The Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy
Rutgers University
Environmental Planning and Management
34:970:618
Fall 2014
EJB 113 Wednesday 1:10-3:50
Professor Michael Greenberg- mrg@rci.rutgers.edu Room 536, EJB Building (next to
State Theater, 33 Livingston Avenue), 848-932-2383
Office hours to be set after discussion with class
This course introduces policy decision-making processes and tools in the fields of
environmental planning and management, especially the environmental impact statement
process and risk analysis.
Reading
Michael Greenberg wrote two books that are used in this course Environmental Policy
Analysis and Practice, Rutgers University Press (2008) and The Environmental Impact
Statement After Two Generations, Routledge (2012). Unless otherwise indicated, all the
required readings are found in these books, or on Sakai. http://sakai.rutgers.edu/portal
(login using your Rutgers NetID and password: click on tab: “970:618.01 Fa14”. In
addition to the required reading, which is deliberately limited, every student will read for
their own paper.
Course objectives
The instructor is interested in developing your capacity to think and work independently
and in small groups rather them to memorize policies and facts that will be replaced in a
decade. This is an era of multi-tasking. Hence, you will be working on your project, and
additional emphasis will be placed on communication, working in groups, and writing.
After completing this course, students will
1. Understand six key groups that drive public policy formation:
(1) scientists, engineers and other technical experts,
(2) non-elected official stakeholder representatives of business, media, not-for-profits,
and the public,
(3) elected officials and their staff,
(4) economists and business groups oriented to economic costs and benefits;
(5) advocates for ethics and morality; and
(6) advocates of awareness of time and flexibility.
2. Be familiar with the U.S. environmental impact statement process
1
3. Be familiar with some key tools used to guide and communicate decisions, such as the
risk analysis, checklists, sustainability tools, simulation models, regional economic
impact analysis, resource damage assessment, and surveys.
Students will be introduced to:
1. Independently preparing a policy analysis about environmental planning and
management using the six criteria, and
2. Quickly responding to questions with plans and recommendations, and a verbal report
Grading and Academic Honesty Policies
Grading:
Policy topic (10%): During the fourth week of class, each student will submit a brief
memo. Part 1 is policy research question (e.g., Should the State government support the
building of a new nuclear power plant adjacent to the Salem plants? Should all new statefunded buildings be required to reduce energy use by at least 20 percent? Should the New
Jersey shore be rebuilt with constraints on location and design?) Part 2 is a work plan for
answering the question (sources of information, action plan for obtaining information).
Part 3 is a short bibliography of sources you plan to use. The sources may be books,
articles, interviews, blogs, etc. (Length: 350 to 500 words, double-spaced, and use any
reference format you like, as long as it is consistent.)
Mid-tem paper (25%): During the eighth week of class, we will have our midterm paper.
It consists of three parts. Part 1 is a restatement of your policy question and a summary
assessment of the results for the first three groups: (1) scientists and other technology
experts; (2) non-government stakeholder groups; and (3) elected official and staff. This
summary should be presented in the format presented in Greenberg (2008) (rows are the
groups and columns are the pros and cons of the policy decision). Emphasis in the table
should be on the pros and cons of the policy from the perspective of the first three
influential groups (scientists, non-government stakeholders, elected officials and their
staff). The second part of the paper should be an overview of the relative importance of
the single most important one (of the three) for your research question. Why did you
pick that one? Why is it the most important? Make your case. (Length: 1200 to 1450
words). Citations are not part of the word count, double-space, table can be single spaced
and is not part of the word count.
Final paper (45%). The final paper will be submitted during the week 14 class. It is the
same form as the mid-term. However, all six groups are to be assessed, and the two most
important criteria are to be discussed in detail (Length: 1750 to 2250 words, doublespaced, table can be single spaced and is not part of word count, and citations are not part
of word count. You can pick the same criterion you picked as part of your first paper.
Attendance and class participation (20%). I am big believer in class participation and will
know who participates and who does not. Participation is measured as attendance, asking
2
questions, and participating in breakouts. If you must turn in your papers late, it must be
cleared with me in advance.
Final grade:
A is consistent excellent performance and class participation.
B/B+ is good to almost excellent performance.
F/C/C+ is unacceptable performance
Statement on academic honesty:
All members of our community must be confident that each person's work has been
responsibly and honorably acquired, developed, and presented. Any effort to gain
advantage not given to all students is dishonest, whether or not the effort is successful. A
violation of academic honesty is a breach of trust, and will result in penalties, including
possible suspension or expulsion. When in doubt about plagiarism, paraphrasing,
quoting, or collaboration, consult the course instructor.
Organization of the course and class schedule
The beginning of every class will introduce the policy group or policy tool, and then
we’ll use breakout sessions to increase student participation.
Week 1: Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Introduction to the course objectives, expectations, grading and reading. Outline of how
the course will be conducted. Overview of six groups that drive policy formation as
described above.
Use redevelopment of NJ shore as illustration of the six groups. Key question: Should
shore redevelopment be managed or be up to each member of the local public and their
elected officials? What should be the role and needs for science, business, not-forprofits, the media, and the public? What are the key environmental planning and
management questions? How important are environmental protection, public health,
costs and benefits, time and flexibility and ethical/moral issues?
Reading:
(1) Greenberg (2008) preface and introduction chapter in book;
(2) M. Greenberg, M. Weiner, R. Noland, J. Herb, M. Kaplan, T. Broccoli, Public
Support for Policies to Reduce Risk after Hurricane Sandy, Risk Analysis, April
2014. [shorepaper1]
(3) M. Greenberg (2008), examine use of summary tables, for example, 5, 20-22,
57-58, 82-84.
Week 2: Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Group 1: The scientist perspective on public policy: certainty makes right
Use chemical weapons as the example of how science dominates when there is
conclusive evidence. Also use Gulf oil platform blowout as an illustration of high
3
uncertainty, insufficient information and entirely inadequate communication of
information.
Reading:
(1) chapter 3 and risk analysis and environmental impact sections of chapter 7 in
Greenberg (2008)
(2) Johnston Island Chapter in Greenberg 2012
(3) M. Greenberg, Public health, law, and local control: Destruction of the US
chemical weapons stockpile, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93(8), 2003,
1222-1225. [chemical weapons]
Week 3: Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Group 2: Non-government stakeholder group. Focus on public perception of hazards and
risk, and its influence on policy. Emphasize the cognitive reasoning and the affect
heuristic.
Reading:
(1) See public perception part of chapter 3.
(2) M. Greenberg, Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences:
analysis of US national and site-specific data, Energy Policy, 37: 3242-3249,
2009. [energy preferences]
(3) Greenberg, NIMBY, CLAMP and the Location of New Nuclear-Related
Facilities: U.S. National and Eleven Site-Specific Surveys, Risk Analysis, An
International Journal. 29(9), 1242-1254, 2009. [clamp]
Week 4: Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Group 2: Non-government stakeholder group. Focus on the media’s role and
newsworthiness. Newsworthiness and communicating with reporters.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg (2008), chapter 2
(2) S. Begley, The truth about denial. Newsweek, August 13, 2007. [global warming]
(3) R. Kasperson, O. Renn O, P. Slovic, H. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J. Kasperson,
S. Ratick, The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk
Analysis. 8(1988), 177-187. [social amplification]
(4) A. Mazur (2009). How bad can a crisis be if it does not top the new? Risk
Analysis, 29(6), 793-795. [mazur]
Policy topic due today.
Week 5: Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Group 3: Elected officials, their staff and bureaucracy group. Focus on the tools of
power.
Reading:
4
(1) Greenberg laws, rules, regulations, executive decisions, leadership changes, and
budget sections of chapter 8.
(2) R. Fishman, The American metropolis at century’s end: past and future
influences, Housing Policy Debate, 11, 2000, 199-213. [hpd-fishman]
(3) M. Greenberg, C. Powers, H. Mayer and D. Kosson, Root causes of unsatisfactory
performance of a large and complex remediation projects: lessons learned from
the United States Department of Energy Environmental Management Programs,
Remediation, vol. 18(1), 2007, 83-93. [remediation winter 2007]
Week 6: Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Group 3: Elected officials, their staff and bureaucracies group. Focus on local elected
officials, their staff and bureaucracies. Applying the tools of power.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg book (2008), chapter 1.
(2) M. Greenberg, K. Lowrie, H. Mayer, K.T. Miller, and L. Solitare, Brownfield
redevelopment as a smart growth option in the United States, The Environmentalist.
21(2), 2001, 129-143. [brownfield redevelopment]
(3) J. Burger, T. Leschine, M. Greenberg, J. Karr, M. Gochfeld and C. Powers, Shifting
priorities at the Department of Energy’s bomb factories: protecting human and
ecological health, Environmental Management, 31(2), 2003, 157-167. [bomb
factories]
Week 7: Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Group 4: Economic factors.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg chapter 4 and cost-benefit part of chapter 8.
(2) M. Greenberg, H. Mayer, and D. Lewis, Life-cycle cost in a highly uncertain
economic environment: the case of managing the U.S. Department of Energy’s
nuclear waste legacy, Federal Facilities Environmental Journal, Spring, 2004, 6782. [life cycle costs]
(3) M. Greenberg, M. Lahr, and N. Mantell. Understanding the economic costs and
benefits of catastrophes and their aftermath: a review and suggestions for the US
federal government. Risk Analysis. 27 (1), 2007, 83-96. [Katrina]
Week 8: Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Group 5: Ethics and morality.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg chapter 5. Environmental justice history and environmental ethics.
(2) M. Greenberg, Proving environmental inequity in siting locally unwanted land
uses, Risk: Issues in Health & Safety, vol. 4, 1993, pp. 235-252. [proving
environmental inequity]
5
(3) M. Greenberg, Energy Parks for Former Nuclear Weapons Sites? Public
Preferences at Six Regional Locations and the United States as a Whole, Energy
Policy, volume 38, 5098-5107, 2010. [635-energy parks--morality]
(4) US EPA, EJ report, if available.
Midterm paper due.
Week 9: Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Group 6: Time and flexibility.
Reading
(1) Greenberg (2008) chapter 6. Caution vs. full steam ahead.
(2) M. Greenberg, J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, D. Kosson, K. Lowrie, H. Mayer, C.
Powers, C. Volz, and V. Vyas, End State Land Uses, Sustainably Protective
Systems, and Risk Management: A Challenge for Remediation and MultiGenerational Stewardship, Remediation, 16(1), 2005, 91-105. [end state]
(3) M. Greenberg, Environmental protection as a U.S. National priority: analysis of
six annual public opinion surveys, 1999-2004, Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 48(5), 2005, 733-746. [epm]
Week 10: Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Tools of the trade: Environmental impact assessment.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg 2012, chapters 1 and 8. Why did it start? How is it doing? Where does
it need to go? Use transportation (chapter 2 as example of how it has changed).
Week 11: Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Tools of the trade: Environmental impact statements and risk analysis.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg 2012, Sparrows Point and Johnston Island chapters
(2) M. Greenberg, Risk analysis and port security: some contextual observations
and considerations. Annals of Operations Research 2009, electronic
publication in September, 6(2), 30-46, 2009. [port security]
(3) M. Greenberg, C. Haas, A. Cox, Jr, K. Lowrie, K. McComas, and W. North,
Ten Most Important Accomplishments in Risk Analysis, 1980-2010. Risk
Analysis, An International Journal. 32(5), 771-781, 2012. [692-10
accomplishments]
Week 12: Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Tools of the trade: Environmental impact statements and economic impacts.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg 2012, Animas-LaPlata chapter
6
(2) M. Greenberg, M. Lahr, and N. Mantell. Understanding the economic costs and
benefits of catastrophes and their aftermath: a review and suggestions for the US
federal government. Risk Analysis. 27 (1), 2007, 83-96. [Katrina]
(3) M. Greenberg, F. Popper, and H. Truelove, Are LULUs Still Enduringly
Objectionable? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(6), July
2012, 713-731. [697-LULUs objectionable]
Week 13: Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Tools of the trade: Building trust through communications: face-to-face, classroom and
videos.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg, 2012, chapter 8
(2) Greenberg 2012, chapter 2 (look at it again, focusing on the light rail case study).
(3) M. Greenberg, Energy Policy and Research: The Underappreciation of Trust. Energy
Research and Social Science, 1,1, 2014, 152-160 [Trust729]
(4) A. Mazur and R. Kasperson et al. papers from class 4.
Week 14: Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Tools of the trade: Sustainability tools: checklists, simulation models, and many others.
Reading:
(1) Greenberg (2008) chapters 7 and 8
(2) M. Greenberg, J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, D. Kosson, K. Lowrie, H. Mayer, C.
Powers, C. Volz, and V. Vyas, End State Land Uses, Sustainably Protective
Systems, and Risk Management: A Challenge for Remediation and MultiGenerational Stewardship, Remediation, 16(1), 2005, 91-105. [end state]
(3) M. Greenberg, P. Lioy, B. Ozbas, N. Mantell, S. Isukapalli, M. Lahr, T. Altiok, J.
Bober, C. Lacy, K. Lowrie, H. Mayer, and J. Rovito. Passenger Rail Security,
Planning and Resilience: Application of Network, Plume and Economic
Simulation Models as Decision Support Tools, Risk Analysis, An International
Journal, 33(11), 2013, 1969-1986. [714-rail model]
(4) National Research Council, Sustainability and the USEPA, 2011, portion
[Greenbook]
(5) EPA, [sustainability analytics)
(6) Greenberg et al. [Building useful simulation tools]
Final paper due
Week 15: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 (Instead of an exam)
Class option to pick a topic.
7