Design

Design notes for environmental equity group engagement and learning activities

This is thinking-out-loud about work-in-progress.

The context is my effort to help design a local environmental justice curriculum. "Curriculum" in a very loose sense. What I am working on is a set of learning activities that are connected, but not scripted. Sort of a choose-your-own-adventure approach.

The target learners are groups that exist in Evanston; primarily neighborhood groups or block clubs, but also committees and working groups within civic or religious organizations and are drawn to do environmental justice work (of which there are many). Some learning activities may be done by individuals, but the goal is always to move from individual to group.

The curriculum focuses on neighborhood outcomes. Environmental inequities in Evanston are place-based. They exist when you compare two specific sections of the city - one on the west side, one along Evanston's southern border with Chicago - with other (wealthier, whiter) sections. [The story is outlined in detail in the first sections of 2026: Community listening and environmental equity in Evanston]. The curriculum should bring to life more neighborhood-led solutions to the variety of issues which contribute to the inequitable conditions. Neighbors creating solutions to neighborhood challenges.

Thinking about the neighborhood journey

I started by trying to identify different challenges that a group may have as it moves along a journey from understanding environmental equity to developing neighborhood-led actions or solutions. Each challenge might start as a single activity in the curriculum. Some may lead to the others.

We don't know what environmental equity means, or what we can do about it.
We know what it means, but now we see that it is a complex challenge. We're not sure where we might begin.
Our group has one or more areas we want to work on. Now we want to move to more specific ideas that will lead to neighborhood solutions.
Our group has one or more areas we want to work on. But we know we need help. We want to explore where we can find collaboration partners, and figure out how to work with them.
Our group has identified issues that will only get resolved through citizen advocacy. We know we need to gather data and stories to support the advocacy effort. How do we do that?

The first two bullet points are where most folks are at. The following three bullets require that folks know something about the factors where we see environmental inequities - access to open spaces, lack of tree canopy, housing conditions, energy efficiency and sustainability, walkability and access to transit options, and more.

Learning activity structure and sequence

Next, I thought about format. Some challenges might lend themselves to self-guided learning resources. I've already produced and shared a slide-document guiding folks through what environmental equity is, what it means, and what to (potentially) do. I can also imagine creating a self-guided resource for identifying potential collaboration partners and tips on how to start to engaging with them.

A tricky design challenge emerges around the first and second challenges: We kind of know what environmental equity means, but our neighborhood group needs to wrap our collective minds around the issue and decide what it means for us.

My assumption is that this step needs to be done (should be done) before getting into any kind of idea-generating activity. As well, the veteran leaders of Environmental Justice Evanston know from experience that this kind of group consensus building (on a policy issue) involves a set of civic muscles that are not well toned. They need practice at it.

Another anecdotal piece of evidence about this assumption comes from the work of Open Democracy Evanston, a not-for-profit organization led by Northwestern University researchers and civic leaders who are working on exactly that challenge: Building civic muscle to engage citizens more actively in directing how our community resolves complex issues. They are also conducting small experiments of ways to engage folks in dialogue about issues and challenges, in ways that are different than traditional engagement settings (i.e., public comment sessions at city meetings). A lot of their work focuses on the structure and activities involved in dialogue events; what works, why it works, etc.

What it means to me is that we are probably safe to assume any curriculum design needs to help groups practice effective dialogue and consensus building.

The opportunity to experiment

Which brings me to where I am at, today.

We may have an opportunity to test out a dialogue activity with a small neighborhood group that exists within one of the focus areas for addressing inequity in Evanston. That is really good news.

The second bit of good news is that I can tap into the resources of Liberating Structures to find group dialogue designs that are fit for this purpose. I am also confident these designs align with the sensibilities of the team of folks I work with at Environmental Justice Evanston.

The design challenge I am wrestling with is this: Good group dialogue structures often start with an open-ended question. So: How might I get a group to a general understanding of a complex issue like environmental equity, and what is the question that guides the subsequent dialogue?

A sub-challenge to this: A key resource for understanding the specific factors impacting environmental equity in Evanston is the final report of a year-long research effort: The Environmental Equity Investigation. The report outlines more than 30 recommended actions that might be used to address the underlying inequities.

The actions, however, tend to be written as policy or program ideas. "Explore ways to increase tree canopy coverage through the Zoning Code," for example. Let's imagine you began a group dialogue session by reviewing these 30+ ideas policy and program ideas and asking, "ok, where should we begin?" But you are asking folks to make a judgement on policies for which they likely have no experience or expertise. This is a thinking about thinking tasks problem.

So I first started by translating the action recommendations - which do fall into distinct categories, by design - into sentences that might be more meaningful to a group of residents. I even mapped my sentences to all 30+ action ideas to ensure all the ideas were all covered. All but a handful were directly covered; the remainder were programs or policies that you can make a case for clear indirect impact.

Here are the sentences. Assume that the framing begins with "in our neighborhood, we'd like to..."

Create more greenery (trees, native plants, green open spaces, food gardens).
Create more safe, low-stress and sustainable ways to move around (better walkability, biking, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, public transit, EVs).
Ensure healthy air quality (outdoor and indoor).
Improve protection against severe weather events (heat, flooding, winter).
Ensure healthy, sustainable and affordable housing (green energy systems, indoor air quality, affordable options to maintain/stay-in-home or move within Evanston).

These sentences are not intended to generate decisions (i.e., our neighborhood should focus on...). They might. But more importantly, they are designed to generate dialogue about what each of these areas means, to that neighborhood, in any effort to improve neighborhood conditions.

These led me to creating a working draft for an hour-long group session. Taking this step helps me put pieces together and allows me to have something to share with others. I am also thinking about creating other variations, so we can do a proper compare-and-contrast. The versions would "feel" the same, but the setup and outcomes would be different.

A working draft for a group dialogue session

Here is one example. It is intended to address the scenario "We don't know what environmental equity means, or what we can do about it."

Pre-reading. Read Environmental Justice Evanston - What it is. What it means. What to do.

Group session. 60 minutes for the working session. Assume 5-15 people. The dialogue activity can be done as a full group, but if there are 10 or more participants you can divide up the group into smaller subgroups. Ideal is 5-7 people per dialogue group. Note: Planning should also include informal time before the working session (food, chat, introductions).

Setup. Participants are seated in a circle (at a table or in an open circle). Flip chart paper is available for listing take-aways at the end of the session. Talking stick/object available for dialogue rounds.

Facilitator's introduction. The purpose of this session is to start moving toward consensus on what environmental equity means for us, in this neighborhood. Wherever we get is wherever we get. There is no specific goal. It's just dialogue to help us see where we might create common understanding.

Let's start with a quick review of environmental equity. Environmental equity is when every neighborhood in Evanston enjoys the same benefits from environmental assets - for example: trees, parks, walkability - and protection from environmental hazards such as air pollution, noise, or industrial accidents.

This is not the case in Evanston. Two sections of the city - roughly the 5th ward on the west and the 8th ward on the south - enjoy fewer environmental benefits and are exposed to more potential hazards than the rest of the city.

The facts are documented in two city research efforts. The health department's 2022 EPLAN notes that life expectancy is lower in these areas (up to 13 years) compared to other Evanston neighborhoods "where wealth, health and privilege coincide." The 2025 Environmental Equity Investigation (EEI) built off of this finding, and added details to a long list of factors that impact neighborhood health and well-being. All resulting from a history of discriminatory policies and practices.

So where do we go from here?

The EEI labels these two sections of the city as potential "green zones," where focused efforts may contribute to both repair and renewal. And the direction of these efforts should be guided by the neighborhoods. Neighbors leading the way.

If you look at the more than 30 policy and program recommendations outlined in the EEI, they come down to five key things. Each addresses an area of inequity. But they also lead us on a positive path toward creating a more sustainable living experience in the face of climate change.

Create more greenery (trees, native plants, green open spaces, food gardens).
Create more safe, low-stress and sustainable ways to move around (better walkability, biking, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, public transit, EVs).
Ensure healthy air quality (outdoor and indoor).
Improve protection against severe weather events (heat, flooding, winter).
Ensure healthy, sustainable and affordable housing (green energy systems, indoor air quality, affordable options to maintain/stay-in-home or move within Evanston).

Consider these five areas. The question for discussion today: What if we got it right? What would that look like, in this neighborhood?

Discussion. [Note: This is the Conversation Cafe structure from Liberating Structures].

Round 1, with the talking object. Each individual shares what they are thinking and feeling in relation to the question. 1 minute per person. Only the individual with the talking object is speaking; the others are listening.

Round 2, with the talking object. Each individual speaks again, after having listened to everyone. 1 minute per person.

Round 3, open discussion. 20+ minutes.

Round 4, with the talking object. Each individual shares 1-2 take-aways. 1 minute per person. Take-aways are recorded on a flip chart.

What this design structure does

I have absolutely no idea where this dialogue may lead with a real neighborhood group. That is actually a good thing. I have absolute high confidence that it will lead to something important because it will surface how neighborhood folks think about these issues, in their specific neighborhood, at this specific moment in time.

It's possible that the discussion will lead to some clear connection with recommendations outlined in the EEI. That is important to know. Let's say the discussion lands on housing and greenery as priorities for near term actions. That's data to take back to civic and not-for-profit organizations so they may start to work on building out related programs and resources, with the neighborhood.

It's possible that the discussion will lead to the neighbors thinking about these issues in an entirely unexpected way. That is also important to know. It's data. Maybe the EEI missed something. Or maybe it provides a more effective way to frame the environmental equity effort.

The design structure is also a template which offers a key benefit: It sets up the a format for continued experiments with the curriculum.

The structure is basically this: Content + an open question, followed by an inclusive group activity taken from Liberating Structures. It is easy to imagine experimenting with either or both of those elements. You can change the content and question, but keep the group activity the same, or vice versa. Or change both to achieve a different outcome (say, getting a group to do idea generation and set action plans).

Combining this structure with self-paced resources also offers enough options to continue experimenting with new content, addressing new challenges, and exploring what works, for whom, and why. That's fun.

The photographs which accompany these posts are taken by me, and show different settings and views of Evanston (where I live). It is a visual reminder that this is the most important setting for belonging and contributing to community: our neighborhoods, our cities.