Greetings, all.
Don't know if everyone's already familiar with this excellent review of Americans' environmental literacy: http://www.neetf.org/pubs/ELR2005.pdf written in 2005. If not, I'd recommend it checking it out, even though it's a long read (there's a summary at the front). Also, if you're not already aware of this daily source of eco-tips -- www.idealbite.com, I've found that it's pretty well written and has well researched information.
Cheers,
Liz Forrestal
Interpretive Exhibits Coordinator
Saint Louis Zoo
One Government Drive
St. Louis, MO 63110
314-781-0900, x316
[email protected]
Two Interesting Web Sources
Sign in or Sign up to comment
It was brought to my attention that #3 in my diatribe about the environmental literacy report could be misleading. To avoid misinforming the educators, please allow me to correct myself. I wrote in part that without surface water runoff "there would be no surface water." In fact, it is desirable in most locations for most precipitation to infiltrate the soil, percolate down to the water table, and recharge surface water through seepage and springs. This provides an important filtering and bioremediating function that greatly slows or prevents the transport of most pollutants into water resources. Surface runoff ideally occurs only in relatively heavy storm events or in limited areas of impervious ground cover. Although it happens sometimes almost everywhere, and in some places more than in others even under ideal conditions, it is not true that there would be no surface water without it. The increase in impervious cover resulting from construction and all manner of human activities, plus the reshaping of drainage systems to facilitate surface flow of storm water, are important factors in increasing the loading of pollutants from the built and natural landscape to surface and ground waters. Development of impervious cover and hydromodification to increase runoff flow to waterways both increase the transport of exposed pollutants to waterways and can be considered contributing causes of nonpoint source pollution. I stand by the remainder of my diatribe, for the moment.
Bill Carter
And I thought it was a really good rant Bill! Thanks for going after imprecise & muddle-headed thinking. (We met maybe ten years ago when you did a round with RW Beck & came up to Denver, had lunch etc. I'm consulting on my own these days. I hope you are well.)
Anne Peters
Gracestone, Inc. Boulder, CO
303.494.4934 vox
303.494.4880 fax
I appreciate the note, Anne. Long time no see, indeed! All the best to you in your practice.
- Bill
Liz,
Thank you for calling attention to the environmental literacy document. While it offers some valuable insights, I'm concerned about the vague interview questions on which its conclusions are based, and what they indicate about the environmental literacy of the authors themselves. Here is one of the survey questions that received, according to the authors, a particularly low rate of "correct" answers: What is the most common cause of pollution of streams, rivers, and oceans? Is it...1. dumping of garbage by cities;2. surface water running off yards, city streets, paved lots, and farm fields; ("correct")3. trash washed into the ocean from beaches; or4. waste dumped by factories? Here is a short sample of the long list of objections I have to this item: 1. We do not have data for these specific categories of causes. The authors seems to think #2 indicates all nonpoint source pollution. However, it explicitly excludes all industrial, commercial, and military storm water, forestry, even livestock facilities and pasture, and many other land use categories which are included in most estimates of "nonpoint source" and "storm water" pollution * and points the finger specifically at residential and agricultural sources. I know of no data that would allow us to isolate runoff pollution from "yards, city streets, paved lots, and farm fields" from all other nonpoint source pollution. Many industrial and other facilities' storm water contributions, even where permitted and therefore technically "point sources," are very difficult to quantify from permit data. If they are not quantified at the source, they are attributed by default into the nonpoint source/background category. Similarly, the available environmental data contrasting point and nonpoint sources would classify deposition of industrial air pollutants to surface waters through precipitation, and runoff or seepage from illegal or legal industrial waste sites (except where monitored), as nonpoint source pollution, whereas the general public would think these types of pollution fit better into category 4, "waste dumped by factories" * at least, if choice #4 is interpreted as liberally as the authors apparently interpret #2. Therefore, I would submit that this question contributes to the "myth" that data about nonpoint source water pollution being greater than point source pollution means that most water pollution is due to residential and agricultural sources, and industrial/commercial/institutional sources are not as significant * an assertion with significant policy implications * whereas the data do not really support any conclusion regarding this question. 2. The terminology in the question is open to a wide variety of interpretations. For example, the phrase "pollution of streams..." seems to be interpreted by the authors to mean contributing any constituents that are ever considered pollutants to any waterway, including sediment, dissolved or suspended solids, and nutrients. In those terms, it is probable that nonpoint sources (in total) are the larger total contributor, but that includes a very large quantity of "pollution" that represents ecologically necessary and beneficial aspects of the water and nutrient cycles. Most people, reading such a broadly stated question, would understand the choices differently, assuming that "pollution" refers only to releases of nonessential, harmful constituents to water resources in concentrations high enough to create harmful conditions in those bodies of water, and perhaps to imply a reference only to bodies of water not meeting water quality standards ("polluted waters"). A great deal of what is included in data on "nonpoint source pollution" does not fit that description. The phrase "most common" is likewise open to a wide variety of interpretations, a very fuzzy way to refer to "most widespread," "most significant," "greatest," or various other kinds of quantification. 3. Strictly speaking, "surface water running off yards..." is not a cause of pollution * it is a necessary aspect of the water cycle, without which there would be no surface water. The exposure of pollutants to contact with precipitation and runoff is the "cause" of nonpoint source pollution. Runoff is the pathway of exposure for those pollutants. In summary, this question, and the interpretation of the responses to it, seems to foster a poor understanding and fuzzy thinking about what we actually know about water pollution and what it means. A low rate of "correct" responses may say more about us than about the respondents. When we evaluate what the public understands about an issue, we should be most attentive to understanding and communicating the issue and its implications clearly.
All the best,
Bill Carter
Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment MC
165 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087
Phone: 512-239-6771
Fax: 512-239-4410
[email protected]