Transforming Environmental Engineering
and Science Education, Research, and Practice
Glen T. Daigger,
1,
*
,{
Sudhir Murthy,
2
Nancy G. Love,
1,{
and Julian Sandino
3
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
2
Innovations Chief, DC Water, Washington, DC.
3
Water Business Group, CH2M, Kansas City, Missouri.
Received: September 16, 2015 Accepted in revised form: August 2, 2016
Abstract
While the historic Environmental Engineering and Science (EES) paradigm of limiting pollution discharges and
reducing them where environmental harm has occurred has been highly beneficial to humanity and the planet,
factors such as continued population and economic growth require new approaches. The new EES paradigm must
implement proactive rather than reactive solutions, which focus on restoring the environment rather than simply
remediating past pollution events. This paradigm will require implementation of integrated solutions that si-
multaneously address multiple media and create multiple benefits. Dramatically increased resource efficiency
must become the norm. EES education, research, and practice must be integrated much more fully, both with one
another and into society. This will require that new skills be more fully embedded into EES education, research,
and practice. The profession can build on existing successes demonstrating how integrated solutions, delivered
using an integrated education, research, practice model, can create additional value, while minimizing harm
resulting from unintended consequences and restoring the environment. These successes can be used to create
champions for this new approach, to gain increased public support, and to create increased demand for them.
Practical successes can subsequently provide the basis for supporting policy changes. Professional associations
can be key actors in this transformation by both synthesizing and defining best professional practice and engaging
stakeholders outside of the EES profession. Creating this new paradigm will not be easy and requires leadership.
Keywords: education; engineering; environmental; practice; research; science
Introduction
T
he above title is quite bold, but the challenges facing
humanity in the 21st century are also quite daunting and
require bold responses. In this article, we make the case that,
while Environmental Engineering and Science (EES) has
made significant contributions to human well-being and the
preservation of natural resources, these contributions have
been based on a fundamental paradigm that, while appropriate
for past conditions, will no longer suffice into the future. Fu-
ture circumstances require a new paradigm that, consequently,
requires fundamental changes to all elements of EES. While
elements of a new paradigm are emerging, they have not been
fully adopted into EES education, research, and especially
practice, and the transition to this new paradigm must be
complete. In this study, we first describe the historical and
current situations, and then articulate the general nature of
this new EES paradigm and suggest steps to accelerate its
implementation.
History
One macroview of human history can be summarized as
the human population consistently expanding t o fill the
carrying capacity of the p lanet. Since the carrying capacity
is not constant, but is determined by both the natural and
built infrastructure, the human population has increased
dramatically over time in response to human technological
developments, many of which are well recognized. Sig-
nificant examples include the following: the inventio n of
agriculture, which allowed previous hunter-gatherer socie-
ties to develop more secure food sources and facilitated the
development of cities and civilizations; the industrial rev-
olution, which mechaniz ed many previous ly manual tasks;
and the more recent green revolution, which greatly in-
creased food production to support a burgeoning popula-
tion. Figure 1 provides a perspective on how the human
population has increased over the millennia.
While Fig. 1 paints a picture of progressive development
of the human population, punctuated with a few disasters such
as plagues and wars, it is underlain by significant dynamic
behavior as individual civilizations developed and then col-
lapsed. The factors leading to collapse have been a topic of
speculation (what caused the downfall of the Roman Empire?)
*Corresponding author: University of Michigan, 1351 Beal Ave,
177 EWRE, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-9580. Phone: (734) 647-3217;
{
Member of AEESP.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SCIENCE
Volume 34, Number 1, 2017
ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/ees.2015.0353
42
as well as academic study (Tainter, 1988; Diamond, 2011;
Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012). More recent analyses paint a
picture of technological, economic, and social development
that allowed population growth and resource consumption
until resource consumption exceeded the natural carrying ca-
pacity, leading to rapid collapse. Collapse was often associated
with natural fluctuations in climate occurring at a time when
resource consumption stressed local resources (Weiss et al.,
1993). Diamond (2011) offers many examples of this pattern,
while both Diamond and Acemoglu and Robinson (2012)
demonstrate that such collapses are not inevitable.
Collapses have generally been averted in recent history in
the developed world, and EES has played a major role in this
result. EES developed in response to water pollution problems
created by the industrial revolution. Following the historical
path (Sedlak, 2014), ‘‘Sanitary Engineering’’ developed in
response to water supply needs and pollution in the industrial
cities of Europe and the United States in the late 19th and early
20th centuries (see Schneider, 2011, for a highly instructive
description). The first step was often water supply, which
evolved in response to pollution of local water supplies by
human and industrial waste, leading to severe health problems
(e.g., typhoid and cholera epidemics). The delivery of unpol-
luted water from remote sources was, indeed, lifesaving. The
transport of large volumes of fresh water into urban areas
created the ‘‘problem’’ of sewage, which was addressed
through wastewater collection, often coupled with further im-
provements in urban drainage to mitigate urban flooding.
Wastewater treatment followed due to the localized mass dis-
charge of pollutants (larger cities and increased industrial ac-
tivity), resulting in unacceptable environmental degradation
(Schneider, 2011; Daigger, 2014). The success of this approach
to urban water management is illustrated by the fact that
modern water and sanitation have been recognized by the
medical profession as the single most significant contribution
to public health over the past 150 years (British Medical
Journal, 2007), and as one of the top ten engineering
contributions to society in the 20th century (Constable and
Somerville, 2003).
While hugely beneficial, approaches such as those devel-
oped to manage urban water in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries are based on the implicit, or sometimes explicitly
stated, paradigm that natural systems possess an inherent
carrying (or assimilative) capacity. For example, although
used (waste) water is treated, the quality of the product is
degraded relative to the original. Consequently, the treated
water cannot be safely returned to its origin or used again in
the same manner and it is discharged back to the environment
at a different location. The combination of treatment level and
discharge location is specifically selected to minimize cost,
reflecting the assumption that the natural environment can
receive some contaminants. A discharge location is generally
selected with maximum assimilative capacity (largest re-
ceiving water volume and maximum velocity for mixing and
oxygen transfer), balanced by the costs for used water con-
veyance and treatment. Used water treatment is often not
implemented until environmental degradation has occurred
because discharges have exceeded the natural assimilative
capacity, resulting in environmental degradation that must be
remedied.
This ‘‘model’’ for pollution control has proved extremely
successful in addressing a wide variety of societal problems,
including air pollution, solid waste, and hazardous waste, and
it forms the basis for the current EES profession, which
evolved from sanitary engineering in the United States in the
1960’s. It can be summarized as applying management and
technology approaches to reduce environmental discharges to
levels below the inherent environmental carrying capacity
(which is often considered to be constant). This approach has
contributed significantly to human well-being and increased
the sustainable human population, however, it inherently as-
sumes that control technologies and management approaches
can be developed and deployed at least as fast as pollution
loads develop. It generally does not internalize the resource
requirements for pollution control, and it requires increas-
ingly effective pollution control approaches to be applied,
especially when the assimilative capacity of the environment
is being fully utilized.
Current
Although there are important indications that change is
upon us, the historical model continues to be the norm. The
regulatory approaches to both water and air pollution control
are based on allowable mass loadings of pollutants to the
environment, within assumed assimilative capacity. For ex-
ample, the U.S. Clean Water Act dictates that a total maxi-
mum daily load (TMDL) be established for water bodies that
do not meet ambient water quality criteria. The allowable load
of pollutants is then assigned to the relevant sources, and
regulatory controls (limits) are placed on discharges from
these sources. Control technologies and management ap-
proaches are then implemented to ensure that mass discharges
from each source are below the assigned maximum load. It is
generally assumed that control technologies and management
approaches are available and can be applied, irrespective of
other impacts and with few exceptions. Individual compo-
nents of the hydrologic cycle are managed and regulated
separately, thereby neglecting opportunities for synergistic,
win–win, solutions. Water resources, drinking water, used
water, and stormwater are managed by separate legislative
FIG. 1. Human population from 10,000 BC to 2,000 AD.
Actual populations shown selectively on X-axis. Source:
Wikipedia, 2014.
TRANSFORMING EES EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE 43
and regulatory processes. Environmental burdens are also
shifted from one medium to another. For instance, nutrient
discharge reductions from point sources are being required,
irrespective of the environmental consequences (such as
greenhouse gas emissions) of the associated resources that
must be consumed to do so (Falk et al., 2011). A similar ap-
proach is used to control sources of air pollutants. EES con-
tinues to play an essential role in this process, providing
knowledge of the relevant environmental limits and impacts,
sources of pollutants, control technologies and management
approaches, and the associated professional practice to imple-
ment this knowledge. While one cannot doubt the effectiveness
of current regulations, synergies inherent in more integrated
approaches have seldom emerged from their application.
A growing number of factors suggest that the historic en-
vironmental management model described above is insuffi-
cient and will not suffice into the future. The global population
has grown significantly over the past century and is expected to
plateau at between 10 and 12 billion by the end of this century.
The U.S. population is expected to increase to *400 million
by 2,050 and 460 million by 2,100. Figure 2 summarizes recent
population projections from the United Nations (2013), which
belie significant demographic trends as the most significant
population growth is expected in less developed countries
(compared to the currently developed countries), along with
significant population growth in the least developed countries.
Recent analys es by the Int ernationa l Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA) question whether population
growth will be quite as great as this (Lutz et al., 2014), but it is
clear that the population will continue to grow during the first
half of the 21st century and begin to plateau in the second half.
Of course, it is also well recognized that the global population
is increasingly living in urban areas (United Nations, 2014).
While population growth is significant, economic growth is
even faster. The global population grew by about 3 billion
between 1970 and 2010 (from 3.7 to 6.9 billion), but the global
economy roughly tripled. The global economy is expected
to further quadruple between 2010 and 2050, even though
population will only increase by about another 2 billion
(OECD, 2012). Resource consumption has historically been
coupled with economic growth (Fig. 3), and resource con-
sumption is directly associated with environmental impacts
(United Nations Environmental Programme [UNEP], 2011,
2014b; OECD, 2012). Figure 4 further illustrates the general
relationship between economic activity and resource con-
sumption by demonstrating that per-capita resource con-
sumption generally increases with per-capita income, of
course with important country to country variations. Global
resource consumption is leading, further, to resource shortages
(UNEP 2011, 2014a, 2014b).
Global chemical production is another indicator of eco-
nomic growth, and also a significant environmental concern
(UNEP, 2013). As illustrated in Fig. 5, chemical production
has grown progressively in developed regions and is pro-
jected to continue to grow. Growth in developing regions and
countries with economies in transition has been even more
significant in recent years, and is projected to exceed that of
developed regions by 2020. Growth in the developing regions
and countries with economies in transition is particularly
significant because environmental controls are generally less
effective there, leading to the potential for disproportionate
adverse environmental impacts. Not only will the total vol-
ume of chemical production increase globally but also their
number and diversity, leading to the potential for new envi-
ronmental threats.
It is evident that the increased human activity is affecting
the planet and its ability to support humankind. Climate
change is, perhaps, the most widely recognized impact
(IPCC, 2014). Rockstr
}
om et al. (2009), updated in Steffen
et al. (2015), considered nine critical planetary systems, il-
lustrated in Fig. 6, and concluded that three already exceed
existing sustainable capacity, resulting in environmental
degradation that threatens the future of humanity. The three
not only include climate change, but also biodiversity loss
and interference with global phosphorus and especially ni-
trogen cycles. Chemical pollution has not yet been quantified.
Once a planetary boundary has been exceeded, the associated
FIG. 2. Historical global population 1950–2010 and pro-
jections to the end of the 21st century (data from UN, 2013).
FIG. 3. Relationship between economic growth (expressed
as GDP) and material extraction between 1900 and 2005
(from UNEP, 2011). GDP, gross domestic product.
44 DAIGGER ET AL.
planetary carrying capacity may become vulnerable to re-
duction, resulting in a net decline. Thus, these boundaries must
be respected, both to avoid harm to humanity and also retain
them in their present capacity. Analyses such as these have led
to numerous calls for increased resource efficiency, not only
by environmental protection but also by environmental resto-
ration (UNEP 2011, 2014a, 2014b; Brown, 2011).
It is apparent that the historical development paradigm of
increased economic prosperity based on resource consump-
tion will not be sufficient into the future. Significant eco-
nomic, social, and political changes will be required to
transition into a much more resource-efficient society with
greatly reduced resource use and waste per unit of produc-
tion. In fact, some suggest that converting from a consump-
tive to a resource recovery society will not only be necessary
but also can spur further economic growth (McDonough and
Braungart, 2002; Moody and Nogrady, 2010). These para-
digms augment the historic one of developing technological
solutions in response to social, economic, and environmental
challenges so that historic patterns can continue. It appears
clear, however, that technology alone will not be sufficient to
sustain this paradigm into the future (Huesemann and Hue-
semann, 2011). Thus, the question that arises for EES is its
role in a world with no (or much less) waste and in which
technology, alone, is not the solution.
Future
The need for a new EES paradigm is evident, but what
could it be and how can its implementation be accelerated?
While we agree that a significantly more resource-efficient
economy must be developed, we do not believe that waste
will be totally eliminated. The concept of creating useful
products from what has historically been considered to be
waste is also certainly not foreign to EES. Considering the
water cycle again, used water is currently reclaimed to pro-
duce waters of various qualities that can be used for a variety
of purposes. Useful products such as energy and fertilizer/soil
conditioning products are also extracted. The need is for
actions such as these to become the norm, rather than the
exception as they currently are. Components of this new
paradigm are emerging, but they must be fully integrated
into EES education, research, and especially practice. De-
liberate actions to fully integrate EES education, research,
and practice are needed to accelerate the needed changes. In
this study, we outline a new paradigm, compared to the his-
toric one, and the practices and supporting policies that can
accelerate its implementation.
New Paradigm
The following are offered as essential elements of the new
EES paradigm.
Integrated solutions that simultaneously address multiple
media and create multiple benefits will become the norm.
As noted above, current approaches tend to result in dif-
ferent groups that subsequently focus on one issue, in one
media, at a time. Such approaches are less efficient in
creating overall benefits than integrated approaches,
which consider a broader range of impacts and the
potential for creating a wider range of benefits. The
emerging concept of ‘‘one water,’’ where water resources
such as irrigation water, water for energy, drinking water,
used water, stormwater, and ecosystem flows are man-
aged in an integrated manner, represents an excellent
example. All water should be viewed as ‘‘one water’’ and
water management solutions must not only reflect but also
enhance the one water approach. The broader impacts of
water management options on the air and the land must
also be considered. While successful examples exist,
significant institutional and regulatory barriers exist,
which limit the current application of integrated ap-
proaches. Integrated approaches need to become the
‘‘first,’’ rather than the ‘‘last’’ approach adopted only
when the problems created by the current ‘‘one issue at a
time’’ approach become evident. New ‘‘smart water’’
concepts will help promote one water approaches through
sensors, edge computing, big data, and artificial intelli-
gence where multiple water resource systems are coor-
dinated in an integrated near-seamless manner.
Proactive rather than reactive solutions. Rather than
reacting to ‘‘pollution’’ events, the focus will need to be
on developing policies and incentives for integrated
approaches that avoid rather than simply remediate en-
vironmental problems. One example would be policies
and incentives that encourage development of green
chemicals, for source reduction in use of chemicals, or
for new approaches for their treatment before they result
in harm. A dramatically more resource-efficient econ-
omy will lead to less waste and potentially less pollution.
Commodity price increases associated with increasing
scarcity will provide some motivation for increased re-
source efficiency, but should be coupled with early in-
centives to avoid the economic and social disruption
such rapid price increases can create. The continued
rapid expansion of science, which will certainly be an
important component of the development of a more
resource-efficient economy, can enable new constituents
FIG. 6. Relationship between safe operating space ( Green
area) and current position ( Red wedges) for nine planetary
systems. Boundaries are exceeded for three systems: (1)
biodiversity loss, (2) climate change, and (3) nitrogen cycle.
From Rockstr
}
om et al. (2009).
46 DAIGGER ET AL.
to enter the economy and potentially adversely impact
the environment. EES must closely follow scientific and
the associated economic developments, and anticipate
and develop solutions before adverse impacts become
evident. With continued exponential growth in the
economy and the fixed (or declining) capacity of the
environment to adsorb new insults, impacts must be
anticipated and avoided rather than reacted to. Solutions
that create useful products, rather than residuals to be
disposed of, represent another example.
Integrating EES practice within society. Successful
solutions will require not only technological im-
plementation but also societal involvement. Achieving
this will require fundamental changes in EES education,
research, and practice as it builds on its traditional
technological strengths, while adding the knowledge and
skills to engage much more fully with society (Guest
et al., 2009). EES must not only be responsive to societal
needs but also actively engaged in the discourse, which
identifies relevant needs and defines societal agendas for
addressing them. EES must be much more involved in
the process of setting societal agendas and interact with
relevant components of society as specific solutions are
defined and implemented. This will require the devel-
opment of a broad range of partnerships and collabora-
tors outside of those traditionally developed by EES
educators, researchers, and practitioners.
New Practices
Achieving this transformation of EES will require more
than an increased knowledge. The paradigms articulated
above must become thoroughly embedded in practice and
fully supported by EES education and research. We suggest
changes in three areas to accelerate this transformation:
1. Maximizing Value and Minimizing Harm
2. Restoring the Environment
3. Lifelong, Interdisciplinary and Multifunctional Education
Maximizing value and minimizing harm
As discussed above, the historic EES paradigm has been to
reduce emissions to no more than the assimilative capacity of
the environment. At the same time, problem solutions have
generally focused narrowly and resulted in unintended conse-
quences that negatively affect other portions of the environ-
ment. Finally, regulatory approaches generally address specific
problems and provided little, if any, recognition for solutions
providing broader benefits. To be fair, historic pollution issues
were often so severe, and the solutions so obvious, that the
benefits of implementing recognized solutions clearly out-
weighed short-term negative impacts at that time. However,
these issues have largely been addressed in the developed
world, so those remaining require a different approach.
The first step is to focus on integrated systems to identify
individual solutions, which can create a broad set of benefits
throughout the entire system, for example, by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Such solutions may not be the best
to address narrow elements of the system, but would be the
clear choice when viewed from an entire system perspective.
Focusing on the entire water cycle, for example, rather than
solving water resources, drinking water, and used water issues
separately, is increasingly being recognized to be more effi-
cient and effective because it provides multiple benefits
(Daigger, 2009). Looking more broadly, addressing the water–
food–energy nexus and looking at individual steps that create
multiple benefits can lead to solutions that create additional
value, while minimizing harm. A core operating principle
might be to focus on efforts to achieve the greatest resource
efficiency reasonably possible when conceiving of potential
solutions and appropriately weighing the resulting benefits,
when alternatives are being evaluated. This concept is present
in EES education and research (consider, for example, indus-
trial ecology and pollution prevention), but it needs to be
brought more fully into the core EES practice. Existing regu-
latory approaches, which have evolved to address individual
components of the entire system (considering water again, the
Clean Water Act vs. the Safe Drinking Water Act and existing
water resources legislation), will have to be modified to
achieve this (Novak et al., 2015). Much can already be ac-
complished using the discretion inherent in individual legis-
lative mandates, perhaps with some modest legislative
modifications. The existing regulatory discretion must be fully
used to both accelerate progress and identify changes in leg-
islation and regulatory approaches that are truly needed.
At the same time, solution implementers (such as water
utilities and air quality districts) need to receive ‘‘credit’’ for
the net value they create, thereby creating incentives for them
to pursue higher efficiency and integrated system options, and
lowering barriers for those who are already so inclined. In-
creased resource efficiency often increases costs for solution
implementers, while benefits are more broadly distributed.
This maldistribution of costs and benefits can be a significant
barrier to selecting and implementing options that provide the
greatest societal value and minimum harm. Arrangements that
allow solution implementers to more fully capture the value of
all the benefits they create make sorely needed new sources of
revenue available to them and further incentivize them to
pursue such solutions. A further result would be increased
incentives for solution implementers to invest in the devel-
opment of higher value products, resulting in needed increased
investment in EES research and education.
Greater uncertainties are generally associated with new
solutions, as their experience base is smaller. Regulatory ap-
proaches should be modified to accommodate these greater
uncertainties to reduce barriers to the implementation of higher
value solutions. Uncertainty exists in many areas, including the
requirements for successful implementation and the true nature
and magnitude of potential value and harm. A number of ap-
proaches are available to manage risks associated with the
implementation of new options. Systems analysis and risk
identification and management tools are available, which can
be applied as options are being evaluated and implementation
plans are developed, and these tools can be more broadly ap-
plied to EES applications. Step-wise implementation reduces
the inherent risks associated with each step, and allows learning
from each step to be incorporated into those that follow. Such
approaches provide rich opportunities for further research that
can expand the understanding of social-environmental-
economic-technical dynamics and allow further development
of these tools. The rate at which higher value solutions are
implemented and harm associated with unintended conse-
quences is minimized could be dramatically accelerated.
TRANSFORMING EES EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE 47
Restoring the environment
The natural environment has already been degraded signifi-
cantly, as noted above, which adversely impacts humanity. The
adverse impacts of climate change, including increased
droughts and floods, sea level rise encroaching on coastal areas,
and impacts on agriculture, illustrate such impacts. A restored
environment is able to provide increased environmental ser-
vices and is more resilient to environmental shocks. Living as
we do in the Anthropocene, many have noted that there are
actually few truly ‘‘natural’’ environments remaining on the
planet. Thus, restored environments will almost certainly be
different from the ones that existed before human intervention.
Indeed, ecological systems can exhibit a number of resilient
states that provide essentially the same ecological functions,
even though they appear structurally different from the original
state. This brings an additional challenge as humanity must
decide what type of environments it wants, and EES can lead in
assisting society to make these critical decisions. A companion
opportunity is offered as stressed systems can possess increased
resilience and may, as a result, provide increased ecological
services.
Environmental restoration entails more than simply reducing
pollution discharges and includes making physical changes to
the environment itself to allow an ecosystem to develop, which
provides increased services and is more resilient to shocks.
Restored environments are often more highly valued by the
public. Thus, environmental restoration can not only provide
highly valuable services to society but also increased public
support, thereby creating a virtuous cycle of environmental
restoration, creating increased demand for further restoration.
The current increasing popularity of ‘‘green infrastructure’’ for
stormwater management represents one example. Public value
for restored environments can be expressed in monetary terms,
for example, by increased property values, fishery, and recre-
ational benefit. As with other broader benefits, increased
monetary value is captured by society, but not by solution
implementers, even though they bear the costs.
Approaches can be developed, however, to allow the wealth
created by environmental restoration to be at least partially
captured by solution implementers. These broader benefits are
monetized for local, regional, and national governments in the
form of increased taxes on the associated increased economic
activity. That these benefits are created, at least partially, by
environmental solution implementers could be recognized by
transfer of a portion of these increased taxes to them, or through
increased utility rates. Solution implementers can use past
successes to quantify the broader benefit provided and ‘‘make
the case’ ’ for further support. Such approaches make engage-
ment of the public in the process of deciding what solutions to
implement even more important. The challenge for EES is to
develop and more routinely use practices to address public
interests in the decision process. This entire area represents a
rich research opportunity, with the potential to further advance
EES practice and value to society.
Lifelong, interdisciplinary and multifunctional education
A focus on integrated solutions, which increase value pro-
duction and reduce unintended consequences, and on envi-
ronmental restoration, can increase public demand for the
services that EES can provide, resulting in increased resources
being made available. The potential results for society must be
successfully delivered, however, and ideally within an accel-
erated timeframe, given the increasingly insistent nature of the
problems faced by humanity. EES professionals will be
working on broader problems, which require more diverse,
interdisciplinary, and multifunctional teams, and the pace of
learning will increase dramatically, making lifelong learning
much more important. An integrated approach to EES educa-
tion, research, and practice will be needed to meet the need.
Practice can advance rapidly only if research is an essential
component of it. As a profession, we will be learning and
improving practice as we proceed, and this can be done most
effectively by integrating research more fully into leading
edge practice. New partnerships between solution imple-
menters, the practitioners that support them, and academia
are needed. Fortunately, a wide variety of models to ac-
complish this goal exists, which can be more fully incorpo-
rated into EES practice. Every activity must be viewed as a
learning experience and the associated learning subsequently
incorporated rapidly into evolving practice. Professional as-
sociations can be essential partners in accomplishing this.
Learning will be lifelong, of course, to match the rapid
change in practice, meaning that formal education at the
university level is only the start. Practitioners must be con-
tinuously reeducating themselves.
Current EES education, research, and practice are firmly
based on the physical, chemical, and biological sciences.
Grounding EES in these sciences will remain an essential
feature of the discipline if we are to meet the needs listed above.
Additional knowledge and skills are needed, however, as listed
in Table 1. All these represent existing and evolving bodies of
knowledge that can be accessed and brought into EES. For
example, a theory and practice of ecological–social systems are
developing, based on expanding the understanding of complex
systems, along with an improved understanding of how more
resilient systems can be developed (Walker and Salt, 2006;
Meadows, 2008). The knowledge and skill areas listed in
Table 1 could be incorporated into EES education and codified
Table 1. Additional Knowledge and Skills Needed by Environmental Engineering
and Science Educators, Researchers, and Practitioners
An understanding of complex systems and how to effectively use their characteristics and features to implement efficient
solutions, which also provide a broad and diverse range of benefits.
An ability to develop working approaches to manage social-environmental-economic-technical systems that span a range
of development levels, from the least to the most developed economies.
Competence with professional practice, which incorporates life-long learning and adaption.
Knowledge of and competence in methods and procedures to broadly engage with society, not just in academic and
professional circles.
The routine application of business skills to compliment typical professional skills
48 DAIGGER ET AL.
in the defined body of knowledge (American Academy of
Environmental Engineers and Scientists [AAEES], 2009).
Formal knowledge acquired at the university must also be
supplemented by a much wider range of knowledge and skills
for students, which can be best accomplished by their direct
engagement in practice early in their careers. Students could
be engaged in practical, applied research as an essential
component of their education, further reinforcing the func-
tional relationship between education, research, and practice.
One can envision a working environment where more sea-
soned professionals serve as on-the-job mentors to students,
while these same students help update the seasoned profes-
sional on new scientific developments. The Water Environ-
ment & Reuse Foundation (WE&RF). Leaders Innovation
Forum for Technology (LIFT) program represents one ex-
ample where solution implementers are encouraged to partner
with universities and create student educational opportunities
through research.
New Policies
Significant progress can be made, within the current regu-
latory and policy framework, to implement the practices listed
above and achieve the desired EES paradigm shift. Policy
changes and changes to regulatory approaches can further fa-
cilitate these transitions, however, as suggested in Table 2.
Many environmental regulations incorporate foresite-based
components (consider the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
Clean Water Act), and these provisions could be more fully
utilized if supported by both public policy initiatives and those
responsible for implementing the resulting actions (solution
implementers). The foresite provisions of most environmental
regulations, themselves, could also be strengthened.
Regulatory approaches could also be better integrated. The
first step, again, is to more fully use the flexibility already
provided in existing regulations and through the enabling
legislation. A more integrated approach could be taken by the
regulatory agencies themselves, which would likely require
major changes to processes, procedures, and mindsets within
the agency. Regulatory and legislative remedies could be
further pursued when this approach is insufficient. Solution
implementers and their supporters could take the lead in this,
as described below, with successful experiences built on and
incorporated into normal processes and procedures.
Turning to academia, the existing ‘‘science’’ model, which
emphasizes publications and fundamental research rather
than engagement in practice, is a barrier to implementing the
integrated education, research, and practice model described
above. Alternate academic models are available and could be
applied for these more applied disciplines. Consider, for
example, the model used to determine membership in the
National Academy of Engineering that assesses professional,
educational, and practice-related outcomes. Such a model
would assess not only published research but also to what
extent research results are translated into practice. It would
also value practice-related contributions equally with rele-
vant research contributions. The relative weight applied to
advances in education and knowledge gained through re-
search, scholarship, and advances in practice would be ad-
justed depending on their intended relative contribution by
the individual academic.
Achieving these policy changes will require the concerted
and collaborative efforts of regulators, solution providers,
and the practitioners who support them, and academia. Policy
changes take time and often require evidence of benefit be-
fore they are seriously considered and adopted. It is fortunate
that the seeds for the necessary changes are already present,
and in selected instances are being actioned. The first step is
to create an additional demand for higher value integrated
solutions and actions that restore the environment. Increased
demand can result in resources to develop the necessary
support systems, and they also provide the ‘‘living labora-
tory’’ necessary to ensure that these supporting systems align
with practical realities. Solutions of this type are already
being implemented, demonstrating that champions for these
approaches exist, along with the needed competence to suc-
cessfully deliver them. Solution implementers must lead
these efforts, with strong support from other practitioners and
academics. Professional associations can also be instrumen-
tal in this process by both providing the platform to synthe-
size and articulate the evolving professional practice, which
underlies successful delivery of these higher value solutions,
and as a platform to engage the profession more fully with
potential partners outside of EES. All segments of EES, ed-
ucators, researchers, and practitioners must engage in these
efforts, with a commitment to transform the profession to
meet the needs of the future. Changing fundamental para-
digms is hard (Kuhn, 1970) and requires leadership (Kouzes
and Posner, 2012). Acemoglu and Robinson (2013), referred
to earlier, speak of ‘‘creative destruction.’’ Diamond (2011)
speaks on how sustaining civilizations retain their core val-
ues, while adapting their practices to current realities. EES is
founded on the basis of a clear and consistent set of values,
but is at the stage where ‘‘creative destruction’’ is needed to
recreate its practices.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
Acemoglu, D., and Robinson, J. (2013). Why Nations Fail:
Origins of Power, Poverty and Prosperity. New York: Crown
Publishers (Random House).
American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists
(AAEES). (2009). Environmental Engineer Body of Knowledge.
Table 2. Policy Changes That Can Accelerate New Environmental Engineering and Science Paradigm
Increased use, and strengthening, of foresite-based approaches within existing regulation. Addition of new regulation, as
necessary.
Integrated regulatory approaches, which consider broader benefits and impacts. Develop policies that integrate broader
economic benefits for delivering environmental projects. Promote the formation of federal, state, and/or local utility
collaboratives to promote integration across the paradigms.
Revised academic evaluation and promotion models, which reward involvement in problem solutions.
TRANSFORMING EES EDUCATION, RESEARCH, AND PRACTICE 49
Annapolis, MD: American Academy of Environmental
Engineers, Inc.
British Medical Journal. (2007). Medical milestones. Brit. Med.
J. 334, s1.
Brown, L.B. (2011). World on the Edge: How to Prevent En-
vironmental and Economic Collapse. New York: W. W. Norton
&Company,Inc.
Constable, G., and Somerville, B. (2003). A Century of Innova-
tion: Twenty Engineering Achievements That Transformed Our
Lives. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Daigger, G.T. (2009). State-of-the-art review: Evolving urban
water and residuals management paradigms: Water reclama-
tion and reuse, decentralization, resource recovery. Water
Environ. Res. 81, 809.
Daigger, G.T. (2014). Ardern and Lockett remembrance. In D.
Jenkins and J. Wanner, Eds., Activated Sludge—100 Years
and Counting. London: IWA Publishing.
Diamond, J. (2011). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or
Succeed, Revised ed. New York: Penguin Group.
Falk, M.W., Neethling, J.B., and Reardon, D.J. (2011). Striking
the Balance Betweeen Nutrient Removal in Wastewater
Treatment Sustainability. Alexandria, VA: Water Environment
Research Foundation.
Guest, J.S., Skerlos, S.J., Barnard, J.L., Beck, M.B., Daigger,
G.T., Hilger, H., Jackson, S.J., Karvazy, K., Kelly, L., Mac-
pherson, L., Mihelcic, J.R., Pramanik, A., Raskin, L., van
Loosdrecht, M.C.M., Yeh, D., Love, N.G. (2009). A new
planning and design paradigm to achieve sustainable resource
recovery from wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 6126.
Huesemann, M., and Huesemann, J. (2011) Techno-Fix: Why
Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment. Canada: New
Society Pubishers.
IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Con-
tribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth As-
sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate
Change [Core Writing Team, R. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer
(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kouzes, J.M., and Posner, B.Z. (2012). The Leadership Chal-
lenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Or-
ganizations, 5th ed. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd
ed., Enlarged. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lutz, W., Butz, W.P., and Kc, S. (2014). World Population &
Human Capital in the 21st Century. Oxford, UK: Oxford Press.
McDonough, W., and Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to Cradle:
Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York, NY: North
Point Press.
Meadows, D.H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White
River Junction, VT: Charles Green Publishing Company.
Moody, J.B., and Nogrady, B. (2010). The Sixth Wave: How to
Succeed in a Resource-Limited World. Sydney, Australia:
Vintage Books.
Novak, P.J., Arnold, W.A., Henningsgaard, B., Hozalski, R.M.,
Kessler, K., LaPara, T.L., Parrella, A., Rogacki, L., Thomp-
son, C., Thorson, R., Zimmerman, R.A., Bott, C.B., Daigger,
G.T., and Neethling, J.B. (2015). Innovation promoted by
regulatory flexibility. Env. Sci. & Tech. 49, 13908.
OECD. (2012). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050
. OECD
Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264122246-en
Rockstr
}
om, J., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity.
Nature 461, 472.
Schneider, D. (2011). Hybrid Nature: Sewage Treatment and
the Contradictions of the Industrial Ecosystem. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Sedlak, D. (2014). Water 4.0: The Past, Present, and Future
of the World’s Most Vital Resurce. New Haven, NJ: Yale
University Press.
Steffen, W., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human
development on a changing planet. Science 347, 6223.
Tainter, J.A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies. U.K.:
Cambridge University Press.
United Nations. (2013). World Population Prospects, The 2012
Revisions, volume 1: Comprehensive Table, Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
United Nations. (2014). Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Population Division. World Urbanization Prospects:
The 2014 Revision, Highlights, ST/ESA/SEA.A/352.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). (2011).
Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Im-
pacts From Economic Growth. Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). (2013).
Global Chemicals Outlook—Towards Sound Management of
Chemicals. Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). (2014a).
Managing and Conserving the Natural Resource Base for
Sustained Economic and Social Development. Nairobi, Kenya.
United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). (2014b).
Decoupling 2: Technologies, Opportunities and Policy Options.
Nairobi, Kenya.
Walker, B., and Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining
Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Weiss, H., Courty, M.-A., Wetterstrom, W., Guichard, F.,
Senior, L., Meadow, R., and Curnow, A. (1993). The genesis
and collapse of third millennium North Mesopotamian Civi-
lization. Science 261, 995.
Wikipedia. (2014). Available at: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_
population (accessed December 23, 2014).
50 DAIGGER ET AL.
