein highereducationforsustainableurbandevelopment(sud). Figure1 Conceptualframework Source:Authors Asmentionedintheintroduction,theUNDecadeofEducationforSustainableDevelopment(EfSD), launchedin2005,hasinitiatedanimportantmovementtowardsembeddingthenotionsof sustainabilityintoeducationsystemsaroundtheworld.itwasacallforuniversitiestoadapttheir curriculabyincorporatingconceptsofenvironmentalandsocialresponsibilityintothefieldsof actionofarchitects,planners,engineers,andothergraduates(junyentanddeciurana2008).as recentlystatedbyunesco, thelaunchofthedecadeofefsdin2005markedthebeginningof10 yearsofanexplicitglobalmovementtowardsimprovingandreorientingeducationsystemstowards sustainabledevelopment (UNESCO,2014).ThistrendwasfurtheradvancedrecentlybytheRio+20 HigherEducationSustainabilityInitiative,wheregovernmentsrecognizedtheneedtosupporthigher educationinstitutionstosecuretheresearch,innovationandskillsthatwillbeneededtoadvance sustainabledevelopmentobjectives(rio+20hesi2012). 6

7 SomekeyfindingsoftheFinalReportoftheUNDecadeofEducationforSustainableDevelopment showthatnearlythreevquarters(72%)ofmemberstatesbelievethatprogresshasbeenmadewith respecttoembeddingsustainabledevelopmentintoeducationsystems(unesco2014).however, findingsalsoshowthatafullintegrationofsustainabledevelopmentintohighereducationsystems hasyettotakeplaceinmostcountries.amongotherrequirements,aninnovativeagendainuse towardssudneedstoincludestrategicspatialplanning,newurbanmanagementapproaches, participatoryprocesses,andsustainableurbanform(unhabitat2009).wewillexploresuch requirementsinthefollowingsections. 2.2 The design-policy-management dimensions in Urban Studies Education BasedonUNVHABITAT sframingofthekeydebatesonurbanplanningeducationoverthelast century(unhabitat2009)andotherauthors(seebelow),andasalreadymentionedontheprevious section,itwaspossibletoidentifyanimportantnexusbetweenthedesign,policyandmanagement dimensionsinthefieldofuse.thesethreedimensions,ormajororientations,arenotexclusiveand arepresent,albeitindifferentcombinations,inalluseprograms.theliteraturereviewedsupports theideathatprogramswithastrongersustainabilityfocushaveabalancedmixofthesethree dimensions/orientations.inshort,theseare: DesignVwithafocusonplanninginstruments(e.g.neighborhoodVscaleprojects,masterplans). However,besidesarchitecture,spatialplanningandlandscapearchitecture(thetraditional fieldsofurbanplanning)usemustacknowledgesocialandenvironmentalconcernsand addressthesustainabilitychallengesunderscoredbythesocialsciences(krieger2009; Yüksek2013;Bodenschatz2011); PolicyVwithafocusonsocialsciences'concernsandchallenges.Whileurbanplanningmustbe informedbythesocialsciences,itdiffersfromtheseinfundamentalways,includingits persistenttieswithpracticevthuswithspatialplanningandurbanmanagementvaswellas itsnormativenature,concernedwith"howtheworldshouldbe"(beardandbasolo2011); ManagementVwithafocusonurbandynamicsandchange(includingstrategicplanningand futuresstudies).urbanstrategicplanningandfuturethinking/visioningaremanagement toolsthatdifferfromconventionalurbanplanningandcanbemoreeffectivetoaddressthe complexityofurbandynamicsandmanageprocessesofcitychange(unhabitat2007; Rohweder&Virtanen2009).Strategicplans,however,donotdispensewithspatialplanning (UNHabitat2007). Ouranalyticalframeworkintegratestheseinterrelateddimensions,aswellastheenablingfactorsof USEforSUD(seesection2.3),inordertoprobethesampleof25USEprograms,asdetailedin sections3and4. 7

8 2.3 Urban Studies Education (USE) for Sustainable Urban Development (SUD): Enabling factors, Challenges, Signs of progress Acomprehensivereviewoftheliteraturehelpedtoidentifyasetofenablingfactors,challengesand signsofprogressinurbanstudieseducation(use)forsustainableurbandevelopment(sud).these wereintegratedintoouranalyticalframework(seesection3),aredescribedbelowandare summarizedintablei. Integratingphysicaldesignandsocialscience/policyapproaches,aswellasurbanmanagement issuesiskeytoeffectivelyincorporatesustainabilityinurbanstudies.thereisanenduring tensionbetweendesignandpolicyorientationsinuse.programswithafocusonurban designhavegraduallymovedtowardsanincreasedfocusonpolicyandsocialscience. However,duringthelastdecadeofthe20thcenturytherehasbeenaresurgenceofdesign inanumberofschools(unhabitat2009).asimpliedbysenbel(2012)literacyinurban designisnecessaryforunderstandingthespatialimplicationsofpolicydecisions(senbel 2012).Moreover,inordertoaddressesthecomplexityofurbandynamicsanddealwith processesofcitychange,animportantfocusonimplementationandmanagementhasbeen adoptedbyseveralnewpostvgraduateprograms(silkes2014).theseprogramsfavorfuture thinking/visioning(rohweder&virtanen2009)anddynamic,inclusiveandparticipatory strategicplanning(unhabitat2007),aspartofaninnovativeagendatowardssud.asun Habitat(2009)hasasserted,however,someschoolsdonotfullyintegrateallthese dimensions(unhabitat2009). SkillstowardsSUD,accordingtoUNHabitat(2009),maybeessentiallygroupedintothree categories:analytical,technical,andcommunication/negotiation.worldwide,thereare considerabledifferencesintherelativeweightgiventothesedifferentskillsintheplanning curricula.thisrelatesmostlytotheschools orientationintermsofdesignand/orpolicy approaches.forexample,planningschoolsinasiavaluemoreanalyticalandtechnicalskills; inlatinamericaemphasisontechnicalskillsismorecommonthanonparticipationor negotiation;andineuropeplanningeducationischaracterizedbyawidediversityof curriculumcontent,accordingtothediversenationalapproaches(unhabitat2009). Mergingtheoryandpracticeinurbanstudiesconcernstheneedtodevelopcapabilitiesto translateknowledgeandanalysisintoaction(campbell2012).apropermixoftheoryand practiceisrequiredinordertocombinecriticalreflection,phenomenologicalexperience, andproceduralknowledge(geppertandverhage2008)andisessentialtodevelopstudents abilitytoengageinethicalreflection,andreflectivepractice(schön1983,frank2002).a tensionbetweentheoryandpractice,however,underpinsthedebateonwhatshouldbethe idealcorecurriculumandwhichskillsaremostuseful:academicstendtooveremphasizethe abstract,whilepracticingprofessionalstendtoemphasizetheinstrumental(edwardsand Bates2011). GeographicalfocusonthelocalAglobalnexusisrequiredinordertoprovidefutureprofessionals withalternativetheoreticalframeworksthatacknowledgeandaddressnewurbancontexts andthenowvdominantconditionsofurbanlifeinmanycities mostly,butnotonly,onthe GlobalSouth(Watson2009).Urbansustainabilityislocalinnaturebutneedsto acknowledgeregionalandglobalinterdependencies(vojnovic2014;wals&corcoran, 2006).TheUSEcurriculaneedtocontributetoanunderstandingofthedynamicsshaping 21stcenturycitiesandbringtotheforeplanningconcernsandknowledgeaboutsocioV 8

9 9 spatialtrendsandchallengesofrapidurbanizationandurbaninformality,climatechange andecologicalconcerns.italsoneedstohelpdeveloptheunderstandingofparticipatory planningissuesinmulticulturalcontexts(unhabitat2009).thereis,however,agap betweenmoretraditionalapproachestoplanning mostlyshapedbyplanningtheoriesand practiceoriginatedintheglobalnorth andtheproblematicconditionsofurbanlife (includingpoverty,inequality,informalityandspatialfragmentation)onagrowingnumber ofworldcities(watson2009). Promotingparticipatoryprocessesanddeliberativeapproachesisindispensibletoachieveequity inurbanprocessesanddecisions,acoreprincipleofsud.advocacyplanning(davidof1965), deliberativeandparticipatoryplanning(forester1999),alongwithsociallearning(bandura 1971)becamethekeystonesuponwhichmanyplanningschoolshavedevelopedtheir curriculaandthebasisforcurrentbottomvuptheoriesandinitiativesofcivicengagementin governancestrategiesandplanningprocesses(healey,1996;unhabitat2009).endorsing collaborativeplanninginuse,throughteamwork,workshopsandcommunityprojectsis thereforeindispensabletothepromotionofsud. Ethicalvaluesandcriticalreasoningareinseparablefromtheprinciplesofsustainable development."criticalreflection"and"valuesclarification"havebecomecorecomponents ofeducationforsustainability(duetal.2013).toembedsustainabledevelopmentinthe curricularequiresmorethanincludingnewcontents;useforsudrequirestheendorsement ofethicalandcriticalreasoning(holmbergetal2008)throughacurriculathatpromotes awarenessofethicalvaluessuchassocialandeconomicequity,andenvironmental responsibility(unhabitat2009).theneedtocriticallyengagewithcontemporaryurban issues(silkes2014)andincreasinglycomplexsocialandspatialinteractions,requiresdealing withemergingethicalissuesrelatedtosocialandenvironmentaljustice,formerlyneglected bycanonicalurbanism(dimitrova2014).theengagementwiththenormativefoundationsof SUD,suchas"humanflourishingandthejustcity",however,willbealwaysacontested territory(friedmann2008).issuesofgender,forexample,arestillexceptionalinthecore curriculaofmosturbanplanningschools(unhabitat2009). InterdisciplinarityandcrossAsectorcollaborationarecriticaltoUSEforSUD,becausesustainability isinherentlyinterdisciplinary,requiringintegrativeapproaches,systemicthinkingandcrossv sectorcollaboration(rohwederandvirtanen2009).itisalsoconsensualthaturban complexitycannotbeunderstoodfromtheperspectiveofasinglediscipline(trencheretal 2014;BeardandBasolo2011;Krieger2009;Friedmann2008;MartinandBeatley1993).On theotherhand,interdisciplinarityfacesmanychallenges.traditionaldisciplinesare entrenchedacademicterritories(mitranyandstokols2005)withresilientdisciplinary boundariesanddiscreetepistemologies,methodsanddiscourses(bradbeer1999), subscribingparticularworldviews,tools,exempla,concepts,andtheories(feng2012). Researchacrossdisciplinesrarelysatisfiesthecriteriaandstandardsofeachofthe disciplinesinvolved(mitranyandstokols2005)andthereisastigmaoflegitimacy, associatedwiththeriskofsuperficiality/generality(bursztyn&drummond,2013). TableIsummarizestheenablingfactors,challengesandsignsofprogresstodateinUSEforSUD, identifiedintheliterature.

10 Table I - Enabling factors, challenges and signs of progress to date in USE for SUD Enabling factors Major challenges Signs of progress 1. Integrating physical design and social science/policy approaches with urban management 2. Analytical, technical, and communication skills enabling SUD Merging theory and practice Geographical focus on the local-global nexus Participatory processes and deliberative approaches Full integration of these dimensions is difficult to achieve in the short time-span of a typical programme Diverse schools rank the importance of these skills differently: this relates mostly to the schools orientation in terms of design and/or policy and management approaches Academics emphasize theory; practicing professionals put a stronger focus on practice Gap between traditional approaches, shaped by theories and practice of the 'global North' and the conditions of urban life on a growing number of world cities Growing number of stakeholders and diverse interests involved in governance and planning processes 3. Ethical values and critical reasoning Emerging ethical issues related to social and environmental justice are a politically charged and contested territory 4. Interdisciplinarity and cross-sector collaboration Source:(Authors( Resilient disciplinary boundaries; discreet epistemologies, methods and discourses. The focus on sustainability has extended the concerns of spatial planning education from physical design to social science and urban management topics, and most planning schools worldwide already mix design and policy approaches in their curricula A diversity of educational approaches tends to favor context-oriented USE, rather than a 'one-world' universalist approach to urban planning Merging theory and practice is pursued in many planning schools through 'project-based learning', including hands-on studios and workshops, field trips, community projects and real life problem-solving planning experiences New urban perspectives from the 'global South' are being taught at some schools, providing an important conceptual tool for a shift in planning theory and practice On a global level, curriculum content in the areas of sustainable development, including participatory or deliberative planning and social equity is covered by the majority of planning schools (climate change matters are less prevalent) A new ethical relationships between people and the environment, inherent to the concept of sustainability, is already patent in the curricula of most schools Evidence suggests that cross-sector university partnerships for urban sustainability are increasingly common worldwide and these partnerships have the potential to link place-specific issues to regional and global concerns.

11 2.4 Focus on China WehavealsoidentifiedsomeofthechallengesofUSEforSUDthatareparticulartoChina.Besides broadgeographicaldifferencesandtheculturaldiversityofavastcountry(toveetal.2014;niuet al.2010),chineseprogramsneedtoendorsemoreinterdisciplinarity,or"broadereducational approachesacrossacademicdisciplines"(niuetal.2010).therisingdemandsforsudinchina requireanurgentimprovementinenvironmentaleducationinchineseuniversities(xiongetal. 2013),aswellthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingandreflectionskills,whicharelackinginChinese students(duetal.2013).moreover,thereislimitedinformationandfewpublicationsonsustainable developmentinitiativesinchineseuniversities(niuetal.2010).beyondtheimplementationof greenuniversity policies,focusingonthephysicalcampusoperation,suchas greenliving and energysavingmeasures,curricularorientationtowardssudneedstobeimproved(yuanetal. 2013).SomeChinesescholarsalsopointouttheneedtounderplayformalismRorientedarchitecture designandwesterninfluencesinfavorofthecorevaluesofurbandesignbasedoneastern traditions(cai2011). Ontheotherhand,therearealsosignsofprogressinUSEforSUD,bothinChinaandworldwide. ProgresstowardseducationforSUDvariessomewhatacrossworldregions,butinallregionsthere aresignalsthatstudentsarestartingtolookforasustainabilityrcenterededucation(unesco2014). Despitecurrentchallenges,somelevelofsustainabilityandSUDhasbeenincorporatedintomost planningschoolscurricula(unhabitat2009).moreover,thefocusonsudhasextendedthe concernsoftraditionalplanningeducationfromphysicaldesigntopolicyandsocietaltopics (Dimitrova2014),thusincorporatingmanyofthesustainabilityconcernsofthesocialsciencesinto spatialplanning.manyuseprogramsworldwidealreadymixdesignandpolicyapproachesintheir curricula,albeitindifferentcombinations.whileintheukandusaprogramsaremorelikelyto focusonpolicy/socialscienceapproaches,southerneuropeancountries,aswellaschina,tendto emphasizephysicaldesign(unhabitat2009).evidencealsosuggeststhatcrossrsectoruniversity partnershipsforurbansustainability,withthepotentialtolinkplacerspecificissuestoregionaland globalconcerns,areincreasinglycommonallovertheworld(trencheretal.2014)andnew conceptualtools,suchas"aviewfromtheglobalsouth",arebeingtaughtonsomeprograms, providinganimportantcontributeforashiftinusetheoryandpractice(watson2009).lastbutnot theleast,anemphasisoninterdisciplinarycurriculainusehavealreadywidentheeducational optionsforstudentsinterestedinbecomingprofessionalurbanpractitioners(silkes2014)inmany countries. InChina,theAgenda21of1994identifiedforthefirsttime"educationandcapacityRbuilding"as essentialtosustainabledevelopment;andin1996itpromoted,onselecteduniversities,aseriesof pilotinitiativeseducationforsustainabledevelopment(niuetal.2010).aschinesescholarsduetal (2013)haveasserted,givenChina smultiplechallengesofsustainabledevelopment"inallaspectsof society",thechinesehighereducationsystemhastheresponsibilityandtheneedtoprovideyoung professionalswithknowledgeof,andskillsin,sustainability.infact,theconceptof"sustainable University"or"GreenUniversity"hasbeenwidelydebatedonChinesescholarshipoverthelast decade(yuan&zuo2013),andrecenttrendsindicatethatenvironmentalprotectionand sustainabledevelopmentarebeinggraduallyincorporatedintothecurriculaofmanydisciplinesof thenaturalandsocialsciences,aswellasoncampuslife(xiongetal.2013).

12 3. METHODOLOGY FOR A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS IN URBAN STUDIES 3.1 Selection of Programs in Urban Studies Toanswerourcorequestionwehaveexamined25postRgraduateprogramsinurbanstudies(8in EU;9inCN;8inRoW) consideredamongsomeofthebestandinnovativeintheircountryand worldregion.theselectionofthissamplewasthusbasedonthemethodofjudgmentsampling (nonrrandomsamplethatisselectedbasedontheopinionofanexpert),drawingfirstonasurvey involvingthe12membersoftheurbachinaconsortium(representingeuropeandchina)andits ScientificCommittee(8membersfromCanada,China,France,SwedenandtheUK),andthenon snowballsamplinginvolvingscholarsworldwide(anadditional52scholarscontributed). 1 Finally,wecomparedtheresultingselectionof25programswiththeworldrankingoftheuniversity theybelongto.eachprogram suniversitywasrankedaccordingtoitsscorein:theqsworld UniversityRankingsWORLD2014(worldRa);theTimesHigherEducationWorldUniversityRankings 2014R2015(worldRb);andtheQSWorldUniversityRankingsBRICS2014(BRICS)whereapplicable. Wefoundthatthefinalsampleisrepresentativeofsomeofthemostprestigiousuniversitiesinthe threeregions(seetableii).thus,whilebynomeanscomprehensive,itoffersavalidjudgment sampleforourqualitativestudy.tableiiliststhefinalselectionofprogramsinurbanstudiesin Europe,ChinaandtheRoW. TableII SelectedPrograms Ref.% University/School% Master%programmes% % EU1 TUDelftUniversityofTechnologyRFacultyof Architecture,Urbanism& Architecture,THENETHERLANDS BuildingSciences EU2 UniversityCollegeLondon(UCL)TheBartlett UrbanDevelopmentPlanning DevelopmentPlanningUnit,UK EU3 UniversityofOxford,UK SustainableUrban Development EU4 UniversityofCambridge,UK Architecture&UrbanStudies EU5 Institutd UrbanismedeParis(IUP) Urbanismeetaménagement CentreFrancoRChinoisVillesetTerritoires,FRANCE EU6 LondonSchoolofEconomics,Departmentof Urbanisation&Development GeographyandEnvironment,UK EU7 ErasmusUniv.Rotterdam,InstituteforHousingand UrbanManagement& UrbanDevelopmentStudies,THENETHERLANDS Development EU8 TechnischeUniversitatBerlin,GERMANY% UrbanDesign World%University% Rankings% 86(worldRa) 71(worldRb) 5(worldRa) 22(worldRb) 5(worldRa) 3(worldRb) 2(worldRa) 5(worldRb) n/a 71(worldRa) 34(worldRb) 90(worldRa) 72(worldRb) 192(worldRa) 1 Respondentswereaskedtolistbetween10and15graduateprograms(inChina,theEUandtherestofthe world),focusingonwhattheyconsideredtobeamongthebest(themostprestigiousamongstpeers)and innovativeprogramsinthebroadfieldofurbanstudies.overall,wesentthesurveyto72individualsand collected21validresponses(28%responserate).therespondentsidentifiedatotalof181programs(74in Europe;24inChina;83intheRoW).Fromthislargersampleweselected25programsthatrepresentedthe bestprogramsbasedonthecriteria%of%"excellenceaccordingtopeers",andwhichalsorepresented:a)well establishedbutalsoinnovativeprogramsrwherepossiblegivensuggestionsmade;b)abalancedsampleof thediversefacultiesrepresented(architecture,planning,geographyandothersocialsciences);andc)awide geographicalperspectivewithregardstotherowgroupofprograms:hereweincludedprogramsofthe GlobalSouth,eveniftheyscoredlesswellthanprogramsinNorthAmerica. 12

13 Ref.% University/School% Master%programmes% World%University% Rankings% CN1 TongjiUniversityRCollegeofArchitectureandUrban Planning UrbanDesign 23(BRICS) 393(worldRa) CN2 NanjingUniversity,SchoolofArchitectureandUrban UrbanPlanning 251R275(worldRa) Planning CN3 TsinghuaUrbanPlanning&DesignInstitute Architecture(ChinaBuilds program) 1(BRICS) 393(worldRa) CN4 UniversityofHongKong UrbanPlanning 28(worldRa) 43(worldRb) CN5 PekingUniversityRSchoolofUrbanPlanningand Design Urban&RegionalPlanning 2(BRICS) 57(worldRa) 48(worldRb) CN6 ChineseUniversityofHongKongRSchoolof Architecture UrbanDesign 46(worldRa) 129(worldRb) CN7 Xi'anJiaotongRLiverpoolUniversity,Departmentof UrbanPlanningandDesign UrbanPlanning&Design 19(BRICS) 47(worldRa) 276R300(worldRb) CN8 SouthChinaUniversityofTechnology UrbanPlanning&Design n/a CN9 EastChinaNormalUniversity,SchoolofResources HumanGeography n/a andenvironmentscience Ref.% University/School% Master%programmes% % World%University% Rankings% RW1 UCBerkeley,CollegeofEnvironmentalDesign.USA% City&RegionalPlanning 27(worldRa) 8(worldRb) RW2 ColumbiaUniversityRSchoolofArchitecture,Planning andpreservation,usa% UrbanPlanning 14(worldRa) 14(worldRb) RW3 HarvardUniversityRGraduateSchoolofDesign,USA UrbanPanning 2(worldRa) 2(worldRb) RW4 MITRDepartmentofUrbanStudiesandPlanning,USA CityPlanning 1(worldRa) 6(worldRb) RW5 ElColegiodeMexico,MEXICO EstudiosUrbanos n/a RW6 UniversidadeFederaldoRiodeJaneiro,Institutode PesquisaePlanejamentoUrbanoeRegional,BRAZIL% PlanejamentoUrbanoe Regional 271(worldRa) 21(BRICS) RW7 PontificiaUniversidadCatólicadeChile DesarrolloUrbano 167(worldRa) InstitutodeEstudiosUrbanosyTerritoriales,CHILE RW8 UniversityofCapeTown,SchoolofArchitecture, Planning,andGeomatics,S.%AFRICA City&RegionalPlanning 141(worldRa) 124(world) Source:Authors 3.2 Collection of data: Netnography + Survey 3.2.1Netnography Weconductedanetnography 2 ofalltheselectedmasterprograms,basedonthecontentanalysisof twotypesofdataaccessiblefromtheprograms websites:(1)the(explicit)statementsand(implicit) aims 3 oftheprogram,asdescribedontheprograms anddepartments webpages;and(2)themore 2 Respondingtothegrowingimportanceoftheinternetasasiteforresearch,netnographyisaqualitative, interpretiveresearchmethodthatadaptsethnographictechniquestothestudyofsocialmedia(kozinets 2010).Itisamethodologyespeciallydesignedtostudyculturesandcommunitiesonline. 3 Byimplicit)aim,wemean,forexample,assumingthataprogramaddresses Social/economicequity basedon thestatementthatoneofitsobjectivesistoteachstudentsnotionsabout socialandspatiallyjusturban governance (EU2). 13

14 14 detailedinformationavailablefromtheindividualcourses syllabi.wethereforedrewontwotypes ofdataavailable:thegeneraloverviewoftheprogramsasexpressedintheiropeningstatements anddescriptions,andthedetaileddataavailablefromthebreakdownofeachprograminto individualcourses(coreandelective)andthecontentanalysisoftheirsyllabi(insomecaseswehad toaskthefacultyordepartmentforadditionalinformation).thisdatawasthenexaminedinlightof theanalyticalframework,developedfromthereviewoftheliterature,andsummarizedinsection2. Resultsofthenetnographyaredescribedinsection Survey Inordertocomment,addto,andvalidateouranalysis,wehaveconductedasurveytothe25 programs,targetingtheirdirectorsandcolleaguesinvolvedinthemanagementandshapingofthe course(seeappendix3fortheonlinesurveytemplate).wereceivedvalidresponsesfrom13 programs.thesurveyconsistedof8questionsintendedtoevaluatetherole/weighttheprogram givestospecificsustainabilitythemesandeducationalskills.foreachofthe25programs,the questionnaireevaluates:(1)prioritiesinfluencingthefocusoftheprogram;(2)integrationof sustainabilitydimensions;(3)promotionofeducationalskillscapableofenablingsud;(4)promotion ofinterdisciplinarity.therewerealsospecificquestionstocheckifthedataresultingfromour netnographicevaluationoftheprogramwasconsistentwiththerespondents'directknowledge,and views. Fromthereviewofliteraturewedefinedthefivedimensionsoftheinquirythatwouldhelpanswer ourresearchquestion: 1. TheHigherEducationProgram soverallorientation,intermofthethreedominant dimensionsofurbanstudies:design,)policy)and)management; 2. ObjectivesandsubjectmattersthatsupportSustainableUrbanDevelopment(SUD),an ethicalperspective,andtheneedforinterdisciplinarity; 3. SUDtopicscoveredbyCore&ElectiveCourses; 4. EducationalskillsthatwillenablefuturegraduatestopromoteSUD;and 5. DominantformatofCoreCourses. Whilethenetnographyfocusedonallthetopics,thesurveyfocusedonsustainabilitytopics(point3) andeducationalskills(point4).resultsofthesurveyarefullydescribedinsection4. Therearelimitationstoourdatacollection,whicharepartlyduetolimitedresourcesthatdidnot allowforafullsurveyorfurthertriangulationofdata(beyondliterature,netnograhyandalimited survey).somedescriptionsofprogramsand/orcoursesareverygeneralandthereforewillnotfully expresstheiractualmotivationtowardssustainabilityandsud.forexample,practicalcoursesunder theguidanceofadvisors,aswellasinternshipsandfieldwork,whicharecriticaltodevelop communicationskills,maynotappearinthematerialsprovidedandaccessibleontheinternet. Consideringhoweverthattheprograms'websitesaretheprograms'presentationtotheoutside world,onemayquestiontherelevanceattributedtosustainabilityandsud evenifpresent,itis notvisibleand,assuch,notconsideredafactorofattractionforstudents. Overall,webelievethestudyprovidesasufficientlydiverseanddetailedreviewofstateoftheart graduateurbanstudies,toraiseimportantquestionsaboutthedirection,strengthsandweaknesses oftheirsustainabledevelopmentorientation.

15 4. COMPARING PROGRAMS IN EU, CN, RoW 4.1 Analyses of Programs: general overview data 4.1.1Programs Orientation Basedonthestatementsandobjectivesoutlinedontheprograms descriptionsontheweb,wewere abletodeterminetheprograms orientation(s),alongthethreebroadcategoriesidentifiedinthe literature:(1)design(focusonplanninginstruments);(2)policy(focusonsocialsciencesconcerns andchallenges);(3)management(focusonurbandynamicsandchange).foreachprogramwe assignedbetween0and2pointsoneachcategory(forexample,aprogramcouldhave2pointsin Design;0pointsinPolicy;and1pointinManagement).Figure2expressestheresultsofthisanalysis groupedbyregions.valuesinfigure2representthesumofpointsoneachcategoryforallthe programsofagivenregion. Figure2 Programs'Orientation Source:Authors ComparedwithEuropeandtherestoftheWorld,whichhavearelativelybalancedfocusonthe threedimensions/orientationsofuse,chineseprogramsshowamuchstronger(unbalanced)focus ondesign,andappeartopaylittleattentiontothepolicydimension.thefocusondesignis substantiallyweakerineuropethanintheotherregions.programsinrowhavethemostbalanced mixofthethreedimensions/orientations. Programs Orientation:surveyresults Inoursurveytoprogramdirectors,resultsshowthatregardingtheorientationofprogramsinterms ofdesign,policyandmanagementthereweremajordiscrepanciesbetweenourresults,derived fromtheprogramdescriptionsontheinternet,andtheinformedopinionofprogramdirectors( therewerediscrepanciesin9cases).thesediscrepanciesmaybelinkedtolimitationsofthisdata collection,whichdidnotincludethefinalprojects'contents.somerespondentssaythatgraduation projectsovercomesomeoftheprograms'shortcomings,asthethreeorientationsareusuallymixed 15

16 indifferentcombinationsonstudents'thesesorfinalprojects.asawhole,theytendtovaluemore design(39%)closelyfollowedbypolicy(35%)andthenmanagement(26%).ouranalysiswascorrect inassumingtheprevalenceofthedesignorientation(44%),buttheimportanceofpolicy(20%)and management(36%)isinverted.botheuropeanprogramsandprogramsintherowputgreater weightonthedesigncomponent(42%and45%respectively),whiletheimportanceofthepolicyand managementcomponentsisreversed:moreweightonpolicyintherow(30%)andmore importanceonmanagementineurope(about30%).ournetnographyindicatedamoreevenbalance inprogramsintherow,and amajordiscrepancy thatthepolicycomponenthadmuchless weightbothineuropeanandchineseprograms.aclosercomparisonbetweenourfindingsandthe informedopinionofprogramdirectors,suggestswemayhaveunderrepresentedtheimportance programsassigntothepolicyorientationintheircurricula.thisisalsotrueforthedesign componentinprogramsintherow.thiscanbeexplainedbythefactthatthesedimensionsare oftenapproachedduringthestudent sproject,whichhasamarginoffreedom. Stillthereseemstobeagreatmotivationtoincreasethepolicyandmanagementcomponentsof urbanstudiesprograms,andsomedirectorssaytheyarewillingtointroducechangestothe curricularstructure.ineurope,onesaidthattheywouldliketoofferstudentsthechancetodecide betweenapracticerfocusedtrack(designoriented)oraresearchrfocusedtrack,whichwouldinclude astrongerorientationinpolicyandmanagement,whileanotherrespondentstatedthatitwouldbe desirabletoaddadditionaltrackscoveringmorepolicyandmanagementissues,iffinanciallyviable. Additionally,inChina,anotherrespondentsaidhe/shewaswillingtoincreasethefocusonthepolicy andmanagementcomponentsinpostrgraduateprograms.ontheotherhand,someotherdirectors arenotplanningtochangetheprogram'sstructureinthenearfuturebecauseitisalready consolidated,orithasjustbeenrevised.othersexpectthatmajorchangeswillonlybepossibleif theteachingstaffchanges EducationalSkillsenablingSustainableUrbanDevelopment Alistof25topicsidentifiedintheliteratureaseducationalskillscapableofenablingSUDwas organizedintothreecategories:(1)analytical;(2)technical;(3)experiential,communicationand negotiation(seeappendixaforadetailedoverviewofallthetopicsconsideredundereducational Skills).Foreachprogram,wehaveassigned1pointforeachexplicitreference,intheprogram's statements,toagiventopiconthelist.wethenusedthisinformationtocomparetheresultsforthe 3worldregions(figure3)toseewhetherthereareanysignificantdifferencesinorientationfavoring analytical,technicalorexperientialskills.thisregionalcomparisonwasthencrossedwiththenext setofdataandanalysisfocusingonsustainability,ethicsandinterdisciplinarity,inordertoanswer someoftheconcernsraisedintheliterature.valuesinfigure3representthepercentageoftopicsin eachcategorythatarecoveredbyalltheprogramsofagivenregion. 16

17 Figure3 SkillsenablingSUD Source:Authors Whileprogramsinthethreeregionscoveraverysimilarnumberofanalyticalskills,programsin Chinafavorabovealltechnicalskills(theyincludeover60percentofthetechnicalskillsinAppendix A),whichlinkswithaprevalenceofthedesigndimension,asobservedabove.Comparatively programsineuropeandrowcoverlesstechnicalskillsconsideredcapableofenablingsud.a furtherdiscrepancyisrevealedinthecaseofexperientialandcommunicationskills,wherethe Europeanprogramsincludealmost50%oftheidentifiedskills,whilebothChinaandRoWcoverless thanonerthirdofthem. EducationalSkillsenablingSustainableUrbanDevelopment:surveyresults% Inoursurveytoprogramdirectors,answersconfirmedtheoverallnetnographyresultsregarding therole/weighttheprogramsintendtogivetothedifferenttypesofeducationalskills(capableof enablingsustainableapproaches).thesewerefoundtobeveryconsistentbyhalfofthe respondents includingallthechineserespondents.majordiscrepanciesoneuropeanprograms seemtoarisemostlywithregardtoexperientialandcommunicationskills,whichwereconsidered underrepresentedonouranalysisinsomecases.onerespondentconsideredourevaluationnot consistent(toolow)onalltopics,statingthattheprogramaimstocoveralltheeducationalskillsin anintegratedmanner. Chineseprogramdirectorsallconcurredthatouranalysisreflectsingeneraltheirprograms' intentionsandfocusonskills.however,inafewcases,communicationandnegotiationskills togetherwithtechnicalskillsaresaidtohavemoreweightonprogramsthanwhatisshownonour findings.concurrently,somerespondentsfromtherowstressedthattheirprogramsalsogive greaterimportancetoexperience,communicationandnegotiationskills(throughinterdisciplinary groupsandfieldtripsforexample),aswellastechnicalandanalyticalskills(throughcourseson methodsandonhistory/theory)thanwhatisexpressedinourresults ObjectivessupportingSUD,Ethicalvalues,CrossGInterGorTransGdisciplinarity Alsobasedontheprograms descriptions,wehaveidentifiedforeachprogramthe presence/absenceofkeystatementsindicativeofobjectivessupportingsustainabledevelopment (SD)andSUD,Ethicalvalues,andCrossRInterRorTransRdisciplinarity(figure4).Whilesupportof 17

18 SD/SUDandinterRtransRdisciplinarity 4 wereidentifiedandregisteredsimplybyayes/no[1r0] notation,objectivessupportingethicalvaluesweredeterminedbysummingupallimplicit referencesto5keyissuesineachprogram,namely:social/economicequity;environmental responsibility;genderissues;multiculturalism;normativenatureofplanningandsustainability. Valuesonfigure4representthepercentageofprogramsineachregionthatendorseobjectiveson thethreedimensions. Figure4 ProgramobjectivessupportingSD/SUD,Ethicalvalues, CrossRInterRorTransRdisciplinarity Source:Authors Ethicalvaluescameoutasanimportantskill,mentionedbyseveralprogramdirectorsinthesurvey. WhileaChineserespondentrecognizedthat"theneglectofethicalvaluesisanundeniablefact"in her/hisprogram,anotheronestatedthatamajorgoalofhis/herprogramistonurturefuture professionalswithanethicalcommitmenttowardssociety.similarly,intherowethicalvaluesin researchweresaidbyonerespondenttobeanissue"weneedtodiscussandtrytoemphasizein ourprogramme",whileanotheronestatedtheintentiontofurtherincreaseethicalcomponentsin existingcourses. AsforcrossRinterRortransRdisciplinarity,abouthalftheprograms,ormore(50%inEU,56%inCN and63%inrow))statedobjectivesrelatedtoit.supporting.sustainabilityandsudareendorsedby mosteuropeanprograms(88%),byhalfoftheprogramsintherow,andjustbyonerthirdofthe programsinchina.ethicalvaluesarelessevidentintheprograms'descriptions:onlyin38%ofthe Europeanprograms,andin27%and28%inprogramsinChinaandRoWrespectively. CrossGInterGTransGdisciplinarity:surveyresults Inthesurveytoprogramdirectors,wehavealsoaskedhowimportantwasforthem,andforthe program'sobjectives,thepromotionofinter/transdisciplinaryresearchskillsinthestudyofurban developmentthemes.allrespondentsconsidereditveryimportant,exceptontwoprogramsfrom therow,whichconsidereditsomewhatimportant.similarly,allrespondentsexcepttwofromthe 4 Whiletheirpurposeandreachmaydiffer(Langetal.,2012),inthisstudywefollowPettsetal.(2008)in adoptingtheterm interdisciplinarity asaconceptthatoccupiesthebroadestpositiononthespectrum.inthe surveyweinvitedrespondentstoconsiderthat interdisciplinarity,andrelatedideasof cross and trans disciplinarity,allpertaintotheideaoflinkingdisciplinesandperspectivesforthepurposeofresearching complexproblemsandreachingasynthesisofknowledge. 18

19 19 RoWhavedeclaredthattheirprogramhasmadechangestothecurriculuminthepast5yearsin ordertostrengtheninter/transdisciplinarity.onthewhole,thesechangesconcernedthebroadening ofthescopeofprogramwiththeintroductionofnewcoursesand/orjointdegreeswithother faculties.ineurope,changesweresaidtofocusonexploringnewteachingmethodsthatfoster inter/transrdisciplinarity;networkingtheprogramwithotherprogramsandmakestudentsfrom differentfacultiesworktogether;andstrengthenlinkagesbetweenteachingandresearch.major obstacleswerefoundtobepracticalmatters,suchasmatchingdifferentcreditsystemsfrom differentschools,andthetimeandeffortneededforcoordinatingjoinedteachingandcollaboration withexternalpartners. Chineseprogramshavealsointroducedseveralchanges,suchasaddingnewcoursesthatincrease thefocusonsocialandenvironmentalvalues;theimprovementofsynergiesbetweenprogrammes ofdifferentdepartments;theintroductionofcommunityoutreachprogrammestoincreasestudents communicationskillsandunderstandingoflocalcommunities;andtheengagementwith internationalpartneruniversities.inacoupleofcases,theintroductionofstudiosandworkshops wasregardedasaneffectiveteachingmethodtointegratedifferentdisciplinaryknowledgeand skills,astheyexposestudentstothecomplexityofurbanconditionsandtheneedtodevelopholistic strategies.mainbarrierstochangeweresaidtobethelackofresources(recentlycreatedprograms stillhavealimiteddiversityofcoursestooffer,andthereisshortageofteacherswith interdisciplinaryskills)andtheshortdurationofsomeprograms(12months)whichisnotenoughto buildrupsufficientskills. IntheRoW,besidestheadditionofnewoptionalcoursesonurbantopicswithaninterdisciplinary approach,majorchangesweresaidtohavebeentheadmissionoffacultywithdifferentdisciplinary backgrounds,andprogramrestructuringwiththeaimtoopenupmorealternativelinesofstudy allowingstudentsgreaterfreedomofchoiceonelectives.thiswasinsomecasesdonebythe introductionorimprovementofjointdegreeswithotherfacultiesandprograms(e.g.betweenlaw, publicpolicy,publicadministration,landscapearchitecture,architecture,realestate,anddesign studies)toengagewithurbantopicsfromdifferentdisciplinaryperspectives.majorobstacles reportedwereredtapeandlackoftime,aswellasdifficultiesincombiningdifferentdisciplinary methodologies.theonlytwoprogramsintherowwhichdidnotmakechangesinthecurriculain theprevious5yearsjustifieditbystatingthattheprogramswereconsideredtoenjoyalreadya significantdegreeofinterdisciplinarityandfreedomforstudentstochooseamongseveral alternativelinesofstudyandresearch. Whenquestionediftheprogramisplanningtointroducechangesinordertostrengthenprograms' inter/transdisciplinaritydimensioninthefuture,responseswereconsensualineurope(yes)andin therow(no).differently,onchineseprogramsresponsesweremixed.europeanprograms'plansto strengthentheinter/transdisciplinaritydimensionincludetheintroductionofnewinterdisciplinary didacticteachingmethodsthatbetterlinktheinstitutionsinvolvedinteachingandresearch,aswell asfinertuningthecoordinationofdifferenttrackswithindepartments.anticipatedobstaclesare, again,thetimeandeffortrequiredforthecoordinationofjoinedteachingwithexternalpartners. ThereportedchangesthatChineseprogramsexpecttoimplementinthenearfuturearethe recruitmentofteacherswithinterdisciplinarybackgrounds;theimprovementofanalyticalskills;and theadditionofnewprogramcomponentsthathelpstudentsunderstandandaddressenvironmental issues.expectedchallengesarethebudgetimplicationsofadditions(ofcourses,offaculty)tothe program,aswellasthecreditsystem,whichlimitsthenumberofcoursesaprogramcanoffer.one respondentaddedthatanotherchallengeisthatdespitehavinganinterdisciplinarybackground,

20 youngteacherslackgeographicalthinking.chineseprogramsthatexpecttointroducenochangesin thenearfuturejustifiedtheoptioneitherbecausetheprogramisalreadyconsideredvery interdisciplinarity,withstudentsfromdiversedisciplinesandprofessorsfromdiversebackgrounds, orbecausetheprogramisveryrecentsoitwillfollowthepresentstrategy,waitforayearortwo, andthenevaluatetheresults. Asnotedabove,allprogramsintheRoWarenotplanninganychangesintheshortrun.Thisiseither becausetheprogramisconsideredtobehighlyor'enough'interdisciplinary,becausemajorchanges needtobediscussedanddecidedbythecollectiveoftheteachingstaff,whichisaslowprocess,or becausethepriorityistofocusonareasoutsidetheprogram(e.g.events).inshortonecansaythat interdisciplinarityisalmostunanimouslyconsideredimportant,andhasdrivenchanges,mostly curricular.theseariseoftenthroughpartnershipswithotherprograms.mainlimitationsfor interdisciplinarityrelatetointernalformalconstraints,suchasthelimitednumberofcreditsandthe shortdurationofprograms,butalsothetimeandenergyneededtocoordinateandintegrate differentdisciplines/programsandthelackofteacherswithinterdisciplinarybackground. 4.2 Analyses of data on Courses within Programs 4.2.1Keysustainabilitytopicscoveredbycourses Alistof36topicsidentifiedintheliteratureaskeytosustainabilityandSUDwasorganizedintofour categories:(1)society;(2)economy;(3)environment&resources;(4)planning&governance(see AppendixBforadetailedoverviewofallthesustainabilitytopics).Inordertoanalyzehowwellthe urbanstudiesprogramsareintegratingthedimensionsofsustainability,wehaveidentified(inboth coreandoptionalcourses)howofteneachofthesesustainabilitytopicswasmentionedinthe courses'syllabi.insomecaseswehadtoaskthefacultyordepartmentforadditionalinformation. Wehaveassigned1pointforeachtimeatopicispresent(explicitlyorbyinference)inacourse 5. Figures5R7comparethecoverageofsustainabilitytopicsforthefourcategories:incorecourses(fig. 5),inoptionalcourses(fig.6),andinallcourses(fig.7).ValuesontheYRaxisstandforthesumof points(andthereforeofcoursesthatmentiononeofthetopics)oneachcategoryforallthe programsofagivenregion. Figure5 Sustainabilitytopicscoveredincorecourses Source:Authors 5 Withineachprogram,atopicmayoccurseveraltimesindifferentcourses eachoccurrencecountsas1point. 20

21 Figure6 Sustainabilitytopicscoveredinoptionalcourses Source:Authors Figure7 Sustainabilitytopicscoveredinallcourses Source:Authors Theprograms'corecurriculainthethreeregionsareallespeciallystronginthefieldofPlanning& Governance.TopicsrelatingtoEnvironment&ResourcesaresecondinimportanceinEuropeanand Chineseprograms,followedbytopicsonthefieldsofSocietyandEconomy.Sustainabilitytopicson theeconomyhaveaminorpresenceintheprograms'corecurriculainthethreeregions. Ontheotherhand,thecoverageofsustainabilitytopicsonoptionalcoursesshowsadifferent pattern.overall,theoptionalcoursesineuropeanandchineseprogramsputaweighton sustainabilitytopicssimilartothatofthecorecurricula.theexceptionareeuropeanprograms, whichshowamuchhigherprevalenceofsocietaltopics.inprogramsintherow,however,optional courseshaveastrongerfocusoneconomy,aswellasenvironment&resourcestopics,when comparedtothecorecurricula. Sustainabilitydimensions:surveyresults SurveyresultsshowthatdirectorsofChineseprograms,exceptfor one,consideredourfindingsfor themostparteithersomewhatconsistentornotconsistentwiththeirownopinion/knowledgeof theprogram.thisispartlyexplainedbecauseourresultsdonotreflectthefactthatinsome programsstudentscantakeelectivecoursesofferedbyothermasterprograms.forexample,itwas 21

22 22 reportedthatonerecentmasterprogramandhasstartedwitharelativelysmallnumberofcourses. However,studentsmaychooseadditionalelectivesfromtwoothermasterprogramsthatfocus entirelyon"sustainability".inothercases,likestatedbythedirectorofanotherprogram,the contentsofcoursesfocusedonplanning&governancearealsocloselyrelatedtosocietalissues. RespondentsonRoWprograms,exceptforone,consideredourresultseitherveryconsistentor somewhatconsistentwiththeirownopinion/knowledge.majordivergencesseemtoberelatedto theoverlappingofthemesondifferentdimensions.environmentandresources,inparticular,was thedimensionwheremostprogramdirectorsdisagreedwithourfindings.whileinonecasethe environmentaldimensionwassaidtobecoveredbyrealestatecourses,whichdealwithenergyand resources,inanotheritwasnotedthatonthelatestadjustmentstotheprogramnewoptional coursesarenowfocusingspecificallyonenvironmentandresourcesissues. Theresultsofournetnography,therefore,hadmixedevaluationsinwhatconcernstheir consistency.thegreaterdiscrepancyseemtoberelatedwiththerole/weightthatsomeprograms intendtogivetothesocialdimensionsofsustainability,whichprogramdirectorsconsideredtobe underrvaluedonouranalysis.thismightbeprobablyduetothevarietyofteachingformats, especiallythosewithagreaterpracticalcomponentsuchasstudiosandfinalprojects,whichcan givegreaterrelevancetosocietaldimensions.moreover,syllabidonotalwaysincludeathorough descriptionofallthematterscoveredinthecourse.inaddition,societyissuesmaybeapproached oncoursesprimarilydealingwithplanningandgovernance. Whenaskediftheywereplanningtomakeanychangesintheprograminordertostrengthenits sustainabilitydimension,overall,halfoftherespondentsgaveapositiveanswer.however,one EuropeanrespondentandtwoRoWrespondentsadmittednothavingsuchplanbecausethe programisalreadyconsideredstronginsustainability,orbecauseithasalreadyenoughcourses relatedtosustainabledevelopment. MostsurveyedChineseprogramsareplanningtointroducechanges,soastostrengthenthe sustainabilityandsuddimensions.plannedchangescomprise:increasinginterdisciplinary integration,includingimprovedsynergiesbetweencomplementaryprograms(e.g.betweenurban Design,SustainableDesignandAdvancedEnvironmentalPlanningTechnologies);addingmore coursesrelatedtourbanecology;includingmorecriticalstudiesinurbandesign;andfindingabetter integrationandbalanceofsocial,environmentalandeconomicissuesindesignstudios,whichwere consideredthebestwaytoexploreanddevelopanintegratedperspectivetowardsbettersolutions inpractice.majorobstaclestosuchchangesareconsideredtobethetimeittakestooptimisethe linkagesandsynergiestoexistingprograms,theabilitytohirestaffwithenoughcompetencyon sustainabilitymatters,andtointegrateandbalancetheoreticalsocial,environmentalandeconomic issueswithplanningpractice. ThemainchangesreportedlyplannedforprogramsintheRoW,consistinhiringmorestaffwiththe appropriatetrainingtoteachsud;andinonecaselaunchinganinterdisciplinarycentre,linkingthe facultyofdifferentmasterprogrammesaroundtheobjectivesofsud.majorobstaclesseemtobe relatedprimarilywiththetimesuchchangestaketoimplement,andsecondlywithdifficultiesin adjustingthevariousdimensionsofsudtotheoverallstructureandobjectivesoftheprogram Dominanttypologiesofcourses Finally,wehaveidentified8typesofcoursesinthecurricularstructureofurbanstudiesprograms. Theseare:Studio(ST);Lecture(LE);Seminar(SM);Workshop(WS);ProjectorPlan(PP);

23 Technical/Methodscourse(TM);Dissertation(DS);Other(O).Consideringtheweightofcreditsper (core)coursetypeoneachprogram,wewereabletodetermineandcomparetheimportancethat programsassigntoeachcoursetypeintheircorecurricula,inthethreeregions(figures8,9and10). Toestimatethis,wehaveaddedthetotalnumberofcreditsforeachcoursetypeandcalculatedits relativepercentagetothetotalnumberofcreditsneededtocompletetheprogram.valuesinthe graphsbelowrepresenttheweight(orimportance),inpercentage,ofeachcoursetypepresentinall theprogramsofaparticularregion(eu,cn,androw).thus,forexample,figure8showsthat31% oftheeuropeanprogramsaretaughtintheformatofstudios(st)and17%throughlectures(le). Figure8 Importanceofcourses,consideringtheweightofcredits,per(core)coursetype:EUROPE Legend:Studio(ST);Lecture(LE);Seminar(SM);Workshop(WS);ProjectorPlan(PP);Technical/Methodscourse(TM);Dissertation(DS); Other(O).Source:Authors. 23

24 Figure9 Importanceofcourses,consideringtheweightofcredits,per(core)coursetype:CHINA Legend:Studio(ST);Lecture(LE);Seminar(SM);Workshop(WS);ProjectorPlan(PP);Technical/Methodscourse(TM);Dissertation(DS); Other(O).Source:Authors. Figure10 Importanceofcourses,consideringtheweightofcredits,per(core)coursetype:RoW 24

25 25 Legend:Studio(ST);Lecture(LE);Seminar(SM);Workshop(WS);ProjectorPlan(PP);Technical/Methodscourse(TM);Dissertation(DS); Other(O).Source:Authors. Resultsofthisanalysisshowwidedifferencesbetweenregions.WhileinEuropethedissertationis themostimportantpartoftheprograms,weightingonaverage42%ofthetotalcreditsneededto completetheprograms,bothinchinaandtherowagreaterimportanceisgiventolectures,which represent63%and39%ofthetotalcreditsneededtocompletetheprograms,respectively. Comparatively,inChineseandRoWprograms,thedissertationhasaweightofjust13%and6%, respectively,ofthetotalnumberofcreditsneeded.technical&methodscourseshaveavery significantweightinprogramsintherow(26%),whilethisvalueforchinaisonly6%andforeurope just3%.projects&plansarealsomoreimportantinprogramsintherow(11%)thanineurope(3%) andchinawheretheyarenotmentioned.studioshaveagreaterweightineuropeanprograms (31%),followedbytheRoW(16%)andChina(12%).Theimportanceofseminarsandworkshopsis residualineuropeanandrowprograms,andisnotmentionedinchineseprograms.lastly,under category"others",chineseprogramsincludeactivitiessuchascommunityworkand"greencampus" actions,whichareworth6%ofthetotalcreditsneededtocompletetheprograms Furthersurveyresults ThefactorsinfluencingthefocusandthestructureofMasterProgramscanbedividedinto:(A) adaptationtoexternalenvironment;and(b)adaptiontointernalrequirements.accordingtothe answersofthesurveybothseemrelevant.resultsofthesurveytoprogramdirectorsshowthatin thechineseuniversitiessurveyed,thefocusandstructureofurbanstudiesmasterprogramsover thelast5yearshasbeenmostlyinfluencedbypedagogicalpriorities.intheeuropeanuniversities surveyeditseemsthatprogramshavebeeninfluencedbothbypedagogicalandscientific& curricularpriorities,whileintherowtheyhavebeenmostlyshapedbyscientific&curricular concerns.however,therespondentsidentifiedseveralotherfactorsthathavebeenshapingthe focusandstructureofmasterprogramsinurbanstudies.programsinchinahavebeenreportedly influencedbothbyexternalpressures,suchastherealitiesofthelabourmarketandtheinputsof professionalassociations,andpressuresinternaltotheacademic/schoolsystem,suchasuniversity regulationsandtheteachers'researchfieldsofinterest.pedagogyisalsoaveryinfluentialfactor(in ChinaandEuropealike).InEurope,therestructuringofnationalstudysystems,aswellascurrent changesinthefieldofurbanismwerepointedoutasimportantexternalfactorsinfluencingpast changeinsomeprograms.thisisalsotruefortherow,wherenationalstandardsforhigher educationandaccreditationrequirementsbyprofessionalassociations,togetherwithimportant internalfactors suchasuniversityregulations,dean'spriorities,newfacultyhiresandstaff identificationofthekeyurbanandregionalpriorities weresaidtoberesponsibleforprograms' reassessmentsandadjustmentsoverthepreviousyears.scientificandcurricularprioritiesarevery influentialhere. Regardingexpectationsofwhichwillbethemainfactorsinfluencingtheprograms focusand structureinthecomingyears,itwasalsopossibletoidentifytwokindsofresponses:thosewho emphasizetheneedtoadapttotheexternalenvironment;andthosewhofocusontheadaptation tointernalrequirementsoftheacademy/schoolsystem.ineurope,theformerrefersmainlyto professionalassociations'inputandaccreditationrequirementsandtheneedtopreparestudents forthefuturelabourmarket.moreover,thereisaperceivedneedforanintegratedapproachto UrbanStudiesthatoffersboththeoryandpracticeonurbanmanagementtorespondtofuture challenges.concurrently,changederivedfrominternalrequirementsisexpectedtocomemainly fromtheperceivedneedformultidisciplinarityinacademia,requiringnewteachingformatsand betterintegrationofalldisciplinesinvolved(e.g.architecture,cityandregionalplanning,landscape

26 26 architecture&environmentaldesignandsociology)andalsoopeningprogramstoothertracksinthe faculty.inchina,theneedtoadjusturbanstudiesprogramstothedemandsofthejobmarketisthe mostanticipatedfactoroffuturechangeduetopressuresexternaltoacademia.otherexternal influences,besidesprofessionalassociationsinputs,includedchina'sdevelopmenttrends,the transitioninurbanplanninginchina,andincreasingsocialproblems. ThereisavarietyofanticipatedfactorsoffuturechangeinUrbanStudiesprogramsintheRoW,such asemergingtopicsinurbanstudies(themostmentioned)andshiftingkeycontextualissues,aswell asmanrenvironmentalconflicts,publicpoliciesand,likeintheotherregions,theneedtoprepare futureprofessionalstotheworkplaceandprovidejobs.expectedchangesduetointernal requirementsoftheacademy/schoolarealsodiverseandincludeincreasinglinkagesbetween teachingandresearch;animprovedfocusonmethodologicalissues;facultyinterests,includingthe interestsofnewfaculty;staffvaluesandethicsregardingtheroleofplanningandformsof pedagogy;thewideruniversitycontextanditsofferings,andtheinternationalizationofthe program.inshort,anumberofissuesfromincreasinginterdisciplinaritytolinkagewithpractice, outreach,pedagogy,students employability,andadaptationtotheurbanfuturehavebeen mentionedasanticipatedfuturesofchange. 5. DISCUSSION Thisstudyhas: (i) identified%the%key%featuresofuseprogramsaimedatthepromotionofsud(section2); (ii) developed%an%analytical%frameworkforacomparativeanalysisofprogramsinurban studies(section3); (iii) conducted%a%comparative%analysisof25useprogramsfromfivecontinents(section4); and(iv)providednewinsightsintoprogresstowardsmoresustainableeducationwithin urbanstudiesworldwide,asadvocatedbytheunandunesco(seesections1and2). Asobservedelsewhere,abalancedmixofthedesign,policy,andmanagementapproaches,or dimensions,inurbanstudies'programsiscriticaltoeffectivelyincorporatesudinuse(silkes2014; Senbel2012).Inlightofthis,themostsignificantresultsofthisstudyintermsofprogram's% orientationshowthatdesignisthestrongestorientationandpolicytheweakestoverall.whilethe urbanmanagementdimensionisquitesignificantinthethreeregions,thedesignandpolicy/social sciencescomponentsvaryconsiderablyacrossregions.thedesigndimensioniscomparatively undervaluedineuropeanprogramsandovervaluedinchineseprograms.thelatterconfirmsthe emphasisonphysicaldesigninchineseplanningschools,alreadynotedbyunhabitat(2009). Chineseprograms,ontheotherhand,showlittleintegrationofthepolicy/socialsciencesdimension. ProgramsintheRoWappeartobethosewithabetterbalanceofthethreeorientations.Basedon thesurveyresponses,however,thereseemstobeatendencytowardsabalanceofthethree orientations.thisbalancewassaidtobeachievedmainlythroughthestudents projectsandtheses, aninformationwedidnothaveaccessto. Regardingeducational%skills%enabling%SUD(seeAppendixA)ouranalysissuggeststhatoverall,the analyticalsetofskillsisthemostwellrepresentedacrossregions,withexperiential/communication andtechnicalskillsfarlessrepresented.comparedwithprogramsintheotherregions,technical skillsarealotmoreprevalentinchineseprograms,whichseemstosupporttheclaimofunhabitat

27 27 (2009)thatAsianschoolsofplanningtendtovaluemoretechnicalandanalyticalskills.Ontheother handineurope,comparedwiththeotherregions,programsseemtoputahigheremphasison experientialandcommunicationskills.surveyanswersconfirmtheseresultsingeneral.stillsome ChineseandRoWprogramsassertedtheywerestrongeroncommunicationandnegotiationskills thanwhatisexpressedinthenetnographyresults. AcloserlooktoallthetopicsconsideredwithineachcategoryofskillsenablingSUD(aslistedin AppendixA),allowsamoresystematicanddetailedanalysis.Regardinganalyticalskills,programsin thethreeregionsarestrongatintegrating)theory)and)practice,aswellasinteachingmethods (quantitative,qualitative,spatialanalysis).europeanprogramsarestrongerintheoretical)&)critical) reflectionandinteachingsustainable)planningandweakerinhistory)of)planning/urbanism (movements)&)theories))andinvisual)literacy,)whileprogramsbothinchinaandtherestofthe Worldarestrongerinhistory)of)planning/urbanism(movements)&)theories).Withregardto technicalskills,thefocusofeuropeanprogramsisonmanagement)&)strategic)planning/urban) futures,whileinchinaandtherestoftheworldthefocusisonspatial)planning)instruments(e.g. neighborhoodrscaleprojects,masterplansandregionalplans).finally,regardingexperiential, communication&negotiationskills,programsinthethreeregionsarestrongonfield)work)and) contact)with)real)life)practice.europeanprogramsarealsostrongonparticipatory)&)deliberative) approachestoplanning,andinpromotingteam)work.programsinthethreeregionsareweakin providingdirect)international)experience. Wehavearguedthatthepromotionofinterdisciplinarityandtheendorsementofethical%and% critical%reasoningarecrucialtouseforsud(rohwederandvirtanen2009;holmbergetal2008). Thenetnographysuggeststhatoverall,interdisciplinarityismorecommonlyendorsedacrossthe programsthanethicalconsiderations.theformerisexplicitlyendorsedbyalittlemorethanhalfof theprograms%statementsofpurpose,whilethelatterisclearlyunderrrepresentedontheprograms' objectivesinthethreeregions.thesurvey,however,hasclearresultsontherelevanceofpromoting interdisciplinarityinthestudyofurbandevelopmentthemes.ethicalvalueswerealsomentionedas importantinthesurvey,despitebeingunderstatedintheprograms'descriptions.moredetailed resultsrelatingtoethicalvaluesalsoshowthatprogramsinthethreeregionsarestrongerin promotingenvironmental)responsibilityandweakinaddressingmulticulturalismissues.socialh economic)equityislessprevalentineuropeanandchineseprogramsthanintherow.gender)issues areabsentorveryweakinprogramsinchinaandrow,respectively. TheexplicitsupportofSUD%objectivesisacknowledgedbymostEuropeanprograms,incontrast withthechineseprograms,whicharethosewhomissmorereferencestosudintheirstatementsof purpose.thedetailedanalysisof36key%topics%of%use%for%sud(seeappendixb)coveredinall programs'coreandelectivecourses'syllabishowthat,overall,programshaveacorecurriculathatis particularlystronginaddressingplanningandgovernanceissues,andweakineconomyissues.the programs'corecurriculaintherowisalsoparticularlyweakinissuesrelatedtoenvironmentand resources.bothweaknesseshoweverseemtobecompensatedineuropeansandrowprogramsby awiderofferofoptionalcoursesdealingwiththeeconomyandtheenvironment.thishowever,is notthecasewiththechineseprograms,whichhaveanoticeablyweakoverallcoverageofboth societyandeconomytopics. Acloserlookatallthetopicsconsideredwithineachcategory(aslistedinAppendixB),allowsa moresystematicanddetailedanalysis.regardingsocietaltopics,programsbothineuropeandthe RoWcoverpredominantlysocial)justice/equitythemes,aswellaspublic)participationinplanning processes.inchina,preferencegoestosocial)justice/equityanddemographic)trends.oneconomy,

28 thebestcoveredtopicinthethreeregionsisproduction)&)consumption)patterns.asfor environmentandresources,whilethemaintopicconsideredbothineuropeanandrowprogramsis climate)change)and)disaster)risk)prevention,inchineseprogramsitisplanning)&)the)natural) environmentandenvironmental)responsibility.finally,onplanningandgovernance,european programsclearlyfavorthetopicurbangovernance)&)political)processes,whileinchineseprogramsit isplanning)&)the)built)environmentandintherowthemaintopicisland)use)&)spatial)distribution) of)urban)activities. Finally,regardingthedominant%course%format,ifweaddtogethertheweightofalltheoreticalcore courses(i.e.,lectures,seminars,technicalormethodscoursesanddissertation)andcompareitwith theweightofallpracticalcorecourses(i.e.,studios,workshopsandprojects/plans),chinese programsarethemosttheoretical,withanaverageof82percentofthecreditsneededtocomplete theprogramascribedtotheoreticalcourses.thisvalueforprogramsineuropeandtherowis relativelylower(64percentand72percent,respectively). 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS % DespiteglobalconvergenceinUSE,andinparticularinUSEforSUD,withitsrequirementsof interdisciplinarity,ethicalvalues,criticalthinking,andsoon,therecannotbe andinfactitisnot desirable aonerworldapproach,orevenaregional(european,chinese,etc.)regulationoftheuse academicprograms.theirroleandobjectivesareunderstooddifferentlyfromcountrytocountry,as afunctionofnationaluniversitysystems,planninginstitutions,politicalmilieus,legalregulation, recognitionofprofessions,etc.(kunzmann1999).therefore,tomovefromacademicknowledgeto planningactionintherealworld,useneedstoadapttoregionalcharacteristics,localchallenges, andnationalsystemsandregulations.however,consideringtheuniversallyrecognizedneedfor embeddingsustainabilityandsudinuse,asdiscussedinourreviewoftheliterature,this comparativestudywashelpfultoidentifygeneralelementsofgoodpracticeaswellasmajor strengthsandweaknessesofacademicprogramsinurbanstudiesinthethreeregions.inlightof these,itispossibletoadvanceseveralrecommendationsthatcanpotentiallyimproveuniversity levelcurriculainuseforsud. Ingeneral,urbanstudiesprogramsinthethreeregionscouldbenefitfrom: stress ratherthanavoidrtheimportanceofethical%dilemmasandprovidestudentswith theskillstoengagewiththem; improveopportunitiesformeaningfulinterdisciplinaryinquiryandmethodsinthecurricula; addressmulticulturalismandgenderissuesaskey,ratherthanoptional,urbanthemes; placemoreemphasisonunderstandingtherelationshipbetweentheeconomyandthebuilt andnaturalenvironment; providemoredirect%international%experiencetoitspostrgraduatestudents. InEurope,programdirectorsshouldpondertheadequacyoftheconsiderableweightputtodayon thedissertationcomponentoftheprogram.resultssuggestthatmostprogramsineuropecould benefitfrommoretechnicalandmethods'coursesinstead,aswellascoursesinhistoryof planning/urbanism(includingmovementsandtheories).someprograms,morefocusedonurban policyandmanagement,wouldalsoprofitfromarenewedfocusonurbandesign. 28

29 Conversely,inChina,wherethedesigndimensionseemstobeovervalued,mostprogramswould gainbyintegratingmorethepolicy/socialsciencesdimensioninsupportofsudobjectives,aswellas strengthenexperiential&communicationskillsinfutureusegraduates.acurricularstructurewith morestudiosandprojects/plansandlesslecturesmaybenecessaryinmanyprogramsinorderto bettereducatestudentsonhowtotranslatetheoreticalknowledgeintopracticalaction. Finally,inmostprogramsfromtherest%of%the%World,resultssuggestthatthecorecurriculacouldbe improvedbyincludingmoretopicsrelatedtonaturalresourcesandtheenvironment.ontheother hand,therelativelyhigherincidenceoftechnicalandmethods'coursesinthecorecurriculasuggests thatthereisroomtoreassignsomeoftheimportancegiventothesecoursestothedissertationpart oftheprogram,whichhasarelativelylowweightonmostprograms. NotwithstandingsignsofprogressinUSEforSUDinthethreeregions,theframingofacademic programsinurbanstudiescapableofpromotingsudremainsachallenge.thisstudydevelopedan analyticalframeworkthathelpedtoclarifysomeoftherequirementstoovercamesuchchallenge. Resultsfromstudieslikethisone,however,needtobecontinuallycheckedagainstfastchanging urbanrealitiesandtypicallyslowchangingnationalplanningsystemsandinstitutions.useprograms mayhavemanydifferentnationaloracademicbackgrounds,butinordertorespondtooldandnew societalchallengesandexpectations,aswesaw,aninnovativeagendainusetowardssudmust includeinthecurriculasuchaspectsastheintegrationofphysicaldesign,policyandmanagement approaches,thepromotionofgreaterinterdisciplinarity,ortheneedtoaddresssocialand environmentaljusticeandadoptingaglobalperspective. ThisstudyoffersasimpleanalyticalframeworkthathelpstoclarifysomeoftherequirementsofUSE forsud.ultimately,themaingoalofuseforsudistoprovidefutureprofessionalswiththe conceptualandpracticaltoolstodealwith,andcomeupwithinnovativeanswersto,currentand futureurbanpredicaments.thecomparisonbetweenuseprogramsineurope,chinaandtherestof theworlddevelopedinthisstudywasespeciallyhelpfulfortheidentificationofsuchtools. 29

30 References% AESOP(1995).CorerequirementsforahighqualityEuropeanPlanningEducation,Associationof EuropeanSchoolsofPlanning.Availablefrom: curriculumaccessed10/03/15. Bandura,A.(1971).SocialLearningTheory,GeneralLearningPress.Availablefrom: er.pdfaccessed06/03/15accessed06/03/15. Beard,V.A.,Basolo,V.(2011).Commentary:MovingBeyondCrisis,Crossroads,andtheAbyssinthe DisciplinaryFormationofPlanning,JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,29,233R242. Beynaghi,A.,F.Moztarzadeh,R.Maknoon,T.Waas,M.Mozafari,J.Huge,W.LealFilho(2014) TowardsanorientationofhighereducationinthepostRio+20process:Howisthegamechanging? Futures63(2014) Blanchard,A.,Vanderlinden,J.P.(2010).Dissipatingthefuzzinessaroundinterdisciplinarity:The caseofclimatechangeresearch.sapi)en.)s.)surveys)and)perspectives)integrating)environment)and) Society,3.1. Bodenschatz,H.(2011).TheReinventionofUrbanDesignin1965intheUSA,inBauerfeind,B.and Fokdal,J.(Eds.)BridgingUrbanities.ReflectionsonUrbanDesigninShanghaiandBerlin,Vol.17,LIT VerlagMünster. ) Boulding,Kenneth(1968)BeyondEconomics:EssaysonSociety,Religion,andEthics,Univ.of MichiganPress. Brenner,N.,Marcuse,P.,Mayer,M.(2009).Citiesforpeople,notforprofit.City,13(2R3),176R184. Bursztyn,MarcelandJoséDrummond(2013) Sustainabilityscienceandtheuniversity:pitfallsand bridgestointerdisciplinarity,environmentaleducationresearch. Cai,Yongjie(2011)ChineseCitiesandUrbanDesign:Tradition,Present,Challenge.InBridging Urbanities.ReflectionsonUrbanDesigninShanghaiandBerlin(Eds,Bauerfeind,B.andFokdal,J.) HABITATRINTERNATIONAL:SchriftenderHabitatUnit,FakultätVIPlanenBauenUmweltderTU Berlin,Berlin,pp.36R41. Campbell,H.(2012).PlanningtoChangetheWorld:BetweenKnowledgeandActionLiesSynthesis, JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,32(2), Cruickshank,H.,Fenner,R.(2012).Exploringkeysustainabledevelopmentthemesthroughlearning activities,internationaljournalofsustainabilityinhighereducation,13(3),249r262. Daly,Herman(1991)TheSteadyRStateEconomy,WashingtonDC,IslandPress. 30

31 31 Davidoff,P.(1965).Advocacyandpluralisminplanning.JournaloftheAmericanInstituteof Planners,31(4),331R338. Dimitrova,E.(2014).The sustainabledevelopment conceptinurbanplanningeducation:lessons learnedonabulgarianpath,journalofcleanerproduction,62,120r127. DongjieNiu,DaheJiangandFengtingLi(2010)Highereducationforsustainabledevelopmentin China,InternationalJournalofSustainabilityinHigherEducationVol.11No.2,pp.153R162 Du,X.,Su,L.,Liu,J.(2013).DevelopingsustainabilitycurriculausingthePBLmethodinaChinese context.journalofcleanerproduction,61,80r88. Dyment,J.E.,Hill,A.,Emery,S.(2014).SustainabilityasacrossRcurricularpriorityintheAustralian Curriculum:aTasmanianinvestigation.Environmental)Education)Research,(aheadRofRprint),1R22. Edwards,M.M.,Bates,L.K.(2011).Planning scorecurriculum:knowledge,practice,and Implementation,JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,June2011;vol.31,2:pp.172R183. Feng,L.(2012).Teacherandstudentresponsestointerdisciplinaryaspectsofsustainability education:whatdowereallyknow?.environmentaleducationresearch,18(1),31r43. Forester,J.(1999).Thedeliberativepractitioner:Encouragingparticipatoryplanningprocesses.MIT Press. Frank,N.(2002).RethinkingPlanningTheoryforaMaster srlevelcurriculum,journalofplanning EducationandResearch,21,320R330. Friedmann,J.(2008).TheUsesofPlanningTheory:ABibliographicEssay,JournalofPlanning EducationandResearch,28,247R257. Geppert,A.,Verhage,R.(Ed.)(2008).TowardsaEuropeanrecognitionforthePlanningprofession. ProceedingsofthesecondmeetingoftheAssociationofEuropeanSchoolsofPlanning(AESOP) HeadsofSchoolsheldattheArenbergCastle,Leuven,Belgiumon14April2007. Gunder,Michael(2011)Commentary:IsUrbanDesignStillUrbanPlanning?AnExplorationand Response,JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,31(2) Healey,P,1997.Collaborativeplanning.Shapingplacesinfragmentedsocieties.London:McMillan. Hegarty,K,Thomas,I.,KriewaldtC.,Holdsworth,S.,Bekessy,S.(2011)Insightsintothevalueofa standralone courseforsustainabilityeducation,environmentaleducationresearch,vol.17,no.4, Holmberg,J.,&Samuelsson,B.E.(2006).Executivesummary.InJ.Holmberg&B.E.Samuelsson (Eds.),Driversandbarriersforimplementingsustainabledevelopmentinhighereducation(pp.7R 11).EducationforSustainableDevelopmentinAction,TechnicalPaper3,UNESCO.

32 32 Holmberg,J.,M.Svanström,D.RJ.Peet,K.Mulder,D.FerrerRBalas&J.Segalàs(2008).Embedding sustainabilityinhighereducationthroughinteractionwithlecturers:casestudiesfromthree Europeantechnicaluniversities,EuropeanJournalofEngineeringEducation,33(3),271R282. HuabinXIONG,DenggaoFU,ChangqunDUAN,Chang E.LIU,XueqingYANG,RenqingWANG(2013) CurrentstatusofgreencurriculuminhighereducationofMainlandChina,JournalofCleaner Production,61:100R105. Hurlimann,A.C.(2006)Respondingtoenvironmentalchallenges:aninitialassessmentofhigher educationcurriculaneedsbyaustralianplanningprofessionals,environmentaleducationresearch, Vol.15,No.6,December2009, Jabareen,Y.(2012)TowardsaSustainabilityEducationFramework:Challenges,Conceptsand Strategies TheContributionfromUrbanPlanningPerspectives,SustainabilityNo.4,2247R2269. Junyent,M.,deCiurana,A.M.G.(2008).Educationforsustainabilityinuniversitystudies:amodel forreorientingthecurriculum,britisheducationalresearchjournal,34(6), Krieger,A.(2009).WhereandHowDoesUrbanDesignHappen?,inKrieger,A.&Saunders,W.S. (Eds.)UrbanDesign,UniversityofMinnesotaPress. Kunzmann,K.(1999).Planningeducationinaglobalizedworld,EuropeanPlanningStudies,7(5),549R 555. Law,WingRWah(2014)UnderstandingChina scurriculumreformforthe21stcentury,journalof CurriculumStudies,Volume46,Issue3,pp.332R360. Leopold,Aldo(1949)ASandCountyAlmanac,NewYork,OxfordUniversityPress. Lozano,R.(2010).Diffusionofsustainabledevelopmentinuniversities curricula:anempirical examplefromcardiffuniversity,journalofcleanerproduction,18, Lozano,R.,Lozano,F.J.,Mulder,K.,Huisingh,D.,Waas,T.(2013)Editorial:AdvancingHigher EducationforSustainableDevelopment:internationalinsightsandcriticalreflections,Journalof CleanerProduction,48,pp.3R9. Luederitz,C.,Brink,E.,Gralla,F.,Hermelingmeier,V.,Meyer,M.,Niven,L.,Panzer,L.,Partelow,S., Rau,A.RL.andSasaki,R.(2015).Areviewofurbanecosystemservices:sixkeychallengesforfuture research,ecosystemservices,14,98r112. McHarg,I.(1969)DesignwithNature,NewYork,theNaturalHistoryPress. Martin,E.,Beatley,T.(1993).OurRelationshipwiththeEarth:EnvironmentalEthicsinPlanning Education,JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,12,117R126. Meadowsetal.(1972)LimitstoGrowth,NewYork,UniverseBooks. Pezzoli,KeithandDeborahHowe(2001)PlanningPedagogyandGlobalization:AContentAnalysisof Syllabi,JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch20:365R375.

33 33 Rio+20HigherEducationSustainabilityInitiative(2012).UNConferenceonSustainable Development,Availablefrom: 05/03/15. Robinson,J.(2011).Citiesinaworldofcities:thecomparativegesture.InternationalJournalof UrbanandRegionalResearch,35(1),1R23. Rohweder,L.,VirtanenA.(2009).DevelopingthemodelontheLearningforSustainable DevelopmentinHigherEducation,JournalofTeacherEducationforSustainability,11(1),31R42. Ryan,A.,Tilbury,D.,Corcoran,P.B.,Abe,O.,Nomura,K.(2010).Sustainabilityinhighereducationin theasiarpacific:developments,challenges,andprospects,internationaljournalofsustainabilityin HigherEducation,11(2),106R119. Sen,Amartya(1999)DevelopmentasFreedom,NewYork,Knopf. Senbel,M.(2012).ExperientialLearningandthecoRcreationofDesignArtifacts:AHybridUrban DesignStudioforPlanners,JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch32(4) Schön,D.(1983).TheReflectivePractitioner,HowProfessionalsThinkinAction,BasicBooks,Inc. Silkes,S.(2014).UpendingUrbanism:HowNewPostgraduateProgrammesareRevolutionizingthe WayWeCreateCities,Availablefrom: postgraduaterprogrammesrarerrevolutionizingrtherwayrwercreatercities/accessed05/03/15. ShaomingLu,HuiRshuZhang(2014)Acomparativestudyofeducationforsustainabledevelopment inonebritishuniversityandonechineseuniversity,internationaljournalofsustainabilityinhigher Education,Vol.15No.1,pp.48R62. ToveHolm,KaisuSammalisto,TimoVuorisalo(2014)Educationforsustainabledevelopmentand qualityassuranceinuniversitiesinchinaandthenordiccountries:acomparativestudy,journalof CleanerProductioninpress,1R9. Trencher,G.,Bai,X.,Evans,J.,McCormick,K.,Yarime,M.(2014).UniversitypartnershipsforcoR designingandcorproducingurbansustainability,globalenvironmentalchange,28, UNESCO(2014).ShapingtheFutureWeWant:UNDecadeofEducationforSustainableDevelopment (2005R2014),UNEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganization(UNESCO),Available from: Want.pdfaccessed05/03/15. UNESCOREducationSector(2012)EducationforSustainableDevelopmentinAction,Learning& TrainingToolsN 4,p.5. UNHabitat(2007)InclusiveandSustainableUrbanPlanning:AGuideforMunicipalities,Vol.1:An IntroductiontoUrbanStrategicPlanning,December2007.

34 UNHabitat(2009)PlanningSustainableCities:PolicyDirections,GlobalReportonHuman Settlements2009,Abridgeded.Earthscan.Availablefrom: accessed05/03/15. UNHabitat(2012).UNSystemTaskTeamonthePostR2015UNDevelopmentAgenda.Sustainable Urbanization,ThematicThinkPiece,May2012,Availablefrom: faccessed05/03/15. UNHabitat(2014).TowardsthedevelopmentofInternationalGuidelinesonUrbanandTerritorial Planning,Availablefrom: English.pdf,accessed05/03/15. UnitedNations(1987)OurCommonFuture:ReportoftheWorldCommissiononEnvironmentand Development,NewYork Vargas,C.M.(2000)Sustainabledevelopmenteducation:Avertingormitigatingculturalcollision, InternationalJournalofEducationalDevelopment20(2000) Vojnovic,I.(2014).Urbansustainability:Research,politics,policyandpractice,Cities,41,S30 S44. Wals,E.J.,Corcoran,P.B.(2006).Sustainabilityasanoutcomeoftransformativelearning.InJ. Holmberg&B.E.Samuelsson(Eds.),Driversandbarriersforimplementingsustainabledevelopment inhighereducation(pp.103r110).educationforsustainabledevelopmentinaction,technicalpaper 3,UNESCO. Watson,V.(2009).SeeingfromtheSouth:RefocusingUrbanPlanningontheGlobe scentralurban Issues,UrbanStudies,46(11) Wheeler,S.,Beatley,T.(Eds.)(2009).TheSustainableUrbanDevelopmentReader,secondedition, NewYork,Routledge. Yuan,X.,Zuo,J.(2013).AcriticalassessmentoftheHigherEducationForSustainableDevelopment fromstudents perspectives achinesestudy,journalofcleanerproduction48:108r115. Yuan,X.,Zuo,J.,Huisingh,D.(2013).GreenUniversitiesinChina whatmatters?journalofcleaner Production,61:36R45. % % 34

35 APPENDIX%A%U%EDUCATIONAL%SKILLS%ENABLING%SUSTAINABLE%URBAN% DEVELOPMENT% % ANALYTICAL%%% CrossRinterRtransRdisciplinarity Systemicthinking(holistic&integrative) Theoretical&criticalreflection Integrationoftheoryandpractice SUD&sustainableplanning Rapidurbanisation&urbaninformality(incl.globalSouth) Global/Regional/localinterdependencies Historyofplanning/urbanism(movements&theories) Methods(quantitative,qualitative,spatialanalysis) Visualliteracy TECHNICAL(specificallyaimedatenablingSUD) Spatialplanninginstruments(plans&projects) DesignRappliedtechnologies(e.g.GIS) Engineeringandconstruction Management&strategicplanning/urbanfutures EXPERIENTIAL,%COMMUNICATION%&%NEGOTIATION% Fieldwork/Contactwithreallifepractice CrossRsectorcollaboration Participatory/deliberativeapproaches Teamwork Directinternationalexperience Communitywork ETHICAL%VALUES%% Social/economicequity Environmentalresponsibility Genderissues Multiculturalism Normativenatureofplanning&sustainability 35

36 APPENDIX%B%U%DIMENSIONS%AND%TOPICS%OF%HIGHER%EDUCATION%FOR% SUSTAINABLE%URBAN%DEVELOPMENT% SOCIETY% Socialjustice/equity/inequality/exclusion Multiculturalism,diversity&socialcohesion Health/wellbeing Demographictrends Publicparticipation&stakeholders engagementinplanningprocesses Gender&identityissues Informalsettlements Poverty Security(re.urbanviolence&conflict) Righttothecity(includingpublicspaceissues) ECONOMY% Greeneconomy Circulareconomy Informaleconomies Finances&SD Production&consumptionpatterns Employment/unemployment ENVIRONMENT%&%RESOURCES% Planning&thenaturalenvironment Environmentalresponsibility Urbanfootprint&lowRcarboncities Climatechange&disasterriskprevention Urbanmetabolism Energy&urbanSD(e.g.energytransition, clean energysystems Water&urbanSD(e.g.waterrecycling&reuse) Food&urbanSD(e.g.urbanfarming) Wastemanagement&urbanSD(e.g.wasteRtoRenergysystems) Nature,ecology,biodiversity Resourcesuse/conservation/depletion PLANNING%&%GOVERNANCE% PostRdisastermanagement UrbanRruralrelationships Urbangovernance&politicalprocesses Planning&thebuiltenvironment Urbanform&SD(e.g.compactcities,polycentricregions,newurbanism) Transportation,mobility&urbanSD(e.g.TOD) Landuse&spatialdistributionofurbanactivities Greenbuildings&sustainableconstruction Infrastructure,greeninfrastructure&ICT 36

37 APPENDIX%C% %ONLINE%SURVEY%TO%PROGRAM%DIRECTORS% Survey on 25 Urban Studies Programs Page 1 of 5 ID: University / School / Master Program THE RESEARCH QUESTION This survey is part of a study on urbanisation trends in Europe and China (URBACHINA, see: ). The overall aim is to carry out a comparative review of a sample of post-graduate level curricula in urban studies in Europe (EU), China (CN) and the Rest of the World (RoW) in order to answer the following question: How are sustainable challenges to urban development being acknowledged and addressed in post-graduate urban studies programs across the world? By urban studies we mean the various disciplines associated with the study of, and planning for, urban areas and their regions. The question is framed in the context of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, launched in 2005 with the explicit goal of improving and reorienting education systems towards sustainable development' (UNESCO 2014). THE SAMPLE OF PROGRAMMES To answer the question, we have examined 25 post-graduate programs in urban studies (8 in EU; 9 in CN; 8 in RoW), including yours considered among the best and innovative in their country and world region. Their selection was based on a survey involving members of the URBACHINA consortium and Scientific Committee (representing Europe and China), followed by snowball sampling involving scholars worldwide. The results of the survey were placed in context, using 3 World Universities Rankings: - QS World University Rankings WORLD Times Higher Education World University Rankings QS World University Rankings BRICS THE STRUCTURE OF THE INQUIRY This inquiry is shaped on the basis of a comprehensive review of the academic literature on education in urban studies and education in sustainable development (see Figure below), which identified the major challenges, enabling factors and signs of progress to date in higher education for Sustainable Urban Development (SUD). 37

38 From the review of literature we defined the five dimensions of the inquiry intended to answer our Question ( How are sustainable challenges to urban development being acknowledged and addressed in post-graduate urban studies programs across the world? ): 1. Higher Education Program's overall orientation 2. Objectives and subject matters supporting: Sustainable Urban Development (SUD); an ethical perspective; and the need for interdisciplinarity 3. SUD topics covered by Core & Elective Courses (details listed in the survey's Q.2) 4. Educational skills that will enable future graduates to promote SUD (details listed in the survey's Q.3) 5. Dominant dimensions of urban studies: design, policy, and management DATA COLLECTED THROUGH NETNOGRAPHY (WEB DATA COLLECTION) We explored these five dimensions for each of the 25 Programs, which entailed a content analysis of two types of data accessible from the programs' websites: (1) the general overview of the programs as expressed in their opening statements and descriptions; and (2) the more detailed information available from the breakdown of each program into individual courses and the content analysis of their syllabi (in some cases we had to ask the Faculty or Department for additional information). THIS SURVEY FOCUSES ON ITEMS 3 (SUD TOPICS) and 4 (SKILLS) In order to analyze how well these urban studies programs are integrating the dimensions of sustainability, we have identified how often the sustainability topics (as listed in Q.2) were mentioned in the courses' syllabi. We also identified which educational skills enabling SUD(as listed in Q.3) were emphasized in the programs' descriptions. Using simple descriptive statistics we were then able to assess overall medians and regional medians for these two dimensions, against which to rank individual programs. With this brief survey we are interested in your views on the priorities and focus of your program, as well as on our description of your program are these consistent with the role/weight the program intends to give to specific sustainability themes and educational skills? Please take about 20 minutes to answer to the 8 questions below. We will send you the final report, including the results and comparative analysis of all 25 Programmes by June Thank you for your collaboration 38

39 Page 2 of 5 Please tell us whether you are [allows multiple ticks]: The Master s Programme Director/Manager/Head Member of the Programme s Scientific Board (or similar) One of the scholars teaching on the Programme Other, please specify: Q.1 MAIN INFLUENCES IN THE FOCUS AND STRUCTURE OF YOUR PROGRAMME: Q.1.1 During the last five years, which of the following factors has most influenced the focus and the structure of your Master Programme please rank them: Scientific & Curricular priorities Pedagogical priorities Other (neither scientific nor pedagogical) Very influential Somewhat influential Not influential Q.1.1 Other: Please specify: (e.g. university regulations, the cost of tuition, professional associations inputs, accreditation requirements, labour market, etc.): Q.1.2 In the coming years, which do you expect to be the main factors influencing the Programme s focus and structure? Please name up to three: 39

40 Page 3 of 5 Q.2 THE DIMENSIONS OF SUSTAINABILITY IN YOUR PROGRAMME In the URBACHINA study we were interested in assessing how your program integrates the dimensions of sustainability in order to foster an education towards sustainable urban development (SUD). By SUD, we mean the range of issues including environmental justice, economic improvement and social equity - as reflected on urban systems (i.e., buildings, towns, cities and their infrastructures). Key topics that are relevant for SUD were compiled from an extensive review of the literature on the subject and are listed here. SOCIETY ECONOMY ENVIRONMENT & RESOURCES PLANNING & GOVERNANCE We have analysed the core and optional courses offered by your program in order to identify how often sustainability topics were being approached (grouped into the categories of society, economy, environment & resources, and planning & governance). EXAMPLE Q.2.1 Are these results consistent with the role/weight the program intends to give to these four sustainability dimensions? Very consistent Somewhat consistent Not consistent Q.2.1 Please explain why: Q.2.2 The United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, launched in 2005, has initiated an important movement towards embedding the notions of sustainability into education systems around the world. 40

41 Are you planning to make any changes in the program in order to strengthen its sustainability dimension? Yes No Q.2.2 If NO Please explain why Q.2.2 If YES what obstacles do you expect to face? 41

42 Page 4 of 5 Q.3 SKILLS ENABLING SUSTAINABILITY: In this study we were also interested in assessing which educational skills capable of enabling sustainable approaches were emphasized in your program. ANALYTICAL TECHNICAL (specifically aimed at enabling SUD) EXPERIENTIAL, COMMUNICATION & NEGOTIATION ETHICAL VALUES EXAMPLE Q.3.1 Are these results consistent with the role/weight the program intends to give to the different types of educational skills? Very consistent Somewhat consistent Not consistent Please explain why: 42

43 Page 5 of 5 Q.4 INTERDISCIPLINARITY AND URBAN STUDIES Our comprehensive review of current literature on education suggests that the reorientation in education advocated by the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development entails, crucially, a shift towards a more interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary production of knowledge. Interdisciplinarity, and related ideas of cross and trans disciplinarity, all pertain to the idea of linking disciplines and perspectives for the purpose of researching complex problems and reaching a synthesis of knowledge. Q.4.1 How important, in your view, is the promotion of interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary research skills in the study of urban development themes? Very important Somewhat important Not important Q.4.2 Have you made changes to your Programme s curriculum in the past 5 years, in order to strengthen interdisciplinarity? Yes No Q.4.2 If NO, please explain why: Q.4.2 If YES, please specify which changes: Q.4.2 If YES, what obstacles do you expect to encounter in the implementation of a more interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary programme? Q.4.3 Are you planning to make any changes in the program in order to strengthen its interdisciplinarity/transdisciplinarity dimension? Yes No Q.4.3 If NO, please explain why: 43

44 Q.4.3 If YES, please specify which changes: Q.4.3 If YES, what obstacles do you expect to encounter in the implementation of a more interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary programme? Q.4.4 Regarding the program's current curricula, what would you say is approximately the weight of each of the following orientations (adding up to a total of 100% for the three categories): Design-oriented (focus on planning instruments): The value must be between 0 and 100, inclusive. Policy-oriented (focus on social sciences' concerns and challenges) The value must be between 0 and 100, inclusive. Management-oriented: (focus on urban dynamics and change e.g. strategic planning and futures studies) The value must be between 0 and 100, inclusive. Are you planning to make changes to this structure? Please explain why: 44

45 45