xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001413335
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 030703s2002 flu sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000031
Stone, John V.
Public participation in environmental management: seeking participatory equity through ethnographic inquiry
h [electronic resource] /
by John V. Stone.
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2002.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 323 pages.
ABSTRACT: This dissertation reports the activities, methods, and key findings of a doctoral research project in applied anthropology and an environmental anthropology fellowship. The research project was conducted through the Department of Anthropology at the University of Michigan, while the fellowship was sponsored jointly by the Society for Applied Anthropology and the United States Environmental Protection Agency and was conducted through the Great Lakes Fellowship Program of the Great Lakes Commission, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Together, these projects demonstrated the utility of an ethnographic approach called Risk Perception Mapping (RPM) to the public consultation and social research interests of the Commission and its associated network of environmental management agencies and organizations.Through consultation with these organizations I identified an environmental management problem to which anthropological perspectives and methods would be particularly well-suited: Can the undesirable social phenomenon of environmental discrimination be minimized by assuring greater equality in access to public participation in environmental management? To address this problem, I conducted an RPM demonstration project in a five county area surrounding the Fermi II nuclear power plant in southeastern Michigan. My research focused on cultural, geographical, and social-contextual factors that influence the nature and distribution of perceived risk among populations that are potentially affected by environmental management projects. Key findings pertain to perceptually-specific communities of environmental risk and have implications for what I call "participatory equity" in environmental management.Potential applications to Great Lakes environmental management center on developing equitable population-specific exchanges of information through which more culturally sensitive indicators of Great Lakes ecosystem integrity may emerge. Anthropological contributions to public participation in environmental management are discussed with particular attention to anthropological perspectives on the multiple publics that comprise locally affected communities of environmental risk.
Adviser: Wolfe, Alvin
x Decision making.
Social Impact Assessment.
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Office of Graduate StudiesUniversity of South FloridaTampa, Florida___________________________CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL___________________________This is to certify that the dissertation ofJOHN V. STONEin the graduate degree program ofApplied Anthropologywas approved on February 2, 2002,as satisfactory for the Doctor of Philosophy degree.Examining Committee:__________________________________________Major Professor: Alvin Wolfe, Ph.D.__________________________________________Member: Robert Aangeenbrug, Ph.D.__________________________________________Member: Gilbert Kushner, Ph.D.__________________________________________Member: Lorena Madrigal, Ph.D.__________________________________________Member: Loyd Pettegrew, Ph.D.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT:SEEKING PARTICIPATORY EQUITY THROUGH ETHNOGRAPHIC INQUIRYbyJOHN V. STONEA dissertation submitted in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of PhilosophyDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of South FloridaMay 2002Major Professor: Alvin Wolfe, Ph.D.
Copyright by John V. Stone 2002All rights reserved
DEDICATIONTo the memory of Jeanne (Aldrich) Stone and Camilla (Skelly) DÂ’Annunzio, whoselives ended far too soon; and to Brandon DÂ’Annunzio, whose life was taken from him forreasons none of us can ever understand.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis dissertation represents a group effort. Special mention must be made of thehundreds of willing participants in my research whose time and involvement made thisproject possible. Just as importantly, my doctoral committee members, especially AlvinWolfe and Gilbert Kushner, offered continual support, understanding, and encouragementas I slogged along. Without them, I seriously doubt I would have ever finished.Richard Stoffle, Conrad Kottak, and Steve Heeringa provided guidance in conceivingand implementing the initial phases of my research, while Neill Goslin, Rachel Ragsdale, andMarianne Sarkis kindly assisted with data management and coding. Subsequent phases of theresearch were supported jointly through Environmental Anthropology and Great LakesFellowship Programs of the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA), EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), and Great Lakes Commission (GLC). Many thanks to GeorgeClark and Theresa Trainor at the EPA, Barbara Johnston, Rob Winthrop, and RichardStoffle at the SfAA, and Michael Donahue and Steve Thorp at the GLC.Lastly, I am forever indebted to my family and friends for believing in me and forputting up with years of distraction. Special thanks to Natalie and Ian Stone for theirpatience while I was Â“too busyÂ” to be the daddy I wanted to be during their formative years;to Phillip and Dennis DÂ’Annunzio and Gil Kushner, who continue to inspire by perseveringin the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles; to Stan Â“The RockÂ” Stone -my mentor,my father, my friend, my Â“Rock IslandÂ” -thanks for setting the best example possible andfor always expecting me to do the same; to Steve Stone for helping with my seeminglyendless march of bizarre computer problems; to Jeff Schlotter for serving as a willingsounding board throughout the process; to Brent Stoffle for shuttling my penultimate draftsaround campus; and to Chris Bennetts, who in addition to being a good friend, helped instillin me as a teacher the inherent value of education. And of course, to my loving wife, Eileen,whose devotion and hard work helped keep the kids fed and me sane. She was an equalpartner in this process and the doctoral degree is every bit as much a reflection of her effortas it is of mine. Eileen, words alone canÂ’t express my gratitude; letÂ’s get it on with lifeÂ…
iTABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................................viiLIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................viiiLIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.....................................................................ixABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................................xiiCHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1The Problem: Differential Social Access to Public Participation in EnvironmentalManagement....................................................................................................................................3The Procedural Context: Public Participation, Impact Assessment,and Environmental Management...........................................................................................4The Locally Affected Population..........................................................................................4Public Participation and Minimal Procedural Provisions.................................................5Differential Social Access.......................................................................................................6Specially Affected Populations and Environmental Discrimination..............................7Toward a Â“Participatory Equity PrincipleÂ” for Environmental Management....................8The Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception Study and EnvironmentalAnthropology Fellowship..............................................................................................................9Organization of Dissertation...........................................................................................................9Personal Interest in the Human Dimensions of Environmental Management...............10Applied Anthropology and Environmental Management...................................................10Professional Experience Applying Anthropology to EnvironmentalManagement.............................................................................................................................11A Case Study of Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception.............................................11EARP/RPM Demonstration Project Data Management and Analysis............................12Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................................13CHAPTER 2 -PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OFENVIROMENTAL MANAGEMENT.....................................................................................16Connie's Cabin at East Tawas........................................................................................................16Participant-Observer of Local Environmental Degradation....................................................17Floods and Dikes........................................................................................................................18Contaminated Fish......................................................................................................................18Heavy Industry............................................................................................................................19Coal-Generated Power Plants...................................................................................................20Nuclear-Generated Power Plants.............................................................................................20Fertilizers, Pesticides, and Other Chemicals..........................................................................22
iiAgricultural Uses....................................................................................................................22Residential and Commercial Uses.......................................................................................23The PBB Crisis.......................................................................................................................24Death of a Family Member............................................................................................................25Personal Interest: Participatory Equity in Environmental Management................................26Chapter Summary............................................................................................................................26CHAPTER 3 -APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTALMANAGEMENT...........................................................................................................................28Informational Needs in Environmental Management..............................................................28Anthropological Contributions to Environmental Management............................................30Scientific and Humanistic Conceptions of Human Problems............................................30Science and Humanism in Environmental Management:Where the Twain meets the Mark...................................................................................31The "Four Fields" Approach to Human Problems..............................................................32Archaeology............................................................................................................................33Ethnology................................................................................................................................34Linguistics...............................................................................................................................36Biological Anthropology.......................................................................................................37Holistic, Relativistic, and Comparative Perspectives on Human Problems.....................39Holism.....................................................................................................................................40Cultural Relativism................................................................................................................41Cross-Cultural Comparison.................................................................................................44A Range of Theoretical Orientations to Human Problems.................................................45Theoretical Orientations to Environmental Management:Cultural Ecology.................................................................................................................45Theoretical Orientations to Environmental Management:Social Networks..................................................................................................................48Methods for Studying Human Problems................................................................................49Scientific Emphasis...............................................................................................................50Humanistic Emphasis...........................................................................................................50Ethnography as Art and Science in Environmental Management................................51Ethical Guidelines for Studying Human Problems...............................................................52A History of Application to Human Problems.....................................................................54Applied Anthropology..........................................................................................................54Applied Anthropology and Environmental Management..............................................56Chapter Summary............................................................................................................................57CHAPTER 4 -PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE APPLYINGANTHROPOLOGY TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT..................................59Professional Orientation within Applied Anthropology...........................................................59Integrating SIA and Public Participation in Environmental Management.......................60SIA and Public Participation................................................................................................61The Role of Environmental Risk Management................................................................62
iiiRisk Perception and Public Participation inEnvironmental Management............................................................................................62An Anthropological Difference................................................................................................63Professional Experience in Environmental Management Studies...........................................64The Chemical Munitions Incineration Project......................................................................65The Superconducting Super Collider Project.........................................................................65Risk Perception Shadows.....................................................................................................65The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Project............................................................................67Risk Perception Mapping.....................................................................................................67The Kaibab Paiute Hazardous Wastes Incinerator Proposal..............................................68The Brazilian Ecological Awareness and Environmentalist Action Studies....................68Chapter Summary............................................................................................................................70CHAPTER 5 -A CASE STUDY OF ECOLOGICAL AWARENESS ANDRISK PERCEPTION.....................................................................................................................71Primary Objectives...........................................................................................................................71Develop a Comparative Environmental Risk Perception Study........................................72Test Measures of Ecological Awareness, Risk Perception,and Environmentalist Action................................................................................................72Map the Risk Perception Shadow for the Fermi II Facility.................................................73Demonstrate Utility of RPM in Public Participation forEnvironmental Management.................................................................................................73Conceptual Framework...................................................................................................................73Philosophical Perspective..........................................................................................................74The Libertarian Model..........................................................................................................75The Egalitarian Model..........................................................................................................75The Perspective of Ecosystem Integrity............................................................................76Theoretical Discussion...............................................................................................................77The Risk Debate....................................................................................................................77Risk as Objective Probability...............................................................................................78Risk as Social Construction..................................................................................................79Toward a Holistic Concept of Risk....................................................................................81Methodological Approach: RPM..................................................................................................82RPM: Ethical Considerations....................................................................................................82Multiple Ethical Codes and Professional Responsibilities..............................................83Human Subjects Compliance...............................................................................................84Informed Consent.................................................................................................................85Participant Safety...................................................................................................................85Right of Review......................................................................................................................86Categorical and Group Representation..............................................................................86Right to Inclusion, with Absentia.......................................................................................87Advocacy in a Culturally Heterogeneous Context...........................................................87Participation in Multidisciplinary Research.......................................................................88Research Utility and Communication................................................................................89
ivEARP Research Methods...............................................................................................................89Phase 1: RPM Sample Design...................................................................................................90Key RPM Design Features...................................................................................................91The Project Focus: Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant..........................................................93Study Area Definition...........................................................................................................94Sample Strata Definition.......................................................................................................94Sample Area Definition........................................................................................................96Household Selection Procedure..........................................................................................96Participant Selection Procedure..........................................................................................97Phase 2: Pre-Field Community Consultation.........................................................................98Phase 3: Survey Instrument Design/Pre-Test.......................................................................99Phase 4: Ethnographic RPM Fieldwork...............................................................................100RPM Field Preparation.......................................................................................................101Contacting Sample Households and Selecting Participants.........................................102Administering the Structured RPM Interviews..............................................................103Resolving Interview Refusals.............................................................................................103Engaging in Participant Observation...............................................................................104Conducting Informal Key-Informant Interviews..........................................................104Reviewing Historic Documents and Monitoring Media Reports................................105Phases 5 & 6: Data Management, Community Feedback..................................................106Chapter Summary..........................................................................................................................107CHAPTER 6 -EARP/RPM DEMONSTRATION PROJECT:DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSIS.........................................................................108Environmental Anthropology Fellowship:................................................................................109The Risk Perception Mapping Demonstration Project...........................................................109Fellowship Host: The Great Lakes Commission................................................................109Identifying GLC Interests and Needs...................................................................................110Social Science and Great Lakes Ecosystem Management............................................110Risk Perception Mapping and the EARP Study.............................................................110Matching Fellowships: GLC and SfAA/EPA................................................................111Clarifying GLC/GLM Interests in the RPM Demonstration Project........................111Establishing Project Goal and Objectives.......................................................................112Identifying Key RPM Analytical Variables......................................................................113Key Project Activities..........................................................................................................113Data Management..........................................................................................................................114Editing Completed Questionnaires.......................................................................................114Developing the Data Codebook............................................................................................114Inter-rater Reliability Method............................................................................................115Code Convergence in the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project................................118Final Product: A Data Codebook for the EARP/RPMDemonstration Project....................................................................................................120Coding Open-ended Responses.............................................................................................121Creating the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project Database...........................................121
vData Entry and Verification....................................................................................................122Analysis of Key Findings..............................................................................................................122RPM Data Depiction...............................................................................................................123Spatial Distribution of the Fermi RPS..................................................................................123The Â“AwarenessÂ” Shadow..................................................................................................124A Cautionary Note on Interpreting RPM Maps Depicted in GIS..............................126Characteristics of the Fermi Â“AwarenessÂ” Shadow.......................................................127Demographic Characteristics of "Aware" versus "Unaware" Populations................128Technology and Environment Analogs................................................................................128Chapter Summary..........................................................................................................................130CHAPTER 7 -CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................132Conclusions.....................................................................................................................................132The Participatory Significance of Risk Perception Voids..................................................133An Anthropological Difference in Public Consultation....................................................134Conceptualizing Multiple Publics......................................................................................135Indigenous Knowledge and Participatory Equity inEnvironmental Management..........................................................................................137Ethnography and Participatory Equity in Environmental Management...................140Recommendations.........................................................................................................................140Concerning the EARP Study..................................................................................................141Include the Ontario Portion of the Sample....................................................................141Further Characterize the Fermi II RPS............................................................................141Streamline the Questionnaire............................................................................................142Expand the Budget to Support Entire Study..................................................................142Complete the Community Feedback Phase....................................................................143Monitor Changes in Perceptions, Attitudes, and Behaviors........................................144Concerning RPM Methodology.............................................................................................144RPM Sample Design Issues...............................................................................................144RPM Interpretive Issues.....................................................................................................147RPM Implementational Issues..........................................................................................150Concerning Participation Evaluation Measures and Procedures......................................151The Oak Ridge National Laboratory Studies..................................................................152Potential Applications in Great Lakes Environmental Management...................................155Closing.............................................................................................................................................156A Â“Participatory Equity PrincipleÂ” in Environmental Management?..............................156Epilogue......................................................................................................................................158REFERENCES CITED..................................................................................................................160APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................208Appendix 1: Ethics Statements..................................................................................................209Appendix 2: Sample Area Sketch Forms for Household Selection Procedure...................226Appendix 3: EARP Interview Cover Sheet...............................................................................227
viAppendix 4: EARP Study Consent Letter.................................................................................230Appendix 5: EARP Study, Letters of Notification..................................................................231Appendix 6: List of EARP Pre-field Community Contacts...................................................232Appendix 7: EARP Study Press Clipping..................................................................................235Appendix 8: Call Letter.................................................................................................................236Appendix 9: Statement of Interest, Environmental Anthropology Fellowship..................237Appendix 10: Revised Statement of Work Great Lakes/EnvironmentalAnthropology Fellowship..........................................................................................................243Appendix 11: RPM Demonstration Project Announcement.................................................254Appendix 12: EARP/RPM Code Convergence Values forInter-rater Reliability..................................................................................................................255Appendix 13: EARP Study/RPM Demonstration Project Questionnaire andData Codebook...........................................................................................................................259Appendix 14: A Summary Table of Demographic Characteristics forEARP Study Area Counties and Sample Population...........................................................312Appendix 15: GLC Proposal to the NSF Biocomplexity Initiative......................................314ABOUT THE AUTHOR.....................................................................................................End Page
viiLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Theoretical RPS as Viewed from Above........................................................................92Figure 2: Regional View of EARP Study Area...............................................................................95Figure 3: State and County Boundaries of the EARP Study........................................................95Figure 4: Relationship of RPM Sampling Frame to Geo-political Boundariesin the EARP Study.......................................................................................................................97Figure 5: Awareness Percentages for the Fermi II RPS..............................................................125Figure 6: Shaded Contour Map of the Fermi II RPS..................................................................125
viiiLIST OF TABLESTable 1: EARP Sample Frame..........................................................................................................98Table 2: Rank Order of Top Technology and Environment Analogsin the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project..........................................................................129Table 3: Attributes of Success and Performance Indicators to Use inEvaluating Public Participation................................................................................................153Table 4: RPM Demonstration Project Activities, Deliverables, and Timelines......................253Table 5: Code Convergence Values for the EARP/RPM Inter-raterReliability Exercise......................................................................................................................256Table 6: Demographic Characteristics for EARP Study Area Counties andSample Population......................................................................................................................312
ixLIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACRONYM DEFINITION ACRONYM DEFINITION AAAAmerican AnthropologicalAssociationANSAquatic Nuisance Species BDSBehavioral Data ServicesCAEPCommittee ofAnthropologists inEnvironmental Planning CEQCouncil on EnvironmentalQualityCFRCode of Federal Regulations CGLRMCouncil of Great LakesResearch ManagersCIESINConsortium of InternationalEarth Science InformationNetwork CNIECommittee for the NationalInstitute for theEnvironmentDOEDepartment of Energy EARPEcological Awareness andRisk Perception StudyEDExecutive Director ed.Editoreds.Editors EISEnvironmental ImpactStatementEPAEnvironmental ProtectionAgency EPZEmergency Planning ZoneERMEnvironmental RiskManagement FDAFood and DrugAdministrationFWSFish and Wildlife Service GISGeographic InformationSystemGLBGreat Lakes Basin
x ACRONYM DEFINITION ACRONYM DEFINITION GLCGreat Lakes CommissionGLMNGreat Lakes ManagementNetwork GLPFGreat Lakes ProtectionFundGLSABGreat Lakes ScienceAdvisory Board GPRAGovernment Performanceand Results ActHRHouse Resolution HUHousing UnitIAGLRInternational Associationfor Great Lakes Research IAIAInternational Associationfor Impact AssessmentIAP2International Associationfor Public Participation ICWPInterstate Council on WaterPolicyIJCInternational JointCommission IRMInter-rater ReliabilityMethodISRInstitute for Social Research IWInterviewLAPLocally Affected Population LLRWLow Level RadioactiveWasteMCATSMichigan Citizens AgainstToxic Substances NAEPNational Association ofEnvironmentalProfessionalsNAPANational Association ofPracticing Anthropologist NCSENational Council forScience and theEnvironmentNEJACNational EnvironmentalJustice Advisory Council NEPANational EnvironmentalPolicy ActNGONon-GovernmentalOrganization NIMBYNot-In-My-Back-YardNOAANational Oceanographicand AtmosphericAdministration
xi ACRONYM DEFINITION ACRONYM DEFINITION NRCNational Research CouncilNSFNational ScienceFoundation ORNLOak Ridge NationalLaboratoryOSECOffice of SustainableEcosystems andCommunities OSHAOccupational Safety andHealth AdministrationOTAOffice of TechnologyAssessment PAPPotentially AffectedPopulationPBBPolybrominated Biphenyls PLPublic LawPp.Pages RAPARisk Assessment and PolicyAssociationRARADARisk Analysis Research andDemonstration Act RFPRequest for ProposalRMIRocky Mountain Institute RPMRisk Perception MappingRPSRisk Perception Shadow RSOWRevised Statement of WorkSfAASociety for AppliedAnthropology SIASocial Impact AssessmentSOIStatement of Interest SOPASociety of ProfessionalArchaeologistsSSCSuperconducting SuperCollider TBATo Be AnnouncedTIGTopical Interest Group UMUniversity of MichiganUSCUnited States Congress USCGUnited States Coast GuardUSDAUnited States Departmentof Agriculture USFUniversity of South FloridaUSGSUnited States GeologicalSurvey USNRCUnited States NuclearRegulatory Commission
xiiPUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT:SEEKING PARTICIPATORY EQUITY THROUGH ETHNOGRAPHIC INQUIRYbyJOHN V. STONEAn Abstractof a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of PhilosophyDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of South FloridaMay 2002Major Professor: Alvin Wolfe, Ph.D.
xiiiThis dissertation reports the activities, methods, and key findings of a doctoralresearch project in applied anthropology and an environmental anthropology fellowship.The research project was conducted through the Department of Anthropology at theUniversity of Michigan, while the fellowship was sponsored jointly by the Society forApplied Anthropology and the United States Environmental Protection Agency and wasconducted through the Great Lakes Fellowship Program of the Great Lakes Commission, inAnn Arbor, Michigan. Together, these projects demonstrated the utility of an ethnographicapproach called Risk Perception Mapping (RPM) to the public consultation and socialresearch interests of the Commission and its associated network of environmentalmanagement agencies and organizations.Through consultation with these organizations I identified an environmentalmanagement problem to which anthropological perspectives and methods would beparticularly well-suited: Can the undesirable social phenomenon of environmentaldiscrimination be minimized by assuring greater equality in access to public participation inenvironmental management? To address this problem, I conducted an RPM demonstrationproject in a five county area surrounding the Fermi II nuclear power plant in southeasternMichigan. My research focused on cultural, geographical, and social-contextual factors thatinfluence the nature and distribution of perceived risk among populations that are potentiallyaffected by environmental management projects. Key findings pertain to perceptually-specific communities of environmental risk and have implications for what I callÂ“participatory equityÂ” in environmental management.Potential applications to Great Lakes environmental management center ondeveloping equitable population-specific exchanges of information through which moreculturally sensitive indicators of Great Lakes ecosystem integrity may emerge.
xivAnthropological contributions to public participation in environmental managementare discussed with particular attention to anthropological perspectives on the multiplepublics that comprise locally affected communities of environmental risk.Abstract Approved: ________________________________________________Major Professor, Alvin Wolfe, Ph.D.Professor, Department of Anthropology Date Approved: _________________________________
1CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONPeople need many different ways of reinforcing theirbonds with the land to guarantee that their soulsdevelop an ample capacity for affection and care.Coming to know and use a place responsibly isconnected to slowly perceiving in an ordinarylandscape a beauty that is more than scenic.Brian Donahue, Reclaiming the CommonsDoctoral dissertations can acquire an introspective or reflexive tone as their authorsinvariably reach the point in the process where they ask: "Why am I doing this?" At its mostbasic level, the dissertation is the terminal paper at the end of one's formal graduate training,reflecting one's interest not only in a given discipline but also between that discipline and thetopical area of specialization claimed by the student. In my case, that discipline is appliedanthropology and my topical area of specialization is environmental management. This suggestsnot only a conceptual relationship between anthropology and environmental management, butthat in a utilitarian sense anthropology is applicable -relevant, useful, beneficial -toenvironmental management. But the dissertation also presents an opportunity for me to reflectupon the personal experiences that have shaped my interest in environmental managementissues and which have inspired me to pursue them through applied anthropology -an occasionto contemplate my formal educational training as an extension of personal experience. In thatregard this dissertation is as much a reflexive exercise as it is a report on anthropology appliedto environmental management.The doctoral program in applied anthropology at the University of South Floridarequires its students to complete either an applied anthropology internship with an outsideagency or to conduct an applied anthropology research project. This dissertation is a bit of ananomaly in that regard because it reflects elements of both. For example, I first conducted a
2research project through the Department of Anthropology at the University of Michigan (UM),Ann Arbor. I was employed there as a Research Associate during 1992-93, under thesupervision and direction of Dr. Conrad Kottak, a professor of anthropology at the UM. Thestudy for which this research was conducted, titled "The Ecological Awareness and Risk PerceptionStudy" (EARP), was dually funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and theConsortium for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). I worked as theproject manager and was responsible for designing the study, coordinating pre-field and fieldactivities including sample and questionnaire design, and conducting community consultation,ethnographic and survey fieldwork, and data management. Subsequently, I was granted anapplied environmental anthropology fellowship with the Great Lakes Commission (GLC), alsoin Ann Arbor. My fellowship project was titled Â“The Risk Perception Mapping DemonstrationProject,Â” and was supported jointly through the Environmental Anthropology FellowshipProject of the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA), the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), and the GLCÂ’s Great Lakes Fellowship Program. I designed myfellowship project to demonstrate how EARP methods and data could be applied to the socialresearch and public consultation interests of the GLC and its regional network of organizationsinvolved in Great Lakes environmental management.Together, my doctoral research and fellowship project enabled me to address anenvironmental management problem that I identified in consultation with my fellowship hostand sponsors: namely, the implications for public participation of differential social access toenvironmental management. My research addressed this problem by focusing on cultural,geographical, and social-contextual factors that influence the nature and distribution ofperceived risk among populations that are potentially affected by environmental managementprojects or decisions. Key findings from that research are reported in this dissertation andpertain to perceptually-specific communities of environmental risk, with implications for what Icall Â“participatory equityÂ” in environmental management. Potential application to Great Lakesenvironmental management was again identified in consultation with my fellowship host andsponsors and centered on using this information to develop equitable population-specificinformation and education exchanges through which more culturally sensitive indicators ofGreat Lakes ecosystem integrity may emerge. I should note, however, that the findings and
3conclusions I report in this dissertation are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those ofmy research and fellowship hosts, sponsors, or supervisors.Now there is the Â“why am I doing this?Â” or better Â“why did I do this?Â” side of theexperience. Inasmuch as I am relieved to have completed the formal requirements of a doctoralprogram in applied anthropology, and as professionally excited as I am to have the fruits of thateffort applied to Great Lakes environmental management, I recognize that none of it wouldhave occurred had it not been for the personal experience that led me down this path in thefirst place. To that end, the doctoral dissertation presented an opportunity for me to reflect onthat experience -to retrace and evaluate the steps IÂ’ve taken and the reasons IÂ’ve taken them;in effect, to see where I am now and where I am headed as a product of where IÂ’ve been andwhat IÂ’ve experienced along the way. In that regard, the dissertation is, for me anyway, less aterminal project and more a liminal state of mind Â– a reflexive affirmation of that which haspassed and that which has yet to come. Thus, IÂ’ve tried to reflect a bit of that experience inchapters devoted to the personal and professional experiences that have most profoundlyinfluenced my interest in the human dimensions of environmental management.In this chapter I introduce the problem of differential social access to publicparticipation in environmental management. I define and discuss a phenomenon termed"environmental discrimination," arguing that it is related, at least in part, to the processthrough which public input is sought and incorporated into environmental decision-makingin the United States. Following that discussion I introduce and outline all subsequentchapters and then segue to Chapter 2, wherein I justify my problem selection in terms ofpersonal interest in and experience with environmental management issues, particularly thoseconcerning the Great Lakes ecosystem.The Problem: Differential Social Access to Public Participation in EnvironmentalManagementLarge-scale technological projects, such as nuclear power plants, can have significantimpacts on the natural and social environments in which they are located. In the United Statesfederal mandates such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and various state-level versions of the federal act, require that assessments be made of these potential impacts(United States Congress 1969). NEPA Section 102(2)(C), for example, states that "all agenciesof the Federal Government shall include in every recommendation or report on proposals for
4legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the humanenvironment, a detailed statement by the responsible official" on the potential impacts of theproposed action and its alternatives. More recently, the term "human environment" has beenexpanded to explicitly include social considerations in assessments of potential environmentalimpact; these "social impacts" now carry equal weight to the economic and environmentalfactors which had previously formed the basis of federal environmental decision-making(United States Council on Environmental Quality 1986:1508.14).The Procedural Context: Public Participation, Impact Assessment, and EnvironmentalManagementThese social and environmental "impact assessments," as they are called, are intendedto help environmental decision-makers anticipate a project's potential environmental and socialconsequences before the decision to proceed with the project has been made, and, if so, howbest to mitigate it's potential environmental and social impacts. Two key components inproject-specific social impact assessment (SIA) studies are the definition and identification ofthe local populations potentially affected by the project, a collectivity commonly referred to asthe "locally affected population" (LAP). Consultative relationships are typically establishedamong the LAP, project proposers, and relevant government agencies. Thus, the LAP providesthe geographic and sociocultural framework for public participation programs in project-specific impact assessment for environmental management.The Locally Affected PopulationBurdge (1994:8) notes that in general, social impacts among the LAP are mostobservable and can be measured at the community level. Yet, "community" is a reified conceptin the social sciences, and therefore poorly described by static definitions (Burdge and Vanclay1995:48). Still, an impact assessment is administered within a definite study area, and theboundary of that area must be defined through some means. The impact boundary in turntypically defines the LAP, rather than vice-versa.The boundary of the LAP is typically established when the agency responsible formanaging the social and environmental assessments required by NEPA issues a Request ForProposal (RFP) to contractors who wish to bid on those assessments. The RFP commonlyspecifies a study area that has a definite boundary so that contractors may tailor their bidsaccordingly. The boundary of the study area may be defined by numerous measures, including
5(1) pre-existing political jurisdictions, such as county or state boundaries (United States NuclearRegulatory Commission [USNRC] 1983:4.18-15); (2) predetermined distance-from-site criteria(USNRC 1983:4.18-14), such as a 10-kilometer radius of a proposed project (ColumbusTelegram 1989:6); (3) various ecosystems approaches at levels ranging from macro (Puntenney1995) to regional (Caldwell 1988; Council of Great Lakes Research Managers [CGLRM]1989:9-12; Great Lakes Science Advisory Board [GLSAB] 1991:90-101) to local (Moran 1990;Cortese and Firth 1997); and (4) extent of known contamination (Edelstein 1988). Suchdefinitions of the LAP are problematic, however, because they are not grounded in the socialdata necessary to identify the geographical extent and distribution of populations potentiallyaffected by the project and to document the unique sociocultural characteristics that maypredispose some populations to particular types of impacts. LAPs not defined by social datacan limit the social assessment research to an overtly restricted population and a limited set ofimpact issues (USNRC 1987:3.7.4-1; GLSAB 1991:91), prompting some researchers to developLAP definitions based on sociocultural data (Cernea 1988) and project-specific risk perception(Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993).Public Participation and Minimal Procedural ProvisionsConsultation among project-specific stakeholders may follow a number of participatoryapproaches, such as focus groups and public workshops, but the minimal consultativerequirements identified in NEPA regulations stipulate only that public hearings shall be heldconcerning project-specific environmental decision-making, and that the transcript of publiccomments from such hearings shall suffice as the public input to those decisions (CEQ1986:1501.7, 1503.1, 1505.1, 1506.6). And, in this day of fiscal conservatism and dwindlingpublic resources in support of broad-based public participation in environmental decision-making, the agencies responsible for implementing participatory programs are increasinglytempted to satisfy only this minimal requirement (Reil 1997).This minimal participatory requirement, that is, the public hearing and associatedtranscript of public comment, rests on the assumption that affected populations share an equalopportunity to participate in the process -that all potentially affected populations are equallyaware of the project being considered and the hearings being held on its behalf. It rests furtheron the assumption that cultural values such as privacy, communality, deference to authority,and the like, and demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, and income,
6have no bearing on one's access to environmental decision-making processes, nor on the accessof one's social group. Moreover, assumptions such as these tend to "homogenize" affectedpopulations by failing to consider unique cultural values, practices, and contexts that might alsoinfluence their perceptions of and responses to the risks they associate with particularenvironmental projects.Differential Social AccessYet, both the United States Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (1986:1508.8,1508.14) and the social impacts literature (Interorganizational Committee 1993) suggest thatculture counts in environmental management, the latter arguing that affected populations arenot homogeneous response entities but rather are comprised of multiple cultural (andbiological) entities operating at various levels of integration, and that they possess uniquecultural knowledge and/or perspectives that are essential to both understanding the nature ofthe social impacts they may endure as a result of an environmental project, and to ensuring thatthe environmental decisions which affect their lives are made with greater sensitivity to theircultural and biological variation. These issues are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3,wherein I discuss such problems in explicitly anthropological terms. Suffice it to say here that Ibelieve cultural factors present a much neglected informational resource in environmentalmanagement.But culture can also constrain or limit peoples' access to public participation inenvironmental management, particularly when such participation is minimally limited to publichearings, as mandated by NEPA. For example, as the International Association for ImpactAssessment's (IAIA) Interorganizational Committee on Principles and Guidelines for SIA hasnoted, just as the biological sections of environmental impact statements (EIS) requiredthrough NEPA devote particular attention to species having special vulnerabilities, thesocioeconomic sections of EISs must devote particular attention to the impacts on vulnerablesegments of the human population -what have been variously termed "specially affectedpopulations," (Stoffle et al., 1990), "marginalized communities," (Guyton and Yamashita 1997),"groups of isolated individuals," (Whitfield and Rimkus 1997), and others. Examples include"the poor, the elderly, adolescents, or unemployed women; members of minority and/or othergroups that are racially, ethnically, and/or culturally distinctive; or occupational, cultural,political or value-based groups for whom a given community, region, or use of some
7component of the biophysical environment is particularly important" (InterorganizationalCommittee 1993:6).Specially Affected Populations and Environmental DiscriminationSpecially affected populations often are socially isolated from the larger communitieswithin which they are embedded and often are unaware of or not included in environmentaldecision-making processes, such as public hearings (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993:320).Not surprisingly, these same groups often bear the greatest environmental and social impacts oflarge-scale technological projects. "Environmental discrimination" can be said to exist to theextent that this occurs consistently for the same groups across numerous projects. Thisphenomenon has been identified under various other labels including "environmental racism"(Westra and Wenz 1995), "environmental inequity" (Bullard and Wright 1987), and"environmental injustice" (Mohai and Bryant 1995; Petrikin 1995; Small 1995), among others(Wilkinson 1998). Like Gelobter (1992), I prefer the term "discrimination" over these otherlabels because it is broader in scope, encompassing racial considerations as its primarycomponent while not restricting the phenomenon solely to that aspect. And "inequity" and"injustice" describe the phenomenon as a condition without inferring why or how thatcondition came to be. The term "discrimination" serves this latter purpose by suggesting thatthe condition is a consequence of a preceding act or process -that it is as much procedural asit is conditional. Indeed, Wilkinson (1998:280-281) has noted that this link between process andeffect has, in some recent cases, established environmental discrimination as a Civil Rightsissue.I contend in this dissertation that environmental discrimination is an impact of publicparticipation procedures that inherently, although perhaps not intentionally, discriminateconsistently in favor of some populations and against others. That is, public participation inenvironmental management is marked by consistently differential social access to the process,and those groups with the least social access, such as specially affected populations as describedabove, are least likely to have their knowledge (perspectives, insights, issues, concerns) factoredinto the environmental management decisions that ultimately affect their lives. As aconsequence, they consistently bear the greatest environmental and social impacts of thosedecisions: environmental discrimination.
8Toward a Â“Participatory Equity PrincipleÂ” for Environmental ManagementSo, what is needed to redress this problem? First, I believe the process of publicparticipation in environmental management must be evaluated in terms of its potentiallydiscriminatory aspects. For example, the procedural contexts within which public participationoccurs in environmental management must be clearly defined. I am most interested in thisdissertation in the impact assessment process as mandated by NEPA. Once defined, thoseelements of it that are potentially discriminatory must be identified. Again, in this dissertation Iam most interested in how an LAP is defined, both geographically and culturally (geo-culturally)if at all; how its constituent populations are identified and characterized; and how theirknowledge is accessed for the purpose of informing environmental decision-making.For example, I believe a libertarian ethic presently guides public participation inenvironmental management, insofar as individual members of potentially affected populationsare expected to come forth with relevant information in prescribed meeting formats atprescribed meeting locations. If they do not, so the reasoning goes, then they failed in theirindividual civic responsibility and should be prepared to bear the potential consequences oftheir supposed apathy. Conversely, an egalitarian ethic might emphasize the equitableinvolvement of affected populations, and seek to identify and remedy geographical, cultural,financial, and other potential barriers to their participation in decision-making processes. In thislatter case it becomes the initiating agency's responsibility, rather than a collection ofindividuals,' to ensure that the input of all potentially affected groups has been equitably sought.In either case, it is imperative that the potentially discriminatory aspects of the process areidentified if environmental discrimination is to be redressed in environmental management.These issues are fleshed out in greater detail in Chapter 5, wherein I discuss the conceptualframework and philosophical foundation of the case study upon which my research was based.Secondly, those of us who are interested in this problem must develop and testalternative participatory principles and strategies for redressing the potentially discriminatoryaspects of environmental management. It is one thing to simply suggest problem areas thatmight lead to environmental discrimination; it's quite another to demonstrate their existenceand then offer methodological invention, supported by practical application, for resolvingthem. This dissertation is offered as a step in that direction. After justifying my selection of thisenvironmental management issue in personal, anthropological, and professional terms, I
9present a case study of a research methodology designed, in part, to implement greaterparticipatory equity in environmental decision-making.The Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception Study and EnvironmentalAnthropology FellowshipThis dissertation builds upon my doctoral research project, titled The Ecological Awarenessand Risk Perception Study (EARP). The EARP focused primarily on documenting community riskperceptions and social impacts associated with the Fermi II nuclear power plant in southeastMichigan. Although the EARP was not conceived explicitly to address the issues identified inthe preceding section, it became clear to me during the study that the research methodology Iused in conducting it was nonetheless applicable to them. To that end, I pursued anenvironmental anthropology fellowship with a Great Lakes environmental advocacy groupcalled the Great Lakes Commission (GLC). The fellowship enabled me to demonstrate howEARP methods and data could be applied to the social research and public consultationinterests of the GLC and its regional network of environmental management agencies andorganizations. The EARP research methodology, called Risk Perception Mapping (RPM), is anethnographic approach to defining the geographical extent of the local population potentiallyaffected by a given project, for identifying and characterizing the behavioral groups whichcomprise that population, and for accessing the environmental knowledge possessed by thosegroups and incorporating it into environmental decision-making. I believe these elements are avital first step toward redressing the problem of differential social access to public participationin environmental management, and the EARP study and GLC environmental anthropologyfellowship provided the opportunity for me to demonstrate the participatory utility of RPM inmeeting that challenge.Organization of DissertationIÂ’ve organized this dissertation into seven chapters, each dealing with a differentaspect of my doctoral research and environmental anthropology fellowship project. Theseare discussed in order, below, and include the following titles: Chapter 2 Â– Personal Interestin the Human Dimensions of Environmental Management; Chapter 3 Â– AppliedAnthropology and Environmental Management; Chapter 4 Â– Professional ExperienceApplying Anthropology to Environmental Management; Chapter 5 Â– A Case Study ofEcological Awareness and Risk Perception; Chapter 6 Â– EARP/RPM Demonstration
10Project Data Management and Analysis; Chapter 7 Â– Conclusions and Recommendations. Ifollow these chapters with a list of references cited throughout this document, as well asappendices containing supporting documentation such as, among other things, codes ofethical behavior and professional responsibilities related to the study, the survey instrumentused in data collection, and the codebooks used in data management and analysis.Personal Interest in the Human Dimensions of Environmental ManagementI noted in the opening paragraph to this dissertation that there is a reflexive function inthis exercise -"an occasion to contemplate my formal educational training as an extension ofpersonal experience." Having identified and discussed in Chapter 1 the problem of differentialsocial access to public participation in environmental management, I then justify my selectionof that problem in terms of personal interests in and experience with environmentalmanagement issues. In Chapter 2, titled "Personal Interest in the Human Dimensions of EnvironmentalManagement," I discuss those personal experiences which, in retrospect, I believe mostprofoundly influenced my interest in environmental management issues, especially thoseconcerning the public role in creating, defining, and managing such issues. I trace that interestthrough my experiences growing up in the Great Lakes ecosystem -southeast Michigan inparticular, an area recently designated as "America's New Cancer Alley" (Sierra Club GreatLakes Program 1997). Moreover, it is there that my family and loved ones still reside, where Iconducted my doctoral research and presently live and work, and where I plan to continuepracticing anthropology upon completing this degree.Applied Anthropology and Environmental ManagementAnthropology is conceptually and methodologically extensive, and thus is broadlyapplicable to virtually any topical domain. What makes anthropology applicable to anyparticular topical domain depends largely on the nature of the problem being addressed and thespecific informational needs of those who are addressing it. In Chapter 1 I outlined thepotentially discriminatory outcomes of differential social access to public participation inenvironmental management. In Chapter 3, titled "Applied Anthropology and EnvironmentalManagement," I broadly introduce the field of anthropology and discuss those aspects of it that Ibelieve are particularly applicable to public participation in environmental management.Foremost among these are its roots in both science and humanism, its comprehensive (fourfield) approach to human problems, its unique perspective, its range of theoretical orientations
11and research methods, and its guidelines for ethical behavior and professional responsibility. Ialso note the importance of anthropologyÂ’s history of application to human problems, and inthe context of this dissertation, especially that which pertains to public participation inenvironmental management.Professional Experience Applying Anthropology to Environmental ManagementHaving previously earned the Master of Arts degree in applied anthropology, andhaving subsequently practiced anthropology in the context of social impact assessment andenvironmental management, I have experienced first-hand the value of anthropologicalconcepts applied to that context. These professional experiences are the subject of Chapter 4,titled "Professional Experience Applying Anthropology to Environmental Management," wherein I discussthe development of my doctoral research project in applied anthropology as an extension of mypractical experience in anthropology across a number of environmental management projects.These include social assessments of chemical munitions disposal, superconducting super-collider development, low-level-radioactive waste storage, and hazardous waste incinerators.These efforts ultimately culminated in the EARP study upon which this dissertation is based,and which in that context demonstrate the applicability of RPM methodology to the problemof differential social access to public participation in environmental management.A Case Study of Ecological Awareness and Risk PerceptionA 1998 issue of the journal Practicing Anthropology contained a book review in which thereviewer (Vincent 1998:41-42) criticized the author (Hess 1997) for failing to illustrate how"participatory rural appraisal" -a participatory approach to rural development -works in apractical context. I concur with Vincent, who, in that article, states that methodologicalinvention ought to be supported with evidence of practical application. And so it is that Ipresent in Chapter 5 the Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception Study (EARP) -a case study ofRPM research applied in an environmental management context. I begin the chapter bydiscussing the EARP studyÂ’s primary objectives, including most importantly for the purposesof this dissertation, demonstrating the participatory utility of the RPM method by mapping thecommunity Â“risk perception shadowÂ” cast by the Fermi II nuclear facility in southeastMichigan.I then consider the conceptual framework within which RPM operates in the contextof participatory equity in environmental management. I first examine its democratic and
12egalitarian philosophical orientations, suggesting that participatory equity is grounded in thedemocratic notion of representation through inclusive participation in political decision-making, and further in the fundamentally egalitarian notion of equality of both opportunity andoutcome for the participants in that process. I then discuss the conceptual development of andmajor ethical considerations in RPM research generally, particularly those that I encountered asan applied anthropologist working on the EARP study. I note that, although anthropologistscannot always control the ethical issues that may arise in the course of their work, they shouldstrive to anticipate them and develop reasonable strategies of managing them should theyoccur.Next, I outline the research methods used in conducting the EARP study. I outlinethese methods in terms of six primary research phases. In the first of these phases, titledÂ“sample design,Â” I consider the definition of the study area, the sample strata within that area,the sample areas within those strata, and I review the procedures used to select samplehouseholds and their respondents for RPM interviews. The second phase concerns the processof pre-field community consultation, during which I presented the EARP study and discussedits intentions with local opinion leaders, elected representatives, and the heads of variousgovernment agencies, media, businesses and industries, and grass-roots social movementorganizations. Phase three describes the process of designing and pre-testing multiple iterationsof the RPM survey instrument used in the EARP study. In the fourth phase I describe theRPM fieldwork conducted for the EARP study, including administering the structured RPMinterviews and managing other research activities such as informal interviews, literature andmedia reviews, and project budget and timetable.The EARP study was initially funded for design and fieldwork only; thus, the fifth andsixth phases Â– data management/analysis, and community feedback Â– did not occur for sometime after the fieldwork portion of the study had been completed. I discuss in the next chapterthe process of negotiating the funding and technical support necessary to complete these finalphases of the EARP study.EARP/RPM Demonstration Project Data Management and AnalysisTo complete my research on the EARP study I sought and received funding toconduct data management and analysis through an environmental anthropology fellowship atthe Great Lakes Commission (GLC), in Ann Arbor, Michigan. I discuss in Chapter 6, titled
13Â“EARP/RPM Demonstration Project Data Management and Analysis,Â” the major activities associatedwith this phase of the EARP study. Post-study community feedback informs the developmentof the conclusions and recommendations reported in this dissertation, and is therefore moreappropriately presented in the final chapter. The environmental anthropology fellowship wasjointly sponsored through a Cooperative Agreement between the Society for AppliedAnthropology and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Where appropriate, Irefer to data management and analysis activities as pertaining to the Â“EARP/RPMDemonstration Project,Â” to reflect the interconnected nature of my doctoral research andenvironmental anthropology fellowship projects. This fellowship was vitally important tothis dissertation not only because it provided the financial support needed to completeEARP data management and analysis, but also because fellowship hosts and advisors helpedfocus the analysis on variables that were considered most relevant to participatory equity inGreat Lakes environmental management.I focused my data analysis on perceptions of and responses to the Fermi II nuclearfacility and I depicted them spatially using the ARCVIEW GIS package. I focused additionalanalyses on the demographic characteristics of my sample population and on localtechnology and environmental analogs identified in the EARP study. Key findings wereidentified in consultation with project stakeholders and showed that both geographicisolation relative to a given project and low levels of community awareness of the project cancreate differential social access to public participation. When depicted spatially, such findingscan indicate areas of greatest potential for environmental discrimination to occur. Thepotential participatory implications of these key findings are explored in greater detail in thefinal chapter, titled Â“Conclusions and Recommendations.Â”Conclusions and RecommendationsIn Chapter 7, titled Â“Conclusions and Recommendations,Â” I discuss the potentialparticipatory implications of key EARP/RPM Demonstration Project findings. I begin thechapter by presenting conclusions regarding the potential implications that risk perceptionvoids, in particular, can have for participatory equity in environmental management. Theirapplication to Great Lakes environmental management was identified in consultation withproject stakeholders and centers on developing equitable population-specific informationand education exchanges through which more culturally sensitive indicators of Great Lakes
14ecosystem integrity may emerge. I discuss anthropological contributions to this process, withparticular attention to anthropological perspectives on the multiple publics that compriselocally affected communities of environmental risk. Special emphasis is placed on the role ofanthropology in the scientific investigation of the principles controlling the relations ofhuman beings to one another and the wide application of those principles to the pursuit ofparticipatory equity in environmental management.I then offer recommendations concerning the EARP study, the RPM methodology,and participation evaluation measures and procedures. I suggest that the EARP study couldbe improved by including the Ontario portion of the sample area, further characterizing theFermi RPS, streamlining the EARP questionnaire, expanding the project budget to supportall RPM-related activities, completing the community feedback phase, and monitoring thesample population for changes in perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors. Myrecommendations for the RPM methodology center on sample design issues (e.g., type ofproject), interpretive issues (e.g., qualifying the directness, significance, number, and durationof perceived project-related impacts), and implementational issues (e.g., automating the RPMsampling frame in a GIS-based format). My recommendations for evaluating publicparticipation programs center on developing participation attributes and performancemeasures that are acceptable to all stakeholders in the participation process.Next, I offer a brief example of the potential application of EARP/RPMDemonstration Project methods and findings to a major issue of Great Lakes environmentalmanagement concern, namely, the control and management of aquatic nuisance species inthe Great Lakes Basin. I discuss the potential implications this project could have for therole of social science in Great Lakes ecosystem management. I follow with a chaptersummary and then offer closing remarks, with particular emphasis given to the developmentof a Â“participatory equity principleÂ” to guide the development, implementation, andevaluation of public participation in environmental management.I note in closing that the work reported in this dissertation is submitted as evidenceof the conceptual and methodological capacity for implementing a participatory equityprinciple in environmental management. I conclude that, largely as a result of this work,Great Lakes environmental managers will be seeking participatory equity throughethnographic inquiry.
15Following these chapters I provide a list of references cited throughout this document,as well as appendices containing supporting documentation such as, among other things, codesof ethical behavior and professional responsibilities related to the study, the survey instrumentused in data collection, and the codebooks used in data management and analysis.I began this chapter by observing that this doctoral dissertation is as much a reflexiveexercise as it is a report on the application of anthropology to environmental management.And so it is in the following chapter that I attempt to impart my personal stake in the subjectÂ– a passion that transcends and guides both my academic and professional endeavors,indeed, this dissertation itself.
16CHAPTER 2PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OFENVIROMENTAL MANAGEMENTI have had many experiences that have profoundly influenced my interest inenvironmental management. I grew up in the Great Lakes region and have practiced most ofmy professional career in anthropology here, so I am particularly interested in the humandimensions of environmental management in this region. In this chapter I discuss thedevelopment of my personal interest in this topic as an extension of my personal experiences,both positive and negative, as a member of the Great Lakes community. As a life-long residentof the Great Lakes region it has pained me to have witnessed and in some cases participated inactions that have compromised its special qualities. It is largely for these reasons that I havebecome interested in environmental management as a topic of anthropological inquiry.In this chapter I recall a very positive early life memory that, for some odd reason,keeps me coming back to this vicinity and holds my interest in its general well-being. Againstthat largely positive backdrop, though, I contrast a host of negative experiences I had withenvironmental management issues while growing up in this area. These experiences range fromhuman-induced flooding to poisoned fish, from nuclear accidents to chemical contamination,and they form the primary basis of my personal interest in the human dimensions ofenvironmental management.Connie's Cabin at East TawasMy first memories in life are of a family vacation at my dad's friend's rustic cabin on theshores of Lake Huron, in East Tawas, Michigan. Little did I know then that I would be writingabout that experience in my doctoral dissertation. I was barely 30 months old and small enoughto be placed unrestrained on the back dash of our giant family car as we drove up US 23toward our destination ("buckle up for safety" was an option in those days, not a legalrequirement). From that vantage point I could see troops being transported between localmilitary bases; the Vietnam War years also were in their infancy.
17I remember vividly my first contact with the lake: first past the dune grass much tallerthan me, then onto the hot sand; my father hoisting me upon his shoulders and walking meinto the cool water; clearly seeing the fish and the rocks below, smelling the wonderful aromaof the fresh water and tasting it as I cautiously dipped my head beneath the surface. These aremy first senses of life; sensations which left a lasting impression on me. Indeed, as Anderson(1998:75) observes, "the predilection for that special place where the sand-meets-the-water-meets-the-sky never fails to draw us back to tiptoe between the tides in search of... well, there'sthe mystery." And in my lifetime among these Great Lakes I have had many similarly positiveexperiences, and I have come to love the mystery they engender.I have also observed, however, and in some cases participated in, actions that havecompromised the integrity of that ecosystem, and which, in the process, have indirectlycontributed to a host of negative environmental and social impacts. These impacts, and thepotential for similar such effects in the future, concern me deeply. Bearing witness to them hasinspired me to apply my skills in anthropology to a career in Great Lakes environmentalmanagement.Participant-Observer of Local Environmental DegradationI grew up about three miles, "as the crow flies," from the western shore of Lake Erie, ina rural Great Lakes town situated between the larger urban areas of Detroit, Michigan, andToledo, Ohio. My mother lived her entire life there and spoke often of her early experienceswith the public beaches, the crystal water, the forests and marshes and the wildlife within them.I believe her passion for these things spilled unto me as well, and I love and respect myhomeland largely, I suspect, because of her passion.But these places are few now, long since gobbled up by industrial and residential realestate interests. The largely unregulated industrial boom during the middle of the 20th Century,accompanied by intense agricultural and residential land-use and the run-off of organic andchemical fertilizers and pesticides, virtually destroyed the lake (Subcommittee on WaterResources and Environment, Hearing on H.R. 1070, Â“The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2001;Â”McClary 1975:120-123). And as of 1969 -the heart of my adolescence -Lake Erie had beenproclaimed dead (McGree 1969). Indeed, in his retrospective of Great Lakes water qualityissues, Representative William Callahan, Member of the Michigan Delegation to the GreatLakes Commission, observed that industrial wastes, agricultural runoff, and storm sewer
18overflow from residential areas have all significantly compromised the quality of the lowerGreat Lakes, and continue to do so today (Callahan 1998:1,9), although their recovery pursuantto federal and bi-national environmental legislation of the early-mid 1970s (e.g., NationalEnvironmental Policy Act; Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement) has been encouraging.Having been reared in this lakeside community, especially during Lake Erie's dyingdays, environmental management issues captivated my attention at a very impressionable timein my life. What follows are a few of the more memorable environmental management issuesthat I experienced while growing up in that community. They are not intended as a list of theenvironmental ills afflicting it; rather, those that have most profoundly influenced my interest inenvironmental management generally, particularly the role of public participation in thatprocess.Floods and DikesOften, environmental management incidents seemed quite "natural" in effect, forexample, the frequent spring flooding that would occur along the western Lake Erie shoreline.Some of the worst flooding ever to hit the area occurred in the spring of 1973. Strong northeastwinds pushed the shallow lake water ashore while water from the tributaries that feed into thelake overflowed their banks and exacerbated the problem several miles inland. On the surface itseemed the problem was simply a coincidental fluke of nature: the shallow lake, the unusuallyhigh lake levels, the ice pack, the spring nor'easter, heavy runoff. But I learned that the problemran much deeper, that most residential areas were built on natural flood plains, that most of thecounty had been tiled and drained to clear the way for further residential and agricultural land-use, and that the beaches had long since been sacrificed to build dikes needed to keep the waterout of lakefront residences. As I recall, the incident inspired a community-wide debate on howbest to manage lakefront property and, indeed, the lake itself. These lake-wide managementefforts continue to this day in the development and implementation of the Great LakesÂ“Lakewide Management Planning ProcessÂ” (Great Lakes Commission 2000; IJC 1987; USC2001, 1977).Contaminated FishAccompanying such ostensibly "natural" occurrences were a host of more "humanly-induced" conditions. For example, many of my neighbors and family members fished LakeErie, and we would often gather for summer "perch fries." I remember adults telling us kids
19not to eat too many perch because we could "get mercury poisoning." I wasn't sure what thatwas at the time, but it didn't sound appealing. An adult explained that pollution in Lake Erie gotinto the fish and that if we ate too much we could get very ill, just like the fish we had eaten.That the fish in Lake Erie were ill was of no surprise to me. The stench of dead androtting fish was noticeable, even indoors, if the wind was from the east, which, gratefully, ittypically was not. On one occasion there had been a terrible summer storm which spawnednumerous water spouts over the lake and the strong east wind that followed piled mounds ofbloated dead fish all along the lakeshore. My older brothers and I went to the beach to surveythe damage once the storm had passed. I was appalled by the sight and the odor wascompounded by what looked like a heavy petroleum sheen that covered everything. The air wasloud and black with millions of flies. The "Contaminated Water: Swimming Not Allowed" signsposted along the shoreline seemed to parody the situation. I remember wondering howanything could survive in that lake, and why nobody noticed what was happening there beforeit was allowed to get so bad.Heavy IndustryThere were many reasons that the fish were sick and dying in that lake. One need onlyview the classic "Who Killed Lake Erie" (McGree 1969) to understand the effects that heavyindustry were having on the lake. Most obvious was the chemical effluent released by thenumerous heavy industries located along the lakeshore, many of which I could see from mycommunity's vantage point between Detroit and Toledo. For example, the Sun Oil refinery inToledo would occasionally emit massive flames from its stacks, nearly 20 miles from my home.I don't know what the proper term is for that practice; the people in our neighborhood referredto it as a "burn off." When these occurred at night the entire southeastern sky would turn a dimorange and we used to climb onto our roofs and view it through binoculars: a potent reminderof the heavy industry dotting the western Lake Erie shoreline. I didn't know how badly therefinery was polluting the lake, if at all, but I remember thinking as I peered through thosebinoculars that anything emitting flames that size couldn't be very good for it.Of course, heavy industry also meant employment for community residents. A FordMotor plant was one example of a local industry that provided such jobs. As I was growing up,many of the people in my social network -my friends and extended family -either worked foror were closely tied to people who were employed either directly or indirectly by the plant. The
20industrial wastes generated by that and other industrial facilities represented the downside ofthe equation. The wastes had to go somewhere, and prior to the passage of environmentallegislation which controlled their production and disposal, Lake Erie was the most convenientchoice. In my recollection, area residents felt compelled to choose, or were deluded intothinking that they must choose, on one hand, between the jobs which enabled them ormembers of their social networks to keep their families clothed and fed, or on the other hand,the conservation and preservation of the fragile western Lake Erie ecosystem which wasthreatened by the heavy industrial facilities which provided those jobs. And given the state ofthe lake in 1969, it was obvious that the former had taken precedence over the latter.Coal-Generated Power PlantsElectrical generation facilities were, however, the most prominent industrial featurealong the western Lake Erie shoreline. On the fifty-mile drive along I-75 from downriverDetroit through downtown Toledo, one would pass at least four large coal-burning powerplants: Trenton, Monroe, Luna Pier, and Toledo, the smoke stacks of which were clearly visiblefrom the western lakeshore. The "Monroe plant," as it was called locally, was the mostspectacular of them all. Owned and operated by Detroit Edison, at 3,000 Megawatt capacity,the Monroe Plant is among the world's largest coal-generated power facilities (Detroit Edison2001). I remember touring it with my classmates on a field trip from my elementary school. Sotall were the plant's two smoke stacks, and so bright were the caution lights mounted alongtheir sides, that during its inaugural summer of operation I would regularly be awakened duringthe night by their constant flashing. I recall lying awake in bed during the wee hours, watchingthe "fake lightning." It took some getting used to before I slept through the night.Despite the height of their stacks, the Monroe and other local coal plant's emissionsstill cast a yellowish brown hue, especially eastward over the lake and toward Ontario, carriedby the prevailing southwest winds. But occasionally the wind would shift to the north and eastand the emissions would travel inland, over Monroe and surrounding communities. Then, likeour downwind Canadian friends, we had to cope with the odor, the acid rain, the tainted sky,and the allergic reactions...Nuclear-Generated Power PlantsBut there is more than just coal generating facilities. Monroe also plays host to one ofthe country's first operational nuclear power plants -the Detroit Edison Fermi plant, and just
21to the southeast, about 30 miles as the crow flies, stands the Davis-Bessey nuclear power plantnear Port Clinton, Ohio. Both of these facilities are located on the lakeshore where, for onepurpose, the cool lake water is easily accessible for use on the plants' cooling towers. McClary(1975:257) has noted the potentially harmful effects this super-heated water can have on theaquatic ecosystems into which it is released. These two plants -Fermi and Davis-Bessey --comprise the core and geographical periphery, respectively, of the study area reported in thisdissertation.The Fermi plant in particular has a somewhat jaded history, as Fuller (1975) reports inhis classic "We Almost Lost Detroit." He recalls the partial core meltdown of Fermi's liquidmetal fast breeder reactor in October, 1966, noting the industry's initial attempts to cover upthe incident, the accordant rise in community risk perception associated with the facility, andthe erosion of community trust in the agencies who managed it. Indeed, the episode has grownin timeliness as nuclear energy remains a highly controversial topic, low probability/highconsequence nuclear accidents continue to occur, radioactive waste storage and disposal remainunsolved, and the proliferation of fissionable materials threatens as a major national andinternational security issue. Despite the negative public backlash regarding the partial meltdownat Fermi, the original Fermi facility was scrapped and a new and improved one -the Fermi II -was built in its place at the same location and continues to operate today.I remember some social survey people coming to our house to interview my parentsregarding their concerns and issues related to this new facility. Perhaps these people wereapplied anthropologists? I don't recall the specific questions they asked, as I was quite young atthe time; I suspect they were related marginally if not specifically to potential social effects ofthe facility. But I do remember feeling quite worried and anxious that something terrible mightsoon be happening. At that age I didn't understand what nuclear power was, but my parents'reaction, the seriousness of their dialogue, and that of my neighbors and other family members,prompted fear and worry within me.I think that fear may have been shared by many other community members as well, andcompounded by subsequent events at the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl nuclear plants. Andat the time of my doctoral research in the area, 1992-93, the Fermi II facility commandedconsiderable risk perception among area residents. Then, in December, 1993, seven monthsafter I completed my doctoral research in the communities surrounding Fermi, another
22incident, although not related to core operations within the facility, caused the facility to ceaseoperations for 14 months (Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology; Shepardson 1998), andnearly prompted the implementation of local emergency evacuation plans (Monroe CountyEmergency Management Division 1991, and subsequent revisions).Fertilizers, Pesticides, and Other ChemicalsSeemingly innocuous, everyday uses of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides inthe area also captivated my attention, and continue to do so now as I ponder the cancers whichhave claimed the young lives of various family and friends. These have become all the morepoignant subsequently, as the United Nations convened an "environmental summit" inMontreal to address the public health effects of diffuse chemical synergies in the environment(United Nations Environment Program 1998). A few of these uses stand out in particular.Agricultural UsesThe house where I grew up was located about a quarter mile north and east, that is,downwind, of a small farm upon which, as I recall, crops such as corn, oats, and wheat wereannually rotated. As I understand it, corn thrives best when treated with nitrogen fertilizer, andthis can be applied naturally, for instance, through lightning, organically through manure, orthrough chemically manufactured sources. Personally, I never minded the manure odor thatdrifted our way during the spring planting season. I thought it smelled earthy as it was beingplowed into the soil. But chemically manufactured nitrogen seemed the fertilizer of choice forcorn where I grew up. And on spring days when the wind was strong from the southwest, wedownwinders contended with the chemical odor and residue which drifted across ourneighborhood as the farmer (a family acquaintance, I might add) fertilized his corn withchemical nitrogen. I remember riding my bike down the road that paralleled the field as thefarmer applied the fertilizer. The wind carried it right into my face, burning my eyes, causing meto cough. The farmer waved as we passed.Elsewhere in the county, I recall seeing crop dusters -planes that apply chemicalinsecticides while passing low over farm fields -spraying their wares on local crops, and thedownwind neighborhoods catching the residual mists. School mates who lived in those areasoften lamented having to clean the chemical residues from their parents' cars and homewindows. I often wonder what impacts, if any, the large-scale agricultural use of fertilizers and
23pesticides are having on local environmental and human health, particularly as southeasternMichigan has been designated as "America's New Cancer Alley" (Sierra Club 1997).Residential and Commercial UsesI don't mean to imply that agricultural interests were the sole users of chemicalfertilizers and pesticides; indeed, residential and commercial business interests were, in myrecollection, just as prominent in that regard. For example, during each of the summer monthsmy family would have its total premises, including the house, sprayed -literally washed down --with a mixed chemical bath of diazinon, malathion, and some bonding agent the name ofwhich I no longer remember. We would enjoy warm summer nights outdoors virtually bugfree. And one could see it working in the conspicuous blotchy white residue clinging to ourhouse and surrounding foliage, and in the numerous dead insect carcasses strewn about thepatio and yard after dropping from our bushes and trees; the strong but sweet chemical odorwhich persisted for days was further evidence of the momentary human domination of theinsect world. But as the odor dissipated and the residue faded and the carcasses blew away, andthe next generation of mosquitoes and black flies slowly returned, we would anxiously await thenext month's "application," after which the sequence repeated.Ironically, I ended up partially funding my own college education by working mysummer months as a pesticide applicator for the same local landscaping company whichsprayed my family's premises. I even got to spray my own home. And in the employ of thatcompany I learned that literally thousands of other households throughout the county also hadtheir premises sprayed on a monthly basis throughout the summer. Moreover, there were otherlandscaping companies in the area offering the same product and vying for the same market.Surely, the competition must have driven down the price, making this service widely accessiblethroughout the county. The combined clientele must have numbered in the thousands ofhouseholds -enough to constitute tens of thousands of gallons of pesticide per day beingdumped on area residences and businesses throughout the county, mixing and interacting inpotentially carcinogenic/lethal combinations with the fertilizers, herbicides, and other chemicalsalready present.My partners and I would cruise to our job sites in large trucks holding 1,000 gallons ofwater into which we mixed prescribed amounts of the various powdered insecticides identifiedabove. I remember how the wind would occasionally blow the powder back up in our faces as
24we dumped it into the mixing tank, and how it would stick to our sweaty flesh. I learned laterthat skin absorbs the toxins directly. Often the large mixing blades inside the tank wouldbecome bogged in the chemical sludge that accumulated at the bottom. We used to draw strawsto determine the unlucky person who would lower him or herself through the tiny passage andinto the drained tank to clear the sludge from the blades. Once, I was that person. I held mybreath as I went inside and exhaled only when I surfaced with bare hands full of the grayishsludge, then down again and again until it was done. The ambient air in the tank made my eyesburn, but I was college age and, for all I knew, immortal, and besides, everyone else had to do itat one time or another, and nobody, including the bosses, seemed to think it was anything morethan a rite of passage.Tanks cleaned, we would unfurl our 1,000 foot hose at the job sights, crank up thepump, and commence spraying. Some clients liked to walk with us to make sure we did athorough job, that they got their money's worth. Often, the wind would blow the pesticidespray back in our faces and in our hair; I remember tasting the chemicals on my lips as webroke for lunch. I recall how, on a few occasions, our crew would have to wait for a differentcompany to finish spraying the client's lawn with a chemical combination of fertilizers (forthick, green grass) and herbicides (to kill unwanted and socially undesirable plants). I hadrecently taken a natural resources management course at Michigan State University and I wasparticularly enlightened by a section on the synergistic effects of various unintended chemicalcombinations, such as among pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. I remember wondering as Isprayed our pesticides on top of the lawn chemicals still wet on the grass: Had anyoneconsidered the effects of such chemical combinations? Did anyone inform the home owner, orneighbors, of this possibility? Was it anyone's responsibility to do so? Was it mine? These arenot rhetorical questions, as the United Nations convened an environmental summit to discussthe potential public health effects of such chemical synergies (United Nations EnvironmentProgram 1998).The PBB CrisisThe PBB Crisis of the 1970s is perhaps the most infamous and highly celebrated caseof chemical contamination in Michigan. As Egginton (1980) explains, a company thatmanufactured dietary supplements for cattle feed also produced a fire retardant that containedlethal levels of Polybrominated Biphenyls, or PBBs. The manufacturer packaged these products
25in very similar looking bags, which were inadvertently mixed and delivered to a cattle feeddistribution center. Within weeks cattle were sick and dying throughout the state. It took ninemonths before the cause had been determined, and many more before the affected herds werequarantined. Eventually, Michigan's dairy industry, in which many of my paternal relatives madetheir livings, was nearly decimated, and contaminated beef and dairy products had made theirway onto the dinner tables of most Michigan residents.I was in my early teens when this occurred and I remember being horrified by theimages of cattle and family pets lying dead upon stark snow-covered farm fields, and thesimilarly stark faces of the once proud farmers and family veterinarians as they gazed upon theirlosses. Reports began to filter in about people -usually, it seemed, the farm families whosecattle had been lost -urinating blood or spontaneously aborting their fetuses. I rememberhearing warnings issued over the radio not to eat meat or dairy products produced or processedin Michigan, and then thinking how much meat, milk, and cheese I had consumed beforeanybody knew what was the source of the contamination. Folks who resided in Michigan at thetime typically don't speak now of whether they were exposed to PBBs so much as the quantity ofit they ingested and the kinds of physical ailments they will likely experience as a result of it.Death of a Family MemberEarlier in this section I mentioned how my mother, who lived her life along the westernshore of Lake Erie, recalled the state of environmental affairs in that area. She lived during aunique period when the local environment was transformed through years of free-marketagricultural, industrial, and residential intensification, unfettered by "excessive" governmentregulation. This process brought great economic opportunities for local residents but it alsoexposed them to high levels and innumerable combinations of environmental contaminants, ascene unfortunately common across the nation during her lifetime. As a nation we waited untila Great Lake was pronounced dead before being prompted into action. In short, rather thanintervening ahead of time to prevent the situation from happening in the first place, we waitedfor the market's so-called invisible hand to react once the damage had been done.There is a human cost in waiting for the market to work its magic upon ourenvironmental affairs, and for that reason I think that market economics is an inappropriatemodel for environmental management. My mother -Jeanne was her name -passed away atthe young age of 62, after struggling five long years with cancers of the breast, liver, bone, and
26brain, respectively. I think of her as a martyr of sorts, not just for the suffering she endured as aresult of her diseases, but a martyr of her time and circumstance, and representative of all thepeople from that community, or anywhere people live amidst environmental degradation, whohave had or will have to bear the pernicious consequences of a thousand ubiquitousenvironmental transgressions. Could they have been prevented?I often wonder about the possible connections between my mother's cancers and themany environmental contaminants to which she was exposed, about which she knew very little,over which she had little control, and some of which I directly administered. Was Jeanne'sdeath by cancer really just a fatal luck-of-the-draw, a genetic predisposition in the absence ofany prior family history of cancer? Or was she the victim of our collective failure to respondproactively to the environmental management issues of her day: a sacrifice to our willingness toallow market fatalism to intervene after the fact? There is no doubt in my mind that it is thelatter, especially given the recent pronouncements of southeast Michigan as America's new"cancer alley," and the continued international negotiations for action on persistent pollutants. Iview her death as the result of prolonged exposure to diffuse yet potent concoctions ofchemicals and other contaminants for which no one person or social institution shouldersresponsibility, yet for which, perhaps, we -and our invisible hands -are all to blame.Personal Interest: Participatory Equity in Environmental ManagementThus I remain captivated by environmental management issues. Certainly, theexperiences described above have strongly influenced my decision to pursue this interest bothacademically and professionally. I am glad to be involved, if only in a small way, in attemptingto resolve some of these issues. I am particularly interested in the mechanisms through whichthe people who bear the burden of environmental decision-making, and those who make thosedecisions, can contribute and share their knowledge and experience -that is, participate -inthe environmental management process. I believe this was largely lacking, for instance, in mymother's day and, as I discussed in the previous chapter, is essential to understanding how andwhy environmental risks are distributed inequitably today.Chapter SummaryIn this chapter I have presented my current interest in environmental management as aproduct of personal experience with a variety of environmental management issues. I tracedthat interest through my early experiences growing up in the Great Lakes ecosystem --
27southeast Michigan in particular, an area recently designated as "America's New Cancer Alley."I noted my adoration of this area, and my dismay at the slow erosion of its environmentalintegrity. I offered a few examples to illustrate these feelings: from the jubilation of a child's dayat the beach, through widespread chemical contamination of surrounding environs, to thedeath of a family member (and others) who were very much a part of those environs. Ireaffirmed my interest in these issues as a product of those experiences, and I maintained thatthis dissertation represents my small contribution to helping resolve them in the future.Anthropology -its unique perspectives, theoretical paradigms, research methods,and history of application in environmental management -is an appropriate disciplinethrough which to address these issues. I believe that anthropology can make a difference inenvironmental management, and in the following chapter I discuss its relevance to andvarious applications within that context.
28CHAPTER 3APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTAnthropology is conceptually and methodologically extensive, and thus is broadlyapplicable to virtually any topical domain. What makes anthropology applicable to anyparticular topical domain depends largely on the nature of the problem being addressed and thespecific informational needs of those who are addressing it. In Chapter 1 I outlined thepotentially discriminatory outcomes of differential social access to public participation inenvironmental management. In this chapter I examine anthropologyÂ’s conceptual,methodological, and practical contributions to that field, placing special emphasis on thecontext of public participation in impact assessment for environmental decision-making. Iargue that anthropology is particularly applicable in that regard because, unlike other disciplines,it incorporates scientific and humanistic aspects, biological and cultural components, and arange of unique perspectives and theoretical orientations that integrate these into a unifieddiscipline. Moreover, it contains numerous fields and sub-fields of inquiry, each with itsrespective research methods and interpretive frameworks; it contributes a history of applicationto the practical resolution of human problems; and it provides clearly articulated guidelines ofethical and professional responsibility.Informational Needs in Environmental ManagementMy interest in public participation in environmental management reflects my desire fora more comprehensive understanding of the interactions among humans and the environmentsthey inhabit -what Johnston (1995:29) calls "environmental anthropology" and Westra (1994)calls "ecological holism." As a process of knowledge production, anthropology provides in onefell swoop the conceptual, methodological, and ethical tools vital to framing these interactionsin environmental management. For instance, anthropology's emphasis on interrelationshipsamong systems at varying levels of integration enables the environmental manager to viewhumans as mutually included members of ecosystems rather than as mutually excluded actors
29upon them (Moran 1990). Yet, as is too often the case, environmental management programsare targeted on a project-by-project basis at physical restoration or maintenance only, as thoughhumans are somehow tangential to the "natural" world (Spooner 1987:58-60), and as thoughindividual projects exist as discontinuous variables within the ecosystem.Formal environmental managers -that is, people who as a matter of their employmentmanage large ecosystems on behalf of those who inhabit them -spend as much time andeffort managing human/environment interactions as they do managing an ecosystem's physicaland biological resources. A report of the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board (GLSAB) to theInternational Joint Commission (IJC) -a bi-national agency that coordinates the managementof jointly shared U.S./Canadian boundary waters, illustrates this point (GLSAB 1991). Amongother things, the GLSAB reports that many IJC programs incompletely recognize the roleshumans play in modifying ecosystems and in devising strategies for managing the potentiallyharmful effects of those modifications (GLSAB 1991:2-5). It advises that recognizing "keylinkages between social and ecological components of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem isessential for [the IJC's] holistic policy analyses" (GLSAB 1991:90), a sentiment echoed earlier byCaldwell (1988). To that end it calls for "an holistic, basin-wide approach" (GLSAB 1991:7) toenvironmental management, one that views humans..."`within-the-ecosystem' as opposed to[one which views humans as] `external-to-the-ecosystem'" (GLSAB 1991:95), and it specificallyrecommends integrating the perspectives and methods of the natural and social sciences indeveloping and implementing that approach (GLSAB 1991:5, 90, 94). A key component of thatapproach is the creation of a code of ethics for the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, one whichconsiders "a wide range of bio-physical and social issues to make policy, management, andindividual behavior consistent with publicly-held values" (GLSAB 1991:92; Schaefer 1989).This latter component presents a daunting task, given the Basin's considerable geographicalextent and cultural heterogeneity: How to discern "publicly-held values" in such conditions?Organizations such as the Committee for the National Institute for the Environment(CNIE) (also known as the National Committee for Science and the Environment [NCSE])have lobbied congress to create an institutional framework within which thesehuman/environment interrelationships would be explicitly studied. This effort has paid off inthe creation of a Â“Biocomplexity in the EnvironmentÂ” initiative of the National ScienceFoundation (NSF 1999). This initiative represents the first federally coordinated national
30environmental program specifically designed to examine the interplay among social, physical,and biological components of ecosystems. Its effect on the dominant environmentalmanagement paradigm remains to be seen, but in my estimation it is a step in the right directionand in many ways reflects anthropological thinking in environmental management.Anthropological Contributions to Environmental ManagementAnthropology, as a discipline rooted firmly in both the biological and social sciences,can make a difference in environmental management. Conceptually, it broadens our focus toconsider human/environment interrelationships or, in the words of the GLSAB, the "linkagesbetween the social and ecological components" of an ecosystem, and it provides relevant toolsof inquiry for studying them, all within well-established guidelines of ethical and professionalresponsibility. Indeed, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt observed that "weneed anthropologists [working together with members of other disciplines] to illuminate therelationships between people and nature" (Babbitt 1995:33).In that respect I think anthropology makes at least seven specific contributions to thestudy of human/environment interrelationships: (1) scientific and humanistic understanding;(2) interrelated fields of study; (3) holistic, relativistic, and comparative perspectives; (4) a rangeof theoretical orientations; (5) methodological tools; (6) guidelines for ethical practice andprofessional responsibility; and (7) an history of application. Taken together, these elementsprovide the more comprehensive approach to human/environment interactions that I believehas been under-represented in environmental management, which was called for in the GLSABreport cited in above, and which is reflected in the new NSF Biocomplexity Initiative. In thefollowing sections I discuss each of these contributions and, where appropriate, provideexamples of their application within an environmental management context.Scientific and Humanistic Conceptions of Human ProblemsWolf (1964:88) has noted that anthropology is the most scientific of the humanities andthe most humanistic of the sciences. Reck (1996:7) observes further that "anthropology'suniqueness and contributions reside in its paradoxically comfortable and uneasy locationbetween things, between the sciences and the humanities... between ourselves and the other...between objectivity and subjectivity." Thus, Reck maintains that anthropology's primary goal ofunderstanding the human species is best obtained through "multiple routes" of inquiry.
31These "multiple routes" may be seen as orthogonal to one another; what Young(1998:1) calls the "twin pillars of the discipline" perhaps are better conceived as the cross itbears. This "burden as strength" is clearly reflected in the body of theoretical orientations inanthropology, ranging from those emphasizing an objectively knowable human condition tothose emphasizing human cognition and the inherently subjective interpretation of thatcondition. The former is deductive and explanatory while the latter is inductive and descriptive;the former seeks human universals while the latter celebrates human diversity; the formerreflects science in anthropology, the latter, humanism. The human condition is similarlyparadoxical: we are at once both common and diverse. What better vantage point for inquiringabout this paradox than the discipline which embodies and celebrates it?Science and Humanism in Environmental Management: Where the Twain meets the MarkAnthropology contributes to environmental management its scientifically systematicbasis for addressing human/environment interactions while simultaneously acknowledging thatsuch interactions may also be understood from multiple cultural viewpoints that may or maynot be grounded in scientific rationality (Nelson 1993a). Humanistic anthropology helps us puta diverse human face on the supposedly objectified facts of scientifically derived environmentalpolicy. It's easy or perhaps convenient to rest upon detached scientific data as the basis forenvironmental decision-making. Doing so pulls humans from the waters where those decisionsare made, where their kicking and treading only muddies those waters, clouding scientificallyrational decisions with the commotion of human activity. Ultimately, though, humans are activemembers of the ecosystems they inhabit, and the decisions humans reach about how best tomanage those ecosystems, whether or not they are scientifically derived, will have consequencesfor their constituent parts: the human and non-human, the animal and vegetable, the living andnon-living, the corporeal and spiritual (Nelson 1993b).Environmental management policies based solely upon scientifically derived data arenot necessarily compassionate toward those who are ultimately affected by them. Humanism inanthropology enables us to place a human face on strictly scientific proceedings -toacknowledge the cultural differences which influence them -and in so doing it provides thebasis upon which environmental management may become more compassionate toward thosewho would be affected by it. As Goodenough (1976:15-23) observed:
32Because anthropology views all humans in all conditions as worthy of study, itis a discipline that enjoins us to accept the humanity of all, and it enjoins us totry to understand our common humanity within the context of our culturaldifferences. Thus, anthropology aims at cultivating the kind of knowledge andunderstanding on which compassion rests. ...our moral obligation asanthropologists is not to avoid helping set priorities, but to go on cultivatingour capability for compassion, so that we can bring fellow feeling for bothpolicy-makers and those affected by their policies to our work as appliedanthropologists and to the end that we can help make policy-making itself amore compassionate process.Other disciplines offer similar approaches -sociology, for example, incorporateselements of science and humanism -but anthropology goes further by also presenting theconceptual framework from which to view the historical, cultural, communicative, andbiological components of human problems. This aspect of anthropology, unique amongacademic disciplines, is referred to as the "four field" approach.The "Four Fields" Approach to Human ProblemsAt its broadest level anthropology can be defined etymologically as "knowledge ofhumans." Whereas other disciplines focus on specific aspects of the human condition, such astheir biology or their systems of political organization or economic distribution, anthropologyprovides four fields, or sub-disciplines, that interrelate the natural sciences with the socialsciences and humanities to develop a more comprehensive knowledge of humans, both pastand present. These fields include archaeology, ethnology, linguistics, and human biology (i.e.,"physical anthropology").It is important to note that these are interrelated fields and should be thought ofmutually interconnected parts of the same discipline. They are relevant to the study of humanproblems in environmental management because they provide the most comprehensiveunderstanding of those problems. Human subsistence, for example, has depended historicallyon the ability to exploit and manage the natural resources available in given environments.Industrialism is a type of subsistence that has generated considerable amounts of environmentalcontaminants as a by-product of the intensive resource extraction and conversion that supportsit. In sufficient proportions, these contaminants have had debilitating physiological effects onthe people (and other organisms) exposed to them. Indeed, the failure to properly manage suchcontaminants in the past has, for all practical purposes, rendered some environments virtually
33uninhabitable, such as in the vicinities of the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Russia (Garb 1997:307-329; Albrecht et al. 1995:8-12), the Hanford nuclear site in Washington State (Garb 1997), and,as discussed in the preceding chapter, Lake Erie during the late 1960s/early 1970s (McGree1969). Social and political institutions may be developed to monitor and protect peoples' healthand to regulate the human activities that potentially threaten it. Ultimately, though, the decisionto do so depends upon the ability of affected individuals and environmental managers toeffectively communicate relevant information with each other. Thus, the nature ofenvironmental management in the United States demands that we understand theinterrelationships among its historical, biological, social, and communicative aspects. I defineand discuss each of these four fields below and provide examples to illustrate the potentialcontributions they make to the study of human problems in environmental management.ArchaeologySpicer (1976:341) notes that anthropology provides, among other things, an historicalorientation to human problems. Archaeology is the sub-field of anthropology that is broadlyconcerned with the historical components of the human condition. According to Willey andSabloff (1980:1), archaeologists traditionally have "narrated the sequent story of the humanpast" and "explained the events that comprise it" by excavating and analyzing the materialremains of past cultures and the contexts in which they are found. Some archaeologists, called"ethnoarchaeologists" (Kramer 1979), exceed the boundaries of traditional archaeology bystudying the relationships between contemporary human behavior and the material remains itgenerates.Archaeology helps us to understand human problems in environmental managementby revealing lessons from both the past and the present. Traditional archaeological research hasuncovered the disastrous effects of unsustainable environmental management practices, whileethnoarchaeological studies are illuminating current cultural practices that may have similarlydestructive consequences. For example, Fagan (1995) presents the case of Mohenjo-Daro --dating from approximately 4,300 years ago and located in modern-day Pakistan. Mohenjo-Darowas a centrally planned civilization supported primarily by irrigation agriculture that sustained apopulation of roughly 30,000 people. But after thriving and expanding for nearly one-thousandyears Mohenjo-Daro civilization suddenly collapsed. Archaeological evidence suggests that thecollapse resulted from unsustainable environmental management practices (Fagan 1995). In
34particular, local forests were gradually depleted as wood was continually sought to fire massivekilns used to bake construction blocks. The depleted forests in turn increased the salination offarmland and allowed fertile topsoil to erode during seasonal flooding, thereby decreasingagricultural capacity and leading to environmental desertification. With no wood to fire thekilns, and no food to support the population, Mohenjo-Daro simply imploded.Ethnoarchaeologists also have excavated layers of garbage deposited by people over thelast two or three decades (Rathje 1981; Harrison, Rathje, and Hughes 1975; Rathje 1974). These"garbologists," as they are called, have noted that "growing awareness of the finite limits ofnatural resources under the pressure of an exploding population has made it necessary to lookat human utilization of resources in a new light" (Harrison, Rathje, and Hughes 1975:13). Theirresearch is based on the assumption that "the methods and theory of archaeology may offeruseful perspectives for dealing with contemporary problems of resource utilization andmanagement" (Rathje 1974:236). As Rathje (1981:3) notes, "today derives from the past and ifwe can see both from the same perspective, if we can plot our ancestors and ourselves on thesame trajectory, we may be able to anticipate some of our future." Thus, archaeologycontributes an historical orientation to environmental management, and it providesmethodological and analytical tools for evaluating its human consequences through time.EthnologyEthnology is the sub-field of anthropology that is broadly concerned with thecomparative study of human customs and behavior. These customs and behaviors, acquiredand passed by individuals as members of society, are referred to as "Culture." Spicer (1952:287)notes that the concept of Culture is a product of social science inquiry that has been developedand expanded within anthropology. As a universal human attribute, "Culture" can bedistinguished from individual "cultures" -different traditions of learned behavior and ideasthat specific human groups learn as members of particular societies. Ethnologists use a methodcalled ethnography to graphically describe specific cultural systems or the components thereof.Ethnology is therefore often referred to as "cultural anthropology," as culture is its primary unitof analysis. It should be noted, however, that ethnology is but one aspect of a broader culturalanthropology that also encompasses archaeology and linguistics. Because all people use culturein various ways to adapt to and transform the world, the field of ethnology is accordingly
35broad. Gross (1992:9), for example, identifies no fewer than 13 specializations withinethnology. Of these, the most notable with regard to this dissertation is "cultural ecology."Cultural ecology is the branch of ethnology concerned with the interrelationshipsbetween cultural systems and the environments of which they are a part (Barnouw 1978:364),although some, such as Vayda and Rappaport (1968), have extended this to include the humanbiological component as well -evidence of the mutual interrelatedness of the four fields inanthropology. One of several ways that cultural ecology provides insight into human problemsin environmental management is by framing environmental management issues in terms of thesubsistence strategies of specific cultural groups.Bates (1998:28-33) discusses five very generalized subsistence strategies: foraging,horticulture, pastoralism, agriculture, and industrialism. Each of these derives from verydifferent approaches to and relationships with one's respective environment. Foragingsubsistence systems, for instance, require low population density, a large geographical area, andrely primarily upon the extraction of renewable natural resources. Industrial subsistencesystems, on the other hand, are marked by dense population concentrations in centralizedsettlements, are surplus-dependent, and rely heavily upon the extraction of non-renewableresources from areas well beyond their immediate settlements. These may be gross over-generalizations, but they illustrate the relevance of subsistence strategies to understanding thekinds of environmental management issues that are likely to arise among the cultural groupswho practice them: loss of habitat sounds a potential death knell for foragers; to a degree,industrialism depends upon it (Davis 1993:15-20; Brody 1983).Subsistence styles may also effect differences in exposure to environmental hazards.Beach (1990:729-738), for example, discusses this situation among the Saami (Lapps) in Swedenfollowing the nuclear accident at Chernobyl, in the former Soviet Union. Saami subsistence islargely dependent upon the herding and processing of reindeer that graze on, among otherthings, the lichens that grow in the area. Radioactive fallout from the accident concentrated inthese plants, hence the reindeer that eat them. The health risks associated with the accidentwere comparatively higher for the Saami than for the rest of the population because reindeermeat comprised a significantly higher proportion of the Saami diet. Cultural-ecological factorsaffecting the risk perceptions and responses of the Saami led to a different perspective onenvironmental management, and widespread debate followed regarding the Swedish
36government's need to modify environmental management policies to accommodate the culturalcharacteristics of the Saami people (Vaughan and Nordenstam 1991:53). Managing ecosystemsin culturally heterogeneous settings demands that such considerations be taken into account,and ethnology -particularly cultural ecology -provides concepts and methods that areessential to such understanding.LinguisticsLinguistics is a sub-field of anthropology broadly concerned with human language andcommunication. Anthropological linguistics considers human language as a system of soundsor gestures combined to form meaningful messages. Eastman (1980:3-24) notes that linguistsanalyze both the way sounds and gestures convey culturally-specific meaning and thegrammatical structures that give form to human communication. Comparative linguistics andhistorical linguistics are branches of the field that examine variation and change in languages;semantics is the branch that examines the meanings or conceptual systems of specific culturalgroups. Of the various semantical approaches to cultural meanings, I think the one called"ethnosemantics" is most applicable to human problems in environmental management.Ethnosemantics refers to "the study of folk conceptual systems in order to discover theconceptual world of a people through their linguistic categories" (Eastman 1980:85); that is, tolearn how people organize their experience (DÂ’Andrade 1995, 1976; Dougherty 1985; Spradley1972; Tyler 1969; Sturtevant 1964, 1947). Ethnosemantics is valuable in environmentalmanagement in at least two ways: (1) helping to understand the culturally-specificenvironmental taxonomies within which people are perceiving and acting upon environmentalmanagement issues (Stoffle, Halmo, and Evans 1999:416-429), and through this, (2) helping tofacilitate a clearer communication of environmental risks among environmental managers andthe populations potentially affected by risk management decisions.To illustrate, I was involved some years ago in a study of the cultural andpaleontological effects of a proposed radioactive waste storage facility (Stoffle 1990). Throughthat study our project team learned of a locally unique cultural practice -eating muskrat -thatpotentially placed those who practiced it at a greater probabilistic risk of contracting diseasesrelated to exposure to certain environmental contaminants. This practice, common among theFrench-American populations living along the western Lake Erie shoreline (Au and Vincent
371985; Au 1987:39-42), is a particularly important consideration in, for instance, the issuance offish consumption advisories among the Great Lakes.Muskrat typically inhabit lowland marshes and wetlands along the lake shore, but alsohave moved into open ditches and drainage fields in the area -places into whichenvironmental contaminants such as fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are likely toaccumulate through normal runoff. Because the muskrat is largely a water-bound creature, thefolk taxonomy of these French-American communities places it in the same cognitive domainas the fish (Au 1987). It is not uncommon to see these people -many of whom are devoutRoman-Catholics who honor their religion's taboo against eating meat on Fridays during thespring Lenten season -eating the muskrat advertised on billboards announcing their respectiveparish's "Friday Fish-Fries." In fact, I recall having seen one such billboard read "Friday Fish-Fry: All The Muskrat You Can Eat!" Through chemical biologic magnification, in whichcontaminants become increasingly concentrated as they pass through successive levels of anecosystem's food chain (Miller 1982:92), this practice would necessarily increase one'sprobabilistic risk of contracting an environmentally-induced disease.In a classic case of "Risk Communication: Who's Educating Whom?" (Wolfe 1988:13-14), there is an obvious need to consider folk-taxonomies in the issuance of government publichealth advisories. Yet, fish-consumption advisories pertaining to the Great Lakes do notaccount for these cognitive cultural bases of risk exposure. Muskrat eaters need to understandthe potential health risks of continuing that practice in a chemically contaminated environment,but that is unlikely to happen until the agencies that issue fish consumption advisoriesacknowledge that, in this particular French-American cultural context, the muskrat is a fish. Insuch instances, anthropological linguistics, particularly ethnosemantics, can help environmentalmanagers by drawing their attention to the relationships between culturally-specific folktaxonomies and exposure to environmental risks.Biological AnthropologyBiological anthropology is the sub-field of anthropology that is broadly concerned withthe evolution of and patterns of variation within the human species. These concerns areapproached through biological anthropology's three component branches: paleoanthropology,which addresses our evolutionary past through the examination of the fossil remains of ourancestors; primatology, which addresses the evolutionary biology, anatomy, and social behavior
38of non-human primates; and human biology, which addresses human variation through theexamination of genetic differences among populations shaped by environmental conditionsthrough evolution (Podolefsky and Brown 1994:3). As in the other sub-fields of anthropology,each of these branches consists of multiple specializations, ranging from primate paleontologyto human genetics; Gross (1992:9) identifies 21 in all. All of these are potentially applicable tothe study of human problems in environmental management, but I'm most interested in humangenetics and variation because they address the interrelationships between present humanbiology and past human activity that can create variable susceptibility to environmental risksamong the human populations that are exposed to them.The genetic trait called "lactase deficiency" or "lactose intolerance (Johnston 1982:338-340) presents a case in point. All mammals, including humans, are dependent on milk in theearly stages of their development. Lactose, a sugar contained in milk, must be broken down indigestion in order for it to be metabolized in the body. Lactase is a digestive enzyme that helpsthe body process the lactose found in milk. Some people lose the ability to produce lactaseduring infancy, and their deficiency of this enzyme creates a physiological intolerance forunfermented milk containing lactose. Descendants of pastoral subsistence systems --specifically, those whose diets include milk obtained from the cattle they manage -haveevolved the physiological capacity to produce lactase throughout their adult lives and thus areable to consume milk as a regular, if not important part of their diet. Europeans and theirdescendants in the Americas generally fall within this category and so exhibit relatively lowlevels of lactose intolerance, in some cases as low as only two percent. Conversely, descendantsof non-pastoral subsistence systems -in particular, many peoples of Asian and African descent-have not evolved this capacity and so exhibit relatively high levels of lactase deficiency, insome cases as high as 90 percent or greater (Gross 1992:214-215).Calabrese (1991) notes that bio-cultural traits such as lactose intolerance can buffercertain cultural and ethnic groups from specific types of environmental risk. During the 1970s,for example, when much of Michigan's dairy industry was accidentally exposed topolybrominated biphenyls (PBBs), lactase-deficient populations necessarily faced lowerprobabilistic risks of biological contamination because they were less likely to consume milkcontaminated with PBBs (Egginton 1980). Thus, past human cultural activity has influencedpresent human genetic variability which, in the case of chemically contaminated cow's milk, is
39reflected in the variable susceptibility of the human populations that have been exposed to it.Biological anthropology, in this case human genetics and variation, is applicable to humanproblems in environmental management insofar as it illuminates the culturally-adaptive genetictraits that can differentially influence the exposure levels of populations subjected to specificenvironmental risks.Holistic, Relativistic, and Comparative Perspectives on Human ProblemsI'm often struck by my students' intrigue upon learning of anthropology's four fields,that anthropology is more than the stereotypical "stones and bones" discipline most believe itto be upon entering an introductory course. And having explained to them the nature of thesefour fields, I'm especially fond of asking them what they think binds these fields together as aunified discipline. For example, are the paleoanatomist and the ethnosemanticist so narrowlyfocused on their respective slices of the human condition that, disciplinarily speaking, neitherhas much to say to the other? And, if that is the case, is there really any need for a unifieddiscipline of anthropology? Indeed, the question "Is Fission the Future of Anthropology?" wasaddressed in 1992 in an "Explorations" seminar convened by the School of American Researchin Santa Fe, New Mexico (Brown and Yoffee 1992). Among the conclusions reached in thatseminar was that anthropologists generally share a common set of perspectives that link theconceptual efforts of those working in each of the four respective fields and help to unify anddefine the discipline. Indeed, the value of such "anthropological perspectives" is advocated bythe National Association for the Practice of Anthropology (NAPA) in the management ofglobal ecosystems (Puntenney 1995).So what are these uniquely anthropological perspectives? The list may vary dependingon the sources one consults. For instance, Scupin and DeCorse (1995:9-11) claim that theanthropological perspective is intrinsically "global" -mindful of all humans from all times in allplaces; Schultz and Lavenda (1995:4) maintain that "the anthropological perspective isevolutionary at its core" because it focuses on biological cultural changes within the speciesthrough time. Howard and McKim (1983:11-13) suggest that anthropology is distinguishablefrom other branches of human studies in the emphasis it places on universalism, holism,integration, and cultural relativism; Spicer (1976:341) observes that it consists of holistic,comparative, emic, and historic perspectives.
40I don't disagree with any of these assessments, although despite the range of terms usedto describe it, I agree with Schultz and Lavenda (1995:777) who go on to state thatanthropology is unique among academic disciplines because it inherently involves theapplication of holism, cultural relativism, and cross-cultural comparison, so it is theseperspectives that I elaborate below. Anthropology's historical and evolutionary aspects havebeen revealed, in part, in the preceding discussion of its four component fields. It's worthnoting that these are interrelated concepts and should be thought of as mutually interconnectedparts of the same conceptual package. I discuss them separately below to illustrate the uniquecontribution each makes to a general anthropological perspective, and specifically how eachmight be applied in the context of public participation in environmental management.HolismAs a fundamental principle of anthropology, holism directs the anthropologist toconsider how all aspects impinging upon humans are interconnected, including the physicalenvironment, technology, history, settlement patterns, and social, religious, political, andeconomic organization. Holism in anthropology holds that "things must be viewed in thebroadest possible context in order to understand their interconnections and interdependence"(Haviland 1996:13-14)."Bio-culturalism" is a related concept that stems from holism. It refers to theinterconnections between human biology and culture, essentially, that the human capacity forculture derives from specific evolutionary modifications in the brains of early hominids, namelythe growth of the neocortex and frontal lobe -areas of the brain typically associated withabstract thought and symbolic expression. Yet, as Schultz and Lavenda (1995:5) have noted,our survival as biological organisms depends upon learned cultural traditions -traditions thathave enabled our species to modify and radiate into virtually all ecological zones on the planet.Paradoxically, many such cultural traditions, and the values that underlie them, haveprecipitated environmental crises that stand to undermine the biological health of thecommunities, human and otherwise, which inhabit them. For example, consider the examplesfrom the preceding section of differential exposure to toxic substances brought about byunique cultural beliefs and practices (i.e., muskrat consumption and lactase deficiency,respectively). And, as discussed earlier in this chapter, scholars including Caldwell (1988), Poli(1994), and Westra (1994) and science and policy organizations such as the Great Lakes Science
41Advisory Board (1991) and the National Science Foundation (1999) have explicitly called forholistic reasoning in environmental management. Anthropology is applicable in this context atleast in part because holism is one of its key perspectives.Cultural RelativismCultural relativism is an anthropological perspective that claims all societies should beunderstood in terms of their own respective practices and values (Scupin and DeCorse1995:256). This view derives from Boas's theory of Historical Particularism, which holds thateach society has its own unique historical development and therefore may only be understoodas products of its respective history (Stocking 1974). Herskovits (1964:49) further clarifies thisperspective by noting that personal judgments are based on experience, and experience isinterpreted by each of us in terms of our own enculturation and learning of symbols andconstructions. Presently, the perspective of cultural relativism directs anthropologists to seekthe cultural bases of human behaviors and to refrain from making value judgments regardingthe people they study -both biologically regarding their phenotypical and/or genotypicalcharacteristics, and culturally regarding their respective histories, beliefs, customs, organization,technologies, and the material manifestations that accompany these.But cultural relativism is not without controversy (Shrader-Frechette 1991:30-39, 232-237), as some anthropologists have questioned its philosophical roots and historicalapplications (Fleuhr-Lobban 1995:B1-2; Perry 1992; Downing and Kushner 1988; Schirmer1988; Herskovits 1985, 1964; Ladd 1985; Hatch 1983). For example, cultural relativism doesnot suggest that anthropology is a value-free discipline. In fact, the American AnthropologicalAssociation's Panel on Disorders of Industrial Societies argues forcefully for "an anthropologyexpressly committed to the values of cultural pluralism and democratic participation" (Forman1994:Overleaf). Moreover, as Bastide (1973:13-17) notes, there are both logical and practicalproblems associated with cultural relativism in anthropology, especially applied anthropology.For instance, Gross (1992:28) observes that "paradoxically, applied anthropologists useanthropological knowledge to direct social and cultural change. In doing so, they suspendcultural relativism by deciding that some aspects of culture should be changed." This position,referred to as "soft relativism" (Shrader-Frechette 1991:232-233), enables anthropologists tomake evaluative judgments in the context of directed change programs, not necessarily for thesake of changing a given culture per se, but rather to fit specific directed change projects within
42the sociocultural framework of the cultural group(s) toward whom the change is being directed(Cernea 1991; Kottak 1991, 1990a).This distinction is important when considering the potential contributions that culturalrelativism can make to our understanding of human rights issues in environmental management(Johnston 1997:340-343; Nickel 1993; Westing 1993; Gormley 1990; Uibobuu 1977), asreflected, for example, in the United Nations' 1994 Draft Principles on Human Rights and theEnvironment (United Nations Human Rights Commission 1994). The anthropologist is notcompelled by the culturally relativistic perspective to accept all environmental managementpractices, especially those that as discussed previously, degrade the environment and potentiallythreaten the well-being of those who inhabit it. Rather, as Rayner (1987:5-29) points out,cultural relativism directs the anthropologist only to seek the cultural bases of environmentalmanagement practices so that, as noted above, directed environmental change projects can befit within the sociocultural framework of the cultural groups inhabiting ecosystems towardwhich the change is being directed.Cultural relativism presents a conceptual framework for understanding the culturalbases of environmental management practices without necessarily passing value judgements onthem. "Emic" and "etic" are terms in anthropology that refer to the point of view taken inclassifying and interpreting human behavioral phenomena (Headland, Pike, and Harris 1990),and they help anthropologists operationalize the culturally relativistic perspective inenvironmental management. The terms Â“emicÂ” and Â“eticÂ” were coined by the anthropologicallinguist, Kenneth Pike (1947), on the analogy of the terms phonemic and phonetic. In linguistics,"phonemic" refers to the classification and analysis of speech sounds that have meaning to thespeakers of a particular language; "phonetic" refers to the classification and analysis of thosesame sounds according to some outside, set standard (Sturtevant 1947:16; Richards 1977:338).Similarly, emic and etic classifications in anthropology refer, respectively, to whether culturalphenomena are understood from the point of view of the cultural insider, to whom suchphenomena bear specific meanings, or whether they are understood from the point of view ofthe cultural outsider. Whereas the former enables the cultural outsider to reach a deepercompassion for what it means to be a member of a particular behavioral group, the latterenables behavioral comparison among numerous groups.
43Emic classification is often seen as subjective, and relative only to the members of thecultural group to whom they bear meaning; indeed, it stems from the culturally relativisticperspective. Etic classification, on the other hand, is often equated with an "objective,""rational" scientific process which seeks to discern general patterns of human behavior, wherethey exist, and without which there could be no "science of humanity" (i.e., "anthropology").Not surprisingly, these two systems of behavioral classification lie at the root of what Idiscussed earlier as anthropology's inherent orthogonality, where the emic axis is morecharacteristic of anthropology's humanistic tendencies, and the etic axis is more characteristic ofits roots in western science. Anthropologists typically view these two approaches as mutuallycomplementary rather than unilaterally opposed. That is, anthropologists prefer to view humanphenomena from as many angles as possible, and the combination of emic and etic approachesin that regard enables them to cast a wider interpretive net in their attempt to comprehend theintricacies of the human condition.Within a culturally relativistic perspective, emic and etic classifications enableanthropologists to consider these multiple viewpoints without necessarily passing explicit valuejudgements on them. I believe this is crucial to framing and managing environmental problemsin a pluralistic society such as the United States: etic classification provides the basis from whichto approach such problems in a generalizable, scientific manner, and it provides the scientificfoundation for anthropology's application to environmental management problems when suchproblems have been previously conceptualized within other scientific disciplines (Wynne1992:281-304); yet, emic classification simultaneously recognizes that, in a pluralistic society,such problems will likely be perceived, understood, and acted upon differently by the variouscultural groups affected by them (Weller 1987:178-193). Thus, it provides the basis from whichthose perceptions and actions, regardless of their scientific merit and without explicit judgmentregarding their qualitative value, may be factored into environmental decision-making(MacLennan 1994:59-61; Wynne 1991:111-121). In doing so, I believe these concepts renderenvironmental management policies that are more attentive to the needs of the various socialgroups which comprise a locally affected population. These and related issues are fleshed out ingreater detail later in the final chapter of this dissertation, wherein I discuss what I see as ananthropological difference in public consultation for environmental management.
44Cross-Cultural ComparisonAgar (1996:3) notes that "anthropology is a discipline that celebrates complexity andambiguity in a world looking for simplicity and clarity." The comparative perspective enablesanthropologists to reveal human complexity and diversity while simultaneously addressingelements of human commonality. Anthropology is at once humanistic and scientific, subjectiveand "objective." I liken these concepts to the classificatory terms "emic" and "etic," where theformer is more-or-less synonymous with subjective description and the latter with objectiveexplanation. Whereas emic comparison enables the cultural outsider to reach a deeperunderstanding of other groups -to "celebrate complexity," etic comparison enablesanthropologists to explain in scientific or more "objective" terms the similarities among thecultural attributes of those groups, or as Haviland (1996:20) notes, to reach "valid conclusionsconcerning the nature of culture in all times and places" -the "simplicity and clarity" that Agarclaims the world is seeking. A more comprehensive understanding of the human conditionarises from the combination of these humanistic and scientific comparisons.Kottak (1990b:14-15) observes that cross-cultural comparison and attention to culturalvariation are vital for understanding the effects of any technology on human behavior. This isparticularly relevant given the relationship between indigenous knowledge and multiple publicsin public participation, where a significant measure of cross-cultural consideration is essential toa more equitable environmental management. First, it illuminates cross-culturaldivergence/convergence among project-specific environmental management options; second, itreveals culturally-specific differential impacts emanating from the various alternatives; and third,it provides a comparative framework for managing the environmental risks associated withimplementing a specific alternative. These are all considered essential ingredients for publicinvolvement in environmental risk management (Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making 1997) -a process called "comparative risk assessment" (Carpenter 1995:195;Comparative Risk Bulletin 1994) -and are reflected in the International Association for ImpactAssessment's statement on guidelines and principles for social impact assessment(Interorganizational Committee 1994:132).The value of the comparative approach in environmental management has beenillustrated by Vaughan and Nordenstam (1991:29-60) in their analysis of environmental riskperception among ethnically diverse groups. They identify significant variation along cultural
45lines and discuss how these varying perceptions inspire culturally-specific actions that translateinto quite different social impacts. They conclude that cross-cultural comparison can contributesignificantly to environmental management by identifying how cultural experiences account forvariability in response to environmental risk (Vaughan and Nordenstam 1991:54). Thecomparative perspective in anthropology is uniquely suited to this task, particularly in culturallyheterogeneous environmental management contexts such as one finds in the United States.Thus, I believe the comparative perspective makes anthropology particularly applicable to thestudy of human problems in environmental management.A Range of Theoretical Orientations to Human ProblemsAnthropological perspectives are operationalized conceptually through theoreticalmodels, or paradigms, that enable anthropologists to interpret and explain the humanphenomena they are studying. Kaplan and Manners (1973:23-35, 88-91) distinguish betweentheoretical orientations in anthropology and types of anthropological culture theory: the formerrefers to the "selecting, conceptualizing, and ordering of data in response to certain kinds ofquestioning" (1972:34), whereas the latter refers to "a statement of the specific mechanisms andthe relationship among the variables involved in the phenomena under investigation 1972:88)."Thus, theoretical orientations function as guiding dispositions to specific human problemswhereas culture theory is broader in scope and deals more at the level of cultural constitution.Anthropology provides a range of theoretical orientations to human problems, andfrom this range, cultural ecology and social networks are most suitable to my interests in publicparticipation in environmental management. This is not to suggest that other orientations arenot similarly applicable. Indeed, Kaplan and Manners (1972:88) note that these and otherorientations logically imply each other and all will tend to converge when applied to similar setsof problems. Rather, these two orientations are valuable to my interest in environmentalmanagement because together they focus my attention on human/environment relationshipsand the networks of social relationships and institutions within which those relationships aredeveloped and maintained. Both the nature of the questions I asked in my doctoral researchand the information those questions produced were guided by these theoretical orientations.Theoretical Orientations to Environmental Management: Cultural EcologyBroadly speaking, cultural ecology stresses the investigation of how culture functions asa dynamic means of adapting to and modifying the conditions of local environments. Because
46cultural ecology directs us to view humans as active and integral members of the environmentsthey inhabit, rather than as independent actors upon them, cultural ecology may be seen as aconceptual operationalization of the holistic perspective in anthropology. And to the extent thatit incorporates interrelationships among humans and the physical and biological components ofthe environment, it is akin to what Westra (1994) calls ecological holism.Cultural ecology was developed as a theory by Steward (1955) to explain the origin ofparticular cultural features and patterns that characterize different areas by examiningenvironmental adaptations (Kupferer 1988:xi). The concept has been expanded by others(Moran 1990, 1979; Netting 1977; Bennett 1976; Vayda 1976) and applied in various contexts(Bates and Lees 1996; Kaplan and Manners 1972:76). I'm less concerned here with culturalecology as a means of explaining the origins of specific cultural features as I am with its generalemphasis on human/environmental interrelationships, as I believe such an emphasis is largelymissing in environmental management today. For example, Spooner (1987:58-62) notes thatenvironmental mangers have traditionally imputed human activity in their management designsbut have been unable to treat that activity on the same level as the activities of othercomponents of the environment, because as humans they cannot avoid assigning their ownintentions and values in their work. He continues:If they admit the presence of human activity on a level with other (nonhuman)activities, they find themselves in the position of having to deal with membersof their own species (if not their own actual "population" or "community"),with whom, unlike the members of other species in their universe, they areunavoidably related (in the sense that their objectivity is compromised) bydifferences of interests and values -essentially, that is, by a political and moral(rather than a scientific) relationship (Spooner 1987:59).This need to view humans as integral parts of the environment rather than asindependent actors upon them was the subject of an environmental management conferenceheld not too long ago in Borca di Cadore, Italy. The "Borca Conference," as it has come to beknown, emphasized human/environment interrelationships and explored interdisciplinaryapproaches to human inclusion in environmental management -what Poli (1994:125) called"the new `cultural anthropology' of those who are concerned with environmental problems, orbetter yet, with environmental policies." Poli's sentiment is evident in recent calls for culturaland ecological holism in environmental management (Westra 1994; GLSAB 1991:7, 95;
47Caldwell 1988), yet, in my estimation, much work remains to be done on this front, especially,from the perspective of my work, in seeking participatory equity among the humancommunities that would be affected by environmental management decisions. As a theoreticalorientation, cultural ecology is relevant to human problems in environmental managementbecause those issues comprise, for practical purposes, its central focus.Cultural ecology is relevant also, I believe, because it incorporates the concept of the"ecosystem" into anthropological thought (Moran 1990). Ecologically speaking, the term"ecosystem" refers to the cycle of matter and energy that includes all organic things and linksthem to the inorganic; ecosystems are composed of vast networks of organisms exchanging theresources necessary to life. Bates (1998:24) notes that this concept is useful because it viewshumans in dynamic interaction with one another, with other species, and with the physicalenvironment. Thus, the ecosystem concept in anthropology presents a way of describing howhuman populations influence and are influenced by their surroundings.Political ecology is a branch of cultural ecology that is concerned with the ways peoplecompete to gain access to and control and utilize environmental resources (Bates 1998:34; Peetand Watts 1994). With humans as an integral part of the environmental equation, the term"environmental resources" necessarily encompasses human thought, knowledge, andperception. This emphasis on resource utilization is relevant to my interest in publicparticipation and environmental discrimination, as culturally-specific information -knowledge,ideas, perceptions, and the like -are vital resources in environmental management. This notionis consistent with those of others who see native conceptualizations and interpretations of theenvironment as culturally-specific determinants of environmental management options andstrategies (Edgerton 1968:309-314; Leach 1965; Frake 1962:53-59). Leach (1965:37-38), forexample, observes that "the environment is a matter of perception; the relation between asociety and its environment can be understood only when we see how the environment isorganized in terms of the verbal [semantical] categories of those who use it." Recall my earlierdiscussion of fish consumption advisories and muskrat eaters of the Great Lakes.I believe that the control of environmental information, as well as the degrees of accessthat various social groups have in producing and/or utilizing it, are central issues in theenvironmental discrimination phenomenon. Environmental management programs mustconsider these issues in order to achieve a more equitable social distribution of environmental
48risk, and cultural/political ecology provide the conceptual bases from which such informationmay be sought.Theoretical Orientations to Environmental Management: Social NetworksIn his seminal work titled The Rise of Network Thinking in Anthropology, Wolfe (1978:55)observes that network theory was born out of the "need for new models to aid inunderstanding urban and complex social phenomena." Chapple (1953:304) suggested thatanthropologists could "use a modified form of the kind of network analysis used in electricalwork...to determine the effects of any change in the quantitative values assigned to any link onits neighbors in the network pattern." Thus, network theory generalizes "about relations amongrelations, how transactions affect such relations, and how such relations affect transactions"(Wolfe 1978:56). Network theory has its roots in the earlier structural-functionalist theories thatheld that every human institution is related to every other one; together they maintain theculture or society, usually in a homeostatic equilibrium. Changes in one component causereactions in all the rest, and no one component is necessarily more significant than the others inthe system. In short, network theory is a way of conceptualizing the relationships betweensystemic components, from the macro-level of nation-states and social institutions to themicro-level of individual social actors.Social networks complement the cultural ecological framework described above.Bennett (1976:36) has noted that humans interact with one another, and the patternedinteractions can be seen as "systems" existing within and connected to the larger context ofenvironmental networks. Thus, from an ecosystems perspective, human social networks forman integral component of an ecosystem. The idea of social networks fits well within theecosystem concept because it focuses attention on the networks of human social interaction --that is, on the true behavioral or emic social groups -through which valued resources, such asinformation regarding environmental risks, are mutually shared among members of thenetwork. In short, environmental management may be seen as a function of social groupdynamics in an ecosystems framework.Gross and Rayner (1985), for example, propose a paradigm for measuring social groupdynamics in, among other things, environmental management. Their approach, called"grid/group" (see also, Wuthnow et al., 1984; Douglas 1978), explicitly conceivesenvironmental problems within a social network context, and has been applied to a cultural
49assessment of global climate change (Rayner and Malone 1998). It's not my intention here todiscuss the specifics of their work, but rather to cite it as evidence of the broad applicability ofsocial network theory to human problems in environmental management, and to emphasizehow anthropological concepts may be operationalized through theoretical orientation andimplemented methodologically in the context of environmental management.Methods for Studying Human ProblemsOne may distinguish between research methods in anthropology and anthropologicalmethodology. Pelto and Pelto (1984:3), for example, refer to the former as the "observationaltechniques" anthropologists use to obtain data on specific aspects of the human condition.Anthropological methodology, on the other hand, refers to "the `logic-in-use' involved inselecting particular observational techniques, assessing their yield of data, and relating these datato theoretical propositions." For the purpose of this section, I am more interested in theformer; especially methods of ethnographic inquiry that I think are particularly relevant toaddressing human problems in environmental management. It is nonetheless important to notethat anthropological methodology provides the essential link between the body of theory Idiscussed in the preceding section and the body of research methods I discuss in this one.I noted previously that anthropology is a broad discipline consisting of four majorfields, each of which encompasses many methodological approaches to the study of humanproblems. I also discussed how anthropology is both scientific and humanistic in its orientationto human problems, and both science and humanism are reflected in the methods utilized ineach of its component fields. The philosophical history and unique character of these twoorientations has been discussed elsewhere (Bernard 1988:11-23), so I won't belabor the pointhere. It is worth noting that Bernard sees both scientific and humanistic methods inanthropology as essentially humanistic acts, as both are concerned with the development andapplication of human ideas. Scienceand humanistic-based methods in anthropology derivefrom mutually complementary approaches to understanding human phenomena, and they existat the ends of a methodological continuum that includes other intervening approaches. Tosimplify the following discussion I focus only on scienceand humanistic-based approacheswith the understanding that intervening types exist between these two exemplary styles.
50Scientific EmphasisFollowing Bernard's (1988) discussion, science-based methods reflect the governingprinciples or norms of the scientific process. These include objectivity, measurability, testability,replicability, and reliability. Broadly speaking, science-based methods, therefore, assume ameasure of procedural objectivity -that is, to be as free as possible of cultural and other biasesin both observation and analysis -and typically are used to test hypotheses about relationshipsamong variables and construct larger explanatory theories based on scientific inference. Becausescience-based methods generate information that is amenable to experimentation and statisticalprediction and explanation, they are often equated with quantification, although as Plattner(1992:32) has noted, qualitatively subjective techniques have produced in-depth data withgreater validity than quantitatively objective techniques, and objectivity in scientificproceduralism need not be defined in solely quantificational terms (Shrader-Frechette 1991:48-49; Bernard 1988:23). Not surprisingly, science-based methods generally lend themselves to eticapproaches in anthropological research (Pelto and Pelto 1984:60-64).Humanistic EmphasisBroadly speaking, humanistic-based methods, on the other hand, generally lendthemselves to emic approaches in anthropological research because they are more explicitlyconcerned with describing subjective cultural perceptions and meanings and how these arerevealed through the thoughts and actions of the members of specific cultural groups orbehavioral units. Because humanistic-based methods generally produce subjective anddescriptive information they are often equated with qualitative research, with the assumptionthat qualitative research is somehow non-scientific, or at least falls short of scientificexplanation and prediction. Yet Plattner (1992:32), who, it's worth noting, was ProgramDirector for Cultural Anthropology at the National Science Foundation at the time thisdissertation was written, argues for advancing qualitative ethnographic methods inanthropological science on the grounds that science and humanism should not be necessarilyequated with quantitative and qualitative research, respectively. In either case, anthropology'sdualistic nature enables it to pull from a variety of research techniques that emanate from thesetwo methodological traditions which, as noted earlier, are mutually supportive endeavors thatprovide the most comprehensive understanding of the human condition.
51Ethnography as Art and Science in Environmental ManagementWhyte (1984) has called ethnography "the anthropological method." To be sure, thereare other research methods in anthropology, for instance, site surveys in archaeology,anthropometry in biological anthropology, and componential analysis in anthropologicallinguistics. But my concern here is with ethnographic research because it typically blends bothhumanistic and scientific approaches, and it integrates a broad range of component techniquesin varying combinations and degrees appropriate to the specific problem being addressed.Thus, I think it is applicable to human problems in environmental management, particularlythose involving the participation of culturally heterogeneous populations potentially affected byenvironmental management decisions.Agar (1980:1-2) defines ethnography as "a process" through which an anthropologistattempts to develop "a comprehensive understanding of some human group." And, he notes,this process includes numerous other activities and techniques, both scientific and humanistic(Agar 1980:3). Lists of these "numerous other activities and techniques" can be quite extensiveand may be found in most anthropological and ethnographical research texts, such as Bernard(1988), Pelto and Pelto (1984), and Agar (1980). Commonly cited ethnographic data gatheringtechniques include participant observation, survey research, informal and key-informantinterviews, and archival and secondary source reviews. For example, as I discuss in thefollowing chapter, I was a field manager on a team of ethnographers conducting a socialassessment of a proposed low-level radioactive waste facility (Stoffle et al. 1990). Our researchdesign was broadly ethnographic and incorporated most of the data gathering techniquesidentified above. The research was neither overtly scientific nor humanistic in its approach, yetit incorporated elements of both.This balance of technique and approach was essential to our comprehensiveunderstanding of the social impacts likely to occur among affected populations. Our surveywork established a scientifically rigorous framework for comparative data analysis, and ourparticipant observation and informal dialogue provided illustrative and interpretive material tosupplement our survey findings. Ethnography also enabled locally affected populations tocharacterize themselves and their impact issues in terms that are grounded in their respectivesocial realities. Participation programs could therefore be built around culturally appropriatebehavioral groups rather than demographic categories, while impact categories could be
52compared and evaluated cross-culturally. For these and other reasons ethnography has beenrecognized as "an essential tool in impact assessment" by those who practice in that realm(Stoffle et al. 1991:611-635; Banks 1990:19-30)."Ethnoscience," often called "ethnosemantics," is another technique that is relevant tohuman problems in environmental management. Sturtevant (1964) views ethnosemantics as atype of ethnographic inquiry. As noted earlier, ethnosemantics is the study of folk conceptualsystems in order to discover the conceptual world of a people through their linguisticcategories. It has been used to identify culturally-specific environmental taxonomies withinwhich people perceive and act upon environmental management issues, and to facilitatecommunication of environmental risks among environmental managers and the populationspotentially affected by their decisions (Stoffle, Halmo, and Evans 1999:416-429). As anethnographic technique, ethnosemantics also combines the procedurally objective scientificapproach with the subjectively symbolic humanistic approach into a more comprehensiveunderstanding of human problems in environmental management.Ethical Guidelines for Studying Human ProblemsEthical issues will arise in the course of anthropological work, and Fluehr-Lobban(1991a:232-233) points out that the better able one is to anticipate them the better prepared onewill be to manage them. As a discipline, anthropology has devised and revised several ethicalcodes to guide its members' professional behavior. These include (1) the statement ofProfessional and Ethical Responsibilities of the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)(SfAA 1983, revised) (see Appendix 1a); (2) the American Anthropological Association's (AAA)Revised Principles of Professional Responsibility (AAA 1990) (see Appendix 1b); and (3) theNational Association of Practicing Anthropologists' (NAPA) Ethical Guidelines forPractitioners (NAPA 1988) (see Appendix 1c). It is perhaps worth noting that thearchaeological sub-field also maintains its own code of ethics, standards of researchperformance, and institutional standards (Society of Professional Archaeologists 1976), but thiscode is less relevant than the others to this dissertation because my doctoral project did notinvolve archaeological research.The SfAA and AAA codes derived from the occasionally dubious actions ofanthropologists who chose to use their anthropological skills for purposes that they may havebelieved were worthy of the field but which nonetheless sparked the collective ire of their
53anthropologist colleagues. The history of these events has been discussed elsewhere (vanWilligen 1993:41-54; Fluehr-Lobban 1991b:13-35; Chambers 1989:216-225; Rynkiewich andSpradley 1976; Beals 1969), and it is not my intention to discuss it here, suffice it to say that theprofessional behavior of anthropologists today is beholden to the sometimes sordidexperiences of their predecessors (Fluehr-Lobban 1991b:33). In fact, as Fluehr-Lobban(1991c:20) notes, the SfAA statement, adopted in 1948, was the first of its kind among thesocial sciences and thus should be recognized for its historical role in establishing ethically-conscious behavior not only within anthropology but within the other social sciences whichfollowed suit at later dates.The NAPA code, on the other hand, was inspired in part by the growing number ofanthropologists employed in non-academic settings which, in 1986, exceeded the number ofacademically employed anthropologists for the first time since the inception of the AAA in1902 (Fluehr-Lobban 1991c:5). The NAPA code reflects a disciplinary concern for thepotentially unique ethical contexts that these practicing anthropologists are likely to encounter(Gilbert, Tashima, and Fishman 1991:198-210; NAPA 1988:1). As I suggest throughout thischapter, anthropology provides a wide variety of skills applicable to human problems and, as Idiscuss in the following section, a history of applying them across a wide variety practicalcontexts. Anthropologists who practice outside the academy often find themselves working inwhat might be considered "non-anthropological" contexts, where their job title is notnecessarily "anthropologist" but rather, for instance, "public involvement coordinator." One ofthe unique issues faced by practicing anthropologists is that they may at once be committed tothe ethical codes of their profession and, where they exist, those of their external specializationsand employment contexts. This becomes problematic when the dictates of these codes conflictwith each other; anthropologists are often left to sort out their ethical loyalties amidst thepressures of their employment (Frankel and Trend 1991:175-197). These and other ethicalissues are fleshed out in greater detail later in this dissertation (see Â“Ethical ConsiderationsÂ” inthe Â“Case StudyÂ” chapter), wherein I discuss the ethical considerations that I made in mydoctoral research project and environmental anthropology fellowship.Anthropology is applicable to human problems in environmental management in partbecause it provides clearly articulated guidelines of ethical and professional responsibility.Considering that anthropology views humans as mutually interconnected parts of ecosystems
54rather than independent actors upon them, the well-defined ethical guidelines of anthropologymight serve as models for managing the human component of the ecosystem equation. This isconsistent with Ferre' (1994), Poli (1994), Westra (1994), the GLSAB (1991), Schaefer (1989),and others who envision comprehensive ethical guidelines for environmental management.A History of Application to Human ProblemsOne way that anthropologists apply their discipline to human problems is byparticipating in programs intended to improve people's lives Â– an endeavor called "appliedanthropology." Kushner (1991:46-61) notes that applied or practicing anthropologists may beinvolved in one or more phases of a program: assembling relevant knowledge, constructingalternative plans, assessing the likely social and environmental impact of particular plans,implementing the program, and monitoring the program and evaluating its effects. Theanthropological experience is largely one of application; its conceptual and methodologicaldevelopment is grounded in the practical experience gained since the discipline's inception (vanWilligen 1993:17-39). Thus, anthropology presents a history of application to human problems,and I think this enhances its applicability to issues of public participation in environmentalmanagement.Applied AnthropologyA number of scholars have written about applied anthropology (e.g., Kushner 1994;van Willigen 1993; Chambers 1989; Trotter 1988; Angrosino 1976; Spicer 1977, 1976). Tovarying degrees and different ends, each of these has addressed anthropology's history ofapplication in the United States. van Willigen in particular presents the broadest overview, as heintegrates the work of these and other scholars in his discussion of the development of the field(1993:17-39). Unless noted otherwise, the ensuing discussion follows his presentation.Anthropologists have historically involved themselves in matters of practical relevanceboth inside and outside the academy, where they have applied their expertise to specific socialproblems, in effect, field testing existing anthropological theories and methods and developingnew ones. For example, applied anthropology developed first around the policy research andcolonial administrative training needs of governments during the latter half of the 19th Centuryand the beginning of the 20th (Tax 1945). From this experience grew a period of federal servicein specific problem areas and political contexts, for instance, social problems associated withthe administration of American Indian tribes (Collier 1936), World War II (American
55Anthropological Association 1942:42), and incarceration camps for Japanese-Americans duringthe war (Spicer 1946a,b). It was during this period that the Society for Applied Anthropology(SfAA) was founded, primarily to provide a formal network and professional identity amongapplied anthropologists. The SfAA developed and published the journal "AppliedAnthropology," subsequently named "Human Organization," which functioned as acompendium of applied anthropological research being conducted during that period.During the next quarter century anthropologists became increasingly involved indesigning and implementing strategies for social change, and in the process created a host ofaction-oriented approaches to human problems, within which an expanded array of research-based roles was being developed. The anthropological literature of this period reveals thebreadth of contexts and approaches in which anthropologists were intervening in humanproblems; for instance, in technological change (Foster 1962; Spicer 1952), development(Gallaher 1968; Goodenough 1963; Tax 1960; Holmberg 1958), culture change (Niehoff 1966;Arensberg and Niehoff 1964), and community advocacy and cultural brokerage (Schensul 1973;Weidman 1973). Through anthropological involvement in these areas, as noted in the previoussection, guidelines of ethical behavior and professional responsibility were developed (SfAA1948) and revised (SfAA 1975) during this period.Most recently, anthropologists have found increasing employment opportunities innon-academic settings (Angrosino 1976), driven largely by policy research functions asmandated by new federal regulations, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(United States Congress [USC] 1969), and subsequent regulations of the United States Councilon Environmental Quality (CEQ 1978; 1986). Anthropologists' practical experience in suchmatters has enabled them to further define practitioner roles across numerous contexts(Kushner 1994; Spicer 1976), and it has inspired further revisions to their ethical codes (AAA1990; NAPA 1988; SfAA 1983). Departments of anthropology have responded to thesedevelopments by creating training programs for non-academic careers in applied anthropology(Trotter 1988; Leacock et al., 1974), such as at the University of South Florida (Kushner 1994,1978; Kushner and Wolfe 1993).Continuing with van Willigen's (1993:3-12) description of the field, appliedanthropology may be conceived in terms of "content areas" of applied work, the "practitionerroles" that may be assumed within those areas, and the "domains of application" within which
56they operate. I briefly consider each of these below, as I see them as relevant to my ownorientation within the discipline.Anthropology's history of application to human problems is reflected in the wide arrayof contexts to which it has been applied. For example, van Willigen (1991) has compiled a"Source Book on Anthropological Practice" that contains descriptions of these contexts, fromwhich he has gleaned at least 39 such "content areas" ranging from "agriculture" to "women indevelopment" (van Willigen 1993:6). Most relevant to this dissertation, "environmentalmanagement" and "social impact assessment" (SIA) are included in that list.Anthropologists have occupied an assortment of practitioner roles within the contentareas identified by van Willigen. He identifies and describes these roles: "policy researcher,evaluator, impact assessor, needs assessor, planner, research analyst, advocate, trainer, culturebroker, expert witness, public participation specialist, administrator/manager, change agent, andtherapist" (van Willigen 1993:3-5). Practitioner roles are not mutually exclusive and thus arelikely to overlap within and vary between the content areas in which one practices. Mostrelevant to this dissertation are "policy researcher," "impact assessor," and "public participationspecialist," which I try to coordinate across interrelated domains of application.van Willigen (1993:8) describes "domain of application" as the "knowledge andtechnique that are relevant to a particular work setting." Domains of application shape therelationship between information production, the policy that derives from that information,and the social actions that are taken as a result of specific policies. Moreover, domains ofapplication are mutually interrelated aspects of the same general process of social management:social action, for instance, produces information that informs future iterations of policyformulation. Thus, policy is a dynamic process, into and out of which flow both informationand action, what Caldwell (1998:10-11) describes as "procedure as policy." As noted in thepreceding discussion, anthropology historically has been applied within each of these domains.Applied Anthropology and Environmental ManagementSpicer (1977:116-141) observes that studies related to environmental managementissues were being conducted by anthropologists as early as the 1940s. Kimball and Provinse(1942), for example, examined the relationship between land use and social structure among theNavajo, noting its implications for the administration of Indian Affairs programs. Some yearslater the Committee for the Recovery of Archaeological Remains (1958) lobbied for the
57protection of cultural resources potentially affected by flood control and water developmentprojects, and in so doing contributed to the formulation of national environmental policy in atleast three legislative mandates: the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (USC 1966,amended 1980), NEPA (USC 1969), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979(USC 1979). NEPA in particular created numerous opportunities for anthropological work inenvironmental management, for instance, in assessing the potential social effects of federallyfunded environmental projects (i.e., "SIA"), especially issues involving cultural heterogeneityand community participation (van Willigen 1993:34). Anthropologists have helped to bothformulate (Maruyama 1973) and implement (Jacobs et al. 1974) SIA guidelines, and the fruits oftheir labors are further reflected in the CEQ regulations (USCEQ 1978; 1986).Environmental management and SIA continue to blossom as content areas of appliedwork in anthropology, a fact evident in the developmental history of the Committee ofAnthropologists in Environmental Planning (CAEP). What began in the early 1980s as a smalland loosely connected group of practicing and applied anthropologists, the CAEP has greatlyexpanded its membership, adopted a formal organizational structure, published its ownnewsletter, and sponsored sessions at the annual meetings of both the Society for AppliedAnthropology (SfAA) and the American Anthropological Association (AAA). It has evensought formal professional status through the creation of an "Anthropology and EnvironmentSection" of the AAA (CAEP Newsletter 1996:1). Through the professional activities of themembers of such organizations anthropology is assured of advancing its relevancy and traditionof application to human problems in environmental management and beyond.Chapter SummaryI have discussed in this chapter numerous ways that I believe anthropology contributesto the study of human problems in environmental management. I gave special attention toanthropologyÂ’s grounding in both science and humanism, its four interrelated fields of study, itsdistinguishing perspectives and range of theoretical orientations, its body of methods, itsguidelines for ethical practice and professional responsibility, and its history of application toenvironmental management issues. I argued that, together, these elements can provide thecomprehensive approach to environmental management issues, particularly those regardingdifferential social access to public participation in environmental decision-making, that areincreasingly being called for by environmental managers.
58Of the major methodological issues facing public participation in environmentalmanagement, I am most interested in addressing the procedures used to: (1) define thegeographical and sociocultural boundaries of an LAP; (2) identify and characterize thepopulations -that is, the "multiple publics" -which comprise it; and (3) incorporate theirknowledge into environmental management decision-making processes. Failure toadequately address these issues has led to conditions of differential social access to project-specific public participation programs, conditions which I believe contribute to the socialphenomenon of environmental discrimination. I think this problem can be largely resolvedin environmental management by establishing definitions of the LAP that are grounded insocial data, by treating the LAP as a heterogeneous entity composed of multiple behavioralgroups, and by developing locally appropriate and culturally sensitive participatory strategiesthrough ethnographic consultation with members of those groups. I noted previously thatanthropologists have devised a standardized sampling and ethnographic research design,called Risk Perception Mapping (RPM), to address these issues. In the next chapter I tracethe development of the RPM concept and procedure through my professional experiencesapplying anthropology across a number of environmental management issues.
59CHAPTER 4PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE APPLYING ANTHROPOLOGY TOENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENTI explored in the previous chapter why I think anthropology is relevant toenvironmental management. Having previously earned the Master of Arts degree in appliedanthropology, and having subsequently practiced anthropology in SIA and environmentalmanagement, I have experienced first-hand the value of anthropological concepts applied tothose contexts. These professional experiences are the subject of this chapter, wherein I discussmy doctoral research project as an extension of my practical experience applying anthropologyacross a number of environmental management projects. These experiences culminated in thedevelopment of an ethnographic research method of public consultation called Â“RiskPerception MappingÂ” (RPM), which I believe can help redress the problem of differential socialaccess to public participation, particularly as it relates to the procedural aspects of NEPA-driven participatory requirements. My doctoral project in applied anthropology Â– titled theEcological Awareness and Risk Perception (EARP) study Â– continues the RPM methodologicaltradition. It's worth noting that the EARP study was not explicitly designed to addressdifferential social access to public participation in environmental management, but itsapplicability in that regard became increasingly evident as the study progressed.Professional Orientation within Applied AnthropologyMy professional orientation in applied anthropology is in environmental managementand SIA, with practitioner roles as public participation specialist and impact assessor. Mydomain of application lies mainly in the production of information for formulatingenvironmental management policy. To the extent that more equitable and culturally sensitiveoutcomes are obtained for local populations potentially affected by those policies, one couldargue that I am also involved in an action domain, although I do not see myself as advocatingfor the interests of any one particular social group.
60"Impact assessment" is typically seen as an integrated process consisting of a number ofdifferent assessment styles, each focused on a specific type of impact (Vanclay and Bronstein1995). SIA is the style that addresses the human social effects of environmental decision-making. Ideally, public participation informs the direction and substance of the social issues tobe assessed in an SIA, but it is also widely recognized as the common methodological threadholding the various styles of impact assessment together (Vanclay and Bronstein 1995:xi-xiii;Ortolano and Shepherd 1995:19-21; Roberts 1995:225-227; Finsterbusch 1995:240-242). Thus,my orientation within applied anthropology tends to blur the distinctions between content area,practitioner role, and domain of application: my interest is in public participation inenvironmental management, with SIA as the research and policy tool through which thatparticipation is implemented. I use the phrase "public participation in environmentalmanagement" to subsume SIA in that process, since it is inferred that public participation is anearly component of SIA research.The relevance of applied anthropology to public participation in environmentalmanagement is reflected in the masters theses and doctoral dissertations on related subjectswritten by students of the graduate programs in applied anthropology at the University ofSouth Florida. The titles and abstracts for these projects are searchable through the USFAnthropology webpage (http://www.cas.usf.edu/anthropology/index.html). In early 1998, I conducted an electronic search of titles and abstracts including the key words "environmentalmanagement," "social impact," and "public participation" and found at least seven students hadaddressed some aspect of these topics in their terminal projects (Dow 1978; Crawford 1980;Stone 1989; Schlotter 1991; Unterberger 1993; Gouldman 1994; Harding 1995), although nonehad integrated all of them.Integrating SIA and Public Participation in Environmental ManagementJohnston (1995:29) defines environmental anthropology as "the study ofhuman/environmental relationships." Indeed, the history of human culture is the story oftechnological change and environmental adaptation that, interwoven with biologicalmodification, has produced modern Homo sapiens (Stoffle et al., 1991:611; Bernard and Pelto1972:317). Traditionally, anthropologists have retrospectively studied the human effects oftechnological change (Foster 1962; Barnett 1953; Spicer 1952), but in recent years they haveassessed potential impacts prior to the introduction of specific technological interventions
61(Derman and Whiteford 1985; Branch et al. 1984; Millsap 1984; Geisler et al. 1982). These"social impact assessments," as noted previously, are federally mandated by NEPA asimplemented through the US CEQ 1986, 1978), and are now required of internationaldevelopment programs such as those funded through the World Bank (1993; 1989). Thus thesocial assessment components of NEPA have merely formalized and made proactive whatmany anthropologists had already been doing for years.SIA and Public ParticipationChambers (1989) identifies SIA as an applied anthropological specialization, afundamental style of applied anthropological research, and a vital component in policyformulation. Of the SIA research being conducted in the U.S. by anthropologists today, most isgeared toward environmental management as required by NEPA (CAEP 1993:1). Still, SIA isnot an exclusively anthropological endeavor, but rather an interdisciplinary methodologicalprocess that pulls theoretically from all the social sciences (Vanclay and Bronstein 1995:xi). Onemay engage in SIA research from any of the social science disciplines, each of which offersunique contributions at varying points in the SIA process. The International Association forImpact Assessment (IAIA) convened a multi-disciplinary team of SIA specialists to develop astatement of principles and guidelines for SIA research (Interorganizational Committee1994:107-152; 1993), henceforth referred to as the "Statement." The Statement integrates thewide body of SIA literature into a single comprehensive document, and it coordinates the keystages of the SIA process with the literature of each of the contributing disciplines. TheStatement is recognized among SIA practitioners as the state of the art in SIA (Taylor,Goodrich, and Bryan 1998:211; Burdge and Vanclay 1995:31).The Statement notes that the primary anthropological contribution to SIA occursduring the early stages of the process, a period referred to as "scoping" (U.S. Council onEnvironmental Quality 1986; Interorganizational Committee 1994:127-131). It is during thescoping period that the geographical boundaries of the potentially affected population areestablished, and "specially affected populations" -those who, because of sociocultural or otherdefining characteristics, may be predisposed to unique project-related impacts -are identifiedand described. Consultative and/or participative relationships are established with these groups,and through them respective issues and anticipated impacts are documented (Roberts 1998:42-43; 1995:232). The social parameters of SIA research thus are set through this process of public
62participation in environmental management (Interorganizational Committee 1994:127-131, 139-140; Roberts 1995:225-227).The Role of Environmental Risk ManagementIn 1982 the U.S. Congress passed the Risk Analysis Research and Demonstration Act(RARADA) (USC 1982) to establish risk assessment methods for sound environmentalmanagement policies (Shrader-Frechette 1991:6). Variations among assessment procedures,however, prompted the National Research Council (NRC) to standardize the process andculminated in the publication of NRC's "Redbook" (NRC 1983). One of the more notableaspects of the Redbook paradigm is its separation of environmental risk management (ERM)from the risk assessment process. In the Redbook the NRC defines environmental riskmanagement as "an agency decision-making process that entails consideration of political,social, economic, and engineering information with risk-related information to develop,analyze, and compare regulatory options and to select an appropriate regulatory response"(NRC 1983:19). And to achieve these ends it recommends that the public be involvedthroughout the ERM process (NRC 1994, 1993, 1983).Since public participation is a vital component of SIA, there appears to be considerableoverlap between the goals of ERM and SIA. For example, policy-makers use risk managementto determine preferred strategies for coping with the assessed risks and, thus, it has become "awidely used tool in impact assessment and social impact mitigation" (Vanclay and Bronstein1995:xii). This is particularly so when the social impacts being assessed or mitigated stem fromthe potential environmental risks associated with large-scale technological facilities, such asnuclear power facilities. Thus there is a need to coordinate public participation programs acrossthese activities so that the goals of each may be mutually realized (Roberts 1995:231-232).Risk Perception and Public Participation in Environmental ManagementA reciprocal relationship exists between risk and culture, in which the pre-existingculture influences the perception and selection of acceptable risks, and long-term exposure tothese preferred risks informs a new social reality, altering former values and actions andinfluencing further the relative perception and selection of future risks. SIA studies havedocumented that project-related social impacts occur to the extent that people perceivethemselves to be at risk from a given project (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993; Stoffle et al.1991; Leistritz and Ekstrom 1986). Awareness of a project therefore is a necessary criterion for
63risk perception, and hence social impacts, to occur. Shrader-Frechette (1988:155-164) observesthat lay perceptions of environmental risk often are viewed by risk managers as emotionalresponses to irrational fears and have therefore been largely dismissed in ERM. That viewfallaciously assumes that a distinction may be drawn between actual and perceived risks(Freudenburg 1988:44-49). I agree with those who contend that all risks are perceived and allrisk perceptions, whether or not they are derived scientifically, should be considered in ERM(Shrader-Frechette 1991:79-84; Wolfe 1988a:4; 1988b:13-14; Covello et al. 1983). This isparticularly important in pluralistic societies where risk perception can be expected to varygreatly along cultural lines (Dake 1991:61-82; Vaughan and Nordenstam 1991:29-60), andpolitically sanctioned notions of acceptable risk often reflect the dominant institutional andcultural constructs (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993:316-317; Johnson and Covello 1987;Douglas and Wildavsky 1982).Johnston (1997:17-19; 1994:8-12) contends that people have a right to participate inenvironmental decision-making, and that these rights must be actively protected and enforced,for example, through international initiatives such as the United Nations' Draft Principles onHuman Rights and the Environment (United Nations Human Rights Commission 1994). Shrader-Frechette (1991:206-211) argues for full citizen participation in ERM, beyond the self-selectivetrappings of public hearings alone, and toward a scientific proceduralism in which arepresentative cross-section of potentially affected groups participates equitably in the process -what I call the "participatory equity principle." This movement toward involving more peoplemore equitably in ERM is referred to as "environmental democracy" (Northeast Center forComparative Risk 1996:1). Shrader-Frechette (1991:209) suggests that the development ofenvironmentally democratic participation programs is best left to policy-makers, arbitrators, andsocial scientists -including anthropologists.An Anthropological DifferenceAs social scientists, anthropologists bring theoretical models and methodological toolsthat are especially well-suited to public participation in environmental management (Boggs1990:217-226; West 1975:428-440). As noted previously in this chapter, of particular relevanceare perspectives and theories emphasizing the importance of social networks as behavioralgroups and the functional interrelatedness of cultural systems and the environments withinwhich they exist. Also of relevance is anthropology's methodological tradition of ethnographic
64research (Banks 1990:19-30). Broad-based ethnographic research integrates a variety of socialresearch techniques such as structured surveys, informal interviews, focus groups, andparticipant observation, to name but a few (Bernard 1988:145-316).At least two groups of anthropologists have combined these elements to address publicparticipation in environmental management (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993; Kottak andCosta 1993; Costa et al., 1995). Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa (1993), for example, developed anethnographic method -called Risk Perception Mapping -to map the geo-cultural extent of anLAP, to identify and characterize the social groups which comprise it and, through consultationwith these groups, establish culturally-specific participatory strategies and long-term socialimpact monitoring programs. Kottak and Costa (1993) and Costa et al., (1995) have conductedsimilar studies of ecological awareness and risk perception in international conservationmovements, and have adapted the RPM method in their research on that topic. The case studyreported in this dissertation is an extension of both of these lines of research (Kottak and Stone1993). Indeed, the IAIA Statement on principles and guidelines for SIA cites RPM as apreferred strategy for scoping in SIA studies (Interorganizational Committee 1994:151).Professional Experience in Environmental Management StudiesThe International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) adopted and publishedtheir "Guidelines and Principles for SIA" (Interorganizational Committee 1994) -the firstattempt to synthesize the theoretical, conceptual, and methodological approaches of the manydifferent disciplines and international experiences which have contributed to the developmentof the field of SIA, including its inherent public participation component. Among the manyprinciples identified in that document, the first two deal explicitly with the definition andidentification of potentially affected populations and diverse publics, including the identificationand analysis of impact equity among particularly vulnerable and/or under-represented socialgroups (Interorganizational Committee 1993:27).The IAIA document recommends defining the LAP as a function of "awareness" of agiven project and it endorses RPM as a means of identifying the geographical boundaries ofthat population and describing its sociocultural characteristics (1994:27-29, 39). Thus, thegeographical boundaries that encompass the LAP can be quite large and discontiguous. RPMpresents an ethnographic survey approach in which the public participation program seeks thepopulations that comprise the LAP, rather than, as in the minimally required "public hearing"
65format, expecting potentially affected populations to identify themselves, or "self-select," as thepublic participants in environmental decision-making. In the paragraphs that follow I discussthe conceptual development of RPM via the lineage of projects from which it arose.The Chemical Munitions Incineration ProjectIn the mid-1980s I was working as an applied anthropologist at the Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory (ORNL) on the public participation component of a social impact assessment ofdisposal options for obsolete chemical warfare rockets. One of the greatest problems weencountered in that project was developing an appropriate definition and measure of thepotentially affected population for each of the five communities in which these rockets werebeing stored. We wanted the definition and measures to be consistent so that comparisonscould be made among the social data obtained at each of these locations. We also wanted thedefinitions to be inclusive so that all potentially affected groups would be identified andincluded in the public participation components of the research. Further detail on this projectand the outcome of these efforts have been published elsewhere (Stone 1989).The Superconducting Super Collider ProjectConcurrent with the ORNL research, a team of applied anthropologists at theUniversity of Michigan's (UM) Institute for Social Research (ISR) was conducting socialassessment research on the proposed Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) being consideredat that time at two locations in southeastern Michigan (Stoffle et al. 1987; Stoffle et al. 1988).Comparable data from these two communities enabled comparisons of local perceptions of theproposed collider. Despite their social and cultural similarity, these two communities differedsignificantly in their perception of risk from the facility, thus, the anticipated social impacts ofthe facility were expected to differ between them.Risk Perception ShadowsThe ISR anthropologists developed the concept of a "risk perception shadow" (RPS) toaccount for this phenomenon. The RPS concept was initially based on the premise that pastprojects, either completed or simply proposed, can create a collective perception of risk that is"applied" to newly proposed projects. Thus, the RPS was defined as a geocultural areaencompassing a generally contiguous human collectivity who calculate themselves to be a riskfrom a proposed or operating project. After becoming aware of the project this entityessentially defines itself as being "at risk" thereby opening itself to measurable social impacts
66regardless of whether or not an adverse human or environmental risk has been scientificallyestablished. The RPS concept is similar to that of "the contaminated community," developedby Edelstein (1988) to draw a boundary around an area that had been identified as beingpolluted, but the RPS may differ significantly in size, shape, and sociocultural compositionbecause it is defined by perceived risk rather than by probabilistically derived risk assessments.Through ethnographic interviews with residents of the candidate communities, the ISRresearch team documented that the heightened risk perception in one community wasattributable to that community's proximity to and collective experience with the Fermi IInuclear power plant. Fermi II, the second in a series of two nuclear power plants constructed atthe same site, was built shortly after a near core meltdown occurred at its predecessor facility.The risks posed to the host community by that incident have been immortalized in the booktitled We Almost Lost Detroit (Fuller 1975). The other SSC candidate community had no suchexperience with invasive and potentially hazardous technological facilities such as nuclearpower plants. Thus, it was determined that the Fermi nuclear power complex had cast apersistent RPS that continued to influence community perceptions of risk from newlyproposed facilities nearly 20 years after Fermi's development.The RPS concept is relevant to the development of public participation programs insocial impact assessment for environmental management. The extent and influence of an RPScan be determined by many factors, including how the members of a locally affectedpopulation perceive a project might affect their lives. Often a locally affected population isidentified a priori, that is, according to existing or predetermined criteria so that the agency incharge of managing the social and environmental assessments can issue a Request for Proposalthat has a definite study area. Distance-from-site measures -for example, all residents living orworking within a 10-mile radius of a facility -often are used, as are the boundaries of thepolitical jurisdictions within which a project has been proposed.Political units can be major channels for public input and response to specific projectsand thus are frequently used to define the boundaries of the locally affected population forproject-specific SIA research and the public consultation and participation programs that feedinto it. This procedure, however, can limit social assessment research and public participationprograms to an overly restricted population and a limited set of impact issues. The SSCresearch demonstrated that RPSs typically cross political boundaries, rendering such boundaries
67inaccurate, hence, inappropriate units for defining locally affected populations, for analyzing thesocial impacts they may experience, and for accessing and incorporating their knowledge inproject-specific decision-making. The SSC studies called for a data-based procedure foridentifying the locally affected population for a project by measuring its RPS.The Low-Level Radioactive Waste ProjectI joined the ISR research team at the conclusion of the SSC studies at a time when anew contract was being negotiated with the State of Michigan to conduct social assessmentresearch on a proposed low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) storage facility. Our research teamwas contracted to conduct numerous tasks relative to that project, most relevant to thispresentation, however, and as a logical extension of the SSC work, was mapping the riskperception shadow at each of three candidate sites to be determined through the application ofvarious exclusionary criteria throughout the state.Prior to the selection of candidate sites, however, one community in the state came tobelieve, for a number of reasons that are superfluous to this presentation, that it had been pre-selected to host the LLRW facility. In essence, the community "self-designated," prompting itsresidents to behave as though their area actually had been designated as the location for theLLRW facility. These people held massive public rallies, formed a grassroots protest group,developed public education program, and received extensive regional media coverage.Risk Perception MappingOur research team believed that the community's awareness of the self-designationevent was sufficient to cast an RPS, although we did not know what its geographical andsociocultural characteristics would be. We developed an ethnographic research method, whichwe termed "risk perception mapping" (RPM), to map the geographical extent of the RPS and todocument the sociocultural characteristics of populations existing within it -what we called the"geocultural extent" of the RPS. The RPS documented in the LLRW study was operationallydefined as "project awareness" because it represented the widest range of potential concernsand impact issues within the study area. Findings from that research have been reportedelsewhere (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993; Stoffle et al. 1991; Stoffle et al. 1990).Of the findings from the LLRW RPM study, the most relevant to this dissertation wasthat the RPS consisted of: (1) a 15 mile radial core area where awareness and intensity ofperceived risk and potential social impact were evenly distributed; (2) areas contiguous to the
68core area but distributed non-linearly in various directions up to an additional 15 miles beyondthe core; and (3) "islands," or areas separated from both the core and contiguous areas, up to35 miles away from the rumored facility location. Ethnographic interviews revealed that these"islands," for instance, corresponded to transportation interchanges along suspected LLRWdelivery routes, and area residents feared a greater potential for accidents existed in thoselocations. And factors such as groundwater flows and prevailing wind patterns functioned tospread risk perception to the contiguous areas beyond the core.In addition to identifying the geocultural extent of the LLRW's RPS, the RPM studyalso provided the means for the LAP to identify participatory and monitoring preferences andkey impact and mitigation issues. The quantitative nature of the structured RPM survey dataenabled more elaborate statistical analyses of these issues, while the qualitative nature of theethnographic research provided respondent illustrations of the findings of these analyses.The Kaibab Paiute Hazardous Wastes Incinerator ProposalThe LLRW RPM study was conducted in an area of relative topographical uniformityand cultural homogeneity, and it demonstrated the ability to map an RPS under thosecircumstances. But in developing the RPM method we felt it was necessary to see what effects,if any, extreme topographical diversity and cultural heterogeneity might have on thedevelopment and spread of an RPS. We were approached by members of the Kaibab PaiuteTribe of northern Arizona who requested that we conduct social assessment research of ahazardous waste incinerator proposed for their reservation on the north rim of the GrandCanyon -an area of considerable topographical and cultural diversity. The Tribal Council hadinsufficient funding to support the research effort so we submitted research proposals on theirbehalf for funding through the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development. While ourRPM proposal was under review at the EPA the private company which had proposedconstructing the incinerator on the Kaibab reservation withdrew its proposal, so our researchon that project was never conducted. But the issue of topographical and cultural diversity inRPM research still remained and we kept our eyes open for opportunities to further test theRPM method under those circumstances.The Brazilian Ecological Awareness and Environmentalist Action StudiesConcurrent with the ISR research, another team of anthropologists at the UM wasconducting research on ecological awareness, risk perception, and environmentalist
69participation in Brazil (Costa, Kottak, and Prado 1997; Costa et al. 1995; Kottak and Costa1993; Kottak 1992). These researchers concentrated their efforts in Angra dos Reis, a coastaltown in Rio de Janeiro State, and the site of Brazil's only operational nuclear power plant. Theywere specifically interested in the effects that awareness of ecological risks had on thedevelopment of Brazilian grassroots environmental organizations and their participation innational environmental decision-making. They noted that increased awareness or perception ofenvironmental risk corresponded to the development of such groups and furthered theirpotential participation in environmental decision-making, although social access to that processremains relatively constrained in Brazil (Costa, Kottak, and Prado 1997:140). The researchersalso were interested in whether this pattern held true cross-culturally, and so, during the early1990s, sought to develop cross-cultural studies of similar communities facing comparable risksin other countries.These researchers' interest in ecological awareness, risk perception, and participation inBrazil paralleled the ISR RPM research interests. A series of contract changes brought about bynational congressional and state gubernatorial elections prompted the ISR team to disband,although the members of that team maintained close professional contact and interest infurther developing the RPM method. I caught word that the Brazil research team was seekingto develop a comparative study with its Angra dos Reis project and was interested in testingsome of its research measures within an RPM methodological framework. We met and decidedto seek support for developing an RPM study of the Fermi II nuclear power plant in Monroe,Michigan, as that location is comparable to the Angra dos Reis site. Both sites are: roughlyequal in size (approximately 25,000); situated on large bodies of water (Lake Erie and IlhaGrande Bay, respectively); proximal to major urban centers (Detroit and Rio de Janeiro,respectively). Both sites have a history of past environmental degradation (particularly of coastalwaters), and both have operational nuclear power facilities. That effort coalesced into theEcological Awareness and Risk Perception (EARP) study. The EARP study forms thefoundation for both my both my doctoral project in applied anthropology and anenvironmental anthropology research fellowship sponsored jointly by the Society for AppliedAnthropology (SfAA), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Great LakesCommission (GLC). The EARP study is the focus of the next chapter; the fellowship project
70was oriented more toward RPM data management and analysis, and is thus more appropriatelydiscussed in that context in the subsequent chapter titled Â“Data Management and Analysis.Â”Chapter SummaryDifferential social access to public participation in environmental management hascontributed, at least in part, to the social phenomenon called environmental discrimination. Idiscussed this topic in this chapter via my orientation within applied anthropology, namely, as apublic participation specialist in SIA for environmental management. I outlined how SIA andpublic participation are integrated into environmental management and highlighted the uniquerole risk perception plays in that process. I argued that anthropology makes a uniquecontribution to environmental management, and I provided examples of this from my ownprofessional experience practicing anthropology in an environmental management context. Icontinue that discussion in the following two chapters, wherein I present the EARP project as acase study of the potential applications of RPM to public participation for environmentalmanagement.
71CHAPTER 5A CASE STUDY OF ECOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND RISK PERCEPTIONThe Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception Study (EARP), for which I was projectmanager, was funded jointly by the National Science Foundation and the Consortium ofInternational Earth Science Information Networks and was directed by Professor ConradKottak, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. The project commenced inMarch 1992, with fieldwork operations ending in April 1993. My interests in the study focusedon perceived risks of the Fermi II nuclear power plant in southeastern Michigan and theirpotential participatory implications and social impacts in surrounding communities. The studyencompassed a five-county area within a 25-mile radius of the facility. Following a center-pointradial stratified sampling design, 128 ethnographic interviews were sought in the study area.The EARP study represents a symbiosis of sorts between the current goals andobjectives of both the Brazilian and RPM lines of research discussed in the previous chapter. Itprovides a location in an area of topographical diversity, insofar as the presence of a large lakecould potentially skew the distribution of perceived risk, and it also provides a comparablelocation for cross-cultural study. Both the Brazilian and RPM lines of research use Â“awarenessÂ”to address environmental risk perception and social action, and both address aspects of publicparticipation in managing environmental risks Â– the former in the context of environmentalistaction, the latter in the context of defining the locally affected population for SIA studies inenvironmental management. Both further our understanding of the human behavioraldimensions of environmental management.Primary ObjectivesThe EARP was developed with four primary objectives in mind: (1) to develop acomparative environmental risk perception study; (2) to test measures of ecological awareness,risk perception, and environmentalist action; (3) to map the risk perception shadow for theFermi II power plant; and (4) to demonstrate the utility of RPM in the initial phases of public
72involvement for impact assessment in environmental management. My personal interest in theEARP is in mapping the RPS for the Fermi II facility, examining the potential effect of LakeErie on the spread of Fermi-specific risk perception, and documenting the salient social impactissues among the locally affected population (LAP). In the course of managing the study andconducting the field research, though, I serendipitously came upon the issues of differentialsocial access to Â“traditionalÂ” public participation processes, specifically in the definition andidentification of project-specific locally affected populations. That is to say, the EARP studywas not designed to explicitly address issues of environmental discrimination, but the linkbetween this and ecological awareness became increasingly apparent as the study progressed.One of my personal objectives in this dissertation is to explore this link further through spatialanalysis of RPM data obtained through the EARP study.Develop a Comparative Environmental Risk Perception StudyProfessor Kottak and his colleagues have studied ecological awareness andenvironmentalist action in Angra dos Reis, Brazil, the site of Brazil's only operating nuclearpower plant. His work has lead to the development of a research methodology that was appliedto other sites throughout Brazil. Professor Kottak sought to test the applicability of a socialimpact assessment (SIA) model -Risk Perception Mapping (RPM) -to his work in Brazil, andin 1992 he asked me to develop a comparative RPM study in a North American communitywith a functioning nuclear power plant. The first objective of the EARP study was to developthis comparative study design. The five-county area surrounding the Fermi II facility waschosen for the similarity of its demographic characteristics to those of Angra dos Reis, and forits close proximity to the University of Michigan, thereby keeping field costs very low.Test Measures of Ecological Awareness, Risk Perception, and Environmentalist ActionThe second objective of the EARP study was to develop and test the cross-culturalapplicability of various measures of ecological awareness, risk perception, andenvironmentalist action. The RPM design used in this study combined interview questionsfrom Professor Kottak's earlier work in Brazil with interview questions used in an SIA ofsiting a low-level radioactive waste facility in Michigan. Measures that worked well in Angrados Reis might not have worked well in Michigan, and vice versa, and those used in Angramight not have been amenable to the methodological requirements of RPM.
73Map the Risk Perception Shadow for the Fermi II FacilityThe term "Risk Perception Shadow" (RPS) refers to the geographical area in which ahuman population perceives itself to be at risk from a proposed or operating facility, regardlessof whether or not a risk has been scientifically assessed for that facility. The RPS is animportant analytical unit in SIA studies insofar as it is used to identify the geographical extentand cultural characteristics (geocultural extent) of the LAP for a given project.The third objective of the EARP study was to map the RPS for the Fermi II nuclearpower plant. The Fermi RPS was operationally defined as the geographical "zones ofawareness" of the facility. RPM was used to map the contours of the RPS as "degrees ofawareness," that is, the relative percentages of respondents throughout the study area who wereaware of the Fermi facility. And in the process of mapping the Fermi RPS we sought toexamine the potential effects that topographical variability Â– in this case, Lake Erie Â– could haveon the spread of risk perceptions related to project-specific awareness.Demonstrate Utility of RPM in Public Participation for Environmental ManagementThe fourth objective of the EARP study was to demonstrate the potential utility ofRPM in public participation for environmental management. Project-level environmentalmanagement in the United States builds largely upon the recommendations generated bylegislatively mandated impact assessment studies. Public participation is a key component inimpact assessment generally, but it is particularly relevant in SIA studies. Issues of publicparticipation in SIA include, among others: (1) defining the geographical extent of the locallyaffected population -the population with which consultative relationships are established,(2) identifying specially affected populations residing within the bounds of the locallyaffected population, (3) documenting local impact issues, and (4) establishing a long-termsocial monitoring program among the locally affected population. RPM provides aframework through which these issues may be mutually resolved, and the EARP study waspartly a demonstration of this capability.Conceptual FrameworkAs its title suggests, the Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception study focused onenvironmental risk perception. And in this study I used the Risk Perception Mappingmethodology to understand the spatial and social components of perceived risk within apotentially affected population. I noted earlier that in the course of this study I became aware
74of the potential links between the procedures commonly used to define and identify locallyaffected populations and the potentially differential social access these populations may have totraditional public participation programs. I reasoned that RPM may be an effectivemethodological means of addressing this problem because, unlike traditional participatoryprocesses, it uses social perceptual data to define a locally affected population and it proactivelyseeks environmental knowledge from the people comprising it. Therefore, in this section Ifocus on the conceptual framework for the EARP study, namely, environmental riskperception and management. I begin by discussing the philosophical perspectives within whichthe EARP study is conceptualized, and I follow with theoretical discussion of risk assessmentand management emphasizing the importance of perceptual considerations in developing andimplementing participatory strategies for socially equitable decision-making.Philosophical PerspectiveInquiry in the social sciences begins with philosophical assumptions that guide thedevelopment of theoretical orientations to human behavior and organization (Kollock andOÂ’Brien (1994:7). Broadly speaking, philosophical perspective may be viewed along acontinuum on which, at one extreme, individual liberty, responsibility, and free will are held inhighest regard. This position, often referred to as "libertarianism," emphasizes the right of theindividual to control his or her own destiny, unfettered by collective group constraint (Smith1937). The other extreme of the continuum is marked by individual acquiescence to groupmaintenance (Rawls 1967, 1971). This position, often referred to as "egalitarianism,"emphasizes an equality of outcome in which individuals are expected to sacrifice autonomyshould such autonomy result in an unequal distribution of outcome.Bell (1973:444), observes that the guiding principles in participatory democracy arelargely libertarian and utilitarian; that is, that individuals acting in their own best self-interest willgenerate the greatest good for the greatest number of people. He contrasts this position withthat of the classic egalitarian principle: "from each according to his ability to each according tohis need" (Bell 1973:444). These contrasting perspectives can profoundly influence how publicparticipation programs are conceived and implemented in environmental management. Thediscussion below illustrates this point by grounding the EARP study within an egalitarianphilosophical perspective, and laying an egalitarian basis for the development of a participatoryequity principle in environmental management.
75The Libertarian ModelThe libertarian model emphasizes a largely Laissez Faire market approach toparticipation. It is structured around the assumption that people have free and equal access tothe decision-making process. In this model individuals will, or ought, to act in their own bestinterest with regard to environmental affairs. Individuals will avoid environmentally harmfulactivities to the extent that such activities create an individual cost that is greater than potentialbenefit. Public participation is a matter of securing oneÂ’s own best interests in this cost-benefit,market-based system of environmental decision-making. In this way, public participation is thecivic responsibility of those who have a potential stake in the environmental management issuesover which decisions are being formulated. The assumption here is that we all have equalopportunity to participate in this process. Whether or not we actually do so, -or perhaps moreimportantly, any potentially undesirable outcomes related to not having done so (i.e., inequitablesocial distribution of environmental risks) Â– are the sole responsibility of the potentialindividual participator with whom participatory accountability must ultimately reside.The Egalitarian ModelThe egalitarian model, on the other hand, emphasizes participatory equity overparticipatory liberty, the responsibility for which necessarily resides with the agency(ies) thatcontrol(s) the decision-making process. That is to say, the scope of participatory equity involvesnumerous variables that are necessarily beyond the control of any one potential participator.This shift in participatory responsibility presupposes that the decision-making agency possessesa systematic measurement process that is sensitive to potential barriers to traditional publicparticipation programs. These barriers Â– things such as the timing and location of publicmeetings, geographical isolation of potentially affected people, and demographic and culturalcharacteristics such as age, gender, class, ethnicity, race, religious beliefs, language competence,and the like Â– can differentially restrict social access to participatory processes. Social researchsuggests that this can lead to an inequitable social distribution of environmental risks becausethose populations that do not participate in the process are less likely to have their impactmitigation issues factored into the environmental decisions that are ultimately reached(Johnston 1993a, 1993b, 1994:8-12; Rappaport 1993:30-41).The egalitarian model emphasizes how to define the full range of potentially affectedpopulations, and how to systematically access the environmental knowledge they possess while
76not infringing upon their rights to privacy or self-exclusion. It focuses more on participatorymethod than does the libertarian model, and thus is more consistent with Shrader-Frechette's(1991:190) observation that as social researchers "we cannot command results, but we cancommand methods. Our responsibilities in decision making, therefore, must focus primarily onmethods, not on results." As a demonstration of methodological capacity to address suchissues, the EARP is firmly rooted within the egalitarian philosophical perspective.The Perspective of Ecosystem IntegrityWestra (1994) presents a comprehensive treatise on the ecosystems perspective inenvironmental management. Her discussion derives from a review of the philosophicalprinciples embodied in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (IJC 1987). She specificallyaddresses the agreementÂ’s policy goal of "restoring integrity to the GLB ecosystem,Â” andconsiders whether there is an existing traditional philosophical doctrine that supports both theprinciple of ecosystem integrity and the administrative obligations that principle engenders(Westra 1994:xv-xix). The principle of integrity is, according to Westra, an application ofholistic perspective, what she calls "deep ecology" (Westra 1994:xvi). Holism, in this regard,reflects the interrelationships between all parts of the biota, including humans, without settingthem apart. Westra (1994:6) observes that "the basis for all life is holistic value, prior to all othervalues." The term "ecosystems perspective," then, is a euphemism for ecological holism.Environmental management, from an ecosystems perspective, implies a measure of bothindividual and collective participatory responsibility (Jonas 1984). This notion is furtherexplored by Scherer (1990) in terms of "upstream/downstream." In one sense we are allupstream dwellers and the environmental impact of our actions will necessarily infringe onothers. In another sense, we are also all downstream dwellers, and our lives are affected by theenvironmental impacts of our "upstream" counterparts. These principles are even reflected inthe newly drafted "Code of Ethics for International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)Members" (IAIA 1997; IAIA Newsletter 1994:2). The second point in that code states: "Themember shall at all times place the integrity of the natural environment and the health, safety,and welfare of the human community above any commitment to sectoral or private interest"(IAIA 1997; IAIA Newsletter 1994:2).
77Theoretical DiscussionThe concept of Â“riskÂ” plays an important role in environmental management. Asnoted earlier, environmental risk management generally occurs within the context of NEPAlegislation. With the passage of NEPA, other federal regulatory agencies, including theOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Food and Drug Administration(FDA), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) passed regulatory guidelinesthrough which the relative risks of their various activities may be considered and incorporatedinto their policy decisions (Shrader-Frechette 1991:6). A major problem with these earlyassessment procedures was that their standards were inadequate and inconsistent. In response,Congress passed the Risk Analysis and Research Demonstration Act (RARADA) as a means ofcoordinating and standardizing assessment procedures (USC 1982). Despite legislative efforts,risk assessment is still practiced in significantly divergent ways. Different assessments of thesame phenomenon are often contradictory because sociocultural values influence the selectionof evidence upon which probabilistic risk calculations are based (MacLean 1986).Environmental risk management builds upon three interrelated processes: (1) riskidentification (what are the risks), (2) risk estimation (how bad are they), and (3) risk evaluation(which risks are most acceptable) (Shrader-Frechette 1991:5). Procedural disagreement occursat each of these stages and stems largely from varying social perceptions of what constitutesÂ“risk.Â” At issue is whether risk is a purely objective phenomenon or, rather, the product ofsocioculturally relative constructs. The anthropological and sociological controversies overpositivism, objectivism, and constructionism (Kollock and OÂ’Brien 1994:26-31; Hazelrigg1993:485-500) provide a conceptual basis for recent debates on risk (Graubard 1990; Reilly1991).The Risk DebateIf risk is constructed, for example, as a purely objective, rationally identifiable, andscientifically deducible phenomenon, then all other constructions of risk are irrelevant. In termsof the impact assessment process (within which this occurs), locally affected populations couldbe defined as those who Â“really areÂ” at a probabilistic risk from a project or decision. And thereis little need for scoping or public participation activities because the information essential torisk management decisions is maintained by Â“expertsÂ” who control the tools of scientificallyrational understanding. Lip service may be given to participation, for example, through
78administratively required public meetings, but affected populations are only reacting to theÂ“trueÂ” risk information which has been deduced largely, if not exclusively, outside theirimmediate control.If, on the other hand, risk is only sociocultural construction, if probabilistic calculationsof potential human harm are not necessarily relevant to the concept of Â“risk,Â” and if all riskconstructions are relative, then the need for risk management becomes irrelevant. This becomesparticularly troublesome in culturally heterogeneous societies. In the absence of a centrallyrelevant risk construct Â– a constructional universal, if you will Â– no one risk can be judgedharmful, undesirable, or socially unacceptable because one collective construction of risk isneither better nor worse than any other. In short, if everything is relative, then nothing is,because there is no objective reality against which relative judgments may be made (Johnsonand Covello 1987:3). Thus, the constructionist viewpoint seems to challenge the logical andrational foundations of risk assessment and management. These consequences have beenthoroughly discussed by Shrader-Frechette (1991:31-39).Risk as Objective ProbabilityShrader-Frechette (1991:30, 39-46, 233-234) thoroughly discusses the Â“nave positivistÂ”position in the risk debate. It would appear as though the majority of risk assessmentsconducted in the United States follow the nave positivist model, as Shrader-FrechetteÂ’s reviewof the literature is extensive in this regard. Rather than present an extensive review of thisliterature I highlight the key points in the positivist model, and I refer the reader to Shrader-FrechetteÂ’s review should further research in this area be desired.Sprent (1988:4-5) discusses a Â“science of probabilityÂ” that takes a Â“rational, positivistic,and utilitarianÂ” approach to understanding risk. According to Sprent (1988:22), Â“objectiveassessment of risk is based on known rates or logically deduced probability.Â” Risk positivistssuch as Sprent assume that these criteria exist even independent of methodological valuejudgments. Abbagnano (1967:414) characterizes positivism thusly: Â“Â… science is the only validknowledge and facts the only possible objects of knowledge.Â” In this way, positivists opposeany procedural approach other than scientific method. Risk is scientifically reducible toobjective probability estimates and therefore properly assessed through such means. The meansjustifies the ends.
79Sprent (1988:4-5) does state, however, that Â“valuesÂ” are important to the extent thatthey help decision-makers appreciate the range of human reaction to risk. In this regard, valuescolor how risks are perceived cross-culturally, and they influence the collective ability toÂ“interpret correctlyÂ” all Â“factualÂ” information. In this way, degrees of rationality can be judgedin human reactions to probabilistic risk: people who react strongly to low-probability events orlightly to high probability events are deemed illogical and irrational (Sprent 1988:15). Thus theirconcerns are marginal to the Â“trueÂ” assessment of risk.Positivists recognize that probability assessments minimize socially based subjectiveassessments. They describe this as a non-probabilistic weakness in the objective approach, andthey caution that such weakness Â“has bred wide public suspicion about how scientificassessments of risk are used. There is a common belief that the vested interests of the few oftentake priority over the good of the many in assessing risksÂ” (Sprent 1988:22). This concern withthe erosion of public confidence in science for policy was illustrated as early as the mid-1970swhen scientists from around the world convened in Berlin to discuss the Â“conditions forchange in the climate of opinionÂ” (Markovits and Deutsch 1980). Conference participantsobserved that despite scientific objectivity, a widespread public anomie is emerging with regardto scientific decision-making (Markovits and Deutsch 1980:234).Risk as Social ConstructionFor the social constructionist, the question is not whether objectively derivedprobabilities represent Â“trueÂ” risks, but whether an objective probability even exists (Lieberson1991:309-310). They argue that chance per se is a cultural construct reflecting biases in theselection of measures for the variables under scrutiny and/or a collective ignorance aboutextraneous influences on a range of possible outcomes (Lieberson 1985:94-97; 1991:310). Thus,Kollock and OÂ’Brien (1994:28) argue that Â“scientific data are benign.Â” They point out that theselection and interpretation of data derive from socially constructed classificatory schemes,which, regardless of their logic and sophistication, still influence scientific conclusions regardingÂ“true risk.Â” Risk is not Â“factualÂ” to objects, but rather is perceived and assigned subjectively(Formaini 1990:13).To understand the sociocultural construction of risk is to first understand the broaderconceptual basis of constructionism within which it is embedded. As I reviewed the literatureon this topic I noted that constructionists discuss societal risk through the interpretivist
80theoretical filter of Â“constructed realityÂ” (Goffman 1959; Berger and Luckmann 1967; Geertz1973; Kollock and OÂ’Brien 1994). Cultural analysts (Wuthnow et al., 1984) have, in turn,applied this perspective to a host of other phenomena constructed more narrowly as Â“socialproblems (Holstein and Miller 1993: Miller and Holstein 1993), of which technological dangersand accidents (Perrow 1984) and their associated environmental and societal risks are buy onesubtype (Johnson and Covello 1987; Luhmann 1993; Leiss and Chociolko 1994).Berger and Luckmann (1967:19) assert that Â“every day life presents itself as a realityinterpreted by humans and subjectively meaningful to them as a coherent world.Â”Understanding the processes through which that coherent world is produced and reproduced isthe foundation of sociological inquiry (Kollock and OÂ’Brien 1994:1-17). To that end, Bergerand Luckmann (1967:186) suggest that human social interaction is the mechanism throughwhich subjective reality is reproduced and thus is an appropriate focus of sociologicalinvestigation.Goffman (1959) evokes the Shakespearean analogy of the world as stage and people asits players. He views social interaction in terms of the roles people adopt across a range ofsocially constructed circumstances. For example, he discusses collective behavior as Â“teams,Â” oroneÂ’s contextual membership in a social collectivity. The members of interacting teams tend tomaintain the behavioral line that they are what they claim to be, and they tend to stay incharacter (Goffman 1959:167). Scott (1994:474) notes that such interaction is symbolic andfunctions to confirm the relative status, prestige, and power of the interacting group.These observations on the construction of reality are important to the constructionistperspective on risk. With risk a s the interactive context, the management of risk becomes aprocess through which patterns of social control and domination may be exhibited. Â“ExpertsÂ”are devised who control the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions regarding risks.In so doing, Â“non-expertsÂ” are created whose appropriate role it is to respond to the informeddecision administered to them. In this way, in terms of risk anyway, affected publics aremarginalized (Miller 1993:349) and the management of risk becomes symbolic of a particularpattern of domination (Scott 1994:474).Douglas and Wildavsky (1982) and Perrow (1984) were among the first to specificallyaddress the sociocultural implications of life among high risk technologies. They observe anormative basis for the technological risks humans create, arguing that cultural values are
81intrinsic to the creation of technologies which, in turn, present socially acceptable risks. That isto say, the technologies would not be created if their associated risks were socioculturallyunacceptable (Douglas 1984). In this way risks, danger, accidents, and the like, become aÂ“normalÂ” part of everyday existence, and normality is relative to the sociocultural contextwithin which is constructed (Perrow 1984:351). Thus, what is normal risk in one culturalsystem, or perhaps even cultural context, may be wholly unacceptable, or abnormal in another.As discussed earlier, this reasoning presents logical problems for risk assessment in culturallyheterogeneous societies, such as the United States, as policy-makers must necessarily considermany potentially opposing constructions of risk.Social scientists have addressed this concern by focusing their attention on the process ofrisk perception. Rayner (1987:6), for instance, asserts that nave-positivist arguments againstconstructionism Â“confuse cultural relativism with individual subjectivism, or solipsism, bysupposing that differential social construction of risk precludes an intersubjective consensusbased on empirical feedback from human interaction with an objective universe. To that end,Fitchen, et al. (1987:49) argue that risk perception is generative rather than fixed and permanent;it is subject to constant reinterpretation and change through time. They note further that riskperception is strongly influenced by the local context in which the risk is embedded and by themanner in which the risk is addressed.Toward a Holistic Concept of RiskFormaini (1990:5) notes that the Â“scientific rationalism that dominates politicaldecision-making is powerful and useful for some problems, but lacks persuasive power whenapplied to others; no matter how cleverly, honestly, or rigorously it is carried out, it cannot freeus from other decision criteria.Â” As the preceding discussion suggests, these Â“other criteriaÂ”include sociocultural factors that necessarily influence the risk management process. Formaini(1990:93) notes further that these factors Â“are important no matter how `irrationalÂ’ they mightappear to be to experts,Â” and the Â“they will have to be dealt with in any event, so there is littlereason for policy elites to ignore them.Â”A holistic concept of risk integrates earlier notions of risk as a strictly quantifiablephenomenon into the broader arena of cultural context (Graubard 1990:VI). Probabilisticestimates of alternative outcomes and culturally relativistic perceptions of the acceptability ordesirability of alternative outcomes both are valid components of the larger cultural construct
82of risk. Holistic risk management embodies a complementary and mutually necessaryrelationship between probability and cultural values, rather than viewing them as mutuallyirreconcilable. Attempts to characterize risk separately as either of these ignore the mediatinginfluence of culture on the selection of evidence used in calculating probabilistic risks and onthe relative sociocultural access and exposure to probabilistic risks.With regard to the allocation and distribution of responsibility for risk decision-making,Leiss and Chociolko (1994:206-208) observe that Â“where incipient controversies involve broadbut unfocused community concern, there are great difficulties for anyone charged with theresponsibility of deciding who should be `at the table.Â’Â” They note that the exclusion ofpotentially affected populations from the decision-making process often results in costly andlengthy litigation and in some instances violence and sabotage. This begs the question of howthese populations might be identified and how their concerns can be factored intoenvironmental decision-making. Methodological Approach: RPMRisk Perception Mapping (RPM), an ethnographic method for identifying andmapping the geographical extent and sociocultural contexts (geocultural extent) of the locallyaffected population (LAP) for specific projects (Stoffle et al. 1991), was the method ofchoice for the EARP study. I previously discussed the development of the RPM concept(see, e.g., preceding chapter, section titled Â“Professional Experience Applying Anthropologyto Environmental ManagementÂ”). I further that discussion by exploring in this section a hostof potential ethical considerations that should be made in RPM research, particularly as itrelates to public participation in environmental management.RPM: Ethical ConsiderationsThe Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) formulated its code of ethics in 1948,making it the first of the social sciences to draft such codes (Fluehr-Lobban 1991:20). Thisconcern with the ethical implications of our work is evident also in the sheer volume of textsavailable on the subject, particularly within the last 20 years (see, e.g., Fluehr-Lobban 1991;Cassell and Jacobs 1987; Punch 1986; Wax and Cassell 1979; Appell 1978; Rynkiewich andSpradley 1976, to name but a few). These and other sources identify and discuss a wide rangeof potential ethical issues related to anthropological research across a variety of contexts.
83Fluehr-Lobban (1991:232-233) notes that the better one anticipates the potential ethicalissues and legal implications of oneÂ’s work the better is one to manage them should they arise. Ibelieve the 10 most pressing ethical considerations to be made in RPM research are: (1)multiple ethical codes and professional responsibilities, (2) human subjects compliance, (3)informed consent, (4) participant safety, (5) right of review, (6) categorical and grouprepresentation, (7) rights to inclusion and/or self-exclusion, (8) advocacy in a culturallyheterogeneous context, (9) participation in multiand inter-disciplinary research, and (10)research utility and communication.Multiple Ethical Codes and Professional ResponsibilitiesApplied anthropologists are frequently bound by multiple ethical codes, and this holdstrue both within the discipline and between the discipline and other professional organizationsto which the anthropologist may belong and within which the anthropologist may beemployed. Within anthropology, for instance, one could be potentially obliged to follow asmany as four different ethical codes, each of which is geared to unique professionalcircumstances. These include codes for the American Anthropological Association (AAA1990), the National Association of Practicing Anthropologists (NAPA 1988), the Society forApplied Anthropology (SfAA 1983), and the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA1976). One's professional obligation to these codes stems largely from oneÂ’s membership in theprofessional organizations that espouse them.From an interdisciplinary perspective, applied anthropologists often worksimultaneously as anthropologists and as practitioners of an associated field, and must thereforeadhere to the ethical codes and principles of those associated fields. For example, I amcurrently professionally bound by the ethics codes of the SfAA, the AAA, the NAPA, theInternational Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), the International Association forPublic Participation (IAP2), and the Risk Assessment and Policy Association (RAPA).Moreover, oneÂ’s place of employment may also have its own codes of professionalresponsibilities. This holds true, for instance, in the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) whoseprofessional mission and associated actions are guided largely by the Great Lakes EcosystemCharter that it helped create. For comparative purposes I have reproduced these codes andhave included them as Appendix 1(a-f) to this dissertation. It is possible, therefore, that thesecodes and principles may conflict. How should the anthropologist, or any scientist, for that
84matter, deal with potentially conflicting codes? Addressing such questions prior to engaging inapplied endeavors can help facilitate the interdisciplinary decision making necessary toaddress human problems in environmental management, indeed, most other pressingsocietal problems (Gorlan 1990).Hougland (1985:15-23) argues that the domain of application can make it difficult, ifnot impossible, to meet the ethical expectations of potentially conflicting codes. In discussingthe legal and ethical issues unique to social science applied in governmental contexts, heconcludes that, although frequent communication and advance negotiation can decrease theseverity of ethical dilemmas, government officials and researchers should not be expected todevelop identical expectations regarding their research projects (Hougland 1985:20).Others disagree. Fetterman (1983:214-224), for example, argues it is imperative that wedevelop moral decision-making guidelines that supersede potential inter-code conflicts. To thatend, Shrader-Frechette (1994) develops a broader "ethics of scientific research" to guidescientific behavior generally. The ethical codes of other professions, then, must function withinthis broader framework.One can never know fully what will be the range of ethical issues in any one setting.But, as Hakken (1991:79-81) argues, one can be clear on the philosophical and theoreticalperspectives from which one is operating and then anticipate the kinds of ethical issues thatmay ensue from these perspectives, or anticipate the kinds of conflicts that might arise betweenpotentially opposing philosophical perspectives (e.g., libertarian vs. egalitarian models for publicparticipation in the GLB). To that end, Fluehr-Lobban (1991:130-131) advocates a moreegalitarian philosophical dictate, and this, as noted earlier in this chapter, is consistent with thephilosophical perspective within which the EARP study was conceived and from which theparticipatory equity principle proceeds in environmental management.Human Subjects ComplianceRPM builds upon a variety of ethnographic research techniques, most of which involvedirect interaction through formal and informal interviews with research participants. Thus, it isreasonable to expect that some measure of standard human subjects review would be necessaryin such work, particularly if done in the context of government contracting (i.e., in NEPA-mandated public participation). Boruch (1983:308-309) warns that this process may unfoldrather slowly, particularly in government work, as many screening organizations may potentially
85be involved. Moreover, he cautions that important questions may be removed in the screeningprocess, primarily for political reasons, and especially in cases of sensitive research.Informed ConsentPotential RPM participants must give their written or recorded informed consent toparticipate in the research, and their confidentiality must be guaranteed to the greatest extentpossible. It is possible that confidentiality may not be completely protected in all cases (e.g.,subpoena of field notes), and participants must be made fully aware of this in the informedconsent process (Fluehr-Lobban 1991:31, 131). Moreover, in seeking participatory consent inRPM research potential participants must be presented with a full disclosure of research intent.In the EARP, for example, I produced a Consent Letter that outlined the objectives andpotential utility of our work.Participant SafetyParticipant safety is another issue to be considered in obtaining participant consent. Forexample, during the fieldwork component of the EARP study, I witnessed spousal abuse as aresult of having obtained a participantÂ’s consent. In that instance, the randomly selectedparticipant -the wife -consented to be interviewed after I gave the hard sell. Interviewersoften work hard to secure their interviews, thereby increasing their response rate and, hence,the validity of later statistical analyses. Later, when the respondent's husband returned homefrom work, he forcefully removed me from the house and ordered me off the property. I leftamid the husbandÂ’s threats aimed both at me and his wife, and I often wonder if sheexperienced physical harm. This example questions the importance of the completed interview.Obviously, the greater value must be placed on respondent safety, but harm can comesurreptitiously. So we must at least be cognizant of the potentially harmful consequences of theconsent for interview process.Another situation that is frequently encountered in RPM and other social researchprojects is how to handle what may be called "social service incidents." For example, asfieldwork coordinator on two RPM projects in Michigan I encountered what I perceived to besevere child abuse cases at a respondent's home. Another time I was witness to blatantmistreatment of animals. In both cases I anonymously reported the incidents to the appropriatesocial service agencies. RPM researchers will undoubtedly encounter such situations, and it isvital that they be trained to respond consistently and appropriately when they do.
86Right of ReviewRPM follows Lundberg's (1968:45-49) transactional conception of fieldwork in whichthe researcher and participant both gain from the process. This process is initiated during pre-field community consultation (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993:322), in which a reciprocalrelationship is first established between researchers and community leaders. The researchprocess will be opened to local scrutiny during all research phases in exchange for theopportunity to conduct the research in the community. RPM is neither possible, nor desirable,without local understanding of and participation in this reciprocal relationship. It is alsocommon practice in RPM research to extend the right of first review of research findings tolocal officials and opinion leaders to ensure that community views are neither excluded normisrepresented.Categorical and Group RepresentationApplied anthropologists often provide information for the policy making process (vanWilligen, Rylko-Bauer, and McElroy 1989; Wulff and Fiske 1987). Frequently, their studies areconducted among sample populations, and the people from whom information is obtainedbecome de facto spokespersons (to the extent that the information they provide is incorporatedinto the policy making process) for the groups in which they are members. Such is the case inRPM research. Should the anthropologist be required to pursue consensus within those groupsrelative to the policy decision in question? Should the extrapolation of individual responsesacross a sample population suffice in social research for policy decisions?For example, in the LLRW project discussed previously, large Amish communitiesexisted in one of the study areas. Interviews were obtained with only a few Amish people. Theresponses they provided could be analyzed as uniquely Amish, albeit not wholly representativeof the Amish community. In essence, to the extent that the information they providedinfluenced the policy making process, these respondents gave "community" consent when theyconsented individually to have their responses recorded in our scientific study. Shouldparticipants selected by researchers constitute Â“community consent?Â” Should they be informedthat their responses could be construed in such a way? And how might the answers to suchquestions affect the conduct of RPM research in environmental management?Smith (1979:19-20) discusses such issues in the context of the rights of social groups orcategories. He concludes that it makes sense that members of potentially affected populations,
87defined corporately or non-corporately, should serve on project advisory committees and inother consultative capacities. Such people can broaden the ethical perspectives of theadministering agencies and sensitize it to considerations that it might otherwise neglect. Hegoes on to state, though, that such people should not be implicitly regarded as representatives ofthose populations, with the ethical right to withhold or grant consent on its behalf, unless theyhave been selected by that population to represent them in that capacity. This is highly unlikelyin representative survey sampling, such as is done as a first step in the RPM design.Right to Inclusion, with AbsentiaWax and Cassell (1979:91) carry this discussion one step further by arguing for grouprights to privacy. In RPM the concept may be used in a somewhat different context, but theend result is basically the same. For example, persons and groups are not required toparticipate, and rights to privacy and self-exclusion must be respected (Boruch 1983:312-318).Formalized consent procedures are designed to protect both the researcher and the non-respondent in such situations, but, as discussed above, these cannot always be guaranteed.Although people have the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives, they must alsohave the right to abstain from that process. Potentially affected populations cannot be expectedof their own accord to equally participate in the decision-making process. In an egalitarianparticipatory model it therefore is incumbent upon the administering agency to define andidentify all potentially affected populations and to work toward securing, to the greatest extentpossible, the equitable participation of these groups. This does not mean that anyone would haveto participate Â– in other words, that RPM is the only participation game in town. Thus, bothindividual and group privacy and their rights to self-exclusion, or participation in absentia, mustbe respected (Belsky 1997:2-4; Fleuhr-Lobban 1991:271) in RPM research.Advocacy in a Culturally Heterogeneous ContextPoint number two of the SfAA Ethics Code states that ..."human survival is contingentupon the continued existence of a diversity of human communities." And that, as appliedanthropologists, we will ..."avoid taking or recommending action on behalf of a sponsor whichis harmful to the interests of a community" (SfAA 1983). Anthropologists regularly recognizethe existence of multiple communities within larger communities, and that Â“communityÂ” maybe defined in any number of ways. How, in a pluralistic society such as the contemporary U.S.,can the applied anthropologist possibly abide by this point? Action in the interest of one
88community may not be in the interest of another. Moreover, what may be harmful to theinterests of one community may actually be beneficial to the interests of the larger communitieswithin which they are embedded.The NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) response comes immediately to mind. In mywork with hazardous facility siting, local people often recognize the need for such facilities butare unwilling to accept the potential environmental and human health risks that are commonlyassociated with having such facilities located nearby. This is similar to what has been describedas "the tragedy of the commonsÂ” (Hardin 1968) in which people overuse "public goods" (air,water, land, etc.) but shun their responsibility for managing "public bads" (radioactive waste,etc.). This again raises the "upstream/downstream" dilemma (Scherer 1990), in which one'sindividual liberties potentially infringe on other peoples' qualities of life. To some extent, this inturn raises broader questions regarding the efficacy of advocacy anthropology within anegalitarian participatory ecosystem framework. To what extent, for instance, should theanthropologist be engaged as an advocate for a given communityÂ’s interests when thoseinterests are potentially at odds with larger community interests (for example, across the entireGreat Lakes Basin ecosystem)? And conversely, does advocating for the Â“good of the wholeÂ”necessarily discriminate against particular groups? How is Â“good of the wholeÂ” defined, bywhom, under what circumstances, and can the anthropologist ethically and responsiblyÂ“advocateÂ” within such constraints? Again, these are considerations that should be made by theanthropologist engaged in public participation for environmental management.Participation in Multidisciplinary ResearchThe implementation of RPM research in public participation for environmentalmanagement will likely involve numerous researchers, not all of whom will be anthropologists.These people must be trained not only to conduct ethnographic RPM research, but they mustalso be made acutely aware of their ethical and professional responsibilities in the research.Moreover, RPM is likely to be part of a larger environmental management effort coordinatedamong numerous disciplinary perspectives (e.g., the NSF Biocomplexity Initiative). Thesecircumstances generate a host of potential ethical considerations. A few of the more pressingquestions are: What are the roles and expectations for the anthropologist working in suchmultiand inter-disciplinary contexts? What is the mix of ethical codes and principles, forexample, as discussed in the Â“multiple ethical codesÂ” section, above? What are the implications
89of ethical misconduct, and how will such situations be handled by the agency implementing theresearch? What is the order of accountability? Other accountability issues also must beconsidered. For example, how are media contacts to be handled? In past RPM research mediarepresentatives were appointed and individual researchers were disallowed from making publicstatements (Stoffle et al. 1990). Also, what are the lines of administrative accountability shouldthe research be implemented collaboratively among numerous agencies? Administrativeaccountability may already exist among these agencies, but it must be clearly identified prior toimplementing RPM research.Research Utility and CommunicationFinally, and perhaps most importantly, are questions regarding the communication andutility of RPM findings (Greider 1993:432-433). First, considerable social data are generated bythis process and scientists should have the provision to report their findings for peer review atscientific meetings and in scholarly journals. But who else, if anyone, should have this sameopportunity? Who controls the information?It is not uncommon for the public to perceive that processes such as RPM may be co-opted by various special interest groups. In the Michigan LLRW study, for example, somepeople believed that the RPM research was being used to identify paths of least social resistanceto the facility (Stoffle et al. 1990). Thus, every effort must be made to guarantee that RPMresearch is not used in that way. As discussed above, perhaps the best way to ensure this is bykeeping the process open to local and public scrutiny during all phases of the research, and byrecognizing the right of individuals and communities not to participate if they so choose. In anycase, special care must be taken to prevent the potential misuse of the research process.EARP Research MethodsAs noted above, I used RPM to meet the objectives of the EARP study. The RPMmethod was designed to be inexpensive to complete, sensitive to sociocultural variation andlocal sovereignty, intensive in the range of issues explored, and extensive in geographic areacovered. Ethnography is used to meet these goals because of its characteristic blend ofqualitative and quantitative methods and its sensitivity to ethnic and sociocultural variation. The RPM method consists of five major phases, including: (1) sample design, (2) pre-fieldcommunity consultation, (3) survey instrument design and pre-test, (4) ethnographic RPM
90fieldwork, (5) data management and analysis, and (6) community feedback. The first four ofthese phases were completed in the EARP study and are discussed in this chapter.Phase five Â– data management -fits more appropriately in the following chapter titledÂ“Data Management and Analysis,Â” and so I have included it there. Ideally, phase six Â–community feedback Â– occurs in conjunction with data analysis and is used to explainpreliminary findings and conclusions to community representatives within the study area whileensuring that the views of their constituents are not being misrepresented. Although both datamanagement and community feedback are vital components of the RPM process, neither wasexplicitly supported in the original EARP budget. I later sought and received funding toconduct these phases through an SfAA/EPA Environmental Anthropology Fellowship withthe Great Lakes Commission (GLC). My fellowship project, titled the Â“Risk PerceptionMapping Demonstration Project,Â” was conducted on behalf of the network of agencies andorganizations that share an interest in Great Lakes management, and used the EARP study todemonstrate the methodological capacity of RPM to address participatory equity issues in theGreat Lakes Basin. As part of the fellowship agreement I addressed community feedback bysharing EARP analyses and conclusions with professional organizations and other affectedinterests both within and beyond the EARP study area. Thus, the community feedback processmay extend beyond this dissertation. To the greatest extent possible, I will reflect the outcomesof this process throughout the remaining two chapters, respectively titled Â“Data Managementand AnalysisÂ” and Â“Conclusions and Recommendations.Â”Phase 1: RPM Sample DesignThe sampling procedure upon which RPM operates has been described in detailelsewhere (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993:321-322). I paraphrase that discussion here andthen describe its application within the context of the EARP study.In considering probability sample design options for measuring the extent and intensityof an RPS, guidance can be found in earlier work done in fields as diverse as agriculture(Cochran 1977), forestry (Pielou 1969), environmental science, geology, and hydrology (Gilbert1987), Archaeology (Bellhouse and Finlayson 1979), and epidemiology (Manton et al. 1981).Scientists working in these fields are faced with a common problem Â– the need for sampledesigns and estimation techniques that are optimal for studying the spatial (twoand eventhree-dimensional) distributions of resources and other natural or induced phenomena. Based
91on considerable theoretical and empirical work, the search for optimal sample designs forspatial estimation has focused primarily on multidimensional variations of systematic andstratified sampling. Special statistical techniques such as trend surface analysis and Â“krigingÂ”have been developed to estimate spatial relationships from the sample data (Gilbert 1987).To choose an optimal sample design, it is important to have a basic understanding ofhow the characteristic of interest (here, the intensity of the perceived risk from the Fermi IInuclear facility) is distributed. The theoretical model Â– confirmed in part in empirical resultsfrom earlier research Â– suggests such a general functional form for the surface of an RPS. Thesurface of an RPS can be visually represented by borrowing a physical analogy from geology.An RPS can be viewed as a somewhat irregular volcanic cone. In developing this analogy, thecaldera of the cone is the location of the project in question (i.e., Fermi II), and the verticalrelief of the cone represents the local intensity of perceived risk. Perceived risk is greatestimmediately adjacent to the proposed site (the rim of the caldera) and diminishes slowly in alldirections away from the central site. The slope of the RPS away from the center point is forthe most part monotonic but not entirely linear. The rate of change in the slope (i.e., variance inan RPS) is expected to decrease with distance from the center. Figure 1 shows how thistheoretical RPS would appear if viewed from above.Key RPM Design FeaturesIn real (as opposed to theoretical) situations, the complexity and irregularity of actualRPS surface functions makes the specification of a perfectly optimal sample design animpossibility. Nevertheless, the theoretical RPM model points to several sample design featuresthat can be used to improve the data-gathering process in RPM studies.The first design feature concerns the distance and direction of sample points. Sinceboth distance and direction from the central point are important parameters in describing anRPS, sample points should be taken both at different distances and in different directionsfrom the center. This can be accomplished by randomly selecting sample points at differentdistances along randomly selected radial transects. The number of radial transects can beadjusted to meet the specifications of a particular study. By randomly selecting multiplepoints at different distances along each of these transects the design facilitates the estimationof distance and direction effects as well as any interaction between distance and direction.
92Figure 1: Theoretical RPS as Viewed from Above Black equals greatest intensity of perceived risk (rim of caldera), with monotonically decreasing levels of perceptual intensity corresponding to consecutively lighter shades of gray. The second design feature concerns the identification of sample zones or strata. TheRPM model suggests that in any given direction from the central point, the slope of the RPSwill be a monotonic, decreasing function of distance. For such a trend, Cochran (1977)demonstrates that a sample that is explicitly stratified by distance should be more precise thaneither a simple random sample or a systematic sample. Stratification by distance can beaccomplished by dividing the circular study area into concentric zones. The number and widthof these zones also can be adjusted to meet the specifications of a particular study.The third design feature concerns the variability of intensity of an RPS. Under theproposed volcano model for perceived risk about a central source, both the intensity (altitude)and variance (slope gradient in the volcano analogy) are expected to decrease with distancefrom the central point source of risk. Given that the shape of the volcano is unknown prior to
93the study, the ideal sampling strategy would require two stages or phases. The first wouldinvolve a smaller exploratory sample sufficient to obtain rough estimates of intensity andvariance in intensity across the surface of the volcano. The results of the first-phase samplewould then be used to refine the larger second-phase sample design in accordance with theprinciples of optimal allocation for stratified sampling (placing a greater number ofobservations at distances where the variance in intensity is greatest). In effect, the sample designfor the EARP study accomplishes the first of this two-phase sample design.The following sections describe the project focus, definitions, and sampling protocolused in developing and implementing the RPM sampling procedure for the EARP study.The Project Focus: Fermi II Nuclear Power PlantThe Fermi II nuclear power plant is one of three nuclear power facilities located onLake Erie, and the only one in Michigan located on that lake. It is part of Detroit EdisonÂ’scomplex of energy facilities, including coal-powered plants, located along the western LakeErie shoreline in southeast Michigan. Fermi II is situated approximately 25 miles south ofDetroit, Michigan, and 25 miles north of Toledo, Ohio. It was selected as the focus of theEARP study because nuclear power plants typically generate the greatest perceived risk tohuman health, safety, and social order (Gould 1990; Fuller 1975) and are therefore ideallysuited to RPM research. Moreover, the EARP study was conducted on a shoe-string budget,and the close relative proximity of the Fermi facility to the University of Michigan, fromwhere the study was being conducted, helped save on transportation and field costsassociated with the research. Also, as mentioned previously, both Fermi and thecommunities surrounding it provided many similarities to the ecological awareness andenvironmentalist action studies conducted earlier in and around Angra dos Reis, Brazil, thehome of BrazilÂ’s only functional nuclear power plant.Aside from these more logistical reasons for focusing the project on the Fermi IIfacility, there is also a rather sordid history to the facilityÂ’s development. FullerÂ’s (1975)classic Â“We Almost Lost Detroit,Â” for example, describes the partial core meltdown at FermiIIÂ’s predecessor -Fermi I -in October, 1966, and the considerable impact the incident hadon public perceptions of nuclear risk and safety, both locally and internationally. Incidentssuch as these have had lasting consequences, both for the local people who lived through it andfor the national psyche regarding all things nuclear. I discussed previously how earlier
94ethnographic studies of a proposed Superconducting Super Collider in southeast Michigandetected a pervasive and persistent risk perception shadow cast by the incident more than 15years earlier. Gould (1990) observes similar perceptual consequences, albeit on a much largerscale, stemming from the Chernobyl disaster. These incidents continue to influence the publicperception of nuclear power plants and related nuclear facilities as environmentally threateningphenomena. Thus, Fermi II provided an excellent focal point for this study, focused onecological awareness and risk perception.Study Area DefinitionPrevious RPM research suggests that a project-specific RPS will exist in a discretegeographical area and will be distributed generally concentrically from the point of origin(Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993; Stoffle et al., 1991; Stoffle et al., 1990; Stoffle et al.,1988). The study area for the EARP was defined as the 25-mile radius surrounding the FermiII nuclear power plant, an area encompassing five counties: Wayne, Washtenaw, and Monroein Michigan, and Lucas and Ottawa in Ohio; it also extended into extreme southwesternOntario, although time and budget constraints did not allow us to seek permission toconduct research in the Ontario portion of the study area. Figure 2 presents a regional viewof the geographical area within which the EARP study was conducted, while Figure 3presents a close-up view of the five counties included in the study area.Sample Strata DefinitionRPM follows a standard center-point radial sampling design in which the centerpoint is assumed to be the point of greatest perceived risk. The sample strata are defined asfive concentric five mile zones around Fermi II, to 25 miles away from the facility. Thisdistance corresponds to one-half the "50-mile Emergency Planning Zone" (EPZ) for FermiII defined in the Monroe County Emergency Management Plan (1991: Appendix 1, BP31).The EARP study was budgeted to cover only half that distance, thus the 25-mile radius.Because RPM sample zones increase in area the further they are from the centralpoint, responses in each zone must be weighted in order to give populations in all studyzones equal areal representation. Responses also must be weighted to account for populationconcentrations within specific zones.
95Figure 2: Regional View of EARP Study Area Figure 3: State and County Boundaries of the EARP Study
96Sample Area DefinitionSample areas were operationally defined as one-square-mile areas corresponding toUnited States Geological Survey (USGS) section lines. Sample areas were randomlydesignated at five-mile increments along 17 transects emanating outward from the point oforigin. These lines appear similar to the spokes of a wheel. The position of the first guidingtransect was determined by randomly generating an angle from due north (127 degrees). Theremaining transects were drawn at equal intervals from this transect. Because of the studyarea's proximity to Lake Erie, some transects extended exclusively over water, or into theProvince of Ontario, Canada, where permission was not secured to conduct the study, andthese transects therefore contained no sample areas along them. Thus, the study areaincluded 14 transects along which at least one or more sample areas could be established. Inthis way a total of 43 viable sample areas were identified. Sample areas surrounded equallyspaced points generated randomly between one and 50 tenths-of-a-mile along each of these14 viable transects. This spacing provided representative coverage for each of the fivesample strata. Figure 4 presents the relationship of the RPM sampling frame (zones,transects, and areas) to the primary geo-political boundaries in the EARP study area. Table 1presents the sample frame information for the EARP study. Each transect is namedaccording to the major town or geographical feature it crosses.Household Selection ProcedureHousehold selection followed a random selection procedure based on the mappingof sample areas. First, all occupied structures within a sample area were sketched andnumbered on a field map (Appendix 2 presents a copy of the sample area sketching andhousehold selection form). For each sample area three structures were randomly selected. Ifmore than one household was present in the structure, each was numbered and thehousehold to be interviewed selected at random. In densely populated urban areas cityblocks were identified and numbered within the sample areas and one of these blocks wasrandomly selected to represent the USGS section within which it fell. All residentialstructures existing on this block were mapped, from which three structures then wererandomly selected.
97Figure 4: Relationship of RPM Sampling Frame toGeo-political Boundaries in the EARP Study Participant Selection ProcedureFor each selected household all adult members (18 years and older) were listed bygender and age on an interview cover sheet (see Appendix 3). The cover sheet was keptseparate from the interview questionnaire to preserve confidentiality. From this list a potentialparticipant was chosen at random. All potential participants were informed of the voluntarynature of their participation and were requested to give either written or verbal consent beforeparticipating in the interview. A one-page project description included space for theparticipantÂ’s signature and served as the written informed consent release form required by theUniversity of MichiganÂ’s Human Subjects Review Committee and called for in the variouscodes of ethical behavior and professional responsibility discussed earlier in this chapter (seeAppendix 4). With respondent permission, interviews were tape recorded to preserve therichness of extended responses.
98Table 1: EARP Sample Frame Transect # Transect Name Sample Area Distance Interval 1North Bass Island, OH5.4 Miles 2Lake Erie, USNot Applicable 3Toussaint Creek State WildlifeArea, OH5.4 Miles 4Cedar Point National WildlifeRefuge, OH3.9 Miles 5Oregon, OH3.4 Miles 6Toledo, OH3.9 Miles 7Monroe, MI3.7 Miles 8Dundee, MI0.6 Miles 9Milan, MI4.1 Miles 10Ypsilanti, MI5.1 Miles 11Romulus, MI2.6 Miles 12Dearborn Heights, MI4.6 Miles 13Grosse Isle, MI1.4 Miles 14Pointe Mouille State GameArea, MI5.2 Miles 15Ontario, CNExempt 16Lake Erie, CNNot Applicable 17Lake Erie, CNNot Applicable Phase 2: Pre-Field Community ConsultationPrior to the RPM fieldwork, I arranged and attended meetings with local communityofficials, opinion leaders, media, and law enforcement agencies to describe the proposedresearch and elicit their support for the study. The explicit goal of pre-field communityconsultation is to establish a reciprocal relationship between researchers and locally trusted andrespected community leaders, in which the research process is opened to local scrutiny at allphases of the research in exchange for the opportunity to conduct the study in the community.The RPM study would not have been as successful, nor would it have been desirable, withoutthese leaders' understanding of and participation in this reciprocal relationship.Over a three week period I met personally with the following people and/ororganizations and agencies: (1) the mayor of the city of Monroe, Michigan Â– the county seat ofthe county in which the Fermi II facility; (2) the Monroe County Board of Commissioners; (3)
99the Monroe County Sheriff, (4) the Monroe County Planning Department; (5) the MonroeTownship Supervisor; (6) the Editor of the Monroe Evening News, (7) the Vice President forPublic Affairs at Detroit Edison, which operates the Fermi II nuclear power plant; (8) theEnvironmental Writer for the Detroit Free Press; (9) the Editor-in-Chief of the Toledo BladeNewspaper; (10) the Supervisor of the Lake Erie Islands Township Board of Trustees; (11) theDeputy Director for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources; (12) the SumpterTownship Planning Department; (13) the Monroe Environmental League, (14) the Lake ErieAdvisory Council; (15) the Student Environmental Action Coalition; (16) the Michigan CitizensAgainst Toxic Substances; and (17) representatives of a local ad-hoc group that monitors newsand government activities pertaining to the Fermi II facility and nuclear power generally. Thesemeetings afforded the opportunity for community input regarding related issues to beconsidered in the development of the structured RPM survey instrument. In addition todescribing the proposed study and receiving local input, I also extended my availability to themthroughout the course of the study to share preliminary findings and assure that communityviews would not be misrepresented.Following these personal meetings, and with the support of these local officials andopinion leaders, I then sent 53 Â“letters of notificationÂ” (see Appendix 5) describing the studyand its local support to township supervisors, county commissioners, mayors, and sheriffÂ’soffices throughout the study area. These people were encouraged to contact either myself orthe studyÂ’s principal investigator with any questions or concerns they might have had regardingthe study. The full list of pre-field community contacts is presented in Appendix 6.Phase 3: Survey Instrument Design/Pre-TestThe RPM survey instrument used in the EARP study was developed concurrently withthe sampling design and community consultation phases of the research, and was designed tobuild upon the local input received during community consultation. The instrument covered arange of issues relating to environmental risk perception, social impact, and other topics ofinterest to myself and the principle investigator. A combination of openand closed-endedquestions, including rating scales and either/or questions, was used (Dillman 1978; Miller1983:69-190; Geer 1991:360-370). Â“Investigator effectsÂ” Â– the potential skewing of data due tothe RPM study itself Â– were also a concern of the researchers. The EARP instrument includeda line of questioning concerning whether respondents had heard of the EARP study, the
100source(s) through which they had heard, and a self-assessment of how their knowledge of thestudy had influenced their perceptions of the Fermi II facility. (Please note that the surveyinstrument is provided in the appendices section of this dissertation where, in the interest ofconvenience and page space, I have integrated it with the Data Codebook, which I have listedin its appropriate chronological sequence as Appendix 13.)The RPM survey instrument used in the EARP study was pre-tested in four iterationsamong 20 people of varying ages and backgrounds during the two month period immediatelypreceding the fieldwork portion of the study. Corrections and modifications were made to theinstrument according to pre-test respondent feedback.Phase 4: Ethnographic RPM FieldworkEthnographic RPM research can be conducted in varying time frames, usuallydependent on the time and resources committed to the scoping phase of the SIA process. Forexample, a restrictive scoping period is typically more labor-intensive, requiring a larger RPMresearch staff over a shorter scoping phase. Such constraints, however, do no drastically affectthe quality or quantity of data gathered through ethnographic RPM research, nor do theynecessarily increase research costs (i.e., more people over shorter period versus fewer peopleover longer periods). These important considerations must be made in contractual workinvolving RPM, such as in the LLRW project and Kaibab proposal described in an earlierchapter. These considerations were of less relevance in the EARP study because it wasconducted more as a methodological demonstration project than as part of a formal SIAscoping process.RPM fieldwork typically consists of seven major steps: (1) field preparation, (2)contacting sample households and selecting respondents, (3) administering the structured RPMinterviews, (4) resolving interview refusals, (5) engaging in participant observation, (6)conducting informal key-informant interviews, and (7) reviewing historic documents andmonitoring media coverage. Depending on the nature of the issue under study, some of thesesteps may be emphasized to varying degrees over others. For example, resolving interviewrefusals requires the use of multiple fieldworkers, which the EARP study did not support. Asthe sole ethnographer working on the EARP study, I spent a total of eight months(approximately 240 days) in the field. Of that time, roughly half (120 person-days) was spentmapping sample areas (see Â“household selection procedure,Â” above) and seeking and
101completing the RPM interviews. The remaining time was split among participant observation,informal key-informant interviews, historic documents and media review, and field datamanagement. I conducted these tasks over the entire eight-month field period.RPM Field PreparationA popular misconception regarding much scientific research is that it is conductedunder Â“laboratoryÂ” conditions, usually located at or near the scientistÂ’s research center. Whilethis may be the case during some stages of research, social scientists, particularly ethnographers,have traditionally collected their research data by living among the people and/or organizationsthey are studying and by observing and participating in formal and informal communityactivities. This type of ethnographic research Â– often called Â“fieldwork,Â” typically requiressignificant preparation for and coordination of fieldwork activities. In the EARP study thisentailed securing transportation and living arrangements, and travel and expense advances.In some ways, I find field preparation to be the most exciting part of fieldwork becauseit is the period of greatest anticipation and visioning. One literally has to live the fieldwork inoneÂ’s mind prior to actually conducting it so as to help anticipate, to the greatest extentpossible, a wide range of logistical requirements (i.e., travel and living arrangements), fieldconditions, ethical responsibilities, and the like. For example, I knew that one of my sampleareas encompassed North Bass Island (also called Isle St. George), roughly 15 miles off shorein Lake Erie, and would demand special travel and living arrangements. In consultation withthe township supervisor, who lived on the island, I learned that I would be able to camp therefor the duration of the interviews. North Bass is predominantly vineyard, supplying grapes forthe northeast Ohio wine industry. The supervisor suggested that I could also participate tosome extent in the daily activities of the local residents who primarily worked the harvestingoperations on the island. Doing so, however, required that I be there during the autumn harvestseason, beginning in October and running through late autumn, and this posed specialconsiderations for cold-weather camping on a Great Lakes island. Thus, I had to make specialarrangements for the appropriate camping gear and take special precautions to protect myresearch instruments and collected data. Such Â“special precautionsÂ” significantly increased thebulk quantity of my field supplies, which in turn I had to balance against any potential travelrestrictions posed by my transportation to and from the island. The fastest and most reliabletransportation, particularly during these months, was aboard a postal delivery plane that made
102weekly flights to and from the islandÂ’s dirt landing strip. But space was limited aboard the singleengine Cessna, so I had to be frugal in considering what I could not bring with me. I offer thisexample simply to illustrate the kinds of considerations that must be made during fieldpreparation to ensure Â– or at least approximate Â– a smooth and productive field experience.By its nature, RPM fieldwork covers an expansive geographical area and thereforeentails significant travel to and from study areas for mapping, interviewing, and participantobservation, and other RPM-related research activities. During the EARP study I lived forseveral months in the community in which the Fermi II facility is located. This was particularlycrucial to interviewing in the southern portion of the study area; however, upon completinginterviews there I was able to move back to my home residence near the University ofMichigan, as the northern portions of the study area were as close to my home residence asthey were to my field lodging. As noted earlier, this was an important design consideration inchoosing to focus on the Fermi II location, thereby keeping lodging costs lower than theymight have been had field lodging needed to be secured for the entire field portion of the study.To that end, I also used my own vehicle and charged mileage against a travel budget that hadbeen calculated and approved previously based on methodological data from other RPMstudies. Other travel advances were necessary, however, particularly as noted above, regardingthe interviews sought on North Bass Island.A total of 7,758 miles were covered during the course of EARP fieldwork. Thistranslates into roughly 60 miles per attempted interview, but also includes the mapping ofsample areas, multiple return trips to selected residences (e.g., in the case of appointments orcancelled and rescheduled attempts), informal key-informant interviews, and participantobservation and other RPM-related research activities. Again, it is necessary to coordinate theseactivities to minimize potentially significant travel requirements and ensure to the greatestextent possible that the field experience is both enjoyable and productive.Contacting Sample Households and Selecting ParticipantsI directly contacted residents of the selected households and provided them withbackground materials on the EARP project. Included among these materials was the one-pageproject description that identified law enforcement agencies, local governmental officials, andmedia organizations that had been previously notified of the study (see, e.g., Â“pre-fieldcommunity consultation,Â” above; Appendix 5). The project description also contained the
103phone numbers and other contact information for both the principal investigator and the studymanager. Other background materials included a newspaper article discussing the project andfeaturing the field researcher (see Appendix 7). All potential participants were encouraged tofollow up on this project information if they questioned the study's legitimacy or intent. Incases where I was unable to contact any residents in the selected households I would placethese materials in a University of Michigan letterhead envelope, along with a Â“call letterÂ” (seeAppendix 8), and place the envelope either in the residentÂ’s mailbox or entrance door. Administering the Structured RPM InterviewsFace-to-face interviews were conducted to facilitate an open exchange of information.The survey instrument was the focal point of the interview, but I also kept separate field notesto record qualitative data. Interviews also were tape recorded (with participant consent) topreserve richer responses than I could write in the survey instrument or in my field notes.Comments from other household members were noted in separate field notes. Interviewslasted anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours depending on the participantÂ’s awareness ofthe Fermi II facility and/or willingness to discuss specific issues in detail. Some participantseven invited me to conduct the interview with them over the course of a day or evening. Forexample, one participant invited me to spend the day observing him at work while weconducted the interview; another had me over for lunch and to walk his farm property; anotheroffered to speak with me on the condition that we tour the old homes he was remodeling inthe area; several others had me over for dinner and beverages, with one such interview lastingwell into the early morning hours. One-hundred-and-twenty-eight potential respondents werecontacted for interviews between August, 1992, and April, 1993, from which 108 completeinterviews were obtained. A robust response rate of 84.4 percent was achieved.Resolving Interview RefusalsRoughly 16 percent of the selected participants were not interviewed, constitutinginterview refusals. Interview refusals were operationally defined as persons who could not becontacted after multiple attempts (at least five, but in some cases as many as eleven), those whomissed interview appointments and could not be contacted later, those who were not interestedin participating, and those who were not capable of responding to the questionnaire. In thelatter case selected respondents were judged by other family members and myself to beincapable of participating due to mental illness or traumatic physical illness.
104Some refusals were believed to be the result of participant bias based on gender, age, orrace. In past RPM studies participant bias was successfully treated methodologically by sendinga different fieldworker (i.e., different gender, age, race, or combination thereof) back to theselected household to request an interview (Stoffle et al. 1990: 247). This procedure was notused in the EARP study, though, as I was the sole fieldworker. Judging by past RPM studies, itis reasonable to suspect that the overall response rate in the EARP study could have beenraised as much as three percentage points.Engaging in Participant ObservationAs noted earlier in this section, I was able to observe and to some extent participate inthe activities of the people I interviewed, for example, during the grape harvest on North BassIsland. This work, done partly in exchange for the opportunity to conduct RPM interviews, wastape recorded where feasible or documented in my field notes. Throughout the fieldwork I wasable to attend local meetings on various topics and visit informally with community officials,opinion leaders, and area residents. This process of informal participant observation andstructured survey interviews helped maintain an ongoing rapport between myself and the localcommunity while also providing data essential for mapping the extent of the Fermi II RPS andfor identifying key local environmental issues and the potential relationships between them.Conducting Informal Key-Informant InterviewsInformal key-informant interviews are common to ethnographic research, producingwhat is called a Â“social networkÂ” or Â“snowballÂ” effect in which informants (key informants orrandomly selected RPM participants) direct researchers to local people whom they regard asparticularly knowledgeable of local issues and conditions. In the EARP study, this processbegan as I met with local opinion leaders and elected officials during pre-field communityconsultation and continued through participant observation and structured RPM interviewing.These contacts were invaluable during the study, as I would regularly meet with them to discusshow the study was progressing and share questions regarding the community, the Fermi IIfacility, and the RPM research process. Key-informant interviews lasted anywhere from a fewminutes to several hours and occurred throughout fieldwork. As the EARP study progressedthe network of key informants enlarged and provided information to supplement that whichwas obtained through the structured RPM interviews. This process was particularly valuable inthe identification of potential spokespersons for specially affected populations that might
105otherwise be overlooked by more conventional random sample surveys. Data from theseinterviews were kept separately as field notes and, where applicable, on cassette tape.Reviewing Historic Documents and Monitoring Media ReportsThroughout RPM research field staff review community historical documents andmonitor media reports of the central project and associated environmental issues around whichthe RPM research is being conducted. Although I did manage to conduct some documents andmedia review, the EARP budget did not allow for this to occur to an ideal extent.Ideally, the RPM fieldworker should review historical documents through local andcounty libraries and other governmental sources, media organizations, bookstores, schools,churches, and cemeteries. In some instances, key informants and even randomly selectedparticipants have allowed RPM researchers to review personal or family historical documentssuch as photographs, books, and in one case, a familyÂ’s private collection of Native Americanartifacts uncovered on their centennial farm (Stoffle 1990; Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa1993:325). By reviewing historical documents, researchers can construct the cultural,environmental, and technological settings within which an RPS develops. Knowledge of thesecontexts can sensitize field staff to the local conditions influencing local risk perception, therebyenabling them to communicate more effectively with residents during respondent interviewsand other fieldwork activities.Similarly, various media sources also were monitored throughout the EARP study, butagain, not to the extent desirable in more elaborate RPM research. Local print media was theprimary source monitored in the EARP study. With a minimal diameter of 50 miles, the EARPstudy encompassed many separate communities, several of which maintain their ownnewspapers. Newspapers from urban areas adjacent to and in some cases well outside the RPMstudy area also maintained significant readership throughout the study area (e.g., participantsidentified a total of 33 different newspapers as primary sources of local environmentalinformation). As time and budget permitted, I would purchase the newspapers in thecommunities in which I was working. I also obtained flyers and other local announcements Ifound posted in communities in the study area. In addition, I monitored local radio andtelevision news programs for stories pertaining specifically to the Fermi II facility, but also tonuclear power in general and other local environmental issues. Monitoring the local media inthis way also aided in the detection of new events that could potentially influence local
106perceptions of environmental risks. This information was either recorded in field notes, or, inthe case of newspaper articles and community flyers, clipped and stored in a media file.Phases 5 & 6: Data Management, Community FeedbackAs noted previously, RPM phases one through five have been completed in the EARPstudy. I only discuss the first four of them in this chapter because I view them as being moremethodologically oriented than either phase five or six. Data management, in particular, wasconducted primarily to prepare the data for analysis and interpretation. For example, the majortasks comprising data management include editing the RPM questionnaires for internalconsistency, developing code category and data analysis codebooks, coding responses to open-ended questions in the questionnaire, and data entry, verification, cleaning, and analysis.To reiterate from earlier in this chapter, phase six Â– community feedback Â– occursideally in conjunction with data analysis and is used to explain preliminary findings andconclusions to community representatives within the study area while ensuring that the viewsof their constituents are not being misrepresented. Although both data management andcommunity feedback are vital components of the RPM process, neither was explicitlysupported in the original EARP budget. I later sought and received funding to conduct thesephases through an SfAA/EPA Environmental Anthropology Fellowship with the Great LakesCommission (GLC). My fellowship project, titled the Â“Risk Perception MappingDemonstration Project,Â” was conducted on behalf of the network of agencies andorganizations that share an interest in Great Lakes management, and used the EARP study todemonstrate the methodological capacity of RPM to address participatory equity issues in theGreat Lakes Basin. Where appropriate, I refer to data management and analysis activities aspertaining to the Â“EARP/RPM Demonstration Project,Â” to reflect the interconnected natureof my doctoral research and environmental anthropology fellowship projects.As part of the fellowship agreement I addressed community feedback by sharing EARPanalyses and conclusions with professional organizations and other affected interests bothwithin and beyond the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project study area. Thus, the communityfeedback process may extend beyond this dissertation. To the greatest extent possible, I willreflect the outcomes of this process throughout the remaining two chapters, respectively titledÂ“EARP/RPM Demonstration Project: Data Management and AnalysisÂ” and Â“Conclusions andRecommendations.Â”
107Chapter SummaryI have argued throughout this dissertation that differential social access to publicparticipation in environmental management has contributed, at least in part, to the socialphenomenon of environmental discrimination. I have outlined my professional experiencesdealing with this phenomenon as an applied anthropologist working in an environmentalmanagement context, including in this chapter the Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception(EARP) study. I began the chapter by identifying the primary objectives of the EARP study,and then examined the conceptual framework within which the EARP was used to pursue myinterest in equitable public participation in environmental planning and management. Havinggrounded the EARP within the RPM conceptual framework I then examined ten ethical issuesthat, although they may not be specific to the RPM process, are nonetheless likely to arise tosome degree in the course of RPM research. I followed that discussion with a detailed accountof four of the six major phases of RPM research that I used in the EARP study, including (1)sample design, (2) pre-field community consultation, (3) survey instrument design and pre-test,and (4) ethnographic fieldwork. I noted that I would be discussing the fifth phase Â– Â“RPM datamanagement/analysisÂ” -in the next chapter, and the sixth phase Â– Â“post-field communityfeedbackÂ” Â– in the final chapter.
108CHAPTER 6EARP/RPM DEMONSTRATION PROJECT:DATA MANAGEMENT AND ANALYSISIn the previous chapter I introduced the EARP study by discussing its primaryobjectives, conceptual and methodological frameworks, ethical considerations, and fieldresearch methods. I noted that the study was initially funded for design and fieldwork only,and that data management and analysis did not occur for some time after the fieldworkportion of the study had been completed. In this chapter I discuss an environmentalanthropology fellowship through which I obtained the funding necessary to continue withEARP data management and analysis. As noted in the previous chapter, my fellowship wasconducted at the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) on behalf of the network of agencies andorganizations that share an interest in Great Lakes environmental management. In myfellowship I referred to this network as the Â“Great Lakes Management Network,Â” or GLM,although no formal institutional structure exists by that name. I used the EARP study todemonstrate through this fellowship the methodological capacity of RPM to addressparticipatory equity issues in the Great Lakes Basin. The fellowship was vitally important to thisdissertation because, among other things, it provided financial support and access to technicalexpertise that enabled me to complete EARP data management and analysis. I describe in thissection the process of negotiating fellowship activities and their relationship to this dissertation.Most notably, fellowship hosts and advisors helped identify Â“key analytical variablesÂ” within theEARP study Â– that is, to focus the analyses on variables that we all considered to be mostrelevant and applicable to participatory equity issues in Great Lakes environmentalmanagement. The analyses discussed later in this chapter, therefore, pertain to these Â“keyvariables,Â” as they address research and management issues that are highly pertinent to theGLM network.
109Environmental Anthropology Fellowship:The Risk Perception Mapping Demonstration ProjectIn 1996, the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) and the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a Cooperative Agreement to, among otherthings, Â“increase the access of communities and policy-makers to anthropological and othersocial science expertise in the solution of environmental problemsÂ” (SfAA/EPA 1996:4).The SfAA pursues this mission by sponsoring Â“environmental anthropology fellows to workin regulatory, policy, and planning settings (including national and regional EPA offices) onenvironmental projects related to their academic or postgraduate careersÂ” (SfAA/EPA1996:6). A number of these fellowships have been conducted to date, including a group ofÂ“sociocultural profilingÂ” projects in EPA Region Five (broadly, the Great Lakes area). Oneobjective of these fellowships is to Â“develop material that allows environmental managers tobetter understand the cultural complexity and sociocultural issues associated with theirworkÂ” (Johnston 1999:8). To meet this objective, the terms and tasks of individual fellowshipprojects are negotiated in consultation with a host beneficiary or recipient group.Fellowship Host: The Great Lakes CommissionMy fellowship project was titled the Â“Risk Perception Mapping DemonstrationProject,Â” and was hosted by the Great Lakes Commission (GLC). The GLC is a binationalagency that promotes the Â“orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use andconservation of the water and related natural resources of the Great Lakes basin and St.Lawrence RiverÂ” (Great Lakes Commission 2000:2). Its members include the eight GreatLakes states with associate member status for the Canadian provinces of Ontario andQubec. The GLC was established by joint legislative action of the Great Lakes states in1955 (the Great Lakes Basin Compact) and granted congressional consent in 1968 (USC1968). A "Declaration of Partnership" established associate membership for the provinces in1999. The GLC applies principles of sustainability to the development, use, and conservationof the natural resources Great Lakes Basin (GLB). Three principal functions support thiseffort: (1) information sharing among the membership and the entire GLB community; (2)policy research, development and coordination on issues of regional interest; and (3)advocacy of those positions on which members agree. Information about the GLC may beobtained through its website: http://www.glc.org and associated links.
110Identifying GLC Interests and NeedsMy fellowship project responded to the GLCÂ’s interest in further developing themethodological rigor that it brings to the public consultation and social research activities itconducts on behalf of the network of agencies and organizations that share an interest inGreat Lakes environmental management. In my fellowship I referred to this network as theÂ“Great Lakes Management Network,Â” or GLM, although no formal institutional structureexists by that name.Social Science and Great Lakes Ecosystem ManagementI met with the GLC back in 1992, regarding potential social science applications inGreat Lakes Basin (GLB) planning and management. At that time, the GLC was involved indrafting what later came to be known as the Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St. LawrenceBasin (GLC 10/94). The Charter is important to this fellowship because it explicitly includeshuman factors as part of the ecosystem equation, thereby laying the foundation for socialscience input to Great Lakes ecosystem management programs. Moreover, the Charterdefines principles for Great Lakes ecosystem integrity that include, among other things, thedevelopment and implementation of public participation procedures (Principles XV-XVII)that incorporate or build upon common data collection measures and indicators of GreatLakes ecosystem health (Principle XI). These principles specify a purpose for social sciencemethods and data within the broader framework of Great Lakes ecosystem management.Risk Perception Mapping and the EARP StudyIt was during this same time that I was conducting fieldwork on the EcologicalAwareness and Risk Perception (EARP) study. I discussed with the GLC the potentialapplicability of the EARP study Â– specifically the RPM research methodology, but also itspotential outcomes Â– to the development of public participation processes that incorporatecommon social science data collection measures and indicators into Great Lakes ecosystemmanagement. Recall that the EARP study was supported with NSF and CIESIN funds thatwere left over from related work that had been conducted previously in Brazil. Theseremaining funds were committed to EARP study design and fieldwork only; thus, no datamanagement, analysis, or project write-up was ever conducted or completed on the EARPproject, so there remained a need to secure funding and support to complete these tasks.
111The EARP project was put on hold as I then left for Tampa to complete doctoralstudies in applied anthropology at the University of South Florida. I never lost the sense thatsocial science in general, and anthropology in particular, could make significant contributionstoward ecosystem management in the Great Lakes. This was particularly so because of thephilosophical foundation that the Ecosystem Charter provided for social science in GreatLakes ecosystem management. I thus remained in informal contact with the GLC and I keptmy eyes open for potential funding opportunities to further explore this potential.Matching Fellowships: GLC and SfAA/EPAI first learned of potential SfAA/EPA fellowships in EPA Region Five via the SfAANewsletter (Johnston 1999:7-8). The GLC also had announced the creation of its unfundedfellowship program in which the GLC provides office space and support to fellows fromoutside programs to work on issues of shared interest (Donahue 1998:2). The timing and thepurpose of the two fellowship programs seemed to mesh very well, so I contacted the GLCto see if it still had an opening for an environmental anthropology research fellow, which itdid. I then contacted the SfAA/EPA fellowship administrator for guidance in preparing anofficial fellowship proposal. That proposal, titled Â“Statement of InterestÂ” (SOI), wassubmitted via e-mail to fellowship collaborators in March, 1999, and outlined the potentialrelationship between myself and the GLC and SfAA/EPA fellowships (see Appendix 9). Ireceived notice in April, 1999, that the SfAA Environmental Anthropology Project AdvisoryCommittee had endorsed my fellowship proposal. Consistent with its fellowship program,the GLC provided office space and support while the SfAA/EPA fellowship providedintellectual, administrative, and financial support.Clarifying GLC/GLM Interests in the RPM Demonstration ProjectThe GLC fellowship formally commenced in August, 1999. During the first twoweeks of the fellowship I met frequently with the GLCÂ’s Executive Director to discuss thespecifics of the fellowship project. He reaffirmed his interest in the potential applicability ofRPM to the public consultation and outreach interests of the GLC and its collaborators, andwe both agreed that the EARP study would serve as an excellent demonstration project forthat purpose. I also consulted with other GLC staff, commissioners, and collaborators tohelp further clarify GLM interests in the project, discuss potential applications of the RPM
112methodology to those interests, and prepare a Revised Statement of Work (RSOW) thatreflected those interests and preferred applications.Â“ConsultingÂ” in this context took the form of informal participant-observerinterviews at Commission meetings, social functions, and general daily operations. I beganthis process at the GLC annual meeting in Pittsburgh. I met informally with the variousCommissioners and other GLM collaborators. We discussed their respective interests insocial science and public participation, and how my project might best be implemented toaddress those interests. Their input reaffirmed a broad interest in further developing themethodological rigor that the GLC/GLM currently bring to their various public consultationand outreach programs. Three specific interests emerged from this dialogue:(1) demonstrate a methodological framework for identifying and characterizinghuman communities that are potentially affected by Great Lakes managementactivities. This framework could potentially be used by the GLM Network to(2) develop population-specific information and education exchanges betweenaffected populations and responsible agencies. And through the knowledgegained in these exchanges the GLM Network could further its related interest in(3) developing more culturally sensitive social indicators of Great Lakes ecosystemintegrity.In consultation with the fellowship host, mentor, and sponsors, I then revised myprojectÂ’s scope of work to more accurately address these interests (see Appendix 10).Following acceptance of the RSOW by the project host, mentor, and supervisors, the GLCposted a notice of the RPM Demonstration Project on its website. A copy of that notice isincluded as Appendix 11.Establishing Project Goal and ObjectivesThe primary goal of my fellowship project was to further develop themethodological rigor that the GLC/GLM already bring to their public consultation andsocial research activities. My project, titled the Â“Risk Perception Mapping DemonstrationProject,Â” addressed this goal by demonstrating how RPM can be used to meet three specificparticipatory objectives identified in consultation with GLC/GLM collaborators. Theseobjectives include demonstrating the methodological capacity to:
113(1) Define the geographical boundaries of the locally affected population (LAP) for agiven project or activity;(2) Identify Â“perceptually-specific communities of environmental riskÂ” within theLAP. This demonstrated capacity should enable Great Lakes environmentalmanagers to(3) Develop locally appropriate and culturally sensitive procedures for exchanginginformation between affected populations and responsible agencies in futureGreat Lakes environmental management activities.In meeting these objectives my demonstration project, and more specifically theRPM methodology, provided the GLC/GLM with an ethnographic methodologicalframework for identifying and elaborating population-specific social indicators of GreatLakes ecosystem integrity. This latter point proved fruitful, as the GLC has since soughtfunding for a project that would implement RPM as the base social science methodology forpublic consultation in risk management for Aquatic Nuisance Species throughout the GLB(Donahue 2000).Identifying Key RPM Analytical VariablesSIA studies have documented that project awareness represents the widest range ofpotential concerns and impact issues within a project study area (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa1993). Thus, from both the GLC and an RPM perspectives, the key analytical section of theEARP questionnaire focuses on Â“Perceptions of and Responses to Fermi 2.Â” Within thatsection, Â“project awarenessÂ” Â– i.e., respondent awareness of the Fermi facility Â– is used as thekey analytical variable. Moreover, Â“awarenessÂ” can be spatially mapped ratherstraightforwardly, so in addition to marking the extent of a projectÂ’s risk perception shadow(RPS), it also provides a sound analytical basis upon which potential correlation among thisand other variables may be explored in future studies.Key Project ActivitiesThe Revised Statement of Work for the project outlined the major tasks that werecompleted through the fellowship. Primary among these were activities pertaining to datamanagement, analysis, and write-up. As noted previously, these activities were not fundedthrough the NSF/CIESIN grants that initially supported the EARP study, and the need tocomplete them in large part prompted me to seek further support through the SfAA/EPA
114fellowship program. I describe in the following section the EARP data management tasksthat comprised the bulk of my fellowship project activity. Where appropriate, I refer to datamanagement and analysis activities as pertaining to the Â“EARP/RPM DemonstrationProject,Â” to reflect the interconnected nature of my doctoral research and environmentalanthropology fellowship projects.Data ManagementData management consisted of six primary stages: editing completed questionnaires,developing the data codebook, coding open-ended responses, creating the project database,data entry and verification, and GIS preparation. Each of these stages is described in detail inthe sections below.Editing Completed QuestionnairesI edited completed questionnaires for internal consistency and legibility. Â“InternalconsistencyÂ” refers to the logical flow of the RPM survey questions. For example, somequestions were designed as yes/no Â“skipÂ” questions in which, if the response is Â“no,Â” theinterviewer is directed to skip to a different section of the questionnaire. So each questionnairehad to be edited to ensure that internal directions were followed properly, and in cases whenthey were not, to correct the inconsistencies. There were also a significant number of Â“open-endedÂ” questions included in the questionnaire. Responses to these questions were writtenverbatim, or as close to verbatim as the interviewer was able, and in my case in longhand, inlined spaces provided beneath the question. The often rapid delivery of responses to suchquestions required the interviewer to write quickly, and in my case, often in rather poorpenmanship. For this reason I also edited open-ended responses to clarify the penmanship andmeaning of my particularly garbled transcriptions. All editing marks were made in green ink todistinguish them from the black ink that was used to record initial responses in thequestionnaire.Developing the Data CodebookDeveloping a data codebook is a multi-step process. Describing this process warrantssome discussion of the terms used to describe the information contained within a codebook.One of the key terms in that regard is Â“variable.Â” As noted earlier, the EARP questionnairecontained numerous questions, the answers to which were expected to vary from respondentto respondent. Thus, each question constituted a Â“variableÂ” because it potentially generated
115variable responses among survey participants. Names were assigned to each variable to describethe kind of information it contained. For example, the variable for a demographic questionregarding respondent income was named INCOME_LEV.Another key term is Â“codes.Â” Great care was taken to Â“pre-codeÂ” the EARPquestionnaire. For example, Â“closed-endedÂ” or Â“forced choiceÂ” questions contained a pre-assigned range of responses, or answers. Each choice within this range was assigned a value, orcode number (e.g., 01 = Â‘No;Â” 02 = Â“Yes,Â” and so on), that the interviewer simply circled as theinterview was being administered. These pre-assigned code numbers would later be manuallyentered into a database program to enable statistical analysis of numerical data.I constructed a data codebook to describe the variables and the code numbers assignedto the choices available within them. The codebook links a question number (i.e., variable) withits descriptive name, and links specific code numbers within the variable to the specificresponses they represent. In this way the codebook also enables one to link statistical analysesconducted on the code numbers back to the variables to which they refer. Moreover, thecodebook describes the type and size of variables. With regard to type of variable, thecodebook specifies whether it is numeric, alphabetical (text), alphanumeric, or a date; withregard to size of variable, it specifies the number of columns, or character spaces, the variableoccupies in the database. The example above of the variable named Â“INCOME_LEV,Â” forinstance, was characterized by a two-column numeric code ranging in value from Â“01Â” to Â“99,Â”where each numeric value represented a different income level.Whereas the closed-ended responses were pre-coded in the questionnaire, andtherefore fit rather neatly into the codebook format, responses to open-ended questions werenot. Establishing numerical code categories for open-ended responses to survey questions wasa complicated task that required independent coders to devise mutually agreeable codecategories and to achieve a measure of inter-coder consensus, or reliability, in placing open-ended responses within the categories they helped to establish. This procedure, called theÂ“inter-rater reliability method,Â” is described below.Inter-rater Reliability MethodThe Inter-rater Reliability Method (IRM) refers to a technique developed by researchersat the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research (ISR) (Stoffle et al., 1991:622;Stoffle et al., 1990:247-248) to establish code categories for open-ended responses to social
116science survey questions and increase the reliability with which independent coders placed thesame open-ended responses into these categories. It is similar to other reliabilityand validity-building procedures for qualitative data analysis in the social sciences (Cary, Morgan, andOxtoby 1996:1-5; Denzin and Lincoln 1994:1-18; Miles 1994; Romney, Weller, and Batchelder1986:313-339; Carmines and Zeller 1982:1-5; Mitchell 1979:376-390). Pelto and Pelto (1984:33)define reliability as "the repeatability, including inter-person replicability, of scientificobservations." The IRM thus was used to categorize open-ended responses to the EARPquestionnaire. IRM is not a standardized coding procedure, however, and may be adapted tomeet the needs of specific research projects. For example, the ISR study cited above utilized thetechnique to both increase the reliability of its code categories and to retrieve and evaluate thequalitative data from recorded interviews.Social researchers develop coding schemes for open-ended responses to enable them toaggregate and analyze the statistical data contained in those responses while maintaining theirrich diversity of information. Bernard (1988:347-348) notes that researchers accomplish this bygrouping similar responses to the same question into broader and more general categorieswithin which more specific detail may be preserved.The process of devising these Â“broader categoriesÂ” is similar to the ethnosemanticprocess in cognitive anthropology. As noted earlier, ethnosemantics is the study of folkconceptual systems to discover the conceptual world of a people through their linguisticcategories (DÂ’Andrade 1995, 1976; Dougherty 1985; Spradley 1972; Tyler 1969; Sturtevant1964). Ethnosemanticists search for categorical and componential information in broadercultural domains. For example, DÂ’Andrade (1976) studied lay-personsÂ’ placement and meaningof specific illnesses within broader disease categories to understand how Americans experienceand respond to disease; Kempton (1987a,b) applied similar techniques to understand variationin folk models of appropriate energy conservation behaviors; McCall, Ngeva, and Mbebe(1997) used Â“ethnosemantic domain definitionÂ” (Harding and Livesay 1984) to mapcommunity beliefs about interpersonal disputes and dispute handling. It has subsequently beenused to identify culturally-specific environmental taxonomies within which people perceive andact upon environmental management issues, and to facilitate communication of environmentalrisks among environmental managers and the populations potentially affected by their decisions(Stoffle, Halmo, and Evans 1999:416-429).
117Coding schemes follow a sort of Â“reverse ethnosemanticÂ” process. Whereasethnosemanticists tease ever more specific componential information out of existing broadercultural domains, coding schemes reflect an attempt to construct mutually agreeable domainsfrom the componential information provided in response to open-ended social science surveyquestions (see, e.g., Schnegg and Bernard 1996:7-10). IRM seeks a measure of consensusregarding the development of these domains and categories and of the placement within themof their component parts. In that regard, the coding scheme is a very powerful component ofthe data management process because it has the greatest potential to influence the direction ofsubsequent analyses. That is to say, the code categories developed for analysis reflectinterpretive issues before the "interpretation of findings" even occurs. Bernard (1988:348) pointsthis out by discussing how a community may be defined by ethnic composition, populationdensity, distance from an international border, and so on. The same issues apply to thedevelopment of categories in the EARP study insofar as the categories that are developednecessarily reflect a certain measure of bias introduced by the researchers and coding staff. IRMwas developed in part to address such interpretive issues.At its most basic level the IRM seeks to minimize Â“coder biasÂ” which is commonlyintroduced into code categories when they are constructed either by one person (usually theprincipal investigator on a study) or by a group of researchers who are either of the samedisciplinary background or are intimately familiar with the data set. IÂ’ve heard it said that incoding, similarity of coders breeds analytical contempt for the categories devised. IRMminimizes categorical bias by having the coding scheme be developed by independent codersof different disciplinary paradigms who are not intimately familiar with the data set. An oddnumber of coders, usually three, is most commonly used to offset any "ties" or "even disputes"over the development of code categories. Romney, Weller, and Batchelder (1986:313-339) notethat only a few coders are necessary provided they attain a high average agreement regardingopen-ended responses in a data set.Coder bias is reflected in the relative subjectivity of the code categories developed, andthis subjectivity is often a point of methodological criticism of the social sciences (Dey 1993;Poggie, DeWalt, and Dressler 1992; Becker 1958:652-660). These researchers call for systematicprocedures for managing both the code development process and the relative assignment ofcodes to the data they represent. But not all qualitative researchers are convinced of this need to
118systematically address subjectivity in code construction. For example, Ryan (1999:314) notesthat some question whether concepts such as reliability and validity are relevant to the analysisof qualitative data (Denzin & Lincoln 1994:1-18; Morse 1994:220-235; Hammersley 1992;Lincoln and Guba 1985). Aside from minimizing categorical bias, the IRM is also a consensus-building technique (Romney 1986:313-339), similar in many ways to the Delphi Technique(Soderstrom 1981; Mercer 1980; Linstone & Turoff 1975; Coates 1974; Johnston 1970; Helmer1968). Each coder independently develops her or his own code categories, and their rationalefor them, into which the opened-ended responses may be grouped for later statistical analyses.Once this has been done the coding group meets again to compare notes and otherwise discussthe code categories each has developed.The idea is to develop a "convergence of codes" -code categories that satisfy therationale underlying each coders' categories (see, e.g., Carey, Morgan, and Oxtoby 1996:1-5).There is generally much convergence right from the start, but areas of disagreement are also tobe expected. The process is repeated with each coder now familiar with the rationale behindother coders' categories, and revised categories are discussed at a subsequent meeting. This isrepeated until all code categories have been developed to the satisfaction of the coding staff.Areas in which a convergence of codes could not be reached are noted in subsequent researchreports. This latter instance is rare, and might suggest a problem with the research questionfrom which the opened-ended responses were obtained. Such questions are typicallydisregarded in later statistical analyses and project reporting.Code Convergence in the EARP/RPM Demonstration ProjectI used the IRM to establish a reliable degree of convergence among the code categoriesdeveloped for the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project and the independent placement ofopen-ended responses within those categories. To accomplish this, I first assembled a codingstaff of graduate students of differing disciplinary backgrounds who were familiar with neitherthe EARP topic nor data set. The coding staff was comprised of one male and two females, allin their 20s, with disciplinary backgrounds in sociology, nutrition, and medicine. They offeredtheir coding services in exchange for the opportunity to participate in the EARP/RPMDemonstration Project and gain valuable experience in the data management process.With the coding staff in place, I then abstracted the responses to all 25 open-endedquestions included in the EARP questionnaire and listed them on separate sheets
119corresponding to each question. I distributed these sheets, along with a list of IRM backgroundand instructional materials, at the first of several coding staff meetings. Consistent with theIRM process described above, each coder independently reviewed the responses andconstructed broad categories and subcategories of types of responses to each question. Wethen met to discuss each othersÂ’ preliminary code categories, explain and defend the rationaleeach used in devising their categories, and address any procedural questions that might havearisen in the process. Each coder brought an original plus three copies of their work to sharewith each of the coding staff members. Questions with high levels of categorical convergencewere removed from the list, and the review process was reiterated for the remaining questions,although this second time with the benefit of having heard the rationales of the other codingstaff members. This process was repeated four times, as that was the number of timesnecessary to obtain a high degree of code convergence for this data set.Once the code categories were in place, I had the coding staff engage in a Â“codeconvergence exercise.Â” This was done to establish a measure of the reliability of independentcoders to place the same open-ended responses to an EARP survey question within the samecode categories constructed for that question. This exercise was used to judge the relative inter-rater reliability of code categories developed for the EARP/RPM Demonstration Projectbecause, as noted previously, the relative subjectivity of code categories is often a point ofmethodological criticism in social science research.Code convergence is expressed as a percentage of independent agreement amongcoders, and it may be calculated for individual open-ended responses as well as for all open-ended questions taken together. The range of convergence may be expressed as the differencebetween the lowest and the highest convergence scores (e.g., 80% -100%), with a meanconvergence score reflecting the average of all scores. The higher the code convergence themore reliable are the open-ended code categories. So, for example, a mean convergence scoreof 90 percent would suggest that the same code categories would be independently assigned tothe same open-ended responses 90 percent of the time. And a convergence range of 80 to 100percent would indicate that the independent agreement among the assigned codes would notfall below 80 percent, while in some instances there would be total agreement.For the code convergence exercise in the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project, Iprovided the coding staff with a random sample of responses to each of the open-ended
120questions on the EARP questionnaire and asked that they independently place them into whatthey believed were the appropriate code categories. I allowed them to identify as few as one oras many as three code categories for any one response, listed in descending order of preference.I then compiled their responses and calculated convergence rates based simply on thepercentage agreement for each question among the coders. The question-by-question values forthe EARP code convergence exercise are contained in Appendix 12. Mean convergence was 97percent, with a range of 100 Â– 75 percent. Of the 25 open-ended questions contained in theEARP questionnaire, 17 had 100 percent convergence, three had 92 percent, and the fiveremaining questions had 98, 94, 88, 83, and 75 percent, respectively. Thus, 97 percent was theaverage reliability with which independent coders were expected to assign the same codecategories to the same responses; for 17 questions 100 percent reliability was expected, while itwas expected to range from 98 to 75 percent for five others.Despite continued calls for inter-rater reliability in social science data management (Dey1993; Poggie, DeWalt, and Dressler 1992; Becker 1958:652-660), social scientists do nottypically track this kind of information. It is therefore difficult to judge whether codeconvergence in the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project represented a respectable degree ofinter-rater reliability in social science code construction and placement.Final Product: A Data Codebook for the EARP/RPM Demonstration ProjectThe final product of the IRM process was what I considered to be reliable codecategories for the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project data codebook, which I have includedin its entirety in Appendix 13. This codebook has been integrated with the EARP surveyinstrument and serves as the researcherÂ’s guide to the EARP/RPM Demonstration Projectdatabase. It contains a total of 290 questions, of which 25 were open-ended. Because someopen-ended questions allowed up to five responses per question, and each response wasconsidered a separate variable, these questions covered a total of 434 variables. Variables rangedin size from 2 to 10 columns. All but two of them (date and time of interview) were numericallycoded. Interview questions are listed and numbered sequentially in the codebook as theyappeared on the EARP questionnaire. In the codebook, variable names are listed in parenthesesin capital letters following the question wording, and code numbers and values are listed in boldbeneath the question to which they refer.
121Coding Open-ended ResponsesThe coding staff and I assigned code numbers to the open-ended responses in theEARP questionnaire. Code numbers were placed next to the responses to which they referred,and were circled in red ink to distinguish them from the black and green ink marks made earlieron the questionnaire. This was a tedious task that required more than three months tocomplete. During the coding process a problem was detected with the internal logic of thequestions in Section 9 of the survey questionnaire. I subsequently decided that those questionsÂ– nine in all, four of which were open-ended Â– therefore would be neither coded for norincluded in the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project database. Once all the questionnaires hadbeen coded I checked every third open-ended response (seven per questionnaire) from everyfourth questionnaire (32 overall) to verify internal code consistency. As expected, consistentcodes were assigned to these questions roughly 95 percent of the time, thereby providingfurther assurance that codes had been assigned consistently to open-ended responsesthroughout the questionnaire.Creating the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project DatabaseThe EARP/RPM Demonstration Project database and codebook were designed tomirror each other. However, as noted in the preceding paragraph, an entire section of thequestionnaire (Section 9) Â– nine questions covering 49 variables Â– was excluded from codingand therefore was not included in this database. Thus, the EARP/RPM DemonstrationProject database contains only 385 of the 434 variables identified in the data codebook.These variables range in size from two Â– 10 columns, with the vast majority only twocolumns wide. All but two variables -time and date -are numeric. The database exists as amatrix, with variables listed sequentially as columns across the top, and interview numberslisted sequentially as rows along the left side.I created the database using the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software, as it was readilyavailable to me and, if necessary, files within Excel could be easily converted into otherdatabase management formats. Because Excel only allows a maximum of 255 variables per file,and the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project data set contains 385, it was necessary to split thedata set into two separate files, the first covering the first eight sections of the questionnaire, thesecond covering sections 10 through 13. I included at the front of both files the same fivevariables -interview number, location, date, time, and length Â– to link the data from the same
122interview across both database files. This latter point is important, as it enables statisticalanalyses of the entire data set as well as enabling the two files to be merged as one in the ARC-VIEW GIS program for depicting key EARP findings.Data Entry and VerificationHaving done data entry on past projects, I was well aware of my relatively slow paceand low accuracy levels. Given the considerable size of the EARP/RPM DemonstrationProject data set, I figured it would be more efficient and accurate to subcontract the work todata entry professionals. I obtained cost estimates from several data entry services in greaterAnn Arbor, Michigan. I ultimately selected Behavioral Data Services (BDS), a social sciencedata management firm in Ann Arbor, because of its relatively quick turn-around, guaranteedaccuracy, and relatively low cost. BDS personnel converted the Excel data files into the FoxProdata management program for entering coded data from the questionnaires. BDS chose theFoxPro program for ease and convenience, as it enables data entry personnel to automaticallyjump from variable to variable as code numbers are entered, whereas the Excel program doesnot. Entered data were verified for accuracy by cross-checking the data entered for every tenthvariable from every tenth questionnaire, with an overall accuracy rate of greater than 99percent. The entire data entry and verification process took 18.41 hours to complete, and cost$443.87.Subcontracting the data entry and verification components of data management freedup time that I was able to spend more productively consulting with the GLM to identify keyvariables, analyses, and presentational styles that would have the greatest relevance to its interestin participatory equity in Great Lakes environmental management.Analysis of Key FindingsAs discussed earlier, key analytical variables for the EARP/RPM DemonstrationProject were established in consultation with the GLC and its collaborators as part of mySfAA/EPA fellowship in environmental anthropology. To reiterate that discussion, SIA studieshave documented that project awareness represents the widest range of potential concernsand impact issues within a project study area (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993). Thus, fromboth the GLC and an RPM perspective, the key analytical section of the EARP questionnairefocused on Â“Perceptions of and Responses to Fermi 2.Â” Within that section, Â“projectawarenessÂ” Â– i.e., respondent awareness of the Fermi facility Â– was used as the key analytical
123variable. Moreover, Â“awarenessÂ” could be spatially mapped rather straightforwardly, so inaddition to marking the extent of a projectÂ’s risk perception shadow (RPS), it also provided asound analytical basis upon which potential correlation among this and other variables maybe explored in future studies.Also noted previously, key RPM findings from the earlier LLRW study revealed anRPS consisting of (1) a 15 mile radial core area where awareness and intensity of perceivedrisk and potential social impact were evenly distributed; (2) areas contiguous to the core areabut distributed non-linearly in various directions up to an additional 15 miles beyond thecore; and (3) Â“islands,Â” or areas separated from both the core and contiguous areas. ThroughRPM, both the type and distribution of impact issues defined the LAP, providing a moreaccurate social basis from which public consultation could then proceed (Stoffle et al., 1991).These earlier findings were relevant to this analysis because they established key features ofan RPS. I attempted in this analysis to identify these same features in the Fermi RPS and linkthem to demographic characteristics of the sample population.RPM Data DepictionThe Fermi RPM data were depicted spatially using the ARCVIEW GIS softwarepackage. I consulted with the GLCÂ’s GIS specialists concerning how best to depict RPM data,given their interest in this project. They noted that for their purposes, GIS would best be usedto geographically depict the output of RPM statistical analyses. In this regard, GIS was usedmore as an interpretive and presentational tool than as an analytical device. This was importantfrom the perspective of the GLM Network, which viewed GIS as a valuable tool for conveyingthe potential environmental management implications of RPM data to decision-makers thattypically do not have the time nor perhaps the scientific expertise to make spatial sense ofdatabase tables or multiple pages of descriptive text. Future RPM studies may utilize theanalytical capacity of GIS, for example, by geographically referencing the RPM sample frame soit could be analyzed for correlation with other geographically referenced data, such ashydrography, infrastructure, demographics, and the like.Spatial Distribution of the Fermi RPSThe EARP/RPM Demonstration Project documented the presence of an RPS for theFermi KK nuclear facility. The Fermi RPS was operationally defined as "project awareness"because this definition is consistent with that used in previous RPM studies which documented
124that local level social impacts occur when two thirds or more of the local population is aware ofa specific project (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993). Other researchers (Ellis et al., 1992:44-54;Unger, Wandersman, and Hallman 1992:55-70; Waller and Mitchell 1991:302-329; Gibbs1990:10-11; Edelstein 1988; van der Pligt, Eiser, and Spears 1986:1-15; Werner 1985:161-167;Ridington 1982:36-42) have demonstrated that the awareness and perception of potentiallyhazardous conditions or projects provides sufficient impetus for social and psychologicalimpacts to occur. Still others (Gatchel and Newberry 1991:1961-1976; Vyner 1988, 1984:5-10;Flemming et al., 1982:14-22) have shown that such impacts can be psychophysiological as well.Similarly, research on the nature, extent, and causes of environmental awareness and remedialaction suggests that local people will not participate in actions designed to manage theirenvironment if they are unaware of or perceive no risks to it (Kottak 1992:295).The Â“AwarenessÂ” ShadowWith "project awareness" as the operative variable in the EARP study, 86 percent ofthe responding sample claimed to be aware of the Fermi facility, while only 14 percent claimedthat they were not aware of it. RPM is designed to address questions concerning how projectawareness was distributed spatially, in this case across the geographic boundaries of theEARP/RPM Demonstration Project study area, and, secondly, the unique demographiccharacteristics of respondents within both the aware and unaware populations.Figure 5 presents the geographic distribution of the percentages of project awareness,by sample area, for the Fermi RPS. The awareness percentages in Figure 5 have been groupedand shaded in Figure 6 according to descending levels of project awareness, where light grayindicates areas with at least two-thirds awareness and black indicates areas of no awareness.Descending levels of intermediate awareness levels are represented by successively darkershades of gray. Contour lines have been added to illustrate the degree of slope in transitionalareas.
125Figure 5: Awareness Percentages for the Fermi II RPS Figure 6: Shaded Contour Map of the Fermi II RPS #Y Lake ErieFermi IIOHIOMICHIGAN 0 1 33 34 6667 100 No Data PercentageAwareness
126A Cautionary Note on Interpreting RPM Maps Depicted in GISGIS enables one to spatially depict RPM data as a contoured topography where, forinstance, greatest potential impact is analogous to the highest ground -mountains andplateaus, and least potential impact is analogous to low ground -valleys, troughs, depressions.Conversely, in terms of public participation, lowest levels of "project awareness" correspond toleast potential for participation in environmental decision-making, and these would appear onan RPM map as valleys, troughs, and depressions; highest levels of awareness correspond to thegreatest potential for participation and, on an RPM map, would appear as high plateaus.However, an important interpretive note must be made here. The RPM data forFermi exist as discrete or discontinuous data points on a map. Shading them as I have inFigure 6 suggests that these variables are continuous rather than discrete. Monmonier (1995;1991) has warned of the dangerous potential misuse of GIS technology, and the GISdepiction in Figure 6 should be interpreted with similar caution.One cannot assume that values increase or decrease linearly between discrete points.The function of such maps is not to interpolate values for the area among the data points butrather to depict a hypothetical topography of the Fermi RPS Â– a Â“socio-perceptualtopography,Â” if you will. Recall that the purpose here is to demonstrate the utility of social datain defining the LAP for consultation in environmental management. Appendix 14 providestabular data for the demographic characteristics of both the EARP sample population and thefive-county area within which it was drawn. The CommissionÂ’s GIS specialists noted to GLMadvisors that it may be possible through GIS to infer values for the rest of the study areapopulation by measuring the degree of similarity between EARP sample characteristics and1990 census data for the five-county study area. However, given time and budgetary constraintson the fellowship program, the GLM advised that analysis of key variables in the EARP samplealone would satisfy our mutually negotiated goal and objectives for this project.To the extent that "unaware" populations are less likely to participate in environmentalmanagement programs, such RPM maps can reveal to public participation professionals,environmental decision-makers, and affected populations alike, the potential spatial implicationsof environmental discrimination. In so doing, RPM maps can help them to visualize this
127phenomenon so that their efforts to redress it may be focused more efficiently and responsibly.Indeed, this was the impetus behind the GLM NetworkÂ’s interest in this project.Characteristics of the Fermi Â“AwarenessÂ” ShadowFigure 6 reveals that, as with the Michigan LLRW RPS, the Fermi RPS had at leastthree distinct features. Both have core and contiguous areas. However, whereas the LLRWRPS contained islands of perceived risk (i.e., areas of two-thirds or greater awarenesssurrounded by areas of little or no awareness), the Fermi RPS contained risk perception voids,or areas in which none of the sample respondents were aware of the Fermi facility, butwhich were surrounded by areas of higher awareness.The core component of the Fermi RPS was marked by two-thirds or greaterawareness of the facility and extended radially for up to 10 miles from the facility. Thecontiguous areas of the Fermi RPS extended broadly up to at least 25 miles to the southwestand the northeast and also were marked by at least two-thirds awareness. Previous RPMstudies have actually detected the outer edges of the RPS for their respective projects(Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993); this has not been the case with the Fermi RPS.Additional interviews in successive sampling zones would be necessary to detect thehypothetical edge of the Fermi RPS. Our inability to detect risk perception islands in thisstudy may be a function of our not having detected the edge of the RPS.Perhaps most intriguing was the finding of risk perception voids. As stated above,RPS voids were defined as areas where awareness was absent but which were surrounded byareas of higher awareness. For example, one region where awareness was very low but notentirely void was detected at the far southeastern edge of the study area. This sample areawas on North Bass Island, in Lake Erie, and is representative of the Lake Erie Islandsarchipelago. Its low level of awareness might be attributable to its geographical isolationrelative to the other sample areas. If so, this finding suggests geographic isolation relative to a givenproject, not necessarily distance alone, as an environmental discrimination variable Â– one thatis often overlooked in the literature on this topic.An RPS void also was detected in the northwest quadrant of the study area.However, because the outer edge of the Fermi RPS was not detected in this study I cannotstate for sure that this would, in fact, constitute an RPS void as defined above. This areamight also be thought of as an "RPS trough" or "valley." Additional interviews in successive
128sampling zones would be necessary to accurately identify this phenomenon. In calling it aÂ“void,Â” IÂ’m referring more to its characteristic absence of awareness than I am its situationrelative to other areas of higher awareness. The presence of this RPS void was intriguing tome because it occurred so close, relatively speaking, to the Fermi facility -as close as 12miles. The close proximity of contour lines at the inner edge of this RPS void indicated thatawareness of the facility dropped rapidly, from 100 to zero percent in just a few miles fromthe core area. Demographic differences between sample respondents in this RPS void andthose in the adjoining core area might account for this difference in project awareness.Demographic Characteristics of "Aware" versus "Unaware" PopulationsThe 14 percent Â“unawareÂ” population was comprised of 100 percent of the non-white portion of the responding sample but only 12 percent of the white portion of theresponding sample. The unaware population also included higher than average percentagesof elderly, disabled, low-income, female, and newly residential Â– all considered in theliterature to be Â“environmental discriminationÂ” variables (see, e.g., Petrikin 1994).Technology and Environment AnalogsData were obtained on technology and environment analogs by asking studyrespondents to identify up to five local projects, proposals or events, past or present, whichthey felt had most significantly influenced their perception of local environmental risk. Inpast RPM studies such information has enabled researchers to construct an environmentalrisk perception history within an LAP. Future analyses will examine the spatial and/or socialdistribution of risk perception analogs among the LAPÂ’s constituent groups.Respondents identified a total of 274 technology and environment analogs eitherwithin or in the vicinity of the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project area. The data codingteam collapsed these into nine more general categories or types, each of which containedsufficient subcategories to account for the breadth of analogs mentioned. Table 2 lists themost commonly identified analogs (those mentioned by more than five percent of theresponding sample).
129Table 2: Rank Order of Top Technology and Environment Analogs in theEARP/RPM Demonstration Project Percent of Respondents Type and Location of Analog 38%Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, Newport, MI 14%Davis-Bessey Nuclear Power Plant, Port Clinton, OH 10%Proposed Envotech Hazardous Wastes Incinerator, Milan, MI 9%Detroit Edison Coal Plant, Monroe, MI 7%Carleton Farms Landfill, southern Wayne County, MI 7%Detroit Metropolitan Airport Expansion Project, Romulus, MI 7%Dundee Cement Factory, Dundee, MI 6%Lake Erie Pronounced Â“DeadÂ” of Pollution in 1960s & 70s 6%New France Stone Quarry, Monroe, MI 6%Pesticide Use on Farms in the Region* 6%Sterling State Park, Monroe, MI 5%Proposed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility, Riga, MI It is worth noting that the Fermi II facility was identified more than twice asfrequently as the next most frequently identified analog (another nuclear power facility onthe outer edge of the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project area). This was not a product ofhaving discussed the Fermi facility in the study questionnaire, as the Technology andEnvironment Analogs section preceded the section on Perceptions of and Responses to theFermi II facility. Rather, it was quite likely a product of the center-point radial samplingdesign, which provided a greater number of interview observations nearer the center-pointproject under consideration (Fermi II). Still, one should not overlook the fact that anothernuclear facility was the second most frequently identified analog, and this facility, calledDavis-Bessey, was situated at the outer most edge of the outer most sample zone in thestudy area.Clearly, nuclear facilities Â– be they power generation or waste containment facilities --can profoundly influence collective environmental risk perception. Public consultation andoutreach programs targeted to perceptually-specific communities of environmental risk insoutheastern Michigan and northwest Ohio must necessarily account for the socio-perceptual impact these facilities have had on local communities. For example, respondentsalso were asked to describe the effect, if any, that they felt these local analogs had on their
130perception of local environmental risk Â– whether positive, negative, neither, or both. A totalof 90 different descriptions were given. Respondents characterized 49 percent of these ashaving a negative effect on their environmental risk perception. They characterized 29percent as having both negative and positive effects, 17 percent as having a positive effect,and six percent as having neither a positive nor a negative effect.The implication here is that nuclear power plants and similar high-tech facilitiestypically cast a Â“Risk Perception Shadow,Â” or Â“RPS,Â” that can be expected to influence anLAPÂ’s response to emerging environmental management issues. Thus, the RPS is a socio-perceptual phenomenon that should be addressed methodologically when implementingpublic participation programs in environmental management. The ability to map a projectÂ’sRPS Â– as demonstrated through the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project Â– is amethodological step in that direction. However, further adjustments to the RPM process willbe necessary to advance this state-of-the-art in public participation for environmentalmanagement, and these are discussed in the following chapter titled Â“Conclusions andRecommendations.Â”Chapter SummaryI have continued in this chapter my discussion of the EARP study by addressing theenvironmental anthropology fellowship through which I obtained funding in support ofEARP data management and analysis. I opened the chapter by noting that the EARP studywas initially funded for design and fieldwork only, and that data management and analysisdid not occur for some time after the fieldwork portion of the study had been completed.Thus, I devoted the first half of this chapter to discussing my fellowship project and how itsatisfied the data management and analysis portions of the EARP study while also meetingthe needs of my fellowship host and sponsors.I presented in the second half of this chapter an analysis of key EARP findings thatwere defined in consultation with my fellowship host and sponsors. The analysis focused onperceptions of and responses to the Fermi II nuclear facility. Key findings showed that bothgeographic isolation relative to a given project and low levels of community awareness of theproject can create differential social access to public participation and, when mappedspatially, can indicate areas of greatest potential for environmental discrimination to occur.
131In the next chapter I discuss the spatial implications, participatory connotations, andanthropological relevance of these findings and offer my recommendations regarding theEARP study, RPM methodological refinement, and evaluation procedures for RPM in publicparticipation for environmental management. I close the dissertation by discussing researchproposed by the GLC that would utilize this information and the RPM method indeveloping participation and social monitoring efforts pertaining to aquatic nuisance speciesmanagement and control in the Great Lakes.
132CHAPTER 7CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSI have reported in this dissertation the activities, methods, and key findings of adoctoral research project in applied anthropology and an environmental anthropologyfellowship. Together, these projects enabled me to demonstrate the utility of anethnographic approach called Â“Risk Perception MappingÂ” (RPM) to the public consultationand social research interests of the GLC and its associated network of Great Lakesmanagement agencies and organizations.In this chapter I explore in greater detail the potential participatory implications ofthis work. I begin by presenting my conclusions regarding the potential implications that riskperception voids can have for participatory equity in environmental management. Theirapplication to Great Lakes environmental management was identified in consultation withproject stakeholders and centers on developing equitable population-specific informationand education exchanges through which more culturally sensitive indicators of Great Lakesecosystem integrity may emerge. I discuss anthropological contributions to this process, withparticular attention to anthropological perspectives on the multiple publics that compriselocally affected communities of environmental risk. I then offer my recommendationsconcerning the EARP study, the RPM methodology, and participation evaluation measuresand procedures. I follow with a brief example of the potential application of EARP/RPMDemonstration Project methods and findings to the control and management of aquaticnuisance species in the Great Lakes Basin. I then summarize the chapter and offer a fewclosing remarks on my doctoral research and dissertation.ConclusionsThe EARP/RPM Demonstration Project findings imply that nuclear power plants Â–in this case Fermi II Â– and similarly high-tech facilities typically cast a Â“Risk PerceptionShadow,Â” or Â“RPS,Â” that can be expected to influence an LAPÂ’s response to emerging
133environmental management issues. Thus, the RPS is a socio-perceptual phenomenon thatshould be addressed methodologically when implementing public participation programs inenvironmental management. The ability to map a projectÂ’s RPS Â– as demonstrated throughthe EARP/RPM Demonstration Project Â– is a step in that direction.If participatory equity is to occur in environmental management, LAPs must bedefined broadly and inclusively. Special emphasis must be placed on both the identificationof Â“vulnerable subpopulationsÂ” and the social, cultural, contextual, and geographic factorsthat influence the relative likelihood that members of such populations will become aware ofa project in the first place. In short, the process of public consultation must be broadlyinclusive, culturally sensitive, and locally appropriate. As a methodological foundation forpublic consultation driven by social data, RPM enables the identification of perceptually-specific communities of environmental risk and lays the procedural basis from whichpopulation specific information and education exchanges may be developed.The Participatory Significance of Risk Perception VoidsThe participatory significance of risk perception voids is a case in point. They connotedifferential social access to public participation in environmental management, and theyillustrate the potential spatial implications of environmental discrimination. People who arenot aware of a specific environmental project do not participate in decision-makingprocesses associated with the project. To the extent that these Â“unawareÂ” people tend toshare certain socio-demographic and geographical factors, their lack of participation suggestsa potential Â“participatoryÂ” link to the phenomenon of environmental discrimination. Case inpoint, more than 25 years after the construction of the Fermi II facility, a sample of a rural,low-income, predominantly African-American community less than 15 miles from thefacility revealed that very few if any of its members were aware that the facility even existed.Given such findings, and from a broader environmental justice perspective,environmental managers and anthropologists should consider how not being aware of aspecific environmental project or program relates to social, cultural, demographic, andgeographic characteristics of the LAP, and what implications this might have forparticipatory equity in environmental management. Such questions continue to guide theGLM NetworkÂ’s interest in utilizing social science methodology to identify perceptually-specificcommunities of environmental risk for consultation in its Great Lakes management activities.
134Through the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project, for example, we now know thatenvironmental discrimination is related, at least in part, to a communityÂ’s perception ofproject-specific environmental risk. The key findings of this project have revealed thatpopulation-specific risk perception is dependent upon the populationÂ’s awareness of a givenproject. Those populations that are least aware of a project are least likely to perceiveenvironmental risks associated with it and therefore are least likely to participate in decision-making processes regarding how best to manage a projectÂ’s potential social andenvironmental impacts. This decreased likelihood for participation decreases the likelihoodthat these populationsÂ’ impact and mitigation issues will be reflected in environmentalmanagement decisions pertaining to a given project. This, in turn, increases the likelihood thatthese populations will bear the brunt of negative project impacts. Â“EnvironmentaldiscriminationÂ” exists to the extent that such impacts are born disproportionately by thesame groups across numerous projects through time.In essence, to stave off potential environmental discrimination, we need to conductÂ“ethnographies of social accessÂ” to public participation in environmental decision-making,and RPM has been demonstrated as a conceptual and methodological foundation fromwhich to proceed on that front. RPM maps can reveal to public participation professionals,environmental decision-makers, and affected populations alike, the potential spatialimplications of environmental discrimination. In so doing, RPM maps can help them tovisualize this phenomenon so their efforts to redress it may be focused more efficiently andresponsibly.An Anthropological Difference in Public ConsultationAnthropology offers significant contributions to public consultation inenvironmental management. From the perspective of my environmental anthropologyfellowship with the GLC, foremost among these was the ability to better conceptualize themultiple human groups that comprise an LAP. From that conceptual base I was able todemonstrate to the GLC how RPM can help identify these groups and access theirknowledge of local human/environment interrelationships. These conceptual andmethodological tools can be used by environmental managers to avoid potentialenvironmental discrimination that can result when particularly vulnerable segments of anLAP are not explicitly included in public consultation.
135Conceptualizing Multiple PublicsCerneaÂ’s classic Â“Putting People FirstÂ” (1991) argues for the earliest possibleinvolvement, not just of people, but of the sociocultural factors they bring to bear onprojects. This raises the question of who or what constitutes Â“the publicÂ” (Roberts 1998;1995). Roberts (1995) notes that in participatory terms Â“the publicÂ” is actually comprised ofÂ“multiple publics,Â” an observation made years earlier by Alvin Wolfe (1978) who recognizedthe importance of participatory subsystems at different levels of integration. Thus, socialscientists generally accept that people organize themselves into multiple and potentiallyoverlapping social groups.As a long-time member of the International Association for Public Participation(http://www.iap2.org) I can attest to the considerable challenges that this ostensiblyelementary social science principle poses to the public participation practitioner. Forexample, one person Â– that is, one potential participant from the LAP consulted in anenvironmental management project Â– will belong to multiple social groups at the time his orher input is sought. It is neither unlikely nor uncommon that these groups will havecompeting interests vis--vis the project in question. The individual participant must balancethese potentially conflicting interests, and the public participation practitioner must accountfor them when establishing consultative relationship with the LAP.Anthropologists have long used the concepts of Â“emicÂ” and Â“eticÂ” to deal withproblems such as these. From a participative standpoint, an etically conceived public derivesfrom human organizational definitions imposed from the outside, which may or may nothave any basis in social reality. An emically-conceived public, on the other hand, derivesfrom human organizational definitions based on social interaction in cultural context.Demographic criteria such as age, gender, race, income, and the like Â– what Holy (1985:346-347) and Partridge (1984:22-23) call Â“non-corporate social groupingsÂ” Â– are examples ofetically defined social groups. For the most part, people do not organize themselves intobehavioral units that correspond to these etic group definitions. Although such groupingscan provide valuable information for describing the demographic characteristics of an LAP,they provide little in the way of understanding much less utilizing for participatory purposesthe behavioral aspects of the human groups potentially affected by a given project.
136By contrast, emically defined groups Â– what Holy (1985:346-347) and Partridge(1984:22) call Â“corporate social groupingsÂ” -are self-defined by group interaction andalways have their basis in a groupÂ’s social reality. Whereas etic classifications reflectcategorical descriptions of an LAP, emic classifications describe it behaviorally. Indeed,Partridge (1984:23) notes that:Non-corporate [etic] groups have much less behavioral significance [thanÂ“emicÂ” or Â“corporateÂ” social groups], take no actions together as a unit,control no human resources, marshal no human energies, and shape nocollective response to development projects. Any response to [a] project, andmost specifically peoplesÂ’ participation in [it], will be mobilized, organized, andcontrolled through indigenous corporate groupings. It is through suchcorporate [emic]social units that individuals are committed to one another;that human energies are recruited, organized, and channeled; that followersare responsive to leaders and leaders responsible to their followers.During my fellowship I would frequently discuss with my GLC colleaguesexperiences I had on other RPM studies. I felt that sharing such information complementedmy work on the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project, and therefore was just as vital to myfellowship effort as the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project itself. One example from anearlier RPM project was particularly effective in illustrating the participatory significance ofemic social groups. I was the ethnographic field manager on an RPM study of a proposedradioactive waste facility, and during that project our research team encountered several emicgroups self-defined as Â“milkshedsÂ” Â– extensive collection zones for milk harvested by dairyfarmers in the area. Members of the project area milkshed expressed a different level andtype of concern than did members of adjoining milksheds, even though many lived muchfarther away, because their milk was being mutually collected and processed with milkharvested from farms located next to the proposed radioactive waste storage facility. Thesepeople responded to this project not as occupationally defined Â“dairy farmersÂ” but rather asmembers of their respective milksheds. Without this emic understanding subsequentparticipation programs would have homogenized the LAP by presuming that its membersÂ’behavior was dictated by etically derived categories, such as in this case, the occupationÂ“dairy farmer.Â”It is also important to recognize that members of the LAP belong to multiple emicallydefined groups and embody numerous and even potentially conflicting responses to a given
137project. Continuing the example above, ethnographic interviews were conducted amongseveral Amish enclaves near the study area. As members of the emically-defined milkshedthese people opposed the project because they feared its technology. However, as membersof the larger Amish community, these same people suggested that the rumored drop inproperty values associated with the project would benefit their community by curbing therising property values that contributed to Amish cultural dislocation. Rising property valuesmay bode well for the upwardly mobile suburbanite, but they forced these Amishcommunity members onto ever more agriculturally marginal lands at increasingly greaterdistances from each other. The project, although feared and unwanted, was viewed as thelesser of two evils. Depending on the behavioral hat one was wearing, the same people inthese two social contexts (i.e., Amish citizen versus milkshed member) presented differentimpact concerns and mitigation issues. Similar observations have been made in research oncross-contextual risk perception associated with restarting the Three-Mile Island nuclearpower plant (Soderstrom et al., 1984).Indigenous Knowledge and Participatory Equity in Environmental ManagementMy fellowship prompted meaningful discussions of these topics among the peoplewho develop and implement public participation processes for Great Lakes environmentalmanagement. From my anthropological perspective, the most encouraging discussionconcerned the potential role that Â“indigenous knowledgeÂ” can play in securing participatoryequity in Great Lakes environmental management, and why that role is largely a function ofhow indigenous knowledge is conceptualized and sought for participatory purposes.Partridge (1984:23) has observed that "any response to [a] project, and mostspecifically people's participation in [it], will be mobilized, organized, and controlled throughindigenous corporate groupings." From a participatory equity standpoint it is therefore instructiveto consider anthropological perspectives on "indigenous knowledge" (Purcell 1998; DeWalt1994; Greaves 1994) because one sees reference to the concept appearing in documentspertaining to public participation and environmental justice (Cohen and Bleakly 1997;National Environmental Justice Advisory Council [NEJAC] 1996). For instance, NEJAC(1996:6) notes in its "Model Plan for Public Participation" that "indigenous knowledge" mustbe "recognized" at public meetings involving environmental justice issues. Yet Â“indigenousknowledgeÂ” is not defined in that document, nor why or how the concept is relevant to
138these issues. Moreover, there seems to be a presumption that the etic category defines theknowledge, rather than vice versa. Clarity in such matters bears practical consequences forboth the conduct and output of public participation in environmental management.Purcell (1998:258-272) notes that even anthropologists have some difficultyoperationalizing indigenous knowledge. Greaves (1994) has edited a source book on"intellectual property rights for indigenous peoples." The contributors to that volumepromulgated at least nine different categories or types of "knowledge," including"indigenous," "traditional," "cultural," "local," "indigenous cultural," "indigenous traditional,""native cultural," "collective," "general and collective;" as well as "traditional attitudes" andthe "local people" who hold them (Greaves 1994). More recent additions have beenidentified by Riley (2001:11-13) and include Â“traditional ecological knowledgeÂ” (Maffi,Oviedo, and Larson 2000) and Â“endangered knowledgeÂ” (Maffi 2001). Do these categorieshave specific meanings, or may they be used interchangeably to refer to the same basicconcept Â– knowledge? From a participatory standpoint, are we interested in the knowledgepeople possess or the categories within which we include them? The conclusion reachedwith my GLC colleagues was that the former would generate participatory concepts that arebroad and inclusive; the latter, narrow and exclusive.Purcell (1998:260) cites Moran (1990) and Bennett (1976) in defining indigenousknowledge as Â“the body of historically-constituted (emic) knowledge instrumental in thelong-term adaptation of human groups to the biophysical environment.Â” He notes furtherthat "depending on the circumstances, any aspect of culture that functions toward the long-term survival of a group may theoretically be treated as indigenous knowledge.Â” I like thisdefinition because it is broad and inclusive and points to the relevance of human knowledgegained through extended intimate experience with specific environmental and culturalcontexts. Indeed, Greaves (1994:12-13) observes that Â“demands for inclusionÂ” of non-indigenous peoples in project-level decision-making have Â“considerable persuasive force,Â”yet he questions whether such inclusion may Â“weaken the IPR prospects for indigenouspeoplesÂ” by failing to recognize the world social and political circumstances that have led totheir exploitation. His point is well-taken, although I would disagree from purely relativisticand holistic perspectives. I think exclusivity of knowledge types dilutes the power of theconcept of culture by splintering its cognitive aspects into ever more specific, albeit not
139necessarily mutually exclusive categories. And much like misguided concepts of racialcategorization based on insufficiently discrete phenotypical characteristics, they areconfusing and potentially misleading, particularly as they relate to public participation inenvironmental management. Consider the issue of environmental discrimination, where theproblem is not over-exploitation of the knowledge possessed by an LAP (e.g., as too oftenoccurs with respect to the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples). Rather, theproblem lies in the under-utilization of that knowledge through institutional processes, suchas public hearings, that fail to equitably identify and therefore incorporate the insights of themultiple publics that comprise the LAP (Stone 1994).Participatory equity ought to be the guiding principle for public participation inenvironmental management. Participation programs should be designed to account for"behavioral" (emic) groups in cross-contextual settings (Wynne 1991), rather than, or inaddition to, "categorical" (etic) group participation. This is not to suggest that the respectiveplights of indigenous peoples should be overlooked or taken lightly in the process. Indeed,international and federal legislative requirements (NEJAC 1996; Clinton 1994; UnitedNations Human Rights Commission 1994; United States Council on Environmental Quality1986, 1978; United States Congress 1969, 1964) as reflected, for example, in the professionalliteratures on social impact assessment and environmental justice (InterorganizationalCommittee 1993:6; Wilkinson 1998:273-282), strongly recommend that such considerationsbe factored into decision-making processes. If new participatory programs provide moreequitable access to and utilization of the knowledge systems (i.e., Â“culturesÂ”) of speciallyaffected social groups, environmental managers must heed the prior experience ofindigenous peoples, as illustrated by Greaves (1994), and provide guarantees that theknowledge they contribute will not be used to exploit them or destroy the environments inwhich they live.The nature of one's participation will vary according to one's behavioral groupaffiliation and those groups' situational contexts at the time one's participation is sought. It isincumbent upon those of us who practice anthropology in the context of environmentalmanagement to utilize our anthropological perspectives to identify and make explicit thecultural bases of the multiple behavioral groups that comprise the LAP for any given project.Indeed, the SfAA/EPA Cooperative Agreement that in part supported my work was
140conceived to Â“develop material that allows environmental managers to better understand thecultural complexity and sociocultural issues associated with their workÂ” (Johnston 1999:7-8).Ethnography and Participatory Equity in Environmental ManagementEthnography alone in public participation will not create equal social access toparticipation for affected populations; rather, it presents a methodological framework withinwhich environmental managers may access the knowledge these populations have of theirlocal environment and how changes to it will affect their lives. Quite simply, ethnographyprovides a culturally sensitive means of accessing the insights of local people on their terms,in their timeframes, and in locations and contexts that are familiar to them. Participatoryequity will not occur in environmental management simply by increasing the publicsÂ’ accessto decision-making processes. We must also increase the methodological capacity ofdecision-makers to access the knowledge possessed by locally affected populations Â– localknowledge, indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge Â– call it what you may, thatqualifies them as legitimate partners in the environmental management process. Fromparticipatory equity and environmental justice perspectives, we must abandon the Â“if youbuild it they will comeÂ” approach to public participation and opt instead for culturallysensitive and ethnographically-based approaches, such as RPM, that are designed tominimize differential social access to public participation in environmental management. Asthe American Anthropological AssociationÂ’s Panel on Disorders of Industrial Societies(Blakey et al., 1994:311) notes: Â“A truly engaged anthropology will engage communities interms meaningful to them and, with them, work toward resolution of problems besetting thesociety in which we all must live together.Â”RecommendationsThe EARP/RPM Demonstration Project has been instrumental in furthering thestate-of-the-art in RPM research, testing measures of cross-cultural risk perception,identifying perceptually-specific communities of environmental risk, and demonstratingmethodological capacity for equitable public consultation in Great Lakes environmentalmanagement. Yet, there were shortcomings to the study. In this section I identify thesepotential shortcomings Â– not as a complete list, but rather what I believe are the mostpressing needs Â– and recommend ways of addressing them. Recommendations are offered in
141three sections: (1) those concerning the EARP study, (2) those concerning RPMmethodology, and (3) those concerning participation evaluation measures and procedures.Concerning the EARP StudyI have divided my recommendations concerning the EARP Study into six areas: (1)include the Ontario portion of the sample, (2) further characterize the Fermi II RPS, (3)streamline the EARP Study questionnaire, (4) expand the project budget to support theentire study, (5) complete the community feedback phase of the research, and (6) monitorchanges in perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of the sample population.Include the Ontario Portion of the SampleTo more fully understand the extent and nature of the Fermi RPS the EARP studywould have had to be expanded to include the Ontario sample areas. As noted previously,permission was not obtained from the relevant Canadian government sources in time toconduct the Ontario interviews; nor was permission sought from local opinion leaders inOntario during the pre-field community consultation phase of the research. The budgetwould have had to be expanded to support these activities, as the initial funding wasinsufficient to cover the costs associated with pre-field consultation, travel, lodging, andinterviews in Canada. But doing so would have provided further information on the effectsthat large lakes, national boundaries can have on the type and spread of environmental riskperception, and it would have provided the opportunity to characterize perceptually-specificcommunities of environmental risk for the Ontario portion of the study area.Further Characterize the Fermi II RPSIt is also apparent that the outer edge of the Fermi RPS was not entirely detected,with the possible exception of the northwestern quadrant of the study area in which the riskperception void was detected. This is certainly the case in the Ontario portion of the studyarea, where interviews were neither sought nor obtained. Moreover, I think the RPS voidswarrant further attention, because this was the first RPM study to have detected thisphenomenon. More in-depth ethnographic work would need to be completed in these areas.For example, a statistically valid sample of those areas would help determine the percentagedistribution of awareness among the various social groups existing within them, andethnographic interviewing would help shed light on the potential relationships between RPSvoids and the geo-cultural characteristics of the people who constitute them.
142Streamline the QuestionnaireThe questionnaire used in the EARP study was far larger than is typically used inRPM research. I noted earlier that the size of the instrument was directly related to thecombined interests of three separate lines of inquiry. The first of these involved measuresused previously in the Brazilian ecological awareness and environmentalist action studies, thesecond involved standard RPM measures, and the third involved various measures used inother social science surveys of environmental issues. Looking back on it, IÂ’m amazed that Iwas able to achieve as high a response rate as I did in this study, particularly considering thatthe average length of interview was roughly one hour and forty minutes. But the goals andobjectives of the EARP study were such that these measures and their associated interviewtime requirements were necessarily built into the instrument.My recommendation to streamline the questionnaire is aimed not so much at theEARP study per se as to RPM research in general. Generally speaking, shorter interviewsgarner higher response rates, as potential participants are taken from their daily routines forshorter amounts of time and thus are typically more willing to participate in such studies. Past RPM studies have tested key measures of environmental risk perception, for example,regarding awareness of a given project, and the number, significance, direction, and durationof perceived impacts from it. These items are discussed in the following section onrecommendations for the RPM methodology, and they are currently being incorporated intoproject designs for public consultation and impact assessment in future RPM studies (see,e.g., DOE 2000). I mention them here only to suggest that RPM research need not cover asextensive a range of issues as was covered in the EARP study. A streamlined RPM datacollection instrument can be administered much more quickly and cheaply and perhaps ateven higher response rates than were achieved in the EARP study; it is not my intention toimply that all RPM research must necessarily be as extensive as the EARP study has been.Expand the Budget to Support Entire StudyThe budget for the EARP study was large enough only to cover project design,preparation, and fieldwork. To that end, and with the budget saving field strategies that wereimplemented throughout the study, the budget was adequate. However, as noted earlier inthis dissertation, substantial amounts of time and effort were later committed to seekingsupplementary sources of support for data management and analysis, project write-up, and
143post-study community feedback. The delays associated with these efforts ultimatelydisrupted the studyÂ’s continuity, and long periods of inactivity marked these latter phases ofthe project. Such delays are significant, particularly between fieldwork and analysis phases,because intervening factors can occur Â– such things as new environmental incidents, changesin local leadership, changes in residency, and the like Â– and these can potentially alter thecharacter of a projectÂ’s RPS. It is important to remember that RPM research is ultimatelyconducted to inform decision-makers of the geographical boundaries andperceptual/behavioral characteristics of a locally affected population. So it is vital that RPMresearch move as quickly as possible from fieldwork through analysis and write-up so thatkey impact information can be conveyed to decision-makers before intervening factors alterthe character of the projectÂ’s RPS. This raises the issue of changes to a projectÂ’s RPS thatmay occur over time and which may influence the nature and extent of its social impacts.This issue is discussed in greater detail later in this section.Complete the Community Feedback PhaseThe EARP questionnaire included a question asking participants if they had anyadditional comments, questions, or observations regarding the study. One quarter (25%) ofthose who responded to this question indicated that they would like to receive a copy of thefinal report. Yet funds were not available to support analysis or write-up, let alone todistribute a final report to this many people. As noted earlier in this dissertation, post-studycommunity feedback normally occurs in conjunction with data analysis and is used to explainpreliminary findings and conclusions to community representatives and opinion leaders withinthe study area, while ensuring that the views of their constituents are not being misrepresented.Providing completed reports to those participants who requested them might be one way ofaddressing the community feedback phase of the research.As it stands, the primary mode of feedback for the EARP study was funded throughmy SfAA/EPA fellowship at the GLC and consisted of professional presentation anddiscussion of findings at the annual meeting of the International Association for Great LakesResearch (IAGLR) (http://www.iaglr.org). Attendees of this meeting, held in Cornwall, Ontario, in May of 2000, included both scientists and lay people from the EARP study area,and their comments were reflected in my final fellowship report to the GLC, the SfAA, and theEPA, and have been incorporated, where appropriate, throughout this dissertation. I do
144believe, however, that a more localized community feedback is necessary to completely satisfythe true intent of community feedback in RPM research.Monitor Changes in Perceptions, Attitudes, and BehaviorsAs noted above, a projectÂ’s RPS can be expected to evolve through time andtherefore reflect attitudinal/perceptual changes that occur as a result of new environmentalprojects, incidents, and/or changes in local leadership, residency patterns, and the like. RPMresearch in effect takes a Â“snapshotÂ” of perceived risk that accumulates in a populationthrough its interaction with changing environmental circumstances through time. Theseperceptually-specific communities of environmental risk effectively define the locallyaffected population, to the extent that collectively held risk perceptions translate intodocumentable social impacts. To better understand the relationship between a project and itssocial impacts through time It is therefore necessary to monitor changes in communityperceptions and behaviors.Previous RPM studies, for example, the Michigan LLRW studies discussed earlier,have actually proposed using the RPM sample as the basis for monitoring the projectÂ’s socialeffects throughout its life cycle, although that particular project was abandoned by the Stateof Michigan before social monitoring was ever implemented. As a possible measure of thewillingness of RPM participants to serve in a social monitoring capacity, participants in theEARP study were asked whether they would be willing to participate in a follow-up study ofthe same issues. Eighty-six percent of the responding sample indicated that they would bewilling to participate, six percent said they Â“were not sure,Â” and only eight percent said theywould not be willing to participate. This level of were extrapolated to other RPM studies, it isreasonable to assume that an RPM sample could be used as the basis for monitoring socialimpacts throughout the life cycles of future environmental projects.Concerning RPM MethodologyMy recommendations concerning RPM methodology are divided in three areas: (1)sample design issues, (2) interpretive issues, and (3) implementational issues.RPM Sample Design IssuesI have demonstrated in this study the methodological ability to identify at a projectlevel the geocultural extent of a locally affected population and, in so doing, the population-specific issues for analysis in project-level SIA. RPM studies are generative processes and
145provide scientifically sound bases from which new research problems may be confronted.However, to advance the state-of-the-art in RPM research and expand its influence at thebroader policy level, further methodological and analytical innovation must occur at theproject level (see, e.g., Burdge 1994:3-10). Two sampling design issues in particular presentthe opportunity for such innovation. The first of these involves the type of project underconsideration; the second the topography of the area in which the project occurs. Typologicaland topographical factors can have a profound effect on RPM sample designs, as suchdesigns must be flexible enough to adapt them to these unique project characteristics.At least four major typological issues must be considered in RPM sampling designs:(1) center-point radial projects, (2) multiple-point linear projects, (3) projects that have bothcenter-point and multiple-point linear characteristics, and (4) Â“diffuseÂ” or Â“arealÂ” projectsthat are typically referred to as Â“non-point source problemsÂ”.Center-point radial projects are those that are located in a central location fromwhich the intensity and direction of perceived risk are assumed to extend radially. The FermiRPS reported in this dissertation is an example of this kind of project. The sampling designfor such projects reflects the assumption that risk perception extends radially, and thusconsists of equally-distanced sample strata and randomly generated transects and sampleareas. The size and extent of these design features are dependent upon the scope andmagnitude of the project and the scale of its anticipated effects.Multiple-point linear projects are those that extend between a minimum of two fixedpoints. The intensity and direction of perceived risk is assumed to extend outwardly andrectilinearly along the project corridor(s). Examples of multiple-point linear projects wouldinclude high-voltage power transmission lines (Casper and Wellstone 1981; Bean and Vane1978), gas and oil pipelines (Brody 1983; Mountain West Research 1979; Gray and Gray1977), highway construction (Schlotter 1991; Onibokum 1975), transportation corridors forhazardous or radioactive wastes (Cluett and Morris 1982), and low-level military flighttraining corridors (Stoffle, Halmo, and Olmstead 1989). The sampling design for suchprojects reflects the assumption that risk perception extends outwardly and rectilinearlyalong the affected corridor(s), and thus consists of equally-distanced sample strata andrandomly generated transects and sample areas occurring along the length of the corridor(s).
146The size and extent of these design features are again dependent upon the scope andmagnitude of the project and the scale of its anticipated effects.In some rare instances combined elements of both centerand multiple-point linearproject types may be present, depending on the scale used to determine such matters. The52-mile circumference of the proposed SSC project in Michigan, for example, could beviewed as a large center-point project, with a locally affected population encompassing theringÂ’s inner area while also extending outward from the edge of the circle. On the otherhand, the ring itself could be viewed as a relatively linear corridor, with a locally affectedpopulation extending inward and outward along the entire length of the corridor. The extentto which the population on the inside of the ring encompasses the projectÂ’s entire inner areacould be determined by RPM research. Thus, the sampling design in such cases would haveto integrate features present in both center-point and multiple-point linear project types.RPM sampling designs provide ample flexibility for a research team to adapt it tosuch typological issues, although the methodology has yet to be tested in either linear orcombination linear/center-point formats. This may soon change, however, as RPM has nowbeen adopted as the central method for sociocultural consultation and assessment in theScience and Technology Roadmap Volume of the Hanford Groundwater Vadose ZoneIntegration Project (United States Department of Energy 2000). The Hanford nuclear site,although considered a center-point project, has produced radioactive groundwater plumesthat extend both radially and linearly, and linearly downstream from where it has reached theColumbia River. The RPM sample for this project will therefore likely incorporate elementsof both center-point and linear designs, thereby providing the means for implementing andtesting these methodological innovations in practical contexts.The fourth and perhaps most challenging typological issue in RPM sampling designis posed by, for want of a better term, Â“non-point source problems.Â” I should point out,though, that the term Â“non-point sourceÂ” is typically used to refer to water pollution thatcomes from sources other than specific projects or facilities at specific locations. I use theterm here in a much broader context, referring to Â“diffuseÂ” or Â“arealÂ” environmentalproblems that are tied to neither a central point nor linear corridors between multiple points,but rather cover large and potentially disconnected areas. The challenge from an RPMsampling standpoint is how to measure variations in risk perception when there is no central
147point or line where perceived risk is assumed to be greatest (i.e., recall the Â“volcanoÂ” analogyused for central point projects, where perceived risk is assumed to be greatest nearest thecentral point and decrease monotonically as a function of distance away from that point).RPM sampling in non-point source problems may have to follow a more archaeological gridstyle from which risk perception Â“rich pointsÂ” may emerge. RPM may soon be tested on thistype of project, as I have submitted a proposal on behalf of the GLC to incorporate RPM asthe basis of public consultation for gauging the potential social impacts of aquatic nuisancespecies (ANS) in the Great Lakes ecosystem. This is discussed in greater detail below, in thesubsection titled Â“potential applications in Great Lakes environmental management.Â”RPM sample designs must also account for topographical diversity. Topographicaluniformity is not generally expected to alter the basic radial and rectilinear assumptionsregarding the direction and intensity of perceived risk. But it is not yet clear to what extentlarge topographical features such as mountains, lakes, and canyons might influence thespread and intensity of a projectÂ’s RPS. The EARP study was conducted in part to addressthis issue relative to a large lake, so work in this area has already begun. But further workremains to be done with respect to modifying RPM sample designs to accommodatemountains and canyons. One such project Â– the Kaibab Paiute Hazardous WastesIncinerator proposal, discussed earlier in this dissertation Â– presented that opportunity. Butas noted previously, the private company which had proposed constructing the incinerator onthe Kaibab reservation ultimately withdrew its proposal, so RPM research on that project wasnever conducted. The ability of RPM sample designs to account for this kind of topographicaldiversity in project locations remains to be tested.RPM Interpretive IssuesRPM is a method for sampling an extensive population in order to identify thepeople who are most likely to be affected by a proposed project or environmentalmanagement problem. The geographical extent of a locally affected population (LAP)reflects how the concept is operationalized through survey data. The operational definitionof an LAP should be inclusive because it constitutes the most sensitive of all the socialimpact assessment study areas and generally defines the political units of consultationbetween an LAP and the proposers of a project or the managers of an environmentalproblem. Because survey data are used in this definition, the operational criteria are specific
148to individuals and derive from their responses to the project or problem. This procedure isused because of inherent problems when existing political units are used a-priori. Once surveydata are used to define an LAP, however, existing political units are used as part of theconsultation process and become part of the SIA of the project or environmentalmanagement problem.The cumulative experience gained through previous RPM studies, including those ofthe SSC (Stoffle et al., 1988; Stoffle et al., 1987) and LLRW (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa1993; Stoffle et al., 1991; Stoffle et al., 1990) projects discussed earlier, as well as the EARPstudy and newly proposed RPM research (DOE 2000; Donahue 2000), suggests that fivecriteria should be considered in the definition of an LAP: (1) project awareness, (2)directness of impact, (3) significance of impacts, (4) numbers of impacts, and (5) duration ofimpact. Both positive and negative impacts should be considered for each of these criteria.Individual impacts involved a respondent and his or her immediate family, whereas othertypes of impacts are generally considered to occur at the broader community level.I argued previously that Â“project awarenessÂ” was a sufficient criterion for definingthe RPS associated with the Fermi II facility. Both the EARP study and previous RPMresearch have documented that social and cultural changes occurred in their respective localareas when two-thirds or more of the local populations were aware of the respectiveprojects. These changes were deemed sufficient to suggest that all persons in these areaswould eventually be affected by the project, and, therefore, should be operationally definedas the LAP. I noted moreover that other researchers (Ellis et al., 1992:44-54; Unger,Wandersman, and Hallman 1992:55-70; Waller and Mitchell 1991:302-329; Gibbs 1990:10-11; Edelstein 1988; van der Pligt, Eiser, and Spears 1986:1-15; Werner 1985:161-167;Ridington 1982:36-42) have demonstrated that the awareness and perception of potentiallyhazardous conditions or projects provide sufficient impetus for social and psychologicalimpacts to occur. Still others (Gatchel and Newberry 1991:1961-1976; Vyner 1988, 1984:5-10; Flemming et al., 1982:14-22) have shown that such impacts can be psychophysiologicalas well. Similarly, research on the nature, extent, and causes of environmental awareness andremedial action suggests that local people will not participate in actions designed to managetheir environment if they are unaware of or perceive no risks to it (Kottak 1992:295).
149Further work needs to be done to develop more complete criteria for defining anLAP based on community risk perception. Â“Project awarenessÂ” may be illustrative andinstructive as a first order criterion in such definitions, but it may be insufficient, forexample, as a frame for more elaborate social impact analyses. Past studies suggestconsidering at least four additional criteria when seeking a definition for an LAP, includingthe perceived directness, significance, number, and duration of impacts (Stoffle et al., 1991).If awareness does not prove to be a sufficiently discriminating criterion for allprojects or environmental problems, other criteria must be considered. One of these iswhether or not the potential impacts could directly or indirectly affect a member of the LAP.Direct impacts tend to be easier to measure and have more important effects on theindividual. It is assumed that fewer indirect impacts will occur to individuals because ofefforts to mitigate at the broader community level.The significance of impacts on a respondent is expected to vary. Previous RPMresearch suggests that respondents discriminated between a wide range of potential impactsbased on how significant they perceive a change to be to them and/or their communities.There was a tendency for respondents to assign higher significance to changes that wouldaffect their own role performance; so, for example, primary care givers tended to focus moreon health and family impacts while primary wage earners focused more on employmenteffects for them and other community members.The number of impacts a person expects to experience is another measure of howmuch the person could be affected by a project. In general, it is assumed that the moreimpacts a person expects to experience, the more s/he will be affected by a project orenvironmental problem, and the more likely the individual impacts will interact with oneanother, creating what has been termed Â“synergistic relationshipsÂ” or Â“impact synergiesÂ”(Peterson et al., 1987; Sonntag et al., 1987).Impacts vary in the time they can be expected to persist. Some types of impact areinherently short in duration, such as project construction jobs; others persist throughout thelife of the project, as local taxes paid by the project; and still others may last forever, such asthe destruction on non-renewable resources or the introduction of non-native species to newecosystems.
150These criteria can be used individually or collectively to define the LAP for anenvironmental project. Literature on the cumulative effects of project impacts (Peterson etal., 1987; Sonntag et al., 1987) suggests that attempts be made to develop models that willassign weights to variances within each criteria, and then to provide an overall calculation ofpotential respondent effects that more accurately reflects local perceptions of potentialproject impacts (see, e.g., Stoffle, Halmo, Evans, and Olmsted 1990).RPM Implementational IssuesI previously co-authored a journal article reporting the findings of an earlier RPMstudy (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993). During the review process for that article onereviewer noted that, although the RPM methodology was procedurally sound and met itsstated goals and objectives effectively, it required more time to complete than is typicallyallotted for the scoping phase of public participation in environmental management.Based on lessons learned from this and past RPM projects, and given recentadvances in the power of computer hardware and software Â– particularly GIS -to processcomplex algorithms, I think the RPM sampling procedure (i.e., transects, zone distances,household selection) should be automated and linked to GIS and statistical analysisprograms. The purpose would be to expedite the process of establishing the RPM sampleframe for a given project, creating a geographically referenced database for key RPMvariables (e.g., Â“awareness,Â” Â“directness,Â” Â“significance,Â” etc., and Â“project analogsÂ”), andgenerating RPM maps of the LAP for public participation in environmental management.Following my earlier discussion of the RPM sampling methodology, I envision anautomated RPM system in which a proposed project location need simply be entered into anexisting GIS database. An RPM sampling algorithm then automatically generates a pre-determined number of equally spaced transecting lines at an angle generated randomly fromdue north. Ideally, the number of transects would be evenly divisible into 360 (e.g., 12, 15,18), depending on project type and location. The algorithm also establishes a predeterminednumber of equally sized concentric zones emanating outward from the facility, and alongeach transect in each zone assigns randomly distanced points at which one-square milesample area maps (or city blocks within them, if in an urban area) are generated and printedfor use as interviewer field maps of individual sample areas. Although it may be possiblethrough GIS to identify available addresses and their locations within a sample area, new
151housing construction and razing would require that field ethnographers Â“ground truthÂ” themaps to ensure that all possible residents are included in the sample. Field ethnographerswould thus randomly select the households within each sample area from which theparticipation of potential respondents would ultimately be sought.In this automated system, as in the EARP study, each sample area would begeographically referenced according to transect and zone number so that key RPM data fromindividual interviews could be geographically linked, analyzed, and mapped as a studyprogresses. With the right kinds of equipment (i.e., laptop computers, relevant software) fieldethnographers could input data while in the field and transmit it electronically to a centraldata storage and processing facility.I believe these modifications to standard RPM sample design, fieldwork, analysis,and display procedures will effectively address the reviewerÂ’s comment, cited above, thatRPM requires more time to complete than is typically allotted for the scoping phase ofpublic participation in environmental management. It should be noted, however, thatalthough these modifications cover the basic RPM sampling procedure, analytically theyapply primarily to the analysis and geographical display of key RPM variables. Supportive andsupplementary data, such as provided through open-ended questioning and informal follow-up questioning to participant responses, will still require more time to code, analyze, and linkto the standard RPM maps of key variables produced through this automated procedure.This is not atypical of other forms of social science research, though, that might be used toseek and analyze public participation in environmental management.Concerning Participation Evaluation Measures and ProceduresMy recommendations concerning participation evaluation measures and proceduresderive from my professional experience as a Project Associate with Formative EvaluationResearch Associates (http://www.feraonline.com) and largely reflect ground-breaking work currently being done in this area by researchers at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory(http://www.ornl.gov). I have centered my recommendations around Â“public participation attributes and performance measures,Â” as these have the most immediate relevance to therole of RPM in stakeholder identification and access. This information will be useful as astarting point for others seeking to evaluate the effectiveness of RPM in their publicconsultation and community outreach activities.
152The Oak Ridge National Laboratory StudiesPerhaps the most comprehensive if not the most current sources on evaluatingpublic participation efforts are offered by Schweitzer, Carnes, and Peele (1999), and Carneset al. (1996), all of whom are with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in OakRidge, Tennessee. These researchers have written a simple yet thorough report on the topic,which served as an Â“Improving the PracticeÂ” insert to the quarterly newsletter of theInternational Association for Public Participation (IAP2). That report built upon their pastwork and largely integrated the scant literature on this issue (Jordan 1995; Lach, Hixson, andRamonas 1995; Young, Williams, and Goldberg 1993; Goldenberg and Frideres 1986;Posavac and Carey 1985; Rutman and Mowbray 1983; Poister 1978; and Rosener 1978),which I have paraphrased in this dissertation. Pursuant to their work, these researchers havedeveloped easy-to-use and widely applicable performance (Â“outcomeÂ”) indicators that theyclaim are acceptable to diverse stakeholders and which can be used to enhance and improveexisting public participation efforts (that is, Â“formativeÂ” evaluation).The ORNL researchers developed a table listing attributes of successful publicparticipation programs, performance indicators of the relative success of those attributes,and the types of measures (e.g., perceptual or behavioral) that would be used for each. I haverecreated that table here as Table 3.The authors offered important cautions to this list, noting that:Â…Â“a thorough evaluation requires the use of the entire package of attributesand indicators presented here, because any single measure or subset ofindicators would not give a complete picture of what has beenaccomplishedÂ… Of course, there may be some cases that call for one ormore additional attributes or indicators, and there may be some cases wherean evaluator wants to study certain attributes more frequently than othersbecause of a perceived need to Â“fixÂ” some part of a public participationactivity or programÂ” (Schweitzer, Carnes, and Peele 1999:1).
153Table 3: Attributes of Success and Performance Indicators to Use in EvaluatingPublic Participation ATTRIBUTE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR TYPE OF INDICATOR The decision-making processallows full and activestakeholder representationThe proportion of all identifiable stakeholdergroups that have taken part in public participationeffortsBehavioral The decision-making processis accepted as legitimate bystakeholdersParticipantsÂ’ evaluation of the legitimacy ofdecision-making processes at various stages in thedecision cyclePerceptual The sponsoring agency andother stakeholders understandeach othersÂ’ concernsInternal and external stakeholdersÂ’ ability toidentify each othersÂ’ concerns and understand thebases of those concernsBehavioral The public has trust andconfidence in the sponsoringagencyThe publicÂ’s self-reported levels of trust andconfidence in the sponsoring agencyPerceptual Key decisions are improved bypublic participationJudgements by internal and external stakeholdersthat public participation has led to better decisionsPerceptual Key decisions are accepted aslegitimate by stakeholdersParticipantsÂ’ evaluations of the legitimacy ofimportant decisionsPerceptual This caution is well-taken. Evaluation Â– particularly a formative evaluation designed toimprove the performance of, in this case, a public participation program Â– seeks tounderstand the interrelationships between all aspects of a program. So, in Table 3 forinstance, one would have no frame of reference for understanding how or why Â“keydecisions were improvedÂ” (i.e., attribute #5) without first understanding for whom thosedecisions were being made (attribute #1). That is, Â“improved decisionsÂ” is largely relative toframes of reference of those people who comprise the participation process. Still, there maybe instances when a particular attribute is examined more closely than (albeit never apartfrom) others for the purpose of modifying or enhancing that part of the larger process. And
154it is in that vein that, for the purpose of the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project, I havechosen to focus my attention on the first attribute/performance indicator, as it most closelypertains to the role of RPM in Great Lakes environmental management.The authors identify Â“full stakeholder representationÂ” as the first order attribute ofsuccessful public participation, the relative success of which can be measured as Â“theproportion of all identifiable stakeholder groups that have taken part in public participationeffortsÂ” (Schweitzer, Carnes, and Peele 1999:2). Indeed, the authors note that Â“the mostvaluable result of using this performance indicator is that it requires the agency performingthe evaluation to identify all stakeholder groups and see how many of them have beeninvolved with local public participation efforts. The simple act of doing this allows theinterested parties to see which stakeholders have been absent and should possibly berecruited for future public involvement effortsÂ” (Schweitzer, Carnes, and Peele 1999:3).As stated throughout this dissertation, it is precisely this point that RPM seeks toaddress; that is, knowing the proportion presupposes knowledge of the whole. Yet, getting tothe whole has been a persistent challenge for the public participation practitioner. I had thegood fortune of giving a keynote presentation on this topic to the Great Lakes Chapter ofthe IAP2 (Stone 1998). Recurrent themes at that meeting centered on the procedures used todefine geographical boundaries for consultative purposes, to identify the social groupsexisting within those boundaries, and to access the information these groups possess Â– allwith the assumption that better decisions (e.g., attribute #5) can be reached through fullstakeholder representation (e.g., attribute #1). Given this widely accepted concern amongthe community of public participation practitioners, I am inclined to amend attribute #1 toreflect an ex ante rather than ex post facto identification of stakeholder groups. That is,formatively speaking, as the first order of business in public consultation, public participationpractitioners must identify (i.e., to the greatest methodological extent possible) all potentialstakeholder groups. Certainly, the spirit of the first ORNL performance indicator is that thisalso should be done after-the-fact, as part of an evaluative scheme built into the largerparticipatory process. But no discussion is offered as to how this might be accomplished,either before or after the participation effort has been implemented, and it is to this end thatRPM both contributes most to the participatory process and is most amenable to evaluativeprotocol.
155What remains, however, is the question of how to discern the extent to which RPMhas successfully defined, identified, and accessed the full range of stakeholder groups for agiven project. As conceived, RPM is a generative process insofar as local people (emic data)define the geo-cultural boundaries of the consultative relationship; it therefore is highlyamenable to formative evaluation processes. For example, as noted earlier in thisdissertation, Stoffle et al. (1990) proposed using the RPM framework as the basis forperiodic social monitoring throughout the Michigan LLRW project lifecycle. In that modelthe RPM sample and associated contacts served as local monitors of project-related socialimpacts. I believe this role could be expanded to include further identification of potentiallyaffected (i.e., stakeholder) groups, perhaps on a semi-annual basis. In this way the publicparticipation proponent would acquire on-going feedback regarding both project-relatedsocial impacts and locally desired RPM-related improvements.Of course, this model of evaluation would only be as effective as the number ofparticipants that would be willing to continue to function as social monitors. I noted earlierthat as a possible measure of the willingness of RPM participants to serve in a socialmonitoring capacity, participants in the EARP study were asked whether they would bewilling to participate in a follow-up study of the same issues. Eighty-six percent of theresponding sample indicated that they would be willing to participate, six percent said theyÂ“were not sure,Â” and only eight percent said they would not be willing to participate. If thislevel of response were extrapolated to other RPM studies it would be reasonable to assumethat an RPM sample could be used as the basis for monitoring social impacts and informinglocally desired participatory improvements throughout the lifecycles of environmentalprojects in the Great Lakes and beyond.Potential Applications in Great Lakes Environmental ManagementPerhaps most encouraging outgrowth of the EARP/RPM Demonstration projecthas been the GLC commitment to incorporating social science into its work, as evidenced ina grant proposal that I helped prepare Pro Bono during non-fellowship hours (Donahue 2000)(see Appendix 15). If funded, this proposal, submitted to the NSF under its Â“BiocomplexityInitiativeÂ” (NSF 1999) will enable the GLC to create a Great Lakes Research and ManagementCollaboratory for Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) in the GLB. The proposal explicitly citesthis SfAA/EPA fellowship and calls for using RPM as the cornerstone social science
156methodology for public consultation in ANS risk management. If nothing else, this proposalstands as evidence of the GLCÂ’s support for RPM as a social science methodology that isapplicable to Great Lakes ecosystem management.This is an exciting prospect for the GLB, applied anthropology, and the SfAA/EPACooperative Agreement. Pending funding, the GLC proposal will link this fellowship to thefuture operations of the GLC. It will meet GLC interests while satisfying the demonstrationproject goal of Â“enhancing the methodological rigor that the GLC already brings to publicconsultation and social research in the GLB.Â” In so doing, it will meet the key social sciencecomponents of the principles embodied in the Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence Basin. And to the extent that this work is formally implemented in Great Lakesecosystem management activities, it will satisfy the mission of the SfAA/EPA CooperativeAgreement, which is to Â“increase the access of communities and policy-makers toanthropological and other social science expertise in the solution of environmentalproblemsÂ” (SfAA/EPA 1996:4).ClosingSocial assessment studies have documented that a projectÂ’s social impacts areaffected by the extent that local populations perceive themselves to be at risk from theproject. Â“Project AwarenessÂ” is a necessary criterion for project specific risk perception andit has been used successfully to broadly define the locally affected population for publicparticipation in environmental management. This dissertation presented a case study ofecological awareness and risk perception of the Fermi II nuclear power plant and demonstratedhow social science in general and anthropology in particular can facilitate a more equitablepublic participation in environmental management. Anthropologists and other social scientistsnow recognize that group affiliation and social context can create differential social access topublic participation in environmental management, and that this constitutes a participatory linkto the phenomenon of environmental discrimination. For these reasons, I have argued thatparticipatory equity, rather than participatory liberty, ought to be the guiding principle for publicparticipation in environmental management.A Â“Participatory Equity PrincipleÂ” in Environmental Management?The EARP/RPM Demonstration Project has advanced our understanding of therelationship between environmental discrimination and a communityÂ’s perception of project-
157specific environmental risk. The analysis of risk perception voids in particular has shownthat population-specific risk perception is dependent upon the populationÂ’s awareness of agiven project. In theory, those populations that are least aware of a project are least likely toperceive environmental risks associated with it and therefore are least likely to participate indecision-making processes regarding how best to manage a projectÂ’s potential social andenvironmental impacts. This decreased likelihood for participation necessarily decreases thelikelihood that these populationsÂ’ impact and mitigation issues will be reflected inenvironmental management decisions pertaining to a given project. This, in turn, increases thelikelihood that these populations will bear the brunt of negative project impacts.Â“Environmental discriminationÂ” exists to the extent that such impacts are borndisproportionately by the same groups across numerous projects through time.I believe the next step in securing participatory equity in environmental managementshould be toward the development of a Â“participatory equity principle.Â” If participatory equityis to occur in environmental management, participation programs must be conceived from apredominantly egalitarian rather than libertarian philosophical perspective. Participation inenvironmental decision-making should not be a function of sociocultural or geographicalcircumstances that differentially restrict access to the process. Some preliminary steps havealready been taken in that direction. For example, the National Center of GeographicInformation and Analysis convened the Â“Varenius WorkshopÂ” to address GIS issues pertainingto Â“empowerment, marginalization, and public participationÂ” (Craig, Harris, and Weiner 1999).Similarly, the International NGO Forum, held in conjunction with the first Earth Summit inRio de Janeiro, in 1992, developed a list of Â“Principles of Environmental Conservation andSustainable DevelopmentÂ” to guide Â“decisions about the use, production, and distribution ofenergyÂ” (International NGO Forum 1996: 146). Principles 5b (Â“equityÂ”) and 5c (Â“decision-makingÂ”) are especially relevant to my interest in participatory equity. The former notes thatÂ“Equal access to the goods and services that energy provides is a right of all peoples,communities, and nationsÂ…Â” while the latter states that Â“Energy decisions must be democraticand participatory, with balanced ethno-cultural, socio-economic, colour, and genderparticipation. In particular, people directly affected must play a central role.Â”I envision the development of a participatory equity principle much along these lines Â–something that would help to guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of participation
158strategies that specifically seek to compensate for social and other inequities that differentiallyrestrict social access to environmental decision-making. Such a principle, if developed, will beborn of an egalitarian philosophical perspective that emphasizes group rights to equal accessover individual liberty to exercise those rights; it will recognize cultural, social, andenvironmental context as central to group identification and participation; it will specifyculturally sensitive, locally appropriate, and socially equitable methods for seeking input fromthese groups; and in consultation with these groups, it will specifically incorporate evaluationperformance measures as part of the participatory process, and Â“successÂ” will be measured inthe degree to which input was sought equally from all segments of the locally affectedpopulation, rather than whether a project was successfully implemented as a result of that input.The work reported in this dissertation is submitted as evidence of the conceptual andmethodological capacity to implement this principle in an environmental management context.But this is all just window dressing if such a principle is not given legal standing. Thus,the participatory equity principle, if developed, would have to be amended to specific legalstatutes, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, that require public input to theirdecision-making protocol. In fact, I have made this very case to the Environmental ProtectionAgency, both in the submission of my final fellowship report and associated documents (Stone2001a, 2001b, 2001c) and as an invited participant to the EPAÂ’s Â“National Dialogue on PublicInvolvement in EPA DecisionsÂ” (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2001) andÂ“Draft Public Involvement PolicyÂ” (2000). To the extent that participatory equity involvesnumerous variables that are inevitably beyond individual control, a participatory equity principlewill specify lines of participatory accountability with the relevant agencies responsible forimplementing it. Compensation and restitution for participatory discrimination would bematters for the courts to decide.EpilogueI have demonstrated through the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project a type ofethnographic public consultation (RPM) that uses social-perceptual data to explicitly definethe geographical extent, sociocultural contexts, and unique behavioral characteristics of anLAP and document the impact and mitigation issues raised by its constituent populations.Insofar as the RPM method seeks to access these issues directly from all segments of an
159LAP -on their terms and in locations and social contexts that are familiar to them -it canprovide a more equitable social access to public participation in environmental management.RPM maps can reveal to public participation professionals, environmental decision-makers, and affected populations alike, the potential spatial implications of environmentaldiscrimination. In so doing, RPM maps can help them to visualize this phenomenon so thattheir efforts to redress it may be focused more efficiently and responsibly. I have shown thisto be particularly relevant in the Great Lakes basin, where environmental managementoccurs at the ecosystem level and public participation and sociocultural variables areconsidered integral components of that process. For these reasons, and largely as a result ofthe work reported in this dissertation, Great Lakes environmental managers will be seekingparticipatory equity through ethnographic inquiry.
160REFERENCES CITEDAangeenbrug, Robert T., and Jack Dangermond1995GIS: A Public Communication Tool in Health and Environmental Assessment.Plenary Session Three, International Symposium on Computer Mapping inEpidemiology and Environmental Health. February 15, 1995, Tampa, FL.Abbagnano, N.1967Positivism. In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. P. Edwards (editor). Pp. 414.New York: Macmillan.Agar, Michael1980The Professional Stranger: An Informal Introduction to Ethnography.Orlando, FL: Academic Press.1996Show It, Don't Tell It: How To Run An Ethnography Appreciation Course.Practicing Anthropology 18(2):3-5.Albrecht, Jorg, Patricia Faller, Dirk Kurbjuweit, and Walter Saller1995Environmental Nightmares: Russia's Total Mess. World Press Review(February):8-12.Allaire, Yvan, and Michaela Firsirotu1984Theories of Organizational Culture. Organization Studies 5:187-226.American Anthropological Association (AAA)1942Resolution. American Anthropologist 44:289.1990American Anthropological Association, Revised Principles of ProfessionalResponsibility, 1990. Washington, D.C.: AAA.Anderson, Ian1998Going Up To Blackpool's Golden Mile. In Travel Memoirs: The Call of theCoast. Jimmy Buffett, William F. Buckley Jr., Ian Anderson, Jurgen Schennemann,Dean Torrence, and Marele Day, co-authors. Hemisphere (August):70-79.
161Andrews, Frank M., Laura Klem, Terrence N. Davidson, Patrick M. O'Malley, and Willard L.Rodgers1981A Guide for Selecting Statistical Techniques for Analyzing Social Science Data.Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Angrosino, Michael V. (ed.)1976Do Applied Anthropologists Apply Anthropology? Southern AnthropologicalSociety Proceedings, #10. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Appell, G.N.1978Ethical Dilemmas in Anthropological Inquiry: A Case Book. Waltham, MA:Crossroads.Arensberg, Conrad M., and Arthur H. Niehoff1964Introducing Social Change: A Manual for Americans Overseas. Chicago: AldinePublishing.Arnstein, Sherry R.1969A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of PlannersXXXV(4):216-224.Au, Dennis M.1987God Bless Dee Mushrat: She A Fish! In Festival of Michigan Folklife ProgramBook. (Pp. 39-42). East Lansing: Michigan State University Museum.Au, Dennis M., and Patricia J. Vincent (eds.)1985Old French Town Cookery. Second Edition. Monroe, MI: Monroe CountyHistorical Society.Austin, Diane1992Knowledge and Values in Decision-Making around Hazardous WasteFacilities. Preliminary Report to the Project for the Integrated Study of GlobalChange, Population-Environment Dynamics, and Biodiversity Management. AnnArbor: School of Natural Resources & Environment, University of Michigan.Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology2001 No Nukes Information Source (Antonia Wenish). Vienna, Austria: AustrianInstitute for Applied Ecology. See, http://www.ecology.at/nni/site.php?site=fermi. Babbitt, Bruce1995A Quiet Revolution to Protect the Environment. Practicing Anthropology 17(4):2,32-33.
162Banks, E. Pendleton1990 Ethnography: An Essential Tool For Impact Prediction. Impact AssessmentBulletin 8(4):19-30.Barnett, Homer G.1953Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.Barnouw, Victor1978An Introduction to Anthropology. Volume Two: Ethnology. (Third Edition.)Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.Basso, K.H., and H.A. Selby1976Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque, NM: University of New MexicoPress.Bastide, R.1973Applied Anthropology. London: Croom Helm.Bates, Daniel G.1998Human Adaptive Strategies: Ecology, Culture, and Politics. Boston: Allyn andBacon.Bates, Daniel G., and S. H. Lees (eds.)1996Case Studies in Human Ecology. New York: Plenum.Beach, H.1990Perceptions of Risk, Dilemmas of Policy: Nuclear Fallout in Swedish Lapland.Social Science and Medicine 30:729-738.Beals, Ralph L.1969 Politics of Social Research: An Inquiry into the Ethics and Responsibilities ofSocial Scientists. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.Bean, L., and S. Vane (eds.)1978Persistence And Power: A Study Of Native American Peoples In The SonoranDesert And The Devers-Palo Verde High-Voltage Transmission Line. Los Angeles,CA: Cultural Systems Research, Inc.Becker, Howard S.1958Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant Observation. AmericanSociological Review 23:652-660.
163Bell, Daniel1973The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. NewYork: Basic Books.Bellhouse, D.R., and W.D. Finlayson1979 An Empirical Study of Probability Sampling Designs. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 3:105-123.Belsky, Jill M.1997Natural Resource Sociology and Ecosystem Management. Newsletter of theNatural Resources Research Group of the Rural Sociological Society (Winter):2-4.Bennett, John W.1976The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation.New York: Pergamon.Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann1967The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.New York: Doubleday.Bernard, H. Russell1988Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Bernard, H. Russell, and Pertti Pelto (eds.)1972Technology and Social Change. New York: Macmillan.Blakey, Michael L., Frank Dubinskas, Shepard Forman, Carol MacLennan, Katherine S.Newman, James L. Peacock, Roy A. Rappaport, Carlos G. Velez-Ibanez, and Alvin W. Wolfe1994A Statement to the Profession: The American Anthropological Association,Panel on Disorders of Industrial Societies. In Diagnosing America: Anthropology andPublic Engagement. Shepard Forman (ed.). Pp. 295-311. Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press.Boggs, James P.1990The Use of Anthropological Knowledge Under NEPA. Human Organization49(3):217-226.Boruch, Robert F.1983Solutions to Ethical and Legal Problems in Social Research: Perspective andProspects. In Solutions to Ethical and Legal Problems in Social Research. Robert F.Boruch and Joe S. Cecil, (eds.). Pp. 293-322. New York: Academic Press.
164Branch, Kristi, Douglas Hooper, James Thompson, and James Creighton1984Guide to Social Assessment: A Framework for Assessing Social Change.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Brandt, A., Groenewoudt, B.J., and Kvamme, K.L.1992An Experiment in Archaeological Site Location: Modeling in the NetherlandsUsing GIS Techniques. World Archaeology 24:268-282.Brent, Edward1989Designing Social Science Research with Expert Systems. Anthropological Quarterly62(July):121-130.Bright, J.R. (ed.)1968Technological Forecasting for Industry and Government. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.Brody, Hugh1983Maps And Dreams. New York: Pantheon.Brown, Peter J., and Norman Yoffee1992Is Fission the Future of Anthropology. In Ideas in Anthropology: 1992 AnnualReport of the School of American Research. Peter J. Brown and Norman Yoffee,(eds.). Pp. 18-22. Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research.Bullard, R.D., and B.H. Wright1987Environmentalism and the Politics of Equity: Emergent Trends in the BlackCommunity. Mid-American Review of Sociology 12(1):21-38.Burdge, Rabel J.1994A Brief History and Major Trends in the Field of Impact Assessment. In AConceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment: A Collection of Writings by RabelJ. Burdge and Colleagues. Rabel J. Burdge (ed.). Pp. 3-10. Middleton, WI: SocialEcology Press.Burdge, Rabel J. (ed.)1994A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment: A Collection of Writingsby Rabel J. Burdge and Colleagues. Middleton, WI: Social Ecology Press.Burdge, Rabel J., and Frank Vanclay1995Social Impact Assessment. In Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.Frank Vanclay and Daniel Bronstein (eds.), Pp. 31-65. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
165Burrough, P.A.1993Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land ResourcesAssessment. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Calabrese, Edward J.1991Ecogenetics: Differences in Individual Response to Contaminants. A paperpresented as part of the session titled "Human Health Issues," sponsored by the HealthCommittee of the Science Advisory Board, International Joint Commission (IJC). SixthBiennial Meeting of the IJC, Traverse City, MI.Caldwell, Lynton1998Implementing Policy Through Procedure: Impact Assessment and the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA). In Environmental Methods Review: RetoolingImpact Assessment for the New Century. Alan L. Porter and John J. Fittipaldi (eds.).Pp. 8-14. Atlanta: Army Environmental Policy Institute; Fargo, ND: InternationalAssociation for Impact Assessment.Caldwell, Lynton (ed.)1988Perspectives on Ecosystem Management for the Great Lakes: A Reader.Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Callahan, William1998 One Lake's Problems Mirror Larger Pollution Issues Facing Great LakesRegion. Great Lakes Commission Advisor 11(3):1, 9.Carey, James W., Mark Morgan, and Margaret J. Oxtoby1996Intercoder Agreement in Analysis of Responses to Open-ended InterviewQuestions: Examples from Tuberculosis Research. Cultural Anthropology Methods Journal8:1-5.Carmines, Edward G., and Richard A. Zeller1982Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Carnes, S.A., J.M. Schweitzer, E.B. Peele, A.K. Wolfe, and J.F. Munro1996Performance Measures for Evaluating Public Participation Activities in DOEÂ’sOffice of Environmental Management. (ORNL-6905, August). Oak Ridge, TN: OakRidge National Laboratory.Carnes, Sam, and Amy Wolfe1995Research and Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Justice: Implicationsfor NEPA Documentation. In Environmental Challenges: The Next 20 Years.Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Meeting of the National Association ofEnvironmental Professionals. Pp. 286-291. Washington, D.C.: NAEP Publications.
166Carpenter, Richard A.1995Risk Assessment. In Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. FrankVanclay and Daniel Bronstein (eds.). Pp. 193-219. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Casper, Barry M., and Paul D. Wellstone1981Powerline: The First Battle of AmericaÂ’s Energy War. Amherst, MA: Universityof Massachusetts.Cassell, Joan, and Sue-Ellen Jacobs1987Handbook on Ethical Issues in Anthropology. Special Publication of theAmerican Anthropological Association; Number 23. Washington, D.C.: AmericanAnthropological Association.Cernea, Michael M.1991Knowledge from Social Science for Development Policies and Projects. InPutting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Second Edition.Michael M. Cernea, (ed.). Pp. 1-41. New York: Oxford University Press, for the WorldBank, Washington, D.C.Cernea, Michael M. (ed.)1991Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. SecondEdition. New York: Oxford University Press, for the World Bank, Washington, D.C.Chambers, Erve1989Applied Anthropology: A Practical Guide. Prospect Heights: IL: WavelandPress.Chapple, Eliot1953Discussion: "Patterns in Biology, Linguistics, and Culture." In An Appraisal ofAnthropology Today. Sol Tax et al. (eds.). Pp. 299-321. Chicago: University Press.Clinton, President William1994 Executive Order 12989: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low-Income Populations. Washington, D.C.: Office of thePresident of the United States.Cluett, Christopher, and Frederic A. Morris1982The Transportation of Radioactive Materials Through Urban Areas: SocialImpacts and Policy Implications. The Southwestern Review of Management and Economics2(2):207-221.
167Coates, J.F.1974Some Methods and Techniques for Comprehensive Impact Assessment.Technological Forecasting and Social Change (6):341-357.Cochran, W.G.1977Sampling Techniques. Third Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Cohen, Timothy M., and Denise R. Bleakly1997Addressing Environmental Justice Under the National Environmental PolicyAct at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia NationalLaboratories.Collier, John1936Instruction to Field Workers, Applied Anthropology Unit. Washington, D.C.:Office of Indian Affairs, Applied Anthropology Unit.Columbus Telegram1989"Opponents sue waste site monitoring committee." Columbus, NE:Wednesday, July 26, 1989, page 6.Committee for the National Institute for the Environment (CNIE) Listserv1996/97The CNIE listserv CNIE@CSF.COLORADO.EDU is a discussion channel formed to facilitate member input regarding the creation of a National Institutefor the Environment. It is facilitated by Juge Gregg JUGE@CNIE.ORG, Director of Academic Relations of the CNIE CNIE@CNIE.ORG. This citation information was provided courtesy of Juge Gregg; the citation refers specifically to discussions held indeveloping principles of and considering options for creating the National Institute forthe Environment. These discussions occurred on the listserv between autumn, 1996,and summer, 1997, under the subject line heading "Progress Report."Committee for the Recovery of Archaeological Remains1958The Inter-Agency Archaeological Salvage Program, After Twelve Years.Committee of Anthropologists in Environmental Planning (CAEP)1993Social Impact Assessment: Guidelines & Principles. CAEP Newsletter 4(2):1.1996New Anthropology and Environment Section for AAA: An End to CAEP?CAEP Newsletter 7(1):1.Cooper, T.A., and L.W. Canter1997Substantive Issues in Cumulative Impact Assessment: A State-of-PracticeSurvey. Impact Assessment 15(1):15-31.
168Cortese, Charles F., and Linda Firth1997Systematically Integrating Public Participation into Planning ControversialProjects: A Case Study. Interact: The Journal of Public Participation 3(1):6-23.Costa, Alberto C., Conrad P. Kottak, Rosane M. Prado1997The Sociopolitical Context of Participatory Development in NortheasternBrazil. Human Organization 56(2):138-146.Costa, Alberto C., Conrad P. Kottak, Rosane M. Prado, and John Stiles1995Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception in Brazil. In Global Ecosystems:Creating Options through Anthropological Perspectives. NAPA Bulletin #15. PamelaPuntenney, (ed.). Pp. 71-87. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Practice ofAnthropology.Council of Great Lakes Research Managers (CGLRM)1989Great Lakes 2000: Building A Vision: Summary Report of the Workshop of theCGLRM on Futures. Washington, D.C.; Ottawa, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario; Detroit,MI.: International Joint Commission.Covello, V.T., G. Flamm, J.V. Rodericks, and R.G. Tardiff (eds.)1983The Analysis of Actual Versus Perceived Risks. New York: Plenum.Cragg, Gordon M., Michael R. Boyd, Michael R. Grever, and Saul A. Schepartz1994Policies for International Collaboration and Compensation in Drug Discoveryand Development at the United States National Cancer Institute, The NCI Letter ofCollection. In Intellectual Property Rights for Indigenous Peoples: A Source Book.Tom Greaves, (ed.) Pp. 83-98. Oklahoma City, OK: Society for Applied Anthropology.Craig, Will, Trevor Harris, and Daniel Weiner1999Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public Participation GIS. Report of theVarenius Workshop, Santa Barbara, California, October 15-17, 1998. Santa Barbara,CA: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, University of Californiaat Santa Barbara.Crawford, Peggy L.1980Social Impact Assessment in the Environmental Impact Assessment Process:An Evaluation of Social Impact Assessment Procedures in the Georgia Department ofTransportation. Master's Thesis. Tampa, FL: Department of Anthropology, Universityof South Florida.
169Dake, Karl1991Orienting Dispositions in the Perception of Risk: An Analysis ofContemporary Worldviews and Cultural Biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology22(1):61-82.DÂ’Andrade, Roy G.1976A Propositional Analysis of U.S. American Beliefs About Illness. In Meaning inAnthropology. K.H. Basso and H.A. Selby (eds.). Albuquerque, NM: University ofNew Mexico Press.1995The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.Davis, Wade1993Death of A People: Logging in the Penan Homeland. Cultural Survival Quarterly17(3):15-20.Denzin, Norman, and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.)1994Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Denzin, Norman, and Yvonna S. Lincoln1994Introduction: Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. In Handbook ofQualitative Research. Norman Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.). Pp. 1-18.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Detroit Edison2001 History: Burgeoning Growth Â– Our Beginnings. Detroit: Detroit Edison. See:http://www.detroitedison.com/company/history.html. Dey, Ian1993Qualitative Data Analysis: A User-friendly Guide for Social Scientists. London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.Dillman, Donald A.1978Mail and Telephone Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Donahue, Brian1999Reclaiming the Commons: Community Farms and Forests in a New EnglandTown. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Donahue, Michael J.1987Institutional Arrangements for Great Lakes Management: Past Practices andFuture Alternatives. Lansing, MI: Michigan Sea Grant.
170Donahue, Michael J.1997The Federal Great Lakes Budget: Time to Reverse a Disturbing Trend. GreatLakes Commission Advisor 10(2):2.1998A Time for Fellowship: Great Lakes Commission Announces New Initiative.Great Lakes Commission Advisor 11(6):2.2000Biocomplexity Incubation Activity: A Collaborative Approach to AquaticNuisance Species Research, Prevention, and Control. Grant proposal submitted tothe Directorate for Biological Sciences, National Science Foundation BiocomplexityInitiative, March 2, 2000. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Commission.Dougherty, Janet W.D. (ed.)1985Directions in Cognitive Anthropology. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Douglas, Mary1978Cultural Bias. Royal Anthropological Institute, Occasional Paper No. 35.London: Royal Anthropological Institute.1985Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. Social Research Perspectives:Occasional Reports on Current Topics, Number 11. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Douglas, Mary, and Aaron Wildavsky1982Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological andEnvironmental Dangers. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Dow, James W.1994Anthropology: The Mapping of Cultural Traits from Field Data. Social ScienceComputer Review 12(4):479-492.Dow, Jeffrey F.1978Social Impact Assessment and Citizen Participation Techniques: A Problem inTransportation and a Proposal. Master's Thesis. Tampa, FL: Department ofAnthropology, University of South Florida.Downing, Theodore, and Gilbert Kushner (eds.)1988Human Rights and Anthropology. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival.Eastman, Carol M.1980Aspects of Language and Culture. Novato, CA: Chandler & Sharp.Edelstein, Michael R.1988Contaminated Communities: The Social and Psychological Impacts ofResidential Toxic Exposure. Boulder, CO: Westview.
171Edgerton, Robert B.1968"Cultural" Versus "Ecological" Factors in the Expression of Values, Attitudes,and Personality Characteristics. In Man in Adaptation: The Cultural Present. Yehudi A.Cohen (ed.). Pp. 309-314. Chicago: Aldine.Edwards, P.1967The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.Eedy, Wilson1995The Use of GIS in Environmental Assessment. Impact Assessment 13(2):199-206.Egginton, Joyce1980The Poisoning of Michigan. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Ellis, Priscilla, Sarah Greenberg, Bianca C. Murphy, and Jonathan W. Reusser1992Environmentally Contaminated Families: Therapeutic Considerations. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry 62(1):44-54.Fagan, Brian1995People of the Earth: An Introduction to World Prehistory. (Eighth Edition.)New York: Harper Collins.Ferre', Frederick, and Peter Hartel (eds.)1994Ethics and Environmental Policy: Theory Meets Practice. Athens, GA:University of Georgia.Fetterman, David M.1983Guilty Knowledge, Dirty Hands, and Other Ethical Dilemmas: The Hazards ofContract Research. Human Organization 42(3):214-224.Finkel, Adam M.1996Comparing Risks Thoughtfully. Risk: Health, Safety, & Environment 7(4):325-359.Finsterbusch, Kurt1995In Praise of SIA -A Personal Review of the Field of Social ImpactAssessment: Feasibility, Justification, History, Methods, and Issues. Impact Assessment13(3):229-252.Fitchen, Janet M., Jenifer S. Heath, and June Fessenden-Raden1987Risk Perception in Community Context: A Case Study. In The Social andCultural Construction of Risk: Essays on Risk Selection and Perception. Branden B.Johnson and Vincent T. Covello (eds.). Pp. 31-54. Boston: D. Reidel.
172Flemming, Raymond, Andrew Baum, Martha M. Gisriel, and Robert J. Gatchel1982Mediating Influences of Social Support on Stress at Three Mile Island. Journal ofHuman Stress 8(3):14-22.Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn1991aEthics in the 1990s and Beyond. In Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology:Dialogue for a New Era. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban (ed.). Pp. 213-236. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania.1991bEthics and Professionalism: A Review of Issues and Principles withinAnthropology. In Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for a New Era.Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban (ed.). Pp. 13-35. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.1991cIntroduction. In Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for aNew Era. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban (ed.). Pp. 3-12. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania.1995Cultural Relativism and Universal Human Rights. The Chronicle of HigherEducation. June 9:B1-B2.Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn (ed.)1991Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for a New Era.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Formaini, Robert1990The Myth of Scientific Public Policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Forman, Shepard (ed.)1994Diagnosing America: Anthropology and Public Engagement. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.Foster, George M.1962Traditional Cultures and the Impact of Technological Change. New York:Harper and Row.Frake, Charles O.1962Cultural Ecology and Ethnography. American Anthropologist 64(1):53-59.Freudenburg, William1988Perceived Risk, Real Risk: Social Science and the Art of Probabilistic RiskAssessment. Science 242(10): 44-49.
173Frye, Ed, and Rod Denning1995Michigan Township Uses Watershed-Based Decision-Support System. Geo InfoSystems: Applications of GIS and Related Spatial Information Technologies 5(9):55-57.Fuller, John G.1975We Almost Lost Detroit. New York: Thomas Crowell.Gallaher, Art, Jr. (ed.)1968Perspectives in Development Change. Lexington: University of KentuckyPress.Garb, Paula1997Complex Problems and No Clear Solutions: Radiation Victimization in Russia.In Life and Death Matters: Human Rights and the Environment at the End of theMillennium. Barbara R. Johnston, (ed.). Pp. 307-329. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraPress.Gatchel, Robert J., and Benjamin Newberry1991Psychophysiological Effects of Toxic Chemical Contamination Exposure: ACommunity Field Study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21:1961-1976.Geer, John G.1991Do Open-ended Questions Measure "Salient" Issues? Public Opinion Quarterly 55(3):360-370.Geertz, Clifford1973The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Geisler, Charles C., Rayna Green, Daniel Usner, and Patrick C. West (eds.)1982Indian SIA: The Social Impact Assessment of Rapid Resource Developmenton Native Peoples. Ann Arbor: Natural Resources Sociology Research Lab, Universityof Michigan.Gelobter, M.1992Toward a Model of Environmental Discrimination. In Race and The Incidenceof Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Bunyan Bryant and Paul Mohai(eds.). Boulder, CO: Westview.Gibbs, Margaret S.1990Psychological Impacts Of Toxic Exposure In Third World Countries: AnExtrapolation. Impact Assessment Bulletin 8(4):7-18.
174Gilbert, Jean, Nathaniel Tashima, and Claudia C. Fishman1991 Ethics and Practicing Anthropologists' Dialogue with the Larger World:Considerations in the Formulation of Ethical Guidelines for PracticingAnthropologists. In Ethics and the Profession of Anthropology: Dialogue for a NewEra. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban (ed.). Pp. 198-210. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania.Gilbert, R.O.1987Statistical Methods of Environmental Pollution Monitoring. New York: VanNostrand, Reinhold.Goffman, Irving1959Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.Goldernberg, S., and S. Frideres1986Measuring the Effects of Public Participation Programs. Environmental ImpactAssessment Review 6(3):273-281.Goodenough, Ward H.1963Cooperation in Change: An Anthropological Approach to CommunityDevelopment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.1976 Intercultural Expertise and Public Policy. In Anthropology and the PublicInterest. Peggy Sanday, (ed.). Pp. 15-23. New York: Academic Press.Gorlan, Rena A. (ed.)1990Codes of Professional Responsibility. Edison, NJ: BNA Books.Gormley, W. Paul1990The Legal Obligation of the International Community to Guarantee a Pure andDecent Environment: The Expansion of Human Rights Norms. Georgetown InternationalEnvironmental Law Review 1990(3):85-116.Gould, Peter1966On Mental Maps. Michigan Inter-University Community of MathematicalGeographers, Discussion Paper Number Nine. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.1969Spatial Diffusion. Commission on College Geography, Resource PaperNumber Four. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Geographers.1990Fire in the Rain: The Democratic Consequences of Chernobyl. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins.
175Gould, Peter, and Rodney White1986Mental Maps. (Second Edition). Boston: Allen & Unwin.Gouldman, Steven E.1994 Applied Anthropology, Participatory Planning, and USF Area NeighborhoodPlanning. Master's Thesis. Tampa, FL: Department of Anthropology, University ofSouth Florida.Graubard, Stephen R.1990Preface To The Issue "Risk." Daedalus: Proceedings of the American Academyof Arts and Sciences 119(4): V-VI.Gray, John A., and Patricia J. Gray1977The Berger Report: Its Impact on Northern Pipelines and Decision-Making inNorthern Development. Canadian Public Policy 3(4):509-514Great Lakes Commission (GLC)1994Ecosystem Charter for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin. Ann Arbor, MI:Great Lakes Commission.1997GLIN to be Regional Repository for Levels Information. Great LakesCommission Advisor 10(2):10.1997Great Lakes Manufacturing Network: Coordinating the Region's TechnologicalResources to Support High Performance Manufacturing. Great Lakes Commission Advisor10(2):13.1997Great Lakes Research Vessel Coordination: Exploring the Possibilities. GreatLakes Commission Advisor 10(2):12.1997New Task Force Addresses Basin Water-Use Planning, Policy Needs. GreatLakes Commission Advisor 10(2):5.1997Region's Leaders Identify Great Lakes Priorities for 105th Congress. GreatLakes Commission Advisor 10(2):4.1997 Water Works 1997: Watershed Cleanup is a Good Investment. Great LakesCommission Advisor 10(2):14.2000 1999 Annual Report. Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Commission.2000Lakewide Management Plans: An Ecosystem Approach to Protecting the GreatLakes. Ann Arbor, MI: Great Lakes Commission.
176Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species1997Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin:Research Guidance and Descriptive Inventory. Ann Arbor: Great LakesCommission.Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF)1992Annual Report. Chicago: GLPF.1994aPriorities and Guidelines for Funding. Chicago: GLPF.1994bCall for Preproposals. Chicago: GLPF.Great Lakes Science Advisory Board (GLSAB)19911991 Report to the International Joint Commission (IJC). Washington, D.C.;Ottawa, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario; Detroit, MI.: IJC.Greaves, Tom1994IPR, A Current Survey. In Intellectual Property Rights for Indigenous Peoples:A Source Book. Tom Greaves, (ed.). Pp. 1-16. Oklahoma City, OK: Society forApplied Anthropology.Greaves, Tom (ed.)1994Intellectual Property Rights for Indigenous Peoples: A Source Book. OklahomaCity, OK: Society for Applied Anthropology.Greider, Thomas1993Ethical Dilemmas and Publishing Constraints of Client-Based AppliedPractitioners. Human Organization 52(4):432-433.Gross, Daniel1992Discovering Anthropology. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.Gross, Jonathon, and Steve Rayner1985Measuring Culture: A Paradigm for the Analysis of Social Organization. NewYork: Columbia University Press.Guyton, Alison, and Bob Yamashita1997Ensuring Participation of Marginalized Communities. In Participation inTurbulent Times: Preliminary Program and Conference Information for the 1997Annual Meeting of the International Association for Public Participation. Pp. 7.Alexandria, VA: IAP2.
177Hakken, David1991Anthropological Ethics in the 1990s: A Positive Approach. In Ethics and theProfession of Anthropology: Dialogue for a New Era. Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban, (ed.).Pp. 74-94. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Hammersley, Martyn1992WhatÂ’s Wrong with Ethnography? London: Routledge.Hardin, Garrett1968The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162(December 13):1243-1248.Hardin, Jennifer1995Public Involvement, Transportation Planning, and Applied AnthropologyResearch: A Community-Based Needs Assessment for Additional PublicTransportation in Sun City Center, Florida. Master's Thesis. Tampa, FL: Department ofAnthropology, University of South Florida.Harding, Joe R., and J. Michael Livesay1984Anthropology and Public Policy. In Social Science and Public Policy. George J.McCall and George H. Weber (eds.). Pp. 51-90. Port Washington, NY: AssociatedFaculty Press.Harrison, Gail G., William L. Rathje, and Wilson W. Hughes1975Food Waste Behavior in an Urban Population. Journal of Nutrition Education7(1):13-16.Hatch, Elvin1973Theories of Man and Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.Haviland, William A.1996Cultural Anthropology. (Eighth Edition.) Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt BraceCollege Publishers.Hazelrigg, Lawrence E.1993Constructionism and Practices of Objectivity. In Reconsidering SocialConstructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory. James A. Holstein and GaleMiller (eds.). Pp. 485-500. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Headland, Thomas, Kenneth Pike, and Marvin Harris (eds.)1990Emics and Etics: The Insider/Outsider Debate. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Helmer, O.1968Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method. In Technological Forecasting forIndustry and Government. J.R. Bright (ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
178Herskovits, Melville1964Cultural Dynamics. New York: Knopf.1985Cultural Relativism. In Ethical Relativism. J. Ladd, (ed.). Pp. 58-77. New York:University Press of America.Hess, Carmen G.1997Hungry for Hope: On the Cultural and Communicative Dimensions ofDevelopment in Highland Ecuador. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Holland, D., and N. Quinn (eds.)1987Cultural Models in Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: CambridgeUniversity Press.Holloway, Marguerite1991Soiled Shores. Scientific American (October):102-116.Holmberg, Allan R.1958The Research and Development Approach to the Study of Change. HumanOrganization 17(1):12-16.Holstein, James A., and Gale Miller (eds.)1993Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory.New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Holy, Ladislav1985Groups. In The Social Science Encyclopedia: Adam and Jessica Kuper, (eds.).Pp. 346-347. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Hougland, James G.1985The Social Scientist and the Government Official: Problems of Ethics andCommunications. Journal of Applied Sociology 2(1):15-23.IAIA_SIA1996/97IAIA_SIA is a listserv discussion group on Social Impact Assessment forthe International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). It is facilitated by Dr.Frank Vanclay FVANCLAY@CSU.EDU.AU. Details are available at the IAIA web site: http://www.csu.edu.au/research/crsr/frankpro.htm. This citation information was provided courtesy of Dr. Frank Vanclay; the citation refers specifically to adiscussion of GIS in SIA that occurred on the listserv between November, 1996, andFebruary, 1997.4/28/97Subject Line: "HIA Text for Forwarding."
179IAIA_SIA5/7/97Subject Line: "New Developments."5/9/97Subject Line: "Info. About IAIA Sections."International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)1997 Code of Ethics for IAIA Members. As listed in the IAIA Website Homepage:HTTP://IAIA.EXT.NODAK.EDU/IAIA/. See Code of Ethics, IAIAcode.html. International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Newsletter1994A Code of Ethics for IAIA Members?? IAIA Newsletter 6(3):2.International Association for Public Participation (IAP2)19971997-98 Board Members Ballot: Biographical Sketch for Dr. Sung-Bong Cho.Alexandria, VA: IAP2.1997Core Values for the Practice of Public Participation. The Practitioner: Newsletter forthe IAP2 (April):10.1997 Draft Concept for Public Participation Code of Ethics. As listed in the IAP2Website Homepage: HTTP://WWW.PIN.ORG/IAP2.HTM. International Joint Commission (IJC)1909Boundary Waters Treaty. Ottawa, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario; Detroit, MI.: IJC.1972Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Washington, D.C.; Ottawa, Ontario;Windsor, Ontario; Detroit, MI.: IJC.1987Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement As Amended by Protocol SignedNovember 18, 1987. Washington, D.C.; Ottawa, Ontario; Windsor, Ontario; Detroit,MI.: IJC.International NGO Forum (Rio de Janeiro, 1992)1996No. 24: Treaty on Energy (excerpts). In Principles of EnvironmentalConservation and Sustainable Development: Summary and Survey. A Study in the Fieldof International Law and Related International Reports. (Revised April, 1996). StevenC. Rockefeller, (ed.). P. 146. San Jose, Costa Rica: Earth Charter Project, Earth Council.Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles1993Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Belhaven, SC:International Association for Impact Assessment.
180Interorganizational Committee on Guidelines and Principles1994Guidelines and Principles for Social Impact Assessment. Impact Assessment12(2):107-152.Jacobs, Sue-Ellen, Barbara A. Schleicher, and Raymond A. Ontiveros1974Preliminary Social and Cultural Profiles of the Human Communities in theSpringer-Sangamon Impact Zones, Social Impact Assessment and Identification ofResource-Oriented Attributes of the Human Environment in the Springer-SangamonImpact Zones -Phase 1. Champaign, IL: Springer-Sangamon Environmental ResearchProgram, Department of Forestry and Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station,University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana.Johnson, Branden B., and Vincent T. Covello (eds.)1987The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk: Essays on Risk Selection andPerception. Boston: D. Reidel.Johnston, Barbara R. (ed.)1993aHuman Rights and the Environment: Examining the Sociocultural Context ofEnvironmental Crisis. Oklahoma City, OK: Society for Applied Anthropology.1993bWho Pays the Price? Examining the Sociocultural Context of EnvironmentalCrisis. Oklahoma City, OK: Society for Applied Anthropology.1997Life and Death Matters: Human Rights and the Environment at the End of theMillennium. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.Johnston, Barbara R.1994Human Rights and the Environment. Practicing Anthropology 16(1):8-12.1995Towards an Environmental Anthropology. Practicing Anthropology 17(4):29-31.1997Conclusion: Crisis, Chaos, Conflict, and Change. In Life and Death Matters:Human Rights and the Environment at the End of the Millennium. Barbara R.Johnston, (ed.). Pp. 330-339. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.1997Introduction: Life and Death Matters at the End of the Millennium. In Life andDeath Matters: Human Rights and the Environment at the End of the Millennium.Barbara R. Johnston, (ed.). Pp. 9-21. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.1999Report on the SfAA Environmental Anthropology Project. Society for AppliedAnthropology Newsletter 10(1):7-8.Johnston, D.F.1970Forecasting Methods in the Social Sciences. Technological Forecasting and SocialChange (2):173-187.
181Johnston, Francis E.1982Physical Anthropology. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown.Jonas, Hans1984The Imperative of Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Jones, Ken1997Indicator Theory and Practice: Getting the Twain to Meet. Synergy: The Newsletterfor Positive Change in Environmental Management 2(2):15-16.Jordan, J.M.1995Fernald Envoy Assessment. Cincinnati, OH: Center for EnvironmentalCommunication Studies, University of Cincinnati.Kaplan, David, and Robert A. Manners1972Culture Theory. (Reissued 1986.) Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Kempton, Willett1987aTwo Theories of Home Heat Control. In Cultural Models in Language andThought. D. Holland and N. Quinn (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge UniversityPress.1987bVariations in Folk Models and Consequent Behavior. American Behavioral Scientist31(2):203-218.Keystone Center1996The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management: FinalReport. Keystone, CO: The Keystone Center.Kimball, Solon T., and John H. Provinse1942Navajo Social Organization in Land-Use Planning. Applied Anthropology 1(4):18-25.King, Steven R.1994Establishing Reciprocity: Biodiversity, Conservation, and New Models forCooperation between Forest-Dwelling Peoples and the Pharmaceutical Industry. InIntellectual Property Rights for Indigenous Peoples: A Source Book. Tom Greaves,(ed.) Pp. 69-82. Oklahoma City, OK: Society for Applied Anthropology.Kollack, Peter, and Jodi OÂ’Brien (eds.)1994The Production of Reality: Essays and Readings in Social Psychology.Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
182Kottak, Conrad P.1990aCulture and "Economic Development." American Anthropologist 92(3):723-731.1990bPrime-Time Society: An Anthropological Analysis of Television and Culture.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.1991When People Don't Come First: Some Lessons From Completed Projects. InPutting People First: Sociological Variables In Rural Development. Second Edition.Michael Cernea, (ed.). Pp. 429-464. New York: Oxford.1992Assault on Paradise: Social Change In A Brazilian Village. Second Edition. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill.Kottak, Conrad P., and Alberto C. G. Costa1993Ecological Awareness, Environmentalist Action, And InternationalConservation Strategy. Human Organization 52(4):335-343.Kottak, Conrad P., and John V. Stone1993The Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception Study. A research continuationgrant proposal submitted to the Michigan Memorial-Phoenix Project, October 15,1993. Ann Arbor: Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan.Kramer, Carol1979Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Columbia University Press.Kupferer, Harriet J.1988Ancient Drums, Other Moccasins: Native North American CulturalAdaptation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Kushner, Gilbert1973Immigrants from India in Israel: Planned Change in an AdministeredCommunity. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.1978Applied Anthropology Training Programs. Practicing Anthropology 1(2):23.1988Powerless People: The Administered Community. In Human Rights andAnthropology. Theodore Downing and Gilbert Kushner (eds.). Pp. 27-42. Cambridge,MA: Cultural Survival.1991Applied Anthropology. In Career Explorations in Human Services. William G.Emener and Margaret Darrow (eds.). Pp. 46-61. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
183Kushner, Gilbert1994Training Programs for the Practice of Anthropology. Human Organization53(2):187-191.Kushner, Gilbert, and Alvin Wolfe1993Applied Anthropology at the University of South Florida. Practicing Anthropology15(1):3-5.Lach, D., P. Hixson, and L. Ramonas1995Prototype Indicators of Value Added through Public Involvement. InEnvironmental Challenges: The Next 20 Years. Conference Proceedings of the 20thAnnual Meeting of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. Pp. 264-275. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Environmental Professionals.Ladd, J. (ed.)1985Ethical Relativism. New York: University Press of America.Lawrence, David P.1997EIA -Do We Know Where We Are Going? Impact Assessment 15(1):3-13.Leach, Edmund R.1965Culture and Social Cohesion: An Anthropologist's View. In Science andCulture. Gerald Holton (ed.). Pp. 25-39. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Leacock, Eleanor, Nancie L. Gonzales, and Gilbert Kushner (eds.)1974Training Programs for New Opportunities in Applied Anthropology: ASymposium Sponsored by the Society for Applied Anthropology. Washington, D.C.:American Anthropological Association.Lehmann, Andre, and Amory Lovins1997Small is Profitable: The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making ElectricalResources the Right Size. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.Leiss, William, and Christina Chociolko1994Risk and Responsibility. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Leistritz, F. Larry, and Brenda L. Ekstrom (eds.)1986Social Impact Assessment and Management: An Annotated Bibliography. NewYork: Garland.Lempert, David1997Commentary: Accountability in Anthropological Ethics -Protecting OurIntegrity and the Peoples We Serve. Practicing Anthropology 19(2):36-39.
184Lieberson, Stanley1985Making It Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory. Berkeley,CA: University of California.1991Small N's and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning inComparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases. Social Forces 70(2): 307-320.Lincoln, Yvonna, and Egon G. Guba1985Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Linstone, H.A., and M. Turoff (eds.)1975The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Love, Norma, and Marian Eaton1970The Bay-Area Air Pollution Control District: An Anthropological Perspective.Unpublished undergraduate paper, Department of Anthropology, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.Luhmann, Niklas1993Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Lundberg, Craig C.1968A Transactional Conception of Fieldwork. Human Organization 27(1):45-49.MacLennan, Carol1994 Democratic Participation: A View from Anthropology. In Diagnosing America:Anthropology and Public Engagement. Shepard Forman, (ed.). Pp. 51-74. Ann Arbor:The University of Michigan Press.Maffi, Luisa (ed.)2001On Biocultural Diversity Linking Language, Knowledge, and theEnvironment. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.Maffi, Luisa, Gonzalo Oviedo, and Peter Billy Larsen1999 Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the world and EcoregionConservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving the World's Biological andCultural Diversity. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Federation (see, e.g.,http://panda.org/resources/publications/sustainability/indigenous3/eco_summary. htm).
185Manton, K.G., M.A. Woodbury, and E. Stallard1981A Variance Components Approach to Categorical Data Models withHeterogeneous Cell Populations: Analysis of Spatial Gradients in Lung CancerMortality Rates in North Carolina Counties. Biometrics (37):259-269.Markovits, Andrei S., and Karl W. Deutsch1980Fear of Science -Trust in Science: Conditions for Change in the Climate ofOpinion. Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain.Maruyama, Magorah1973Cultural, Social, and Psychological Considerations in the Planning of PublicWorks. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 5(1):135-143.McCall, George J., and George H. Weber (eds.)1984Social Science and Public Policy. Port Washington, NY: Associated FacultyPress.McCall, George J., Jacquie Ngeva, and Mpumie Mbeebe1997Mapping Conflict Cultures: Interpersonal Disputing in a South African BlackTownship. Human Organization 56(1):71-78.McClary, Andrew1975Biology and Society: The Evolution of Man and His Technology. New York:Macmillan Publishing.McCoy, K. Lynn, Edwin E. Krumpe, and Paul D. Cowles1997 The Principles and Processes of Public Involvement. IAP2 On-line Library(http://www.pin.org/library). McGowan, Janet, and Iroka Udeinya1994Collecting Traditional Medicines in Nigeria: A Proposal for IPR Compensation.In Intellectual Property Rights for Indigenous Peoples: A Source Book. Tom Greaves,(ed.). Pp. 57-68. Oklahoma City, OK: Society for Applied Anthropology.McGree, Frank1969Who Killed Lake Erie? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: NNBC Film Exchange.McLaren, Douglas E.1993Environmental Considerations and Public Involvement in Impact Assessment.Impact Assessment 11(2):175-202.
186Mercer, J.L.1980Setting Priorities: Three Techniques for Better Decision-Making. (ManagementInformation System Report.) International City Management Association 12(9):5-6.Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund1993Program Priorities for 1993: Requests For Proposals. Lansing: MichiganDepartment of Natural Resources.Miles, Mathew B., and A. Michael Huberman1994Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Second Edition.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Miller, Delbert C.1983Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement. Fourth Edition. NewYork: Longman.Miller, G. Tyler, Jr.1982Living In The Environment. Third Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Miller, Gale, and James A. Holstein (eds.)1993Constructionist Controversies: Issues in Social Problems Theory. New York:Aldine De Gruyter.Miller, Leslie J.1993Claims-Making from the Underside: Marginalization and Social ProblemsAnalysis. In Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory.James A. Holstein and Gale Miller (eds.). Pp. 349-376. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Millsap, William (ed.)1984Applied Social Science for Environmental Planning. Boulder, CO: Westview.Mitchell, Sandra K.1979Interobserver Agreement, Reliability, and Generalizability of Data Collected inObservational Studies. Psychological Bulletin 86:376-390.Mohai, Paul, and Bunyan Bryant1995Demographic Studies Reveal a Pattern of Environmental Injustice. InEnvironmental Justice: An Opposing Viewpoints Series. Jonathan S. Petrikin (ed.). Pp.10-23. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.Monmonier, Mark1991How to Lie with Maps. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
187Monmonier, Mark1995How to Lie with Maps. Workshop #4, International Symposium on ComputerMapping in Epidemiology and Environmental Health. February 12, 1995, Tampa, FL.Monroe County Emergency Management Division1991Monroe County Emergency Management Plan. Monroe, MI: Monroe CountyBoard of Commissioners.Moran, Emilio F.1979Human Adaptability. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.1990The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice.University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI.Moran, Emilio F. (ed.)1995The Comparative Analysis of Human Societies: Toward Common Standardsfor Data Collection and Reporting. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Morse, Janice M.1994Designing Funded Qualitative Research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research.Norman Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln (eds.). Pp. 220-235. Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.Mountain West Research, Inc.1979Pipeline Construction Worker and Community Impact Surveys. Final Report.Billings, MT: Mountain West Research, Inc.Nader, Laura1974Up the Anthropologist -Perspectives Gained from Studying Up. InReinventing Anthropology. Del Hymes, (ed.). Pp. 284-311. New York: Vintage.National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force1994Conclusions and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions PolicyReview. Washington, D.C.: National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.National Association of Practicing Anthropologists (NAPA)1988National Association of Practicing Anthropologists' Ethical Guidelines forPractitioners. Washington, D.C.: NAPA.National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC)1996The Model Plan for Public Participation. Developed by the Public Participationand Accountability Subcommittee of the NEJAC. Washington, DC: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Justice.
188National Research Council (NRC)1983Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process.Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.1993Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.1994Building Consensus. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.National Science Foundation (NSF)1999Biocomplexity in the Environment: Integrated Research to Understand andModel Complexity Among Biological, Physical, and Social Systems. NSF SpecialGrants Competition, #00-22. Washington, D.C.: NSF.Nelson, Richard1993aUnderstanding Eskimo Science. Audubon (September/October):102-109.1993bBiophilia. New York: Island Press.Netting, Robert M.1977Cultural Ecology. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.Nickel, James W.1993The Human Rights of a Safe Environment. Yale Journal of International Law1993(18):281-295.Niehoff, Arthur H. (ed.)1966A Casebook of Social Change: Critical Evaluations of Attempts to IntroduceChange in the Five Major Developing Areas of the World. Chicago: Aldine.Northeast Center for Comparative Risk1994Project News. The Comparative Risk Bulletin 4(5&6).1996Environmental Democracy. The Comparative Risk Bulletin 6(1&2):1-2.Onibokum, Adepoju1975Socioeconomic Impacts of Highways and Commuter Rail Systems on LandUse and Activity Patterns. Monticello, IL: Council of Planning Librarians.Ortolano, Leonard, and Anne Shepherd1995Environmental Impact Assessment. In Environmental and Social ImpactAssessment. Frank Vanclay and Daniel Bronstein (eds.), Pp. 3-30. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.
189Partridge, William1984Planning and Design Stage. In Training Manual in Development Anthropology.William Partridge, (ed.). Pp. 18-30. Society for Applied Anthropology SpecialPublication #17. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.Partridge, William (ed.)1984Training Manual in Development Anthropology. Society for AppliedAnthropology Special Publication #17. Washington, D.C.: American AnthropologicalAssociation.Peele, Elizabeth1995From Public Participation to Stakeholder Involvement: The Rocky Road toMore Inclusiveness. In Environmental Challenges: The Next 20 Years. Proceedings ofthe 1995 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Environmental Professionals(NAEP), pp. 186-201. Washington, D.C.: NAEP Publications.Peet, R., and M. Watts1994Development Theory and Environmentalism in an Age of MarketTriumphalism. Economic Geography 69(3):227-253.Pelto, Pertti J., and Gretel H. Pelto1984Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry. Second Edition.Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.Perrecone, John, and Peter G. Redmond1997Local Public Participation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. InParticipation in Turbulent Times: Preliminary Program and Conference Informationfor the 1997 Annual Meeting of the International Association for Public Participation.Pp. 9. Alexandria, VA: IAP2.Perrow, Charles1984Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. New York: BasicBooks.Perry, Richard J.1992Why Do Multiculturalists Ignore Anthropologists? The Chronicle of HigherEducation (March 4):52.Peterson, E.B., Y.-H. Chan, N.M. Peterson, G.A. Constable, R.B. Caton, C.S. Davis, R.R.Wallace, and G.A. Yarranton1987Cumulative Effects Assessment In Canada: An Agenda For Action AndResearch. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.
190Petrikin, Jonathan S. (ed.)1995Environmental Justice: An Opposing Viewpoints Series. San Diego, CA:Greenhaven Press.Pielou, E.C.1969Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Pike, Kenneth L.1947Phonemics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Plattner, Stuart1992Qualitative Methods in Anthropological Science. "Commentary" in AnthropologyNewsletter (April):32.Podolefsky, Aaron, and Peter J. Brown1994Biological Anthropology. In Applying Anthropology: An Introductory Reader.(Third Edition.) Aaron Podolefsky and Peter J. Brown (eds.). Pp. 3-5. Mountain View,CA: Mayfield.Poggie, John J. Jr., Billie R. DeWalt, and William W. Dressler1992Anthropological Research Process and Application. Albany, NY: SUNY.Poister, T.H.1978Public Program Analysis: Applied Research Methods. Baltimore, MD:University Park Press.Poli, Corrado1994The Political Consequences of an Environmental Question. In Ethics andEnvironmental Policy: Theory Meets Practice. Frederick Ferre and Peter Hartel, (eds.).Pp. 125-141. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Porter, Alan L., and John J. Fittipaldi (eds.)1998Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the NewCentury. Atlanta: Army Environmental Policy Institute; Fargo, ND: InternationalAssociation for Impact Assessment.Posavac, E.J., and R.G. Carey1985Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.Punch, Maurice1986The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork. London: Sage.
191Puntenney, Pamela (ed.)1995Global Ecosystems: Creating Options through Anthropological Perspectives.NAPA Bulletin #15. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Practice ofAnthropology.Purcell, Trevor W.1998Indigenous Knowledge and Applied Anthropology: Questions of Definitionand Direction. Human Organization 57(3):258-272.Rappaport, Roy1993Considering the Meaning of Human Environment and the Notion of Impact.In Who Pays The Price? Examining The Sociocultural Context of EnvironmentalCrisis: A Society for Applied Anthropology Report on Human Rights and theEnvironment. Barbara Johnston, ed. Pp. 30-41. Oklahoma City, OK: Society forApplied Anthropology.Rathje, William L.1974The Garbage Project: A New Way of Looking at the Problems of Archaeology.Archaeology 27:236.1981From Tikal to Tucson: Today's Garbage is Tomorrow's Artifact. AnthropologyNewsletter 22:3.Rawls, John1967Distributive Justice. In Philosophy, Politics, and Society. P. Laslett and W.G.Runciman (eds.). Pp. 58-82. Oxford: Blackwell.1971A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Rayner, Steve1987Risk and Relativism in Science for Policy. In The Social and CulturalConstruction of Risk: Essays on Risk Selection and Perception. Branden B. Johnsonand Vincent T. Covello, (eds.). Pp. 5-29. Boston: D. Reidel.Rayner, Steve, and Elizabeth L. Malone (eds.)1998Human Choice and Climate Change: An Assessment of Social ScienceResearch Relevant to Global Climate Change. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.Reck, Gregory G.1996Science and Anthropology and What We Can Learn from the Past. AnthropologyNews 37(4), April 1996:7.
192Reil, Kathleen1997Can I Still Be Heard? The Impact of Government Downsizing on theConsultation Process. In Participation in Turbulent Times: Preliminary Program andConference Information for the 1997 Annual Meeting of the International Associationfor Public Participation. Pp. 8. Alexandria, VA: IAP2.Reilly, William K.1991Why I Propose A National Debate On Risk. EPA Journal: SettingEnvironmental Priorities And The Debate About Risk 17(2): 2-5.Richards, Cara E.1977People in Perspective: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. (SecondEdition.) New York: Random House.Ridington, Robin1982When Poison Gas Come Down Like A Fog: A Native CommunityÂ’s ResponseTo Cultural Disaster. Human Organization 41(1):36-42.Riley, Mary2001TIG for Intellectual Property Rights. Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter12(1):11-13.Roberts, Richard1995Public Involvement: From Consultation to Participation. In Environmental andSocial Impact Assessment. Frank Vanclay and Daniel Bronstein, (eds.). Pp. 221-246.New York: John Wiley & Sons.1998Public Involvement in Environmental Impact Assessment: Moving to a"Newthink." Interact: The Journal of Public Participation 4(1):39-61.Roberts, Richard, and Nancy Marshall1996Stakeholder Consultation: Only One Component of Public Involvement!Interact: The Journal of Public Participation 2(2).Robins, Carole1984Computer-Assisted Mapping. Practicing Anthropology 6(2):15.Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)1997aKnock, Knock: Green Development Calling: A Win-Win Approach toCommunity Planning. Rocky Mountain Institute Newsletter XIII(1):5.1997bSmall is Profitable: Why Our Bigger-is-Better Electricity System's Days AreNumbered. Rocky Mountain Institute Newsletter XIII(1):1,8-9.
193Romney, A. Kimball, Susan C. Weller, and William Batchelder1986Culture as Consensus: A Theory of Culture and Informant Accuracy. AmericanAnthropologist 88:313-339.Rosener, J.B.1978Citizen Participation: Can We Measure its Effectiveness? Public AdministrationReview No. 5, September/October.Rutman, L., and G. Mowbray1983Understanding Program Evaluation. Sage Human Services Guides, Vol. 31.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Ryan, Gery W.1999Measuring the Typicality of Text: Using Multiple Coders for More Than JustReliability and Validity Checks. Human Organization 58(3):313-322.Rylko-Bauer, Barbara, John van Willigen, and Ann McElroy1989Strategies for Increasing the Use of Anthropological Research in the PolicyProcess: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis. In Making Our Research Useful: Case Studiesin the Utilization of Anthropological Knowledge. John van Willigen, Barbara Rylko-Bauer, and Ann McElroy (eds.), Pp. 1-25. Boulder, CO: Westview.Rynkiewich, Michael, and James Spradley (eds.)1976Ethics and Anthropology: Dilemmas in Fieldwork. New York: Wiley.Sadler, Barry1996Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice toImprove Performance. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and InternationalAssociation for Impact Assessment. Ottawa, CN: Ministry of Supply and Services.Sayne, Pamela1997What's Sex Got To Do With It?: Woman Accessing Decision-Making FromLocal To Global Strategies. In Participation in Turbulent Times: Preliminary Programand Conference Information for the 1997 Annual Meeting of the InternationalAssociation for Public Participation. Pp. 6. Alexandria, VA: IAP2.Schaefer, James1991Toward an Ethic for the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem. A Discussion PaperPrepared for the Societal Committee of the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board of theInternational Joint Commission. Windsor, Ontario, CN: IJC.
194Schensul, Stephen L.1973Action Research: The Applied Anthropologist in a Community Mental HealthProgram. In Anthropology Beyond the University. A. Redfield (ed.). SouthernAnthropological Society Proceedings #7. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Scherer, Donald (ed.)1990Upstream/Downstream: Issues in Environmental Ethics. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press.Schirmer, Jennifer1988The Dilemma of Cultural Diversity and Equivalency in Universal HumanRights Standards. In Human Rights and Anthropology. Theodore Downing andGilbert Kushner, (eds.). Pp. 27-42. Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival.Schlotter, Jeffrey J.1991Utilizing Anthropological Knowledge and Perspectives: PracticingAnthropology in Transportation Consulting. Master's Thesis. Tampa, FL: Departmentof Anthropology, University of South Florida.Schnegg, Michael, and H. Russell Bernard1996Works as Actors: A Method for Doing Semantic Network Analysis. CulturalAnthropology Methods Journal 8:13-16.Schultz, Emily A., and Robert H. Lavenda1995Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition. Mountain View, CA:Mayfield.Schweitzer, Martin, Sam A. Carnes, and Elizabeth B. Peele1999Evaluating Public Participation Efforts. Improving the Practice (First Quarter: 1-6).(Provided as an insert to Participation Quarterly: The Newsletter of the International Associationfor Public Participation, First Quarter, 1999).Scott, James C.1994 Prestige as the Public Discourse of Domination. In The Production of Reality:Essays and Readings in Social Psychology. Peter Kollock and Jodi O'Brien (eds.). Pp.473-492. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Scupin, Raymond, and Christopher DeCorse1995Anthropology: A Global Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
195Shepardson, David1998Â“Edison to Close Nuke Plant: Utility DoesnÂ’t Plan to Renew License for FermiII in 2025, Shutdown Cost is Pegged at $3 Billion.Â” Detroit News Online 10/12/98.Shrader-Frechette, Kristin S.1988Producer Risk, Consumer Risk, and Assessing Technological Impacts. ImpactAssessment Bulletin 6(3-4): 155-164.1991Risk And Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms.Berkeley, CA: University of California.1994Ethics of Scientific Research. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.1997How Some Risk Frameworks Disenfranchise the Public. Risk: Health, Safety, &Environment 8(1):1-8.Sierra Club1997Southeastern Michigan: America's New Cancer Alley. Emily Green, BrettHulsey, and Pat King (co-authors). Madison, WI: Sierra Club Great Lakes ProtectionProgram.Small, Gail1995Native Americans Must Fight to Prevent Environmental Injustice on TheirHomelands. In Environmental Justice: An Opposing Viewpoints Series. Jonathan S.Petrikin (ed.). Pp. 60-64. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.Smith, Adam1937The Wealth of Nations. New York: Dutton.Smith, M. Brewster1979Some Perspectives on Ethical/Political Issues in Social Science Research. InFederal Regulations: Ethical Issues and Social Research. Murray Wax and Joan Cassell,(eds.). Pp. 11-22. Boulder, CO: Westview.Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)1941By-laws [sic]. Human Organization (any edition: opening leaf).1948Statement on Professional and Ethical Responsibilities. Oklahoma City, OK:SfAA.1975Statement on Professional and Ethical Responsibilities (Revised). HumanOrganization 34(2).
196Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA)1983Statement on Professional and Ethical Responsibilities (Revised). OklahomaCity, OK: SfAA.1995 Cooperative Agreement between the Society for Applied Anthropology andthe Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, October, 1996 Â– September, 2001. Full text ofthe SfAA-EPA Cooperative Agreement as listed in the SfAA website:http://www.sfaa.net/eap/cooptext.html. Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA)1976The Society of Professional Archaeologists, Code of Ethics, Standards ofResearch Performance, and Institutional Standards, 1976. Washington, D.C.: SOPA.Soderstrom, E. Jonathon1981Social Impact Assessment: Experimental Methods and Approaches. New York:Praeger.Soderstrom, E. Jonathon, John H. Sorensen, Emily D. Copenhaver, and Sam A. Carnes1984Risk Perception in an Interest Group Context: An Examination of the TMIRestart Issue. Risk Analysis 4(3):231-244.Sonntag, N.C., R.R. Everitt, L.P. Rattie, D.L. Colnett, C.P. Wolf, J.C. Truett, A.H.J. Dorcey,and C.S. Holling1987Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Context for Further Research andDevelopment. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council.Southerland, Mark T.1995Determining the Appropriate Scope: Assessing at the Ecosystem Level. InEnvironmental Challenges: The Next 20 Years. Proceedings of the 1995 AnnualMeeting of the National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP), pp. 571-583. Washington, D.C.: NAEP Publications.Spicer, Edward H.1946aThe Use of Social Scientists by the War Relocation Authority. AppliedAnthropology 5(2):16-36.1946bImpounded People: Japanese-Americans in the Relocation Centers.Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, War Relocation Authority.1976Beyond Analysis and Explanation? Notes on the Life and Times of the Societyfor Applied Anthropology. Malinowski Award Lecture. Human Organization 35(4):335-343.
197Spicer, Edward H.1977Early Applications of Anthropology in North America. In Perspectives onAnthropology 1976. Anthony F.C. Wallace, J. Lawrence Angel, Richard Fox, SallyMcLendon, Rachel Sady, and Robert Sharer (eds.), Pp. 116-141. Washington, D.C.:American Anthropological Association.Spicer, Edward H. (ed.)1952Human Problems in Technological Change. (Second edition, 1965.) New York:Russell Sage Foundation.Spooner, Brian1987Insiders and Outsiders in Baluchistan: Western and Indigenous Perspectives onEcology and Development. In Lands at Risk in the Third World: Local-LevelPerspectives. Peter D. Little, Michael M. Horowitz, and A. Endre Nyerges, (eds.). Pp.58-68. Boulder, CO: Westview.Spradley, James (ed.)1972Culture and Cognition: Rules, Maps, and Plans. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.Sprent, Peter1988Taking Risks: The Science of Uncertainty. London: Penguin.State of Michigan1982Public Act 307: The Michigan Environmental Response Act, (as amended).Steward, Julian H.1955Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution.(Second edition, 1963.) Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Stocking, George W.1974The Basic Assumptions of Boasian Anthropology. In The Shaping of AmericanAnthropology 1883-1911: A Franz Boas Reader. George W. Stocking, (ed.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.Stoffle, Richard W. (general ed.)1990 Cultural And Paleontological Effects Of Siting A Low-Level Radioactive WasteStorage Facility In Michigan: Candidate Area Analysis Phase. Ann Arbor: Institute forSocial Research, University of Michigan.
198Stoffle, Richard W., David B. Halmo, and John Olmsted1989Paitu Nanasuagaindu Pahonupi (Three Sacred Valleys): An Assessment ofNative American Cultural Resources Potentially Affected by Proposed U.S. Air ForceElectronic Combat Test Capability Actions and Alternatives at the Utah Test andTraining Range. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Stoffle, Richard W., David B. Halmo, and Michael J. Evans1999Puchuxwavaats Uapi (To Know About Plants): Traditional Knowledge and theCultural Significance of Southern Paiute Plants. Human Organization 58(4):416-429.Stoffle, Richard W., David B. Halmo, Michael J. Evans, and John E. Olmsted1990Calculating the Cultural Significance Of American Indian Plants: Paiute AndShoshone Ethnobotany at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. American Anthropologist 92(2):416-432.Stoffle, Richard W., John V. Stone, and Steven G. Heeringa1993Mapping Risk Perception Shadows: Defining The Locally Affected PopulationFor A Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facility In Michigan. Environmental Professional15(3):316-333.Stoffle, Richard W., Michael W. Traugott, John V. Stone, Paula D. McIntyre, Florence V.Jensen, and Carla C. Davidson1991Risk Perception Mapping: Using Ethnography To Define The Locally AffectedPopulation For A Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility In Michigan. AmericanAnthropologist 93(3):611-635.Stoffle, Richard W., Michael W. Traugott, Camilla L. Harshbarger, Florence V. Jensen, MichaelJ. Evans, and Paula Drury1988Risk Perception Shadows: The Superconducting Super Collider in Michigan.Practicing Anthropology 10(3-4):6-7.Stoffle, Richard W., Michael W. Traugott, Florence V. Jensen, and Robert Copeland1987Social Assessment of High Technology: The Superconducting Super Collider inSoutheast Michigan. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Stoffle, Richard W., Michael W. Traugott, John V. Stone, Paula D. McIntyre, Florence V.Jensen, Carla C. Davidson, and Gail E. Coover1990Social Assessment of Siting A Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility inMichigan. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
199Stone, John V.1989Public Involvement in an Environmental Impact Assessment of DisposalAlternatives for Obsolete Chemical Weaponry: A Network Analysis of PublicConcerns. Master's Thesis. Tampa, FL: Department of Anthropology, University ofSouth Florida.1992 Professional Networks. Practicing Anthropology 15(1):25-27.1994Risk Assessment and Indigenous Knowledge. A paper presented at theSymposium on Indigenous Knowledge And Contemporary Social Issues, March 3-5,1994, Tampa, FL.1998Â“Setting Parameters for Evaluating Public Participation in EnvironmentalManagement.Â” Invited keynote presentation delivered to the Quarterly Meeting of theGreat Lakes Chapter of the International Association for Public Participation, Minneapolis, MN,December 10 Â– 11, 1998.1999Statement of Interest. Fellowship project proposal submitted to theSfAA/EPA Fellowship Advisory Committee, March 9, 1999.1999Revised Statement of Work for the Risk Perception Mapping DemonstrationProject. Report of fellowship project revisions submitted to the SfAA/EPAFellowship Advisory Committee, November, 1999.2001(a)SfAA/EPA Environmental Anthropology Fellowship: Risk PerceptionMapping Demonstration Project Report. Research report prepared for the Societyfor Applied Anthropology, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region Five,and the Great Lakes Commission. (Principal Investigator, 179 pages includingappendices.) Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Commission.2001(b)Seeking Â“Participatory EquityÂ” through Ethnographic Inquiry. PracticingAnthropology (special issue titled Â“Environmental AnthropologyÂ”) 23(2):17-22.2001(c)Risk Perception Mapping and the Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant: Toward anEthnography of Social Access to Public Participation in Great Lakes EnvironmentalManagement. The Journal of Environmental Science and Policy (special issue titledÂ“Environmental Knowledge, Rights, and Ethics: Co-managing with Communities)4(2001):205-217.Sturtevant, Edgar H.1947An Introduction to Linguistic Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
200Sturtevant, Edgar H.1964Studies in Ethnoscience. In Transcultural Studies in Cognition. A. KimballRomney and Roy Goodwin D'Andrade, (eds.). Pp. 99-131. Special Issue of AmericanAnthropologist 66(2):99-131.Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment2001House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resourcesand Environment. Hearing on H.R. 1070, Â“The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2001.Â”Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001.Tainter, Suzanne1994Putting It All Together in the River Raisin Watershed. University of MichiganResearch News (Spring):8-9.Tax, Sol1945Anthropology and Administration. American Indigena 5(1):21-33.1960Action Anthropology. In Documentary History of the Fox Project. F. Gearinget al., (eds.). Chicago: University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology.Taylor, D. E.1989Blacks and the Environment: Toward an Explanation of the Concern andAction Gap Between Blacks and Whites. Environment and Behavior 21(3):175-205.Taylor, Nicholas C., Colin G. Goodrich, and C. Hobson Bryan1998Social Assessment. In Environmental Methods Review: Retooling ImpactAssessment for the New Century. Alan L. Porter and John J. Fittipaldi (eds.). Pp. 210-218. Atlanta: Army Environmental Policy Institute; Fargo, ND: InternationalAssociation for Impact Assessment.Thompson, Paul B., and Wesley Dean1996Competing Conceptions of Risk. Risk: Health, Safety, & Environment 7(4):361-384.Trotter, Robert T. (ed.)1988Anthropology for Tomorrow: Creating Practitioner-Oriented AppliedAnthropology Programs. Special publication of the American AnthropologicalAssociation in collaboration with the National Association for the Practice ofAnthropology, Number 24. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.Tyler, Stephen A. (ed.)1969Cognitive Anthropology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
201Uibopuu, Henn-Juri1977The International Guaranteed Right of an Individual to a Clean Environment.Comparative Law Yearbook 1977(1):101-120.Unger, Donald G., Abraham Wandersman, and William Hallman1992Living Near A Hazardous Waste Facility: Coping With Individual And FamilyDistress. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 62(1):55-70.United Nations Environment Program1998International Negotiating Committee for an International Legally BindingInstrument for Implementing International Action on Certain Persistent Pollutants.Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environment Program.United Nations Human Rights Commission1994Draft Principles on Human Rights and the Environment. New York: UnitedNations. In Life and Death Matters: Human Rights and the Environment at the End ofthe Millennium. Barbara Johnston, (ed.). Pp. 340-343. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraPress.United States Congress (USC)1964The Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C., 2000d-2000d-4.1966 The National Historic Preservation Act. (P.L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, 42 USC4321).1968The Great Lakes Basin Compact. (P.L. 90-419, 90th Congress, S.660, July 24,1968).1969The National Environmental Policy Act. (P.L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852, 42 USC4321).1977The Clean Water Act. (33 USC s/s 1251 et seq.).1979The Archaeological Resources Protection Act. (P.L. 96-95, 93 Stat. 721, 16USC 470a).1980National Historic Preservation Act, (as Amended). (P.L. 96-515, 94 Stat. 2987,16 USC 470).1982The Risk Analysis Research and Demonstration Act. (H.R. 6159, Sec. 2, Ln. 19-24).1990The Negotiated Rulemaking Act. (5 USC, 561-570).
202United States Congress (USC)1990The Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990(16 U.S.C. 4701-4741. (Reauthorized as the National Invasive Species Act of 1996(P.L. 104-332, 110 Stat. 4073). Washington, D.C.: United States Congress.2001The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2001. House Resolution 1070. Washington,D.C.: July 11, 2001.United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment1993Harmful Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species in the United States.Report #OTA-F-565. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office.United States Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)1978National Environmental Policy Act -Regulations. Federal Register 43(230:55979-5600-7. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.1986 Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (40 CFR, 1500-1508). Washington D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office.United States Department of Energy (DOE)2000The Hanford Groundwater Vadose Zone Integration Project: Science &Technology Roadmap Volume. Richland, WA:DOE.United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)2000 How to do Stakeholder Involvement: EPAÂ’s Draft Public InvolvementPolicy. Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation(http://www.epa.gov/stakeholders/policy.htm). 2001 National Dialogue On Public Involvement in EPA Decisions. A NationalOn-line Dialogue convened by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency andhosted by Information Renaissance, with additional support from The William andFlora Hewlett Foundation, July 10 Â– 20, 2001. (Report of Dialogue forthcoming, seehttp://www.network-democracy.org/epa-pip). United States Fish and Wildlife Service1995Report to Congress: Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Interior.United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC)1983Regulatory Guide: Standard Format and Content of Environmental Reports forNear-Surface Disposal of Radioactive Waste. Washington, D.C.: USNRC.
203United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC)1987Environmental Standard Review Plan for the Review of a LicenseApplication for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. Washington, D.C.:USNRC.University of South Florida Anthropology Web-Site1996 Titles and Abstracts for Master's Theses and Doctoral Dissertations in AppliedAnthropology at the University of South Florida(http://www.cas.usf.edu/anthropology/index.html). Unterberger, Alayne G.1993Participatory Approaches to Local Community Development in the 1990s: ACase Study. Master's Thesis. Tampa, FL: Department of Anthropology, University ofSouth Florida.USF Department of Anthropology1995Ph.D. in Applied Anthropology: Program Guidelines. Tampa: University ofSouth Florida, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Anthropology.Van der Pligt, J., J. Richard Eiser, and R. Spears1986Construction of a Nuclear Power Station in OneÂ’s Locality: Attitudes andSalience. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 7(1):1-15.Van Derslice, James, and Theresa Byrd1995Development and Testing of GIS as a Risk Communication Tool. A paperpresented at the International Symposium on Computer Mapping in Epidemiology andEnvironmental Health. February 14, 1995, Tampa, FL.van Willigen, John1991Anthropology In Use: A Source Book on Anthropological Practice. Boulder,CO: Westview.1993Applied Anthropology: An Introduction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.van Willigen, John, Barbara Rylko-Bauer, and Ann McElroy (eds.)1989Making Our Research Useful: Case Studies in the Utilization ofAnthropological Knowledge. Boulder, CO: Westview.Vanclay, Frank, and Daniel Bronstein (eds.)1995Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
204Vargas, Maria, Grant McLaughlin, Peter Redmond, Don Beck, and Chip Cameron1995 Common Threads: Participation Across Government Agencies. In Participationin Turbulent Times: Preliminary Program and Conference Information for the 1997Annual Meeting of the International Association for Public Participation. Pp. 11.Alexandria, VA: IAP2.Vaughan, Elaine, and Brenda Nordenstam1991The Perception Of Environmental Risks Among Ethnically Diverse Groups.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 22(1):29-60.Vayda, Andrew P. (ed.)1976Environment and Cultural Behavior. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Vayda, Andrew P., and Roy A. Rappaport1968Ecology: Cultural and Non-Cultural. In Introduction to Cultural Anthropology:Essays in the Scope and Methods of the Science of Man. James A. Clifton (ed.). Pp.476-497. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Vincent, Susan1998Book Review of "Hungry for Hope: On the Cultural and CommunicativeDimensions of Development in Highland Ecuador." C.G. Hess, author (1997).Practicing Anthropology 20(2):41-42.Vyner, Henry1984The Psychological Effects Of Invisible Environmental Contaminants. SocialImpact Assessment 93/95:5-10.1988Invisible Trauma: The Psychosocial Effects Of The Invisible Contaminants.Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Wallace, Anthony F.C., J. Lawrence Angel, Richard Fox, Sally McLendon, Rachel Sady, andRobert Sharer (eds.)1977Early Applications of Anthropology in North America. Washington, D.C.:American Anthropological Association.Waller, William S., and Terence R. Mitchell1991Conditional Probability Judgements: Effects Of Imagining VersusExperiencing The Conditioning Event. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses 49(3):302-329.Wax, Murray L., and Joan Cassell (eds.)1979Federal Regulations: Ethical Issues and Social Research. Boulder, CO:Westview.
205Webster, Ronald D., and John J. Fittipaldi1998The Army's Interest in Impact Assessment Methods Review: Relevance andEfficiency. In Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for theNew Century. Alan L. Porter and John J. Fittipaldi (eds.). Pp. 15-29. Atlanta: ArmyEnvironmental Policy Institute; Fargo, ND: International Association for ImpactAssessment.Weidman, Hazel H.1973Implications of the Culture-broker Concept for the Delivery of Health Care.Paper presented at meetings of the Southern Anthropological Society, WrightsvilleBeach, North Carolina.Weller, Susan C.1987Shared Knowledge, Intracultural Variation, and Knowledge Aggregation.American Behavioral Scientist 31(2):178-193.Werner, Dennis1985Psycho-Social Stress And The Construction Of A Flood-Control Dam In SantaCatarina, Brazil. Human Organization 44(2):161-167.West, Stanley A.1975Social Impact Assessment: NEPA Silently Beckons to Anthropologists. Reviewsin Anthropology 2:428-440.Western Center for Environmental Decision-Making1997Public Involvement in Comparative Risk Projects: Principles and BestPractices. A Sourcebook for Project Managers. Boulder, CO: Meridian West Institute.Westing, Arthur H.1993Human Rights and the Environment. Environmental Conservation 20(2):99-100.Westra, Laura1994An Environmental Proposal for Ethics: The Principle of Integrity. Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Westra, Laura, and Peter S. Wenz (eds.)1995Faces of Environmental Racism: Confronting Issues of Global Justice.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
206Whitfield, Kyle, and Susan Rimkus1997Voices in the Distance: Participation and Access. In Participation in TurbulentTimes: Preliminary Program and Conference Information for the 1997 Annual Meetingof the International Association for Public Participation. Pp. 9. Alexandria, VA: IAP2.Whyte, William Foote1984Learning from the Field. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Wilcox, David1995 Community Participation. IAP2 On-line Library (http://www.pin.org/library). Wilkinson, Cory H.1998Environmental Justice Impact Assessment: Key Components and EmergingIssues. In Environmental Methods Review: Retooling Impact Assessment for the NewCentury. Alan L. Porter and John J. Fittipaldi (eds.). Pp. 273-282. Atlanta: ArmyEnvironmental Policy Institute; Fargo, ND: International Association for ImpactAssessment.Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff1980A History of American Archaeology. (Second Edition.) San Francisco: W. H.Freeman and Company.Wolf, Eric1964Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Wolfe, Alvin1978The Rise of Network Thinking in Anthropology. Social Networks 1(1):53-64.Wolfe, Amy K.1988aEnvironmental Risk and Anthropology. Practicing Anthropology 10(3-4):4.1988bRisk Communication: Who's Educating Whom? Practicing Anthropology 10(3-4):13-14.World Bank1989aOperational Directive 4.00, Annex A: Environmental Assessment. Insertion toThe World Bank Operational Manual. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.1993Public Involvement in Environmental Assessment: Requirements,Opportunities, and Issues. Environmental Sourcebook Update. Washington, D.C.:Environmental Department, World Bank.
207Wulff, Robert, and Shirley Fiske (eds.)1987Anthropological Praxis: Translating Knowledge Into Action. Boulder, CO:Westview.Wuthnow, Robert, James Davison Hunter, Albert Bergesen, and Edith Kurzweil1984Cultural Analysis: The work of Peter L. Berger, Mary Douglas, MichelFoucault, and Jurgen Habermas. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Wynne, Brian1991Knowledges in Context. Science, Technology, and Human Values 16:111-121.1992Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake ofScience. Public Understanding of Science 1:281-304.Young, Charlotte, G. Williams, and M. Goldberg1993Evaluating the Effectiveness of Public Meetings and Workshops: A NewApproach for Improving DOE Public Involvement. (ANL/EAIS/TM-100, July.)Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory.Young, John1998SfAA President's Letter. Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter 8(1):1.
209Appendix 1: Ethics Statements1a.Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA), Professional and EthicalResponsibilities (revised 1983)This statement is a guide to professional behavior for the members and fellows of the Society forApplied Anthropology. As members or fellows of the Society we shall act in ways that are consistent with theresponsibilities stated below irrespective of the specific circumstances of our employment.1. To the people we study we owe disclosure of our research goals, methods, and sponsorship. Theparticipation of people in our research activities shall only be on a voluntary and informed basis. Weshall provide a means throughout our research activities and in subsequent publications to maintainthe confidentiality of those we study. The people we study must be made aware of the likely limits ofconfidentiality and must not be promised a greater degree of confidentiality than can be realisticallyexpected under current legal circumstances in our respective nations. We shall, within the limits of ourknowledge, disclose any significant risk to those we study that may result from our activities.2. To the communities ultimately affected by our actions we owe respect for their dignity, integrity andworth. We recognize that human survival is contingent upon the continued existence of a diversity ofhuman communities, and guide our professional activities accordingly. We will avoid taking orrecommending action on behalf of a sponsor that is harmful to the interests of a community.3. To our social science colleagues we have the responsibility to not engage in actions that impede theirreasonable professional activities. Among other things this means that, while respecting the needs,responsibilities, and legitimate proprietary interests of our sponsors we should not impede the flow ofinformation about research outcomes and professional practice techniques. We shall accurately reportthe contributions of colleagues to our work. We shall not condone falsification or distortion byothers. We should not prejudice communities or agencies against a colleague for reasons of personalgain.4. To our students, interns, or trainees we owe non-discriminatory access to our training services. Weshall provide training that is informed, accurate, and relevant to the needs of the larger society. Werecognize the need for continuing education so as to maintain our skill and knowledge at a high level.Our training should inform students as to their ethical responsibilities. Student contributions to ourprofessional activities, including both research and publication, should be adequately recognized.
210Appendix 1 (Continued)5.To our employers and other sponsors we owe accurate reporting of our qualifications and competent,efficient, and timely performance of the work we undertake for them. We shall establish a clearunderstanding with each employer or other sponsor as to the nature of our professionalresponsibilities. We shall report our research and other activities accurately. We have the obligation toattempt to prevent distortion or suppression of research results or policy recommendations byconcerned agencies.6.To Society as a whole we owe the benefit of our special knowledge and skills in interpreting socio-cultural systems. We should communicate our understanding of human life to the society at large.
211Appendix 1 (Continued)1b.American Anthropological Association (AAA), Principles of ProfessionalResponsibility (revised 1990)Note: This statement enunciates general responsibilities for all anthropologists. Each of the units of the AAAmay develop a more detailed statement of ethics specific to their particular professional responsibilities but inall cases consonant with the principles stated herewith.PreambleAnthropologists' relations with their discipline, with the individuals and groups among whom theyconduct research or to whom they provide services, with their employers and with their own hostgovernments, are varied, complex, sensitive, and sometimes difficult to reconcile. In a field of such complexinvolvement, misunderstandings, conflicts, and the need to make choices among apparently incompatiblevalues are constantly generated. The most fundamental responsibility of anthropologists is to anticipate suchdifficulties and to resolve them in ways that are compatible with the principles stated here. If such resolution isimpossible, anthropological work should not be undertaken or continued.Anthropologists must respect, protect, and promote the rights and the welfare of all of those affectedby their work. The following general principles and guidelines are fundamental to ethical anthropologicalpractice. I.Responsibility to people whose lives and cultures anthropologists study.Anthropologists' first responsibility is to those whose lives and cultures they study. Should conflicts ofinterest arise, the interests of these people take precedence over other considerations. Anthropologists must doeverything in their power to protect the dignity and privacy of the people with whom they work, conductresearch, or perform other professional activities. Their physical, social, and emotional safety and welfare arethe professional concerns of the anthropologists who have worked among them.A.The rights, interests, safety, and sensitivities of those who entrust information to anthropologistsmust be safeguarded.1.The right of those providing information to anthropologists either to remainanonymous or to receive recognition is to be respected and defended. It is theresponsibility of anthropologists to make every effort to determine the preferencesof those providing information and to comply with their wishes.
212Appendix 1 (Continued)a.It should be made clear to anyone providing information that despite theanthropologist's best intentions and efforts anonymity may becompromised or recognition fail to materialize.2.Anthropologists should not reveal the identity of groups or persons whoseanonymity is protected through the use of pseudonyms.3.The aims of all their professional activities should be clearly communicated byanthropologists to those among whom they work.4.Anthropologists must not exploit individuals or groups for personal gain. Theyshould give fair return for the help and services they receive. They must recognizetheir debt to the societies in which they work and their obligation to reciprocate inappropriate ways.5.Anthropologists have an ongoing obligation to assess both the positive andnegative consequences of their activities and the publications resulting from thoseactivities. They should inform individuals and groups likely to be affected of anyconsequences relevant to them that they anticipate. In any case, however, theirwork must not violate these principles of professional responsibility. If they anticipatethe possibility that such violations might occur they should take steps, including, if necessary,discontinuance of work, to avoid such outcomes.6.Whether they are engaged in academic or nonacademic research, anthropologistsmust be candid about their professional identities. If the results of their activitiesare not to be made public, this should be made clear to all concerned from theoutset.7.Anthropologists must take into account and, where relevant, make explicit theextent to which their own personal and cultural values affect their professionalactivities. They must also recognize and deal candidly and judiciously with theeffects that the often conflicting demands and values of employers, sponsors, hostgovernments, and research publications may have upon their work.
213Appendix 1 (Continued) II.Responsibility to the public.Anthropologists have responsibility to be truthful to the publics that read, hear, or view the productsof their work.A.In expressing professional opinions publicly, anthropologists are not only responsible for the factualcontent of their statements but also must consider carefully the social and political implications ofthe information they disseminate. They must do everything in their power to ensure that suchinformation is well-understood, properly contextualized and responsibly utilized.Anthropologists bear a positive responsibility to speak out publicly, both individually andcollectively, on issues about which they possess professional expertise. That is, they have aprofessional responsibility to contribute to the formation of informational grounds upon whichpublic policy may be founded. Anthropologists should make clear the bases upon which theirpositions stand.When engaging public discourse anthropologists should be candid about their qualifications,and they should recognize and make clear the limits of anthropological expertise.III.Responsibility to the discipline.Anthropologists bear responsibility for the good reputation of the discipline and its practitioners.A.The integrity with which anthropologists conduct their affairs, and the rapport that they seek tomaintain in the field and in other professional venues must be of an order that justifies trust andconfidence. They must not behave in ways that jeopardize either their own or others' future researchor professional employment. It is their responsibility to act in ways consistent with commitments tohonesty, open inquiry, candor concerning sponsorship and research aims, and concern for thewelfare and privacy of all concerned parties. Anthropologists must address such conflicts as do ariseamong the interests of those parties and attempt to resolve them equitably.B.Anthropologists must not represent as their own work, either in speaking or writing, materials orideas directly taken from other sources. Anthropologists must give full credit in speaking or writingto all of their professional colleagues, anthropologists, or non-anthropologists, who have contributedto their work.
214Appendix 1 (Continued)C.When anthropologists participate in actions relating to hiring, retention and advancement, theyshould (except in the case of affirmative actions taken to redress historical imbalances) ensure thatno exclusionary practices should be perpetuated against colleagues on the basis of sex, marital status,color, social class, political convictions, religion, ethnic background, national origin, sexualpreference, age, or any other criterion irrelevant to academic performance. Nor should an otherwisequalified individual be excluded on the basis of physical disability. Anthropologists should,furthermore, refrain from transmitting, and resist the use of, information irrelevant to professionalperformance in personnel actions.D.The cross-disciplinary nature of the activities of many anthropologists requires that they be informedof, and respect, the requirements of the nonanthropological colleagues with whom they work. IV.Responsibility to students and trainees.Anthropologists should be candid, fair, and nonexploitative in their dealings with trainees andstudents, and committed to their welfare and progress. They have continuing responsibility to recognize thechanging nature of the discipline, in both its content and it methodology, and further, in novel applications ofanthropological knowledge and approaches. They have a further responsibility to convey currentunderstandings to students and trainees.A.Anthropologists should accept students into their programs in ways precluding and redressingdiscrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, color, social class, political convictions, religion,ethnic background, national origin, sexual preference, age, or any other criterion irrelevant toacademic performance.B.Anthropologists should strive to improve both their teaching techniques and the methods ofevaluating their effectiveness as teachers.C.Anthropologists should be receptive and genuinely responsive to students' interest, opinions, andneeds.D.Anthropologists should counsel students realistically regarding both academic and nonacademiccareer opportunities.
215Appendix 1 (Continued)E.Anthropologists should be conscientious in supervising, encouraging, and supporting students intheir studies, both anthropological and non-anthropological.F.Anthropologists should inform students of what is expected of them, be fair in the evaluation oftheir performance, and prompt and reliable in communicating evaluations to them.G.Anthropologists should impress upon students the ethical problems involved in anthropologicalwork and discourage them from participating in ethically questionable projects.H.Anthropologists should acknowledge orally and in print student assistance in research andpreparation of their work; give appropriate credit for coauthorship or first authorship to studentswhen their research is used in publications or lectures; encourage and assist in publication of worthystudent papers; and compensate students justly for the use of their time, energy, and ideas inresearch, teaching, an other professional activities.I.Anthropologists should energetically assist students in securing legitimate research support and thenecessary permission to pursue research and other professional activities.J.Anthropologists should vigorously assist students in securing professional placement upon thecompletion of their studies.Anthropologists should beware of the serious conflicts of interest and exploitation that mayresult if they engage in sexual relations with students. They must avoid sexual liaisons withstudents for whose professional training they are in any way responsible. V.Responsibility to employers, clients, and sponsors.In all dealing with employers, clients, and sponsors anthropologists should be honest about theirqualifications, capabilities, and aims. Prior to entering any professional commitment, anthropologists mustreview the purposes of sponsors, employers, or clients, taking into consideration their past activities and futuregoals. In working for governmental agencies or private businesses, anthropologists should be especially carefulnot to promise or imply acceptance of conditions contrary to professional ethics. Anthropologists should beespecially careful not to promise or imply acceptance of conditions contrary to professional ethics orcompeting commitments.
216Appendix 1 (Continued)Anthropologists should be honest and candid in all dealings with their own governments and withhost governments. They should ascertain that they will not be required to compromise either theirresponsibilities or anthropological ethics as a condition of permission to engage in professional activities.Anthropologists are under no professional obligation to provide reports or debriefings of any kind togovernment officials or employees, unless they have individually and explicitly agree to do so in the terms ofemployment.EpilogueAnthropological activity requires choices for which anthropologists individually and collectively bearethical as well as scientific responsibility. This statement is designed to promote discussion and provide generalguidelines for ethically responsible decisions. When anthropologists, by their actions, jeopardize peoplesstudied, professional colleagues, employers, employees, clients, students, or others, or if they otherwise betraytheir professional commitments, their colleagues may legitimately inquire into the propriety of such actions,and take such measures as lie with legitimate powers of the American Anthropological Association, as themembership of the Association deems appropriate.
217Appendix 1 (Continued)1c.National Association of Practicing Anthropologists (NAPA), Ethical Guidelinesfor Practitioners (1988)These guidelines have been developed by the National Association for the Practice of Anthropologyas a guide to the professional and ethical responsibilities that practicing anthropologists should uphold. Apracticing anthropologist is a professionally-trained anthropologist who is employed or retained to apply his orher specialized knowledge to problem-solving related to human welfare and human activities. The designation"practicing anthropologist" includes full-time practitioners who work for clients such as social-serviceorganizations, government agencies and business and industrial firms. This term also includes part-timepractitioners, usually academically-based anthropologists, who accept occasional assignments with such clients.The substantive work of practicing anthropologists may include applied research, program design andimplementation, client advocacy, and advisory roles and activities related to the communication ofanthropological perspectives. These guidelines are provided with the recognition that practicinganthropologists are involved in many types of policy-related research, frequently affecting individuals andgroups with diverse and sometimes conflicting interests. No code or set of guidelines can anticipate uniquecircumstances or direct practitioner actions in specific situations. The individual practitioner must be willing tomake carefully considered ethical choices and be prepared to make clear the assumptions, facts, and issues onwhich those choices are based. These guidelines therefore address general contexts, priorities, and relationshipsthat should be considered in ethical decision-making in anthropological practice.1. Our primary goal is to respect and consider the welfare and human rights of all categories of peopleaffected by decisions, programs, or research in which we take part. However, we recognize that manyresearch and practice settings involve conflicts between benefits accruing to different parties affectedby our research. It is our ethical responsibility to the extent feasible, to bring to bear on decision-making, our own or that of others, information concerning the actual or potential impacts of suchactivities on all whom they might affect. It is also our responsibility to assure, to the extent possible,that the views of groups so affected are made clear and given full and serious consideration bydecision-makers and planners, in order to preserve options and choices for affected groups.
218Appendix 1 (Continued)To our resource persons or research subjects we owe full and timely disclosure of theobjectives, methods, and sponsorship of our activities. We should recognize the rights of resource persons,whether individuals or groups, to receive recognition for their contributions or to remain anonymous if they sodesire or to decline participation altogether. These persons should be informed of our commitment to theprinciple of confidentiality and of the steps we will take to ensure it. We should be sensitive to issues related toconfidentiality throughout the design of research or other activities involving resource persons and shouldthoroughly investigate and understand all of the limitations on our claims of confidentiality and disclosure.3.To our employers we owe competent, efficient, fully professional skills and techniques, timelyperformance of our work, and communication of our findings and recommendations inunderstandable, non-jargonistic language.As practicing anthropologists, we are frequently involved with employers or clients in legallycontracted arrangements. It is our responsibility to carefully review contracts prior to signing and bewilling to execute the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract once it has been signed.At the outset of a relationship or contract with an employer or client, we have an obligationto determine whether or not the work we are requested to perform is consistent with ourcommitment to deal fairly with the rights and welfare of persons affected by our work, recognizingthat different constituencies may be affected in different ways. At this time, we should also discusswith our employer or client the intended use of the data or materials to be generated by our work andclarify the extent to which information developed during our activities can be made available to thepublic. Issues surrounding the protection of subject confidentiality and disclosure of information orfindings should be thoroughly reviewed with the potential employer or client. We will not undertakeactivities that compromise our ethical responsibilities.We will carry out our work in such a manner that the employer fully understands our ethicalpriorities, commitments, and responsibilities. When, at any time during the course of workperformance, the demands of the employer require or appear to require us to violate the ethicalstandards of our profession, we have the responsibility to clarify the nature of the conflict betweenthe request and our standards and to propose alternatives that are consistent with our standards. Ifsuch a conflict cannot be resolved, we should terminate the relationship.
219Appendix 1 (Continued)4.In our relations with students and trainees, we will be candid, fair, nonexploitative, nondiscriminatory,and committed to the students' or trainees' welfare. We recognize that such mentoring does involvean exchange in which practitioners share their knowledge and experience in return for the significanteffort and contribution of the students/trainees. We should be honest and thorough in ourpresentation of material and should strive to improve our teaching and training techniques and ourmethods of evaluating the effectiveness of our instruction.As practicing anthropologists we are frequently called upon to instruct, train, or teachindividuals, anthropologists, and others in non-academic settings (workshop participants, in-servicetrainees, continuation or certification program trainees, and research teams). To such persons, we owetraining that is informed, timely, and relevant to their needs.Our instruction should inform both students and trainees of the ethical responsibilitiesinvolved in the collection and use of data. To our students and trainees we owe respect for andopenness to nonanthropological methods and perspectives. Student and trainee contributions to ourwork, including publications, should be accurately and completely attributed.5.To our colleagues, anthropologists, and others, we have a responsibility to conduct our work in amanner that facilitates their activities or that does not unjustly compromise their ability to carry outprofessional work.The cross-disciplinary nature of the work of practicing anthropologists requires us to beinformed and respectful of the disciplinary and professional perspectives, methodologies, and ethicalrequirements of non-anthropological colleagues with whom we work.We will accurately report the contribution of our colleagues to our research, practice-relatedactivities, and publications.6.To the discipline of anthropology we have a responsibility to act in a manner that presents thediscipline to the public and to other professional colleagues in a favorable light. We will point out thevalue of anthropological contributions to the understanding of human problems and human-kind.Where appropriate in the context of our work, we will encourage the use of anthropologicalapproaches and recommend the participation of other anthropologists.
220Appendix 1 (Continued)We will contribute to the growth of our discipline through communicating and publishingscientific and practical information about the work in which we are engaged, including, as appropriate,theory, processes, outcomes, and professional techniques and methods.
221Appendix 1 (Continued)1d.International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), Code of Ethics forIAIA Members (proposed 6/97)1.The member shall conduct professional activities, as far as possible, in accordance with emergingprinciples of sustainable development and the highest standards of environmental protection.2.The member shall at all times place the integrity of the natural environment and the health, safety, andwelfare of the human community above any commitment to sectoral or private interests.3.The member shall be personally accountable for the validity of all data collected, analysis performed, orplans developed by the member, and for the scrutiny of all data collected, analyses performed, or plansdeveloped under the member's direction.4.The member shall actively discourage misrepresentation or misuse of work the member has performed orthat which was performed under the member's direction.5.The member shall ensure the incorporation of environmental protection and social or socioeconomicimpact considerations from the earliest stages of project design or policy development.6.The member shall not conduct professional activities in a manner involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,misrepresentation, or bias.7.The member shall not advertise or present the member's services in a manner that may bring discredit tothe profession.
222Appendix 1 (Continued)1e.International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), Draft Concept for aPublic Participation Code of Ethics (1997)1. Purpose. The purpose of public participation is to make better decisions that reflect the interests and concerns of all affected stakeholders, including decision-makers. 2.Role of Practitioner. The role of the public participation practitioner is to enhance the public's participation in the decision-making process and to assist the decision-maker in being responsive tothe public's concerns and suggestions. 3.Trust. A public participation practitioner should at all times encourage actions that build trust and credibility for the process and among the participants.4. Defining the Public's Role. The public's role in the decision-making process should be carefully considered and accurately portrayed to the public. 5.Openness. Information relevant to the public's understanding or evaluation of a decision should be disclosed.6. Access to the Process. All stakeholders should have the opportunity to take part in the public participation process. A stakeholder should not be given special privileges in the public participationprocess based on its sympathy for the decision-maker's preferred alternatives. 7.Conflict of Interest. Public participation practitioners should not encourage fees that are contingent on project approval.8. Respect for Communities. A public participation practitioner should avoid strategies that tend to polarize community interests or appear to divide and conquer.9.Advocacy. In interactions with the public, the practitioner should provide a clear understanding of when the practitioner is acting as an advocate for the public participation process and when thepractitioner is acting as an advocate for a particular interest, party, or project outcome.
223Appendix 1 (Continued)10. Commitments. The practitioner has a responsibility to ensure that commitments made to the public by the decision-maker are genuine and capable of implementation.11.Support of the Practice. The experienced practitioner should participate in the development of new practitioners in the field and engage in efforts to educate decision-makers and the public about thevalue and use of public participation.
224Appendix 1 (Continued)1f.Risk Assessment and Policy Association, Ethics DiscussionI spoke with Thomas Field, editor-in-chief of Risk, the journal of the RAPA, about the developmentof a code of ethical behavior and professional responsibilities for RAPA members. He noted that, to the bestof his knowledge, no such effort is presently underway in the organization, but that there have beendiscussions of at least three issues which would have potential bearing on such a code as the effort to developit proceeds in the future. I paraphrase that discussion here, as I believe it is likely that the issues it raises willhave bearing on the ethical issues anthropologists (myself in particular) will face in balancing the codes ofprofessional conduct of multiple professional organizations.The first of these issues concerns the role of what Dr. Field referred to as "junk science" Â– so calledscientific information produced through dubious methodology Â– and the professional witness who uses it tosupport the interests of their client in a court of law. Basically, if the price is right, a risk assessment "expert"can use junk science to support any number of claims or interests, irrespective of intent, accuracy, or scientificrigor. Should a code of ethical behavior in RAPA require the member to refrain from such acts, or even againstprofessional witnessing? Who determines whether the member actually believes their testimony meets thehighest scientific standards, or if he or she is being deliberately deceitful, just for the money, so to say? Somecontend that it is not possible to ascertain members' motives or state of knowledge in these contexts; indeed,that it is better to have "junk science" peddled in the public domain, in whatever context -professionalwitnessing or otherwise, if it leads to public debate of the issues involved. Discredit may be brought to theindividual practitioner, but the organization should support the flow of information, even "bad" information,rather than be in the business of suppressing it.The second of these issues, related to the first, concerns the role of "advocacy" among RAPAmembers. Through our conversation I learned that at least one prominent founding member of theorganization has threatened to rescind his or her membership in the organization if it supports advocating riskanalysis or assessment in practical or project-specific contexts. This particular member believes that RAPAmembers should be engaged only in the study of risk assessment and management, not the application of thesetechniques to resolve specific environmental risk management issues.Should a code of ethics for RAPA members restrict their practice of risk assessment andmanagement? Mirrored here is the perennial debate in anthropology over the virtue and vice of applied versustraditional or basic anthropology, as though a discernable chasm separates these two aspects of the discipline.And in anthropology, as we have seen, two separate codes exist to cover the ethical behaviors and professionalresponsibilities of the members of the SfAA versus the AAA. It is not too surprising, therefore, to hear thatsimilar debate is beginning to occur within the ranks of this relatively young professional organization.
225Appendix 1 (Continued)The third of these issues concerns the multi-disciplinary nature of both the organization itself and themembers who comprise it. RAPA membership, much like that of the SfAA, includes professionals fromvirtually all scientific disciplines and, also like the SfAA, many of its members are affiliated with more than oneprofessional disciplinary group. Any code of ethics in RAPA would have to consider this fact, which introducesan issue discussed earlier, namely, conflict of codes, into the RAPA ethics debate, should it occur in the future.
226 Appendix 2: Sample Area Sketch Forms for Household Selection ProcedureMAPPER: ________________________________PAGE _________ OF __________COUNTY: ________________________________DATE: _____________________TRANSECT/SAMPLE AREA #: ___________ TOWNSHIP: ______________________MAP COVERAGE: __________________ USGS Section__________________ *City Block*NOTE: "City Block" signifies subselected sample area used for urban locations. Random subselections derivefrom city maps of urban areas included in the sample. Otherwise, the sketching area below corresponds to onesquare mile (USGS Section).N
227Appendix 3: EARP Interview Cover SheetECOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND RISK PERCEPTION STUDYETHNOGRAPHIC INTERVIEW COVER SHEET1.Transect/Sample Area #: _______________2.Residential Structure #: _______________3.Residential Structure Description: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________4.Call Record: Call #DateDayTimeResult 5.Interviewer: ________________________________________________6.Interview #: _______________7.Date of Interview: _____________________________________________8.# of Household Units (HU) in Residential Structure: ___________________________
228Appendix 3 (Continued)NOTE: Assign each additional HU a separate "HU" number beginning with the number "HU.2" andidentify on map.9.Location of Additional HUs in Residential Structure:HU.2: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________HU.3: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________HU.4: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________HU.5: _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________NOTE:Randomly choose HU (if more than one in structure).10.HU Number Chosen for Interview: __________________
229Appendix 3 (Continued)11.Our interview procedures require that I randomly choose whom to interview. To do this I need to knowwho lives at this address -not their names -just their age and gender. I will assign a number to each person, eighteen years or older, who is currently at home. Using atable of random numbers (show table), I will then randomly select from these people the one person Iwould like to interview.Of course, that person must first consent to the interview, and we have a consent form todocument the respondent's permission to be interviewed. If you would rather, we can record therespondent's consent on cassette tape.Randomly Assigned Occupant # Gender Age Home at Time of Interview Selected Participant Participant Consent 12. Request Respondent's Consent and indicate in the chart above. If permission to interview is obtainedproceed to survey instrument; if denied, terminate transaction and record as a rejected interview.
230Appendix 4: EARP Study Consent LetterECOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND RISK PERCEPTION STUDYA team of researchers from The University of Michigan's Department of Anthropology is conducting a pilot study ofecological awareness and risk perception in the greater Monroe County area. The research derives from similar work beingconducted in several communities in Brazil, where the research team is investigating community-level perceptions oftechnological and environmental risks and the growth of ecological awareness and action.The greater Monroe County area has been selected for this pilot study for several reasons. First, this area derives itslivelihood from an interesting mix of agricultural, industrial, and technological production. For example, the area is a majorproducer of soybeans and other agricultural products, is closely tied to the automobile and associated industries, and has amongthe highest concentration of nuclearand coal-powered electrical generation facilities in the nation. Second, proximity to LakeErie and the world's largest concentration of fresh water provides exposure to commercial shipping and recreational boating andfishing. The Lake Erie ecosystem is particularly susceptible to environmental pollution, as was evident in the 1960's whenbeaches were closed to swimming and fish consumption advisories were issued. Finally, to the extent that people living in thearea continue to respond to this history, we believe they have thought a lot about these issues and have valuable insightsregarding them.Your voluntary participation in this study will help researchers better understand how local communities practiceresource conservation and stewardship in the face of potential environmental and technological risks. You are one of 100 peoplerandomly selected from a five-county area including Monroe, Wayne, and Washtenaw Counties in Michigan, and Lucas andOttawa Counties in Ohio. (If you desire, the random selection procedure can be explained to you in detail.) Thus, yourresponses to our questionnaire will help represent the attitudes of thousands of your neighbors. The interview requires about ahalf-hour to complete, but may vary according to the detail of your responses. You may refuse to answer any question for anyreason and you are under no obligation to complete the interview if you so desire.This study is funded by the National Science Foundation; however, the research design and process are controlled bythe Department of Anthropology at the University of Michigan. As such, the research conforms to the Society for AppliedAnthropology's Statement on Professional and Ethical Responsibilities. In keeping with our standard practice for such studieswe contacted your County Commission, Sheriff's Department, Township Trustees, and local newspaper and have informedthem of the research. Furthermore, our study has met the standards of the University of Michigan's Human Subjects ReviewCommittee, which guarantees the confidentiality of people we interview. Neither the names of individuals nor characteristics bywhich they can be identified will be used in any study publications or presentations.Everyone who is interviewed is asked to either sign an informed consent release form or give verbal consent oncassette tape. I have read the above statement and agree to participate in the environmental risk perception study.____________________________________________________________________________________DateSignatureConrad P. Kottak, Principal InvestigatorJohn V. StoneUM Department of AnthropologyProject ManagerPHONE NUMBER:PHONE NUMBER
231Appendix 5: EARP Study, Letters of NotificationDATECONTACT/TITLE/ADDRESSDear SIR/MADAME:A team of researchers from The University of Michigan's Department of Anthropology is conductinga pilot study of ecological awareness and risk perception in the greater Monroe County area. The study willhelp researchers better understand how local communities practice resource conservation and stewardship inthe face of potential environmental and technological risks. The research follows similar work conducted inseveral communities in Brazil, where the research team is investigating community-level perceptions oftechnological and environmental risks and the growth of ecological awareness and action.We are writing to inform you that interviews will be conducted in your area. To respect localsovereignty and control, we inform the county sheriffs and heads of county, township, and municipalgovernments included in the study area, as well as local media sources and public interest groups. The studyarea encompasses five counties, including Monroe, Washtenaw, and Wayne in Michigan, and Lucas and Ottawain Ohio. Our study is voluntary and is based on a random selection procedure. One field ethnographer, JohnStone, will conduct roughly 100 interviews using a survey questionnaire developed here at the Department ofAnthropology. Interviews will be obtained during the summer and early autumn. While in the field, Mr. Stonewill wear a University of Michigan identification badge at all times. Potential respondents will be informed ofthe study goals and will be asked to give either written or recorded consent to be interviewed.The project manager will be available to you at all times during the research. He will be happy to meetwith you at your convenience to discuss any aspect of the study, and we will be happy to share with you ourfindings once they have been compiled. Please feel free to contact us at any of the following phone numbers:Department of Anthropology (313)-764-7274; John Stone (study manager) (313)-434-7519; Conrad Kottak(principal investigator) (313)-763-5382. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.Respectfully,Conrad P. KottakJohn V. StonePrincipal InvestigatorProject ManagerDepartment of AnthropologyUniversity of Michigan
232Appendix 6: List of EARP Pre-field Community ContactsECOLOGICAL AWARENESS AND RISK PERCEPTION STUDYPRE-FIELD NOTIFICATION LISTMonroe County, MichiganThe Honorable Al Cappuccilli, Mayor, City of Monroe, Monroe City Hall, 120 E. First St., Monroe, MI, 48161,313-241-7622Carl Van Wert, Sheriff, Monroe County, 100 E. Second St., Monroe, MI 48161, 313-243-7497Monroe County Board of Commissioners, C/O Raymond Noble, Chair, 125 E. Second St., Monroe, MI, 48161,313-243-7016Ash Township Board of Trustees, C/O Thomas L. Mell, Supervisor, 1677 Ready Rd., Carleton, MI, 48117Bedford Township Board of Trustees, C/O Pearl M. Albert, Supervisor, 8100 Jackman Rd., Temperance, MI,48182Berlin Township Board of Trustees, C/O Howard D. Lambrix, Supervisor, 5651 Trombley, Box 126, Newport,MI, 48166Dundee Township Board of Trustees, C/O Rollo A. Juckette, Supervisor, P.O. Box 91, Dundee, MI, 48131Exeter Township Board of Trustees, C/O Thomas H. Liedel, Supervisor, 6158 Scofield Rd., Maybee, MI, 48159Frenchtown Charter Township Board of Trustees, C/O Susan L. Hasley, Supervisor, 2744 Vivian Rd., Monroe,MI, 48161Ida Township Board of Trustees, C/O Frank C. Lowe, Supervisor, 3016 Lewis Ave., Ida, MI, 48140LaSalle Township Board of Trustees, C/O Larry T. Rutledge, Supervisor, 4111 LaPlaisance Rd., LaSalle, MI, 48145Monroe Charter Township Board of Trustees, Harold D. Straub, Supervisor, 4925 W. Dunbar Rd., Monroe, MI,48161Raisinville Township Board of Trustees, C/O Charles S. Burke, Supervisor, 4499 Stadler Rd., Monroe, MI, 48161Summerfield Township Board of Trustees, C/O James V. Seegert, Supervisor, 26 Saline St., Petersburg, MI, 49270Monroe Evening News, C/O Stephen T. Gray, Editor, 20 W. First St., P.O. Box 1176, Monroe, MI, 48161, 313-242-1100Mr. Saul J. Waldman, Vice President, Public Affairs, Detroit Edison, Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant, 2000 SecondAve., 1013 G.O., Detroit, MI, 48226, 313-237-7132Michigan Citizens Against Toxic Substances (MCATS), (Distribution to additional Non-Governmental Groups instudy area), 313-439-3867
233Appendix 6 (Continued)Washtenaw County, MichiganThe Honorable Alan Israel, Mayor, City of Milan, 147 Wabash St., Milan, MI, 48160The Honorable Clyde King, Mayor, City of Ypsilanti, City Hall, 1 S. Huron, Ypsilanti, MI, 48197Ron Schebil, Sheriff, Washtenaw County, 2201 Hogback Rd., Ann Arbor, MI, 48104Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners, C/O Meri Lou Murray, Chair, P.O. Box 8645, Ann Arbor, MI,48107Augusta Township Board of Trustees, C/O Charles M. Smith, Supervisor, 8021 Talladay Rd., Whittaker, MI,48190York Township Board of Trustees, C/O James R. Spears, Supervisor, 11560 Stony Creek Rd., Milan, MI, 48160Ypsilanti Township Board of Trustees, C/O Wesley Prater, Supervisor, 7200 S. Huron River Dr., Ypsilanti, MI,48197Wayne County, MichiganThe Honorable Lyle Van Houten, Mayor, City of Dearborn Heights, 6045 Fenton, Dearborn Heights, MI, 48127The Honorable Richard C. Jones, Mayor, City of Flat Rock, 25500 Gibraltar Rd., Flat Rock, MI, 48134The Honorable Mary Kay Metzger, Mayor, City of Rockwood, 32409 Fort St., Rockwood, MI, 48173The Honorable Beverly McAnally, Mayor, City of Romulus, 11111 Wayne Rd., Romulus, MI, 48174The Honorable Cameron Priebe, Mayor, City of Taylor, 23555 Goddard Rd., Taylor, MI, 48180Robert Ficano, Sheriff, Wayne County, 1231 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI, 48226Wayne County Board of Commissioners, C/O Arthur B. Blackwell II, Chair, 600 Randolph, Detroit, MI, 48226Brownstown Charter Township Board of Trustees, C/O Phoebe A. Stromp, Supervisor, 21313 Telegraph Rd.,Brownstown, MI, 48183Canton Charter Township Board of Trustees, C/O Thomas J. Yack, Supervisor, 1150 S. Canton Center Rd.,Canton, MI, 48188Grosse Isle Township Board of Trustees, C/O Bruce F. Sells, Supervisor, 8841 Macomb St., Grosse Isle, MI,48138Huron Charter Township Board of Trustees, C/O Christine F. Gamber, Supervisor, 37290 Huron River Dr., NewBoston, MI, 48164Sumpter Township Board of Trustees, C/O Marvin L. Banotai, Supervisor, 23480 Sumpter Rd., Belleville, MI,48111Detroit Free Press, Emelia Askari, Environmental Writer, 321 West Lafayette, Detroit, MI, 48226, 313-223-4536
234Appendix 6 (Continued)Lucas County, OhioThe Honorable John McHugh, Mayor, City of Toledo, 1 Government Center, Toledo, OH, 43604James A. Telb, Sheriff, Lucas County, 1622 Spielbusch Ave., Toledo, OH, 43624Lucas County Board of County Commissioners, C/O James M. Holzemer, President, 1 Government Center, Suite#800, Toledo, OH, 43604-2259Jerusalem Township Board of Trustees, C/O Joan Schabel, Clerk, 11951 Van Dyke Rd., Curtis, OH, 43412Toledo Blade, John Robinson Block, Editor-In-Chief, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH, 43660, 419-245-6000Ottawa County, OhioThe Honorable Michael P. Dansack, Jr., Mayor, City of Oregon, 5330 Seaman Rd., Oregon, OH, 43616John Crosser, Sheriff, Ottawa County, 315 Madison St., #10, Port Clinton, OH, 43452Ottawa County Board of Commissioners, C/O John Fritz, President, Ottawa County Court House, 315 MadisonSt., #103, Port Clinton, OH, 43452-1993Allen Township Board of Trustees, C/O Naomi L. Lehmann, Clerk, 21018 W. Maple St., Williston, OH, 43458Carroll Township Board of Trustees, C/O John Verb, Chair, 11080 W. Toussaint East Rd., Oak Harbor, OH,43449Lake Erie Islands Township Board of Trustees, C/O Dale Burris, Trustee, P.O. Box 18, Isle St. George, OH,43436,419-285-2125Michigan State GovernmentJames Cleary, Deputy Director, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Stevens T. Mason Building, P.O Box30028, Lansing, MI, 48909
235Appendix 7: EARP Study Press Clipping
236 Appendix 8: Call LetterDATE:TIME:Hello. Your household has been randomly selected for participation in the Universityof MichiganÂ’s study of environmental risks. IÂ’m sorry to have missed you, but I will stop byat a later date at which time we can schedule an interview appointment or, if you prefer,conduct the interview at that time. In the meantime, I have attached copies of informationalsheets describing the study, including a newspaper article featured recently in the ToledoBlade. Again, sorry to have missed you and I look forward to meeting with you.Respectfully,John V. StoneStudy Manager
237Appendix 9: Statement of Interest, Environmental Anthropology FellowshipMEMORANDUMDate:March 9, 1999From:John V. StoneDoctoral Candidate, Applied Anthropology, University of South Florida-TampaAdjunct Instructor of Anthropology, University of Michigan-DearbornProject Associate, Formative Evaluation Research Associates, Ann Arbor, MITo:Barbara Rose Johnston, Ph.D.SfAA Environmental Anthropology Project DirectorGeorge ClarkStaff Social ScientistUnited States Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, ChicagoRichard W. Stoffle, Ph.D.SfAA/EPA Fellowship MentorBureau of Applied Research in AnthropologyUniversity of Arizona, TucsonRE:Statement of Interest, Joint SfAA/EPA Environmental Anthropology Fellowship,EPAÂ’s Region V Geographic Initiative Sociocultural Profiling ProjectI would like to thank you all very much for taking time to speak with me regardingthe SfAA/EPA fellowship opportunity to provide EPA Region V with technical assistancein developing sociocultural profiles for its project sites. As we discussed over the phone, Iam indeed interested in contributing to this effort. I outline that interest in the sectionsbelow, including (1) academic qualifications and professional experience, (2) applications andanticipated contributions to this project, (3) time and availability, and (4) SfAA mentor.Please note that the first of these is essentially a narrative version of my curriculum vita,which I have sent under separate cover. Also, please do not hesitate to contact me shouldyou require additional information: (517)-546-4981; firstname.lastname@example.org.
238Appendix 9 (Continued)Academic Qualifications and Professional ExperienceI am presently a doctoral candidate in applied anthropology at the University ofSouth Florida (USF), Tampa, under the supervision of Drs. Alvin Wolfe and GilbertKushner. My research interests are in social impact assessment (SIA) and public participationin environmental management, particularly in the Great Lakes Basin (GLB). I developed myinterest in applied anthropology as an undergraduate in anthropology at Michigan StateUniversity (1983). While there I studied SIA under the direction of Drs. Scott Whiteford andBill Derman, ultimately conducting some minor SIA work as an undergraduate intern withthe Michigan Office of Economic Development. I then pursued masters-level graduatestudies in applied anthropology at USF (1989) where, under the academic supervision of Dr.Alvin Wolfe, I emphasized SIA and hazardous wastes management. I completed mygraduate internship as a Research Assistant with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory where,under the agency supervision of Dr. Steve Rayner, I conducted network analyses of publicconcerns surrounding the disposal of chemical munitions. Findings from that research arereported in my MasterÂ’s Thesis (USF 1989).Upon graduating I accepted work as a Research Associate with the University of MichiganÂ’sInstitute for Social Research, under the supervision of Dr. Richard Stoffle. Our team ofapplied anthropologists conducted the required social assessment studies for a proposedlow-level radioactive waste (LLRW) facility in Michigan. Through that effort Dr. Stoffle andI developed and field-tested a research technique called Â“Risk Perception MappingÂ” (RPM).RPM is an ethnographic approach to (1) identifying the geographical and cultural (geo-cultural) boundaries of populations potentially affected by controversial projects, (2)identifying culturally-specific environmental issues for the groups that comprise the affectedpopulation, and (3) devising culturally-sensitive and locally-appropriate procedures foraccessing the environmental knowledge maintained by potentially affected groups. Findingsfrom these studies have been published in scientific and professional journals and asresearch monographs.Subsequent to the LLRW studies I worked as a Research Associate at the Universityof MichiganÂ’s Department of Anthropology, under the supervision of Dr. Conrad Kottak. Idesigned and managed the Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception (EARP) Study, whichserved as a companion project to similar work being conducted by Dr. Kottak in Brazil. Weused an RPM design in the EARP study to (1) document the geo-cultural boundary ofperceived risks associated with the Fermi II nuclear power plant in southeast Michigan, (2)investigate links between those perceptions and community-specific actions pertaining toother perceived environmental threats in the area, and (3) explore preferred mechanisms forinvolving potentially affected populations in environmental management decision-making. Inthe process, we also further field-tested RPMÂ’s ability to account for these things amidstgeographical diversity, such as that presented by the Great Lakes.
239Appendix 9 (Continued)At the conclusion of EARP fieldwork (1993), I returned to USF to pursue mydoctorate, having received assurance that the EARP study could suffice as my doctoralresearch project. I focused my studies further on bi-national, federal, state, and localmandates for public participation in Great Lakes environmental management. I devotedspecial attention to the potential relationships between public participation processes andinequitable social distributions of project-specific impacts in culturally heterogeneoussettings, and I explored ways that such relationships may be displayed topographically usingGeographic Information Systems (GIS). These interests are reflected in my doctoraldissertation Â–Public Participation in Environmental Management: Seeking Participatory Equity throughEthnographic Inquiry, currently in review.I now live in southeast Michigan, in a small town just outside of Ann Arbor, where Iam presently completing my dissertation. I work part-time as a consultant on a variety ofissues, and as an adjunct instructor of anthropology at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.Through recent consulting work I have become involved with building Â“internal evaluativecapacityÂ” into environmental advocacy programs. For example, I am currently designingevaluation studies for the Environmental Support Center in Washington, D.C. Â– a non-profitorganization that provides organizational training and assistance to grassroots environmentalgroups -and through this have established links with such groups operating in the GLB.I have also become convinced of the need to coordinate the potentially duplicativeresearch efforts of multiple government agencies with overlapping resource interests. Forexample, the Great Lakes Commission (GLC) is an eight-state compact agency dedicated to,among other things, managing the water resources of the GLB by serving as an objectivesource of information for the development and coordination of public policy concerningbasin-related resource interests. Similarly, as noted in recent reports from the SfAA/EPAProgram Director, EPAÂ’s Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities (OSEC) isbeing merged with EPAÂ’s Office of Water, whose mission is similar to albeit independentfrom that of the GLC. To what extent are these (and other) entities engaged in duplicativeresearch efforts as they pursue their respective missions? From an agency perspective, thisquestion will become increasingly important as management paradigms shift from resource-specific to eco-systemic levels, such as has already occurred in the GLB. But, as I havelearned through my research, this question is also important from the perspective of affectedpopulations because, when confronted with complex environmental management decisions,local people often feel lost in a maze of overlapping resource management programs. In myexperience, some have even interpreted this as a deliberate attempt by government to Â“divideand conquerÂ” their interests by splintering them and their frequently scant resourcesamongst these potentially duplicative efforts.
240Appendix 9 (Continued)Applications and Anticipated ContributionsI am particularly excited by this project because I believe I possess the relevant skillsand training it requires, and I bring a personal history of continued research onenvironmental issues in the region. In that regard I also bring the field-tested RPM researchmethodology and baseline data from peer-reviewed doctoral-level research in southeastMichigan on the same basic topics identified in the fellowship announcement. Through thatresearch experience I bring connections with the network of individuals, agencies, andgrassroots groups working on parallel projects in the area. Perhaps most importantly,though, I feel as though I have a personal stake in this region. I am, as it were, theconsummate cultural insider: born and reared here, I have multiple generations of extendedfamily residing throughout the area, tying me not just to the land but to the people whoinhabit it. In short, I have chosen to live here because I love the Great Lakes and its people.I would relish the opportunity to further apply my skills and experience to environmentalmanagement in this region.To the greatest extent possible given the time and budget constraints of thefellowship, I would anticipate making the following contributions to EPAÂ’s cultural profilingproject:1.A field-tested and peer-reviewed ethnographic method for identifying the geo-cultural boundary of the potentially affected population around EPA project sites.2.A field-tested and peer-reviewed ethnographic method for profiling the cultural andbehavioral groups that comprise the affected population.3.A field-tested and peer-reviewed ethnographic method for documenting the culturaldistribution of environmental concerns and risk perceptions throughout the affectedpopulation.4.A GIS-based system for topographically displaying and perhaps analyzing 1-3, above.5.A field-tested and peer-reviewed ethnographic method for identifying anddeveloping locally-appropriate and culturally-sensitive participatory strategies for thecultural groups comprising the affected population.6.A list of potential ethical issues that pertain to all of the above.
241Appendix 9 (Continued)7.Work toward developing internal formative evaluation indices and measures formonitoring the projectÂ’s progress to enable adaptive program modifications asnecessary without having to fund/wait for retrospective evaluations. This would notlikely be completed during the project, but would, in my estimation, be a valuablecomponent of whatever cultural profiling system is ultimately adopted for long-termuse in the region. For that reason, I would like to engage at least some preliminaryeffort toward developing this internal evaluative capacity. I believe this information isor will be required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993(GPRA).8.An inventory of similar research efforts, either Â“cultural profilingÂ” or by some othername, that either have been conducted previously or are presently being consideredor developed for use by other agencies in the region.9.Work toward coordinating the social research efforts identified in 8, above, tominimize duplication of effort and maximize resource efficiency amongenvironmental management agencies with similar missions. This actually may besomething worth considering in 7, above, to the extent that the GPRA may requiresome measure of resource efficiency, and it would be nice to demonstrate howRegion V EPA is addressing this through such coordinative efforts.Continuing with this last point, I offer the following example of potentialcoordination among two agencies with similar missions Â– the GLC and the EPA Region V.The GLC has recently announced its Â“Great Lakes Fellowship ProgramÂ” (Great LakesCommission Advisor, November/December, 1998:2). This program is described as Â“anopportunity for Great Lakes professionals from any relevant discipline and agency to workwith our staff and membership for up to 12 months on issues of shared interest. TheCommission will provide the individual with a fully equipped office, secretarial support,telephone, and travel allowancesÂ… The fellowÂ’s employer, which could be a U.S. orCanadian agency or academic unit, covers salary, fringe benefits, and housing, and assistswith travel and any other relevant expenses. The fellowship can be customized to addressthe unique needs of the individual and his or her agencyÂ…Â” I briefly discussed this withGeorge, who emphasized EPAÂ’s need to keep the SfAA/EPA fellowship distinct from theGLC program. As written, is the GLC program necessarily administratively distinct to theextent that they commit no joint funds in the process? It seems a wonderful opportunity tocoordinate the shared interests of both agencies, especially considering OSECÂ’s merger withthe Office of Water, while producing a product that is mutually beneficial to each. If thiswere possible, I would relish the opportunity to be that link, and I would take the necessarysteps to coordinate those efforts.
242Appendix 9 (Continued)Time and AvailabilityThe fellowship announcement indicated that this project could be conducted eitherfull-time for three months or approximately half-time for roughly six months, with a flexiblestarting date to accommodate the unique needs of individual fellows. I am presentlyobligated half-time through July, 1999, and possibly through the end of the year, to priorconsulting commitments. I do not believe these would interfere with the half-timefellowship. I would prefer a start-up date of mid-May, if possible, as my wife and I areexpecting our second child in early April and I would like to be available to her to thegreatest extent possible from delivery through the first few weeks of our new childÂ’s life. Ofcourse, as noted in the preceding paragraph, I am open to the possibility of coordinating theEPA and GLC fellowships as distinct efforts, or perhaps even stair-stepping the two effortsso that one provides the methodological and informational basis from which the other mayproceed. In either case, I would prefer to continue at the half-time rate for as long as theproject required.SfAA MentorThe Fellowship requires an Â“SfAA mentorÂ” to work closely with the Fellowthroughout the course of the project. Richard Stoffle, of the University of ArizonaÂ’s Bureauof Applied Research in Anthropology, has graciously agreed to serve as my mentor for thisproject. Rich will be the ideal mentor, as he and I have worked closely together on similarprojects in southeast Michigan, most notably in developing the Risk Perception Mappingtechnique that is so applicable to the EPAÂ’s informational needs outlined in the fellowshipannouncement. RichÂ’s time is flexible to meet both my needs and those of the project. Hemay be reached for comment by phone at (520)-621-2462, or e-mail atRSTOFFLE@U.ARIZONA.EDU.
243Appendix 10: Revised Statement of Work Great Lakes/Environmental AnthropologyFellowshipForJohn V. StoneEnvironmental Anthropology Research FellowRisk Perception Mapping Demonstration ProjectOn behalf ofThe Great Lakes CommissionArgus II Bldg., 400 Fourth St.Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D., Executive DirectorSponsored byThe Environmental Anthropology Cooperative Fellowship ProgramofThe Society for Applied AnthropologyBarbara Rose-Johnston, Ph.D., Fellowship Program DirectorRichard W. Stoffle, Risk Perception Mapping Demonstration Project MentorandThe United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5George Clark, EPA Region 5 Social Scientist and Fellowship Program LiaisonNovember, 1999
244Appendix 10 (Continued)REVISED STATEMENT OF WORK:Risk Perception Mapping Demonstration ProjectABSTRACTThis fellowship project will demonstrate the utility of an ethnographic approach called RiskPerception Mapping (RPM) to the public consultation and social research interests of the Great LakesCommission (GLC) and other relevant regional organizations. These interests are reflected in the interrelatedactivities of a network of Great Lakes management agencies and organizations, including the GLC. In thisdocument I refer to this network as Â“the Great Lakes Management Network,Â” or Â“GLM NetworkÂ” for short,although no formal institutional structure exists by that name. I will use an RPM study in southeastMichigan/northwest Ohio to demonstrate methodological and analytical capacity on behalf of the GLMNetwork. Project deliverables will include (1) an RPM methodological description; (2) a sample RPM database;(3) an RPM analysis and display system, possibly based in an ARC-VIEW Geographic Information Systems(GIS) format; (4) a "perceptual sensitivity" map of populations in the study area; and (5) discussion of potentialimplications, ethical issues, and evaluation measures. Key findings pertain to perceptually-specific communitiesof environmental risk, with implications for participatory equity in environmental management. Applications toGLM Network interests will be established, primarily through consultation with GLC commissioners, staff,and collaborators. Preliminary discussions of methodological utility have centered on the development ofpopulation-specific information/education exchanges through which more culturally sensitive social indicatorsof Great Lakes ecosystem integrity may emerge.INTRODUCTIONThe initial Scope of Work Contract (Contract) for this fellowship, signed August 9th, 1999,summarizes the cooperative fellowship agreement between the Society for Applied Anthropology(SfAA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), identifies the Great LakesCommission (GLC) as the host/beneficiary organization for the fellowship project, and outlines inbroad terms the objectives, schedule, and budget for subsequent fellowship activities. The Contractrequires the fellow to prepare a Revised Statement of Work (RSOW) reflecting modifications to thefellowship project activities, deliverables, and timelines that may have arisen through negotiationswith the host organization and/or fellowship sponsors and mentors. The paragraphs below addressthis requirement and constitute the RSOW for this fellowship.The remainder of this RSOW is organized into four major sections: (1) Background toProject Revisions, (2) Project Goal and Objectives, (3) RPM Demonstration Project Description, and(4) Key Activities, Anticipated Outcomes and Deliverables, and Revised Timelines.
245Appendix 10 (Continued)BACKGROUND TO DEMONSTRATION PROJECT REVISIONSOne of my first activities in this fellowship Â– after securing office space and equipment,transferring relevant data and background materials from my home office to the GLC office, andestablishing contacts and rapport with my GLC colleagues Â– was attending the semi-annual meetingof the Great Lakes Commission (GLC). The GLC meeting is significant to the development of thisRSOW in at least two regards. Firstly, in bringing together state-appointed GLC Commissioners andother people who serve the Commission in advisory or other capacities, the meeting afforded theopportunity for me to describe the fellowship project and receive stakeholder input regarding howthe project may best fit within the interests of the GLM Network. Secondly, the meeting was a jointsession with the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) and focused on interstate andinternational cooperation in water resources management. As such, the meeting presented anopportunity to hear and meet with environmental managers working among the institutionalstructures that have evolved to collaboratively manage environmental resources across jurisdictionaland programmatic boundaries.One element common to most speakersÂ’ presentations concerned the importance of publicparticipation in environmental management. One presenter observed that public participationreceives insufficient methodological consideration given its increasingly central role in environmentaldecision-making. Yet, aside from general statements in support of public participation, there was verylittle, if any, substantive discussion of the participatory process. This is not a criticism of the meetingor its speakers; indeed, public participation was not an explicit meeting theme, so one would notexpect it to be addressed as such. Rather, I think it illustrates a common appreciation for theparticipatory dimensions of environmental management, underscoring an opportunity to developmethodological rigor in public consultation similar to that currently brought to bear in physical andbiological resource management.Following the GLC meeting I met on several occasions with Mike Donahue, ExecutiveDirector (ED) of the GLC, to discuss these observations and how they might influence the natureand timing of my project and its fit within the interests of the GLM Network. Three interests inparticular were identified:(1)demonstrate a methodological framework for identifying and characterizing humancommunities that are potentially affected by Great Lakes management activities.This framework could potentially be used by the GLM Network to(2)develop population-specific information and education exchanges between affectedpopulations and responsible agencies. And through the knowledge gained in theseexchanges the GLM Network could further its related interest in(3)developing more culturally sensitive social indicators of Great Lakes ecosystemintegrity.
246Appendix 10 (Continued)DEMONSTRATION PROJECT GOAL AND OBJECTIVESThe primary goal of my fellowship project is to further develop the methodological rigorthat the GLM Network already brings to its public consultation and social research activities. Myproject will address this goal by demonstrating how Risk Perception Mapping (RPM) Â– anethnographic approach to public consultation Â– can be used to meet three specific participatoryobjectives, including:(1)defining the geographical boundaries of the potentially affected population(PAP) for a given project or activity;(2)identifying Â“specially affectedÂ” communities within the PAP Â– that is, communitieswith attributes which may predispose them to unique project related impacts, and;(3)developing locally appropriate and culturally sensitive procedures for exchanginginformation between affected populations and responsible agencies.In meeting these objectives my demonstration project, and more specifically the RPMmethodology, would ultimately provide the GLM Network with an ethnographic methodologicalframework for identifying and elaborating population-specific social indicators of Great Lakesecosystem integrity.DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DESCRIPTIONI will use an existing RPM study Â– titled the Â“Ecological Awareness and Risk PerceptionStudyÂ” (EARP) Â– to demonstrate methodological and analytical capacity to satisfy the projectgoal/objectives. EPA reviewers of the initial fellowship contract requested that I further elaboratethe EARP study in my revised statement of work. To that end the sections below outline (1) thehistory of RPMÂ’s conceptual development, (2) the EARP study, (3) its relationship to the interests ofthe GLM Network, and (4) its key activities, anticipated outcomes and deliverables, and revisedtimelines. Given the current delays in producing this RSOW, IÂ’ve taken the liberty of expanding thetext a bit to fit project mid-term and final reporting requirements.History of RPM Conceptual DevelopmentIn the mid-1980s a team of applied anthropologists headed by Dr. Richard Stoffle (projectmentor for this fellowship) was conducting social assessment research of a proposed SuperconductingSuper Collider (SSC) in Michigan. Comparable data from two potential host communities revealed thatboth differed significantly in their perception of risk from the facility despite their social and culturalsimilarity.
247Appendix 10 (Continued)Risk Perception ShadowsStoffleÂ’s team developed the concept of a "risk perception shadow" (RPS) to account for thisphenomenon. The RPS concept was initially based on the premise that past projects, either completedor simply proposed, can create a collective perception of risk that is "applied" to newly proposedprojects. The RPS was defined as a generally contiguous human collectivity that calculates itself to be atrisk from a proposed or operating project. After becoming aware of the project this entity essentiallydefines itself as being "at risk" thereby opening itself to measurable social impacts regardless of whetheror not adverse human or environmental risks have been scientifically established. Because an RPS isdefined by perceived risk its size, shape, and sociocultural composition may differ significantly fromaffected communities defined solely by probabilistically derived risk assessments.RPS and Public ConsultationThe SSC studies called for a data-based procedure for identifying the PAP for a project bymeasuring its RPS. The extent and influence of an RPS can be determined by many factors, includinghow the members of a PAP perceive a project might affect their lives. Often the PAP is identified apriori, that is, according to existing or predetermined criteria so that the agency in charge of managing thesocial and environmental assessments can issue a Request for Proposal that has a definite study area.Distance-from-site measures -for example, all residents living or working within a 10-mile radius of afacility -often are used, as are the boundaries of the political jurisdictions within which a project islocated or has been proposed.Political units can be major channels for public response to specific projects and thus arefrequently used to define the boundaries of the PAP for project-specific consultation and participationprograms. This procedure, however, can limit participation to an overly restricted population and alimited set of impact issues. The SSC research demonstrated that RPSs typically cross politicalboundaries, rendering such boundaries inaccurate, hence, inappropriate units for defining PAPs, foranalyzing potential social impacts, and for accessing and incorporating local knowledge in project-specific decision-making. StoffleÂ’s team worked to develop a data-based procedure for measuring andcharacterizing a projectÂ’s RPS by mapping it across a geographical and sociocultural plane. Thatprocedure is called Risk Perception Mapping (RPM).Risk Perception MappingI joined StoffleÂ’s team at the conclusion of the SSC studies and the start of social assessmentresearch on a proposed low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) facility in Michigan. We contracted with thestate to map the RPS for each of three candidate sites as the basis for consultative relationships betweenthe initiating agency and the PAPs for each site. But prior to the selection of candidate sites, onecommunity in the state came to believe that it had been pre-selected to host the facility. In essence, thiscommunity "self-designated," prompting its residents to behave as though their area actually had beendesignated as the host location.
248Appendix 10 (Continued)We believed that the community's awareness of the self-designation event was sufficient to castan RPS. We developed the ethnographic research method called Risk Perception Mapping (RPM) tomap the geographical extent of the RPS and to document key sociocultural characteristics of thepopulations existing within it -what we called the "geocultural extent" of the RPS. The RPSdocumented in the LLRW study was operationally defined as "project awareness" because it representedthe widest range of potential concerns and impact issues within the study area.Key RPM findings revealed that the RPS consisted of: (1) a 15 mile radial core area whereawareness and intensity of perceived risk and potential social impact were evenly distributed; (2) areascontiguous to the core area but distributed non-linearly in various directions up to an additional 15 milesbeyond the core; and (3) "islands," or areas separated from both the core and contiguous areas, up to 35miles away from the rumored facility location. Ethnographic RPM interviews revealed that these"islands," for instance, corresponded to transportation interchanges along suspected LLRW deliveryroutes, and area residents feared a greater potential for accidents existed in those locations. And factorssuch as groundwater flows and prevailing wind patterns functioned to spread risk perception to thecontiguous areas beyond the core. Through RPM, both the type and distribution of impact issuesdefined the PAP, providing a more accurate geocultural basis from which public consultation could thenproceed.Ecological Awareness and Environmentalist ParticipationConcurrently, another team of anthropologists headed by Dr. Conrad Kottak was conductingresearch on the effects that awareness of ecological risks had on the development of Brazilian grassrootsenvironmental organizations and their participation in national environmental decision-making. KottakÂ’sresearch focused on Angra dos Reis, a coastal town in Rio de Janeiro State, and the site of BrazilÂ’s onlyoperational nuclear power plant. Kottak noted that increased perception of environmental risk furtheredparticipation in environmental decision-making, and he was interested in examining his observationscross-culturally within an RPM methodological framework. I partnered with Kottak during the early tomid-1990s to design, conduct, and manage that project, which we titled the Ecological Awareness andRisk Perception (EARP) study.The Ecological Awareness and Risk Perception StudyThe EARP study was jointly funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and theConsortium of International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN). The research wasfocused on the Fermi II nuclear power plant in Monroe, Michigan because it is comparable in severalways to the Angra dos Reis site. For example, both communities are of roughly equal size(approximately 25,000); both are situated on large bodies of water (Lake Erie and Ilha Grande Bay,respectively); both are proximal to major urban centers (Detroit and Rio de Janeiro, respectively);both have a history of past environmental degradation (particularly of coastal waters); both haveoperational nuclear power facilities; and both are reasoned to have cast significant RPSs that could bemeasured and characterized by the RPM methodology.
249Appendix 10 (Continued)Although the EARP study provided a comparative framework for KottakÂ’s earlier work inBrazil, it did not directly involve data collection from the Brazilian study site. Rather, it was focusedsolely on communities surrounding Fermi II in order to generate data that could later be comparedto similar data obtained previously from communities surrounding the Brazilian site.The sections below outline the RPM methodological elements of the EARP study.Study Area DefinitionThe EARP study area was defined as a 25 mile radial area surrounding the Fermi II facility, andencompassed all or part of five counties, including Monroe, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties insoutheastern Michigan, and Lucas and Ottawa Counties in northwestern Ohio. The study area alsoextended in extreme southwestern Ontario, Canada, but permission to conduct the study in that regioncould not be obtained prior to the start of the EARP research.Sampling DesignA center-point radial sampling design was used to define the distribution of sample areasthroughout the study area. This procedure, developed in collaboration with the Sampling Section of theUniversity of MichiganÂ’s Institute for Social Research, is central to the RPM methodology and will bediscussed in much greater detail in the methodological description section of the fellowship projectreport. Suffice it to say for the purposes of this RSOW, the RPM sampling design assumes thatperceived risk is greatest nearest the source project Â– in this case the Fermi II facility Â– and decreaseslinearly as a function of distance away from the facility. The design further assumes that confoundingfactors such as prevailing climatic conditions, geographical features, and sociocultural attributes, to namebut a few, can distort the spread of perceived risk in non-linear ways. One of the goals of RPM is toascertain those factors and their role in distributing project-specific risk management issues throughoutthe potentially affected population.Sample Area DefinitionThe study area was divided into five five-mile concentric sample zones emanating from theFermi II facility. A total of 17 equally spaced transecting lines were generated at a random angle fromdue north, emanating outward from the Fermi II facility much like the spokes of a wheel. Sample areas,defined as one-square mile areas conforming to United States Geological Survey section lines, wererandomly generated across each sample zone at equally spaced distances along each transect. Sometransects crossed the open waters of Lake Erie, or extended into Ontario where permission to conductthe research was not obtained, so not all transects contained a full complement of sample areas. A totalof 43 sample areas were thus identified within the study area.
250Appendix 10 (Continued)Pre-field Community ConsultationPrior to the RPM fieldwork, I arranged and attended meetings with local community officials,opinion leaders, media, and law enforcement agencies to describe the proposed research and elicit theirsupport for the study. The explicit goal of pre-field community consultation was to establish a reciprocalrelationship between researchers and locally trusted and respected community leaders, in which theresearch process was opened to local scrutiny at all phases of the research in exchange for theopportunity to conduct the study in the community. The EARP study would not have been assuccessful, nor would it have been desirable, without these leadersÂ’ understanding of and participation inthis reciprocal relationship.Data Collection InstrumentThe EARP study utilized a structured RPM survey questionnaire as its primary data collectioninstrument, although survey respondents were encouraged to identify others with whom a moreethnographic style of interviewing occurred. The RPM questionnaire was developed concurrently withthe sampling design and community consultation phases of the research, and built upon the local inputreceived during community consultation. It was both broad in its range of issues covered and deep inthe level of detail sought within particular issue areas. This was largely a result of combining KottakÂ’sBrazilian ecological awareness and environmentalist action measures with standard RPM measures in anew project setting.In addition to standard demographic information, the RPM instrument covered 11 interrelatedissues mostly pertaining to perceived environmental risk and social impact. Of these the most relevant tothis fellowship project will be a section on Â“Perceptions of and Responses to the Fermi Facility,Â”because it will enable the mapping of the Fermi II RPS and the identification of perceptually-specificcommunities of environmental risk, with potential implications for participatory equity in environmentalmanagement. Other relevant sections include Â“technology and environment analogs,Â” Â“organizationaltrustworthiness,Â” and Â“participatory preferences.Â” Time and budget will dictate the extent to which theselatter sections are factored into demonstration project-related analyses.The RPM instrument was pre-tested in four iterations among roughly 20 people of varying agesand backgrounds during the two month period immediately preceding the field work portion of theEARP study.Respondent Selection and RPM Interview ProcessAll structures in each sample area were sketched and numbered on a field map. Three potentialrespondents were selected at random from among the total number of residents identified in eachsample area. Potential respondents were presented with a study description featuring photographs of thelead researchers and were encouraged to contact the University of Michigan or their local lawenforcement agencies, which had been notified prior to the study, to verify its legitimacy. Interviewswere either conducted on the spot, or more commonly an appointment to interview was made at therespondentÂ’s convenience.
251Appendix 10 (Continued)Respondent confidentiality disclosure and informed consent was obtained in either written ortape recorded format. A total sample of 128 interviews were sought through this procedure, 108 wereobtained for a response rate of 84.4 percent.Other Related Research ActivitiesOther related methods used in the EARP study included participant observation, key-informantinterviews, and informal Â“snowballÂ” or respondent network interviews. Archival and other secondarydata sources, including media and historical documents, were also monitored and reviewed throughoutthe study period.Data ManagementCompleted RPM survey instruments were edited for internal consistency. Closed-endedresponses were pre-coded in the survey instrument and required no further coding prior to data entryand analysis. Open-ended responses, however, were abstracted and subjected to an inter-rater reliabilityprocess to develop code categories and establish internal consistency among coding staff. A meanreliability rate of 97 percent was obtained in this process, with a range of 75-100 percent across all codecategories.For this demonstration project coded data will be entered into a database management system,possibly based in an ARC-VIEW GIS format. Data entry accuracy will be verified by comparing everytenth entry for every tenth questionnaire with the data as originally coded in the hard-copy versions ofthose questionnaires. Agreement between these comparisons will be accepted as verification of dataaccuracy; discrepancies will be corrected as necessary.Relationship to the Interests of the GLM NetworkI have chosen to use the EARP study as the basis for this demonstration project because itprovides an extensive RPM database for a sizeable area within the Great Lakes ecosystem, and as suchshould be of value to the GLM Network. It should be noted, however, that although the EARP study iscentered on the Fermi II facility, the GLC has no specific interest in or direct involvement with thatfacility. As stated previously, the Fermi II facility was selected to meet specific criteria for the EARPstudy apart from this fellowship. Most notably with respect to the RPM methodology, nuclear powerplants typically generate considerable community risk perception and therefore present ideal RPMmethodological demonstration case studies. The EARP study is applicable to this fellowship becauseelements of it can be used to meet the GLM Network interests identified earlier in this RSOW: (1) todemonstrate the methodological capacity to define the PAP for a given project or activity by mapping itscommunity-specific risk perceptions, or RPS; (2) to use the RPM methodology as a framework fordeveloping population-specific information and education exchanges between relevant agencies and keycommunities within the PAP; and (3) to ultimately utilize the knowledge gained through such exchangesto develop more culturally sensitive social indicators of Great Lakes ecosystem integrity.
252Appendix 10 (Continued)KEY ACTIVITIES, ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES, AND REVISEDTIMELINESI will engage in at least 13 interrelated activities to implement the RPM demonstrationproject for the GLM Network. These activities and their anticipated outcomes and deliverables arepresented in chronological order in Table 4, below, with revised timelines identified for each activity.Request for Timeline ExtensionOne item worth noting pertains to the date of completion for the final project report. Theinitial contract specified that the final report would be submitted by mid-April. However, the projectto date has been delayed several weeks by difficulties in scheduling meetings with the GLC ED.These meetings have been crucial in clarifying GLC expectations regarding the project, tailoringproject activities to meet those expectations, obtaining the EDÂ’s approval to proceed with the revisedproject activities, and framing those activities within the proper institutional management context.For example, in the abstract I note that the project is now geared toward meeting the methodologicalinterests of the network of Great Lakes management agencies and organizations, which includes but isnot restricted to the GLC (what I call the Â“GLM NetworkÂ”). Having received the EDÂ’s approval onsuch matters, the project is now safely back on track, albeit several weeks behind schedule. IÂ’vespoken with the ED about this problem, and although he cannot commit office space and supportbeyond the period specified in the initial Contract, he is willing to delay receipt of the final report bythe amount of delay experienced thus far.I am requesting approval from the SfAA/EPA fellowship administrators to extend that dateaccordingly. In fact, I note in Table 1 that I could potentially present the project report, or at least beavailable to respond to questions pertaining to it, at the upcoming semi-annual GLC meeting,scheduled for early to mid-May in Duluth, MN. Perhaps the week prior to that meeting would beacceptable, as it would satisfy the current project delays and would give adequate time for the report(or a synopsis thereof) to be incorporated into the GLC meeting materials.
253Appendix 10 (Continued)Table 4: RPM Demonstration Project Activities, Deliverables, and Timelines Key Activities Outcomes/Deliverables Timelines 1. Network with GLC staff and fellowship partners (mentors,administrators, liaisons, etc.) regarding project applications, web-siterepresentation, and other project-related issues.Networking.Ongoing. 2. Manage GLC-related project expenses. As a no-cost obligation to theGLC, I track and tabulate phone, postage, and other office-relatedexpenses pertaining to demonstration project activities.Project Management.Ongoing. 3. Write a detailed description of RPM methodology pertaining to thisdemonstration project.RPM methodology.Ongoing; to beincluded in final report. 4. In consultation with GLC staff, identify key analytical issues to beaddressed through the demonstration project.List of key analytical issues.9-10/1999 5. Per the initial Contract, prepare a mid-term report of completedproject activities.Mid-term report.11/1999 6. Code RPM database for key analytical issues in demonstrationproject.Coded RPM database.11-12/1999 7. In consultation with GLC staff, develop GIS-based RPM datamanagement & mapping system.GIS-based RPM data management & mappingsystem.11/99-1/2000 8. Enter and verify key RPM data in GIS-based RPM data management& mapping system.Sample RPM database for demonstration project.12/99-1/2000 9. Analyze and Map key issues from sample RPM database.Sensitivity Maps:(a) Fermi II RPS,(b) Perceptually-specific communities ofenvironmental risk,(c) Community-specific participatorypreferences.1-2/200010. Interpret key findings and identify potential implications for and utilityto the GLM Network.List of Potential Implications: (e.g., participatoryequity, targeted outreach, social indicators), andEthical Issues (e.g., practitioner, project, procedural,and implementational levels).1-2/200011. Identify internal evaluation measures and procedures for RPM inGLM Network activities.List of Internal RPM Evaluation Measures (e.g.,formative, outcome, and monitoring).1-2/200012. Per the initial Contract, prepare a final demonstration project report.Final Report.2-4/2000 (TBA), seeparagraph above).13. Present findings from the RPM demonstration project at variousscientific conferences and agency seminars.RPM Demonstration Project Presentations(Required):(a) EPA-5 fellowship project seminar,Chicago;(b) Society for Applied Anthropology annualmeeting, San Francisco;(Potential)(a) Great Lakes Commission semi-annualmeeting, Duluth;(b) International Association for Great LakesResearch (IAGLR), annual meeting,Cornwall, Ontario.TBA (4/2000?)3/21-26/2000TBA (5/2000)5/21-26/2000
254 Appendix 11: RPM Demonstration Project AnnouncementMeet the GLCÂ’s Environmental Anthropology FellowAs part of its Great Lakes Commission Fellowship Program, the Great Lakes Commission(GLC) is currently hosting an Environmental Anthropology Fellow on behalf of the network ofagencies and organizations that share an interest in Great Lakes environmental management. TheGLC Fellowship Program was established in 1998 to create opportunities for Great Lakesprofessionals to work with GLC staff for up to 12 months on issues of shared interest.Environmental Anthropology Fellow John Stone, adoctoral candidate in applied anthropology at the Universityof South Florida, Tampa, comes to the GLC through anEnvironmental Anthropology Fellowship Programsponsored jointly by the Society for Applied Anthropology(SfAA) and the US EPA. The SfAA/EPA FellowshipProgram was established in 1996 to increase the access ofcommunities and policy-makers to anthropological andother social science expertise in the solution ofenvironmental management problems.Mr. StoneÂ’s fellowship project, titled the Â“RiskPerception Mapping Demonstration Project,Â” runs fromAugust 1999 through April 2000. Through this project, Mr. Stone will demonstrate the utility of anethnographic approach called Risk Perception Mapping (RPM) to the public consultation and socialresearch interests of the GLC and other relevant regional organizations. The RPM study employs anexisting database of environmental risk perception and community response in a five-county area insoutheast Michigan and northwest Ohio, and demonstrates the capacity to identify the geographicalextent and unique sociocultural contexts of populations potentially affected by environmentalprojects. Mr. StoneÂ’s project will be of interest to agencies and organizations seeking to developpopulation-specific information/education exchanges through which culturally sensitive socialindicators of Great Lakes ecosystem integrity may emerge.John Stone may be contacted directly at the GLC for information on the RPMDemonstration Project: email@example.com; (734)-665-9135. For additional information about the SfAAEnvironmental Anthropology Fellowship and other joint SfAA/EPA activities, seehttp://www.sfaa.net/eap/abouteap.html.
255Appendix 12: EARP/RPM Code Convergence Values for Inter-rater Reliability(Table begins on next page)
Table 5: Code Convergence Values for the EARP/RPM Inter-rater Reliability Exercise Question # Coder #1 Coder #2 Coder #3 Coder #4 Convergence Percentages* 01.02.0102; 03020202100 04; 03040404100 200/2 = 100% 02.1010(14)10(14)10(14)10(14)100 10(14)10(14)1010(14)100 10(12)10(12,13)1010(12)100 300/3 = 100% 02.11.0110; 20101010100/1 = 100% 02.1230; 10; 20303030100 40; 20; 1040; 2040; 2040; 20100 20; 10; 3030; 10(12)40; 3040; 3050 250/3 = 83% 02.13/0140; 3040; 304040; 30100/1 = 100% 07.01.0110; 3030303075 301010; 3010; 3075 150/2 = 75% 08.05.0130(32); 0730(32); 0730(32)30(32)100 06; 30(35)30(36)3030(36)75 20(21)20(21)2121100 07; 10(13)070707100 08; 06080808100 30(32)30; 04; 033232100 08; 0608; 060808100 03; 07030303100 07.0307; 03; 060707; 03100 256 07; 30(34); 0307; 30(34); 060707; 03100 975/10 = 98% Appendix 12 (Continued) All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Question # Coder #1 Coder #2 Coder #3 Coder #4 Convergence Percentages* 08.06.0130(33); 0630(33)3333; 06100 20(23)20(23); 052323100 20(22); 0620(22); 052222: 06100 30(34); 0630(34); 053434; 03100 0404; 30(34)0404100 500/5 = 100% 08.07.0110(11)101010(12)100 10(12)10(12)1210(12)100 3010101075 275/3 = 92% 09.02.0120; 3020; 302020(22)100 20(21)20; 1020(21); 1120(21)100 30; 1010(11); 20(22)30; 1030; 1075 10(12)10(12)1010(12)100 375/4 = 94% 09.03.0120202020(22)100 10101010; 31100 30303030; 31100 300/3 = 100% 09.04.0130; 1030; 103030100 10; 4010(11); 401010(11); 40100 20202020100 300/3 = 100% 09.05.0130; 2020(23)2020(23)75 20(22)20(22)2020(22)100 3030(32)3030(32)100 275/3 = 92% 10.08.01.0140404040100/1 = 100% 10.1010; 40; 301010; 4010; 40100/1 = 100% 257 10.13.0130(32)30(32)3030(32)100/1 = 100% Appendix 12 (Continued) Table 5 (Continued) All percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Question # Coder #1 Coder #2 Coder #3 Coder #4 Convergence Percentages* 10.1450; 40; 3030; 4030; 4030; 4075 30303030100 175/2 = 88% 10.15.0150505050100 30; 5030; 103030100 200/2 = 100% 11.0120; 10; 3010(12)1210(12)75 10(13)10(13)1310(13)100 10; 3010(12)1010(12)100 275/3 = 92% 11.02.0120; 10(13)202020100 30303030100 200/2 = 100% 13.0709; 1019; 1009; 1009; 10100/1 = 100% 13.09.01.0197979797100/1 = 100% 13.1720202020100 20; 3020; 9720; 9720; 97100 200/2 = 100% 13.18.012020; 9720; 9720; 97100/1 = 100% 13.211010(11)1010(14, 11)100 202020(23)20(23)100 -10(13)-13100 258 20202020(24)100 400/4 = 100% Appendix 12 (Continued) Table 5 (Continued) SUMMARY STATISTICS:Mean Convergence:97%(2,414 total percentage points/by 25 open-ended questions = 96.56%, rounded to 97%).Range of Convergence:100 75%(17 @ 100%; 1 @ 98%; 1 @ 94%; 3 @ 92%; 1 @ 88%; 1 @ 83%; 1 @ 75%).
259Appendix 13: EARP Study/RPM Demonstration Project Questionnaire and DataCodebookNOTICES: 1.This document integrates code categories with the survey questionnaire; code numbers and their corresponding code descriptions arelisted for both closedand open-ended questions.2.This document also includes code categories for the interview cover sheet; these appear as the last section of this codebook. Thecover sheet contains no open-ended response categories and therefore was not subjected to the inter-rater reliability process, as werethe open-ended responses included with the rest of the survey questionnaire.3.Primary-level code categories for each question (e.g., level 10, 20, 30, 40, etc.) are listed in bold-faced print; sub-categorical levelswithin them (e.g., 21, 22, 23, 24, etc.) are indented and listed in regular print.4.The variable names for use in data analysis are listed in capital letters, in parentheses, after the questions to which they refer. Theseare cross-listed in the Data Analysis Codebook.
260Appendix 13 (Continued)QUESTIONNAIRE HEADERInterview Number (IW_NUMBER):Range = 001 128Sample Area Number (TRAN_ZONE):(expressed as a three-digit decimal combination of sample transect and zone numbers).Transect Number:Range = 01 14 (Note: 17 transects were randomly assigned @ 21 degree intervals [360 degrees divided by 21 degreeintervals equals 17 sample transects]. Transect number 15 extended exclusively through Ontario, CN, and permission was not sought forthis study in Canada; transect numbers 16 and 17 extended exclusively over the open waters of Lake Erie and thus crossed no viable sampleareas).Zone Number:Range = 1 5 (each at 5.4 mi., 8.6 km.; study zone radius = 27 mi., 43 km. -distance between Fermi II and Davis-Besseynuclear power plants).ZONE01.101.201.301.401.502.102.202.302.402.503.103.203.303.403.504.104.204.304.404.505.105.205.305.405.5TR06.106.206.306.406.5AN07.107.207.307.407.5SE08.108.208.308.408.5CT09.109.209.309.409.510.110.210.310.410.5188.8.131.521.411.5184.108.40.2062.412.5220.127.116.113.413.518.104.22.1684.414.5Date of Interview (IW_DATE):Range = 09/15/1992 04/26/1993; Missing data = 99/99/9999Time at Start of Interview (TIME_START):Range = 09.20 22.40; Missing data = 99.99Length of Interview (IW_LENGTH):Range = 0.25 Â– 5.25; Missing data = 9.99
261Appendix 13 (Continued)QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 01:INTRODUCTIONQ#: 01.01Would you have a few minutes for me to explain the study and how your household was selected for participation?(APPOINTMNT)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes96.Appointment97.Other (specify)-No responses in this category99.No response/missing dataQ#: 01.02 (If not refused at 01.01) Do you (selected respondent) consent to be interviewed for this study? (CONSENTYPE)Code NumberCode Description 01.No consent given02.Yes, verbal (skip to 01.03)03.Yes, written (skip to 01.03)98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 01.02.01(If "No consent given" at 01.02) Reason for not consenting to be interviewed. (WHY_REFUSE)Code NumberCode Description 01.No reason given02.Reason:Family considerations/obligations-Spouse didn't think family should be bothered-Didn't want to upset spouse-Husband will not allow anyone to speak with her-Husband is ultimate authority, not her-Family policy to never participate in surveys03.Reason:Lack or loss of interest-Just don't come back-Tired of thinking about it-Just not interested in the environment-Just doesn't want to participate -"nobody does"-Lost interest since first contact; no longer interested-Thought study was going to be about something else04.Reason:Unable to participate-Farmer -unusually wet summer and fall so he's been unable to harvest until now. By the time he finishes hewill begin planting cycle; no time until next June (beyond study period)-Moving soon and now in process of packing-Respondent very ill: family called anthro. office to say respondent is very old and very near death-Respondent not well from major surgery98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
262Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 01.03I will take notes as we talk, but I'd like to make sure I record accurately what we say. Would it be all right if I tape record ourconversation? (RECORD)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 01.04Have you heard about the interviews we are conducting? (HEARD_IWS)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 02.01)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 01.04.01(If "yes" to 01.04) Through what sources did you learn of it? (SRC_LRN1 SRC_LRN5)Code NumberCode Description 01.Saw a story on television02.Heard about it on the radio03.Read about it in a newspaper04.Read about it in a magazine05.At an organized meeting06.Informal discussion among family/friends/neighbors07.Heard about it from elected official(s)08.Religious organization97.Other (specify)-No responses in this category98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 01.04.02(If "yes" to 01.04) What did you hear? (STUDY_HRD1 STUDY_HRD5)Code NumberCode Description 01.A study/interviews02.A study of risk03.A study of the environment04.A study of nuclear power05.A study of Fermi 297.Other (specify)-No responses in this category98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
263Appendix 13 (Continued)QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 02:PERCEPTIONS OF COMMUNITYQ#: 02.01I am going to read you a list of community attributes. Please indicate for each item whether you think the quality of that attribute isvery poor, poor, fair, good, or very good.Community Attributes, Listed by Question 02.01.01Drinking water (WATER_QUAL)02.01.02Air (AIR_QUAL)02.01.03Recreation/play areas (PLAY_QUAL)02.01.04Schools (SKOOL_QUAL)02.01.05Hospitals/health facilities (HOSP_QUAL)Code NumberCode Description 01.Very poor02.Poor03.Fair04.Good05.Very good98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.02Overall, would you say that the quality of life in your community is worsening a lot, worsening a little, staying about the same,improving a little, or improving a lot? (QUAL_LIFE)Code NumberCode Description 01.Worsening a lot02.Worsening a little03.Staying about the same04.Improving a little05.Improving a lot98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.03Do you think your community faces any problems today? (COM_PROBS)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.04Do you think racial and ethnic prejudice is a problem in your community? (RACE_PREJ)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
264Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 02.05Do you think racial and ethnic prejudice is a problem in the United States? (US_PREJ)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.06How would you say the level of racial and ethnic prejudice in your community compares to that of the United States? Would you sayyour community is much less prejudiced, less prejudiced, about the same, more prejudiced, or much more prejudiced than the UnitedStates? (PREJ_LEV)Code NumberCode Description 01.Much less prejudiced02.Less prejudiced03.About the same04.More prejudiced05.Much more prejudiced98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.07Generally speaking, how dangerous is your community? (COM_DNGR)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all dangerous02.Not very dangerous03.Somewhat dangerous04.Very dangerous98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.08Overall, would you say that your community is becoming much less dangerous, a little less dangerous, staying about the same, a littlemore dangerous, or much more dangerous? (DNGR_TREND)Code NumberCode Description 01.Much less dangerous02.A little less dangerous03.Staying about the same04.A little more dangerous05.Much more dangerous98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.09Do you think the natural environment and your community are related? (COM_ENV1)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 02.10)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
265Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 02.09.01(If "yes" to 02.09) Which of the following choices would you say best describes the relationship between your community andthe natural environment? (COM_ENV2)Code NumberCode Description 01.Community and environment are not related02.Community part of environment03.Environment part of community04.Environment and community are one in the same98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.10How do you define the concept of "progress?" (PROG_DEF1 PROG_DEF5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Change/Advancement/Improvement upon or from an earlier condition11.Economic change12.Technological change13.Social/community improvement14.Change in general/non-specific change20.Consequences or secondary effects of economic growth/expansion30.Stability of community/moral values40.Planning for future/future orientation in general98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.11Are there any words that have the same or very similar meaning to you as "progress?" (PROG_WORDS)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 02.12)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.11.01(If "yes" to 02.11) What words would those be? (PROG_SYN1 PROG_SYN5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Those which reflect change/advancement/improvement, etc., upon or from an earlier state or condition20.Those which reflect a consequence or secondary effect98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.12People have used the concept of "risk" in various ways. How do you define the concept of risk? (RISK_DEF1 RISK_DEF5)Code NumberCode Description 10.As an aspect of chance11.Chance12.Gamble/willingly taking chances13.Probability/likelihood of occurrence20.As an aspect of danger/threat/potential harm, powerlessness30.As an aspect of potential opportunity/challenge40.As an outcome/consequence of questionable decisions, behavior/liability98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
266Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 02.13Are there any words that have the same or very similar meaning to you as "risk?" (RISK_WORDS)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to Section 03)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 02.13.01(If "yes" to 02.13) What words would those be? (RISK_SYN1 RISK_SYN5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Those which reflect aspects of chance, probability, etc.20.Those which reflect aspects of danger, threat, harm, etc.30.Those which reflect aspects of opportunity, challenge40.Those which reflect outcomes/consequences/liability98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 03:ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISMQ#: 03.01Generally speaking, would you say that improving the quality of the natural environment will require some changes in our society?(CHNG_SOC)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to Section 04)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 03.02Are there changes that you would be personally willing to make in behalf of improving the quality of the natural environment?(PERS_CHNGS)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to Section 04)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 03.03I am going to read a list of actions that other people indicated they have taken to improve the quality of their community's naturalenvironment. Please indicate for each item mentioned how willing you would be to engage in these same activities. Would you be notat all willing, somewhat unwilling, somewhat willing, or very willing?Actions Taken to Improve Natural Environment, Listed by Question 03.03.01Encourage grassroots environmental movements (GRASSROOTS)03.03.02Encourage birth control (BIRTH_CNTL)03.03.03Support politicians who include environmental concerns on their agenda (POLITICIAN)03.03.04Participate in recycling programs (RECYCLE)03.03.05Reduce your standard of living (STAND_LIV)03.03.06Sacrifice some of your civil rights (CIV_RIGHTS)03.03.07Pay higher prices on behalf of pollution saving manufacturing devices (HI_PRICES)03.03.08Pay higher taxes (HI_TAXES)03.03.09Reduce your level of consumption (CONSUM_LEV)
267Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all willing02.Somewhat unwilling03.Somewhat willing04.Very willing98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 03.04Have you heard of ecological movements? (ECOL_MOVE1)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to Section 04)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 03.05How important to you are ecological movements? (ECOL_MOVE2)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all important02.Not very important03.Somewhat important04.Very important98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 03.06Do you know someone who participates in ecological movements? (ECOL_MOVE3)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 03.07Do you participate in ecological movements? (ECOL_MOVE4)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
268Appendix 13 (Continued)QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 04:SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYQ#: 04.01Now I would like to get your opinion on a wide range of science and technology issues. I am going to read you a series of statementsand, for each, I would like you to tell me whether you strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhatagree, or strongly agree.Science and Technology Statements, Listed by Question 04.01.01In general, the benefits of scientific research have outweighed the harmful results (SCI_BENFT)04.01.02Even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge should besupported by the federal government (FEDGOV_SUP)04.01.03Scientific discoveries are making our lives easier and more comfortable (SCI_DISC)04.01.04Unless scientists are allowed to study things that don't appear important or useful now, a lot of very beneficialthings probably will never be invented (SCI_STUDY)Code NumberCode Description 01.Strongly disagree02.Somewhat disagree03.Neither agree nor disagree04.Somewhat agree05.Strongly agree98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 04.02Do you think that new technologies based on scientific discoveries make our lives change too fast, or has the change been aboutright? (CHNG_RATE)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not fast enough02.About right03.Too fast98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 04.03How knowledgeable would you say you are about potential threats to the environment? (ENV_KNOW)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all knowledgeable02.Not very knowledgeable03.Somewhat knowledgeable04.Very knowledgeable98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 05:ENVIRONMENTAL PARADIGMQ#: 05.01Now I would like to get your opinion on a wide range of environmental issues. I am going to read you a series of statements and, foreach, I would like you to tell me whether you strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, orstrongly agree.Environmental Issues Statements, Listed by Question 05.01.01We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support (PEOP_LMT)05.01.02The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset (BAL_NATR)05.01.03 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs (MODFY_ENV)
269Appendix 13 (Continued)05.01.04Humans were created to rule over the rest of nature (RULE_NAT)05.01.05When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences (DISAS_CONS)05.01.06Plants and animals exist primarily to be used by humans (PLNT_ANML)05.01.07To maintain a healthy economy we must adhere to a system of "sustainable development" in which the pressuresfor economic development are balanced with the constraints of environmental protection (SUST_DEV)05.01.08Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive (HRMNY_NAT)05.01.09The earth is like a spaceship with only limited room and resources (SPACESHIP)05.01.10Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because they can remake it to suit their needs(HUMAN_ADPT)05.01.11There are limits to growth beyond which an industrialized society cannot expand (LMTS2_GRTH)05.01.12Human beings are severely abusing the environment (ABUSE_ENV)Code NumberCode Description 01.Strongly disagree02.Somewhat disagree03.Neither agree nor disagree04.Somewhat agree05.Strongly agree98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 06:WORLD ISSUESQ#: 06.01This section addresses a range of issues currently facing this and other countries around the world. Please indicate for each of thefollowing issues whether you are not at all concerned, not very concerned, somewhat concerned, or very concerned?World Issues Statements, Listed by Question 06.01.01Inflation (INFLATION)06.01.02Hunger (HUNGER)06.01.03Unemployment (UNEMPLOY)06.01.04Violence, crime (VIOLENCE)06.01.05Political corruption (CORRUPTION)06.01.06Drug abuse (DRUGS)06.01.07Racial/ethnic prejudice (PREJUDICE)06.01.08AIDS/Incurable diseases (AIDS)06.01.09Environmental pollution (ENV_PLUTN)06.01.10Global warming (GLOB_WARM)06.01.11Acid rain (ACID_RAIN)06.01.12Waste disposal (WASTE_DISP)06.01.13Loss of natural scenic areas (LOSS_SCENE)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all concerned02.Not very concerned03.Somewhat concerned04.Very concerned98.Don't know/no opinion99. No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
270Appendix 13 (Continued)QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 07:DEFORESTATIONQ#: 07.01Have you heard of deforestation? (DEFOR_HRD)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to Section 08)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 07.01.01(If "yes" to 07.01) What have you heard? (WHAT_HRD1 WHAT_HRD5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Destruction of natural resources in general20.Depletion of tropical forests, especially in Latin America30.Depletion of North American forests40.A necessary trade-off for or consequence of progress, economic development50.Most general familiarity with the issue/word98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 07.02Do you think deforestation is a problem? (DEFOR_PROB)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 07.03Does deforestation pose a problem to your community? (DEFOR_COM)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 07.04Have you heard of Amazon deforestation? (DEFOR_AMZN)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 07.05Do you think that deforestation is related to any other ecological issues? (DEFOR_ECOL)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
271Appendix 13 (Continued)QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 08:TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT ANALOGSQ#: 08.01Do you think your community currently faces any environmental problems? (COM_ENVPRB)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.02Would you say that environmental pollution in your community is decreasing, staying about the same, or increasing?(COM_ENVPOL)Code NumberCode Description 01.Decreasing02.Staying about the same03.Increasing98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.03Do you think that technological projects and facilities have social impacts? (SOCIAL_IMP)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.04Do you think that technological projects and facilities have environmental impacts? (ENV_IMP)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.05Are there now or have there ever been any things locally -projects, proposals, facilities, special locations, events, anything at all locally -that influence your perceptions of the quality of your community's natural environment? (ANLGS_LOC)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 08.06)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
272Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 08.05.01(If "yes" to 08.05) Could you name or describe them for me? (LOCL_ANLG1 LOCL_ANLG5)Code NumberCode Description 03.General statements, events, conditions, consequences, causes, etc.04.Naturally occurring events, conditions, causes, etc.05.Transportation issues; transporting hazardous materials06.Indicators of and issues associated with environmental and community improvement, integrity, activism,stewardship, regulation07.Indicators of and issues associated with illegal, abusive, or irresponsible management of environmentalresources08. Proposed or planned projects, programs, facilities, etc.10.Nuclear facilities, projects, sites, incidents, etc.11.Fermi II12.Davis-Bessey13.Wastes-related14.Other; general nuclear20.Non-nuclear, energy-related facilities, projects, sites, incidents, etc.21.Coal-related22.Petroleum-related23.Other energy-related (hydro/solar/wind/geothermal, etc.)30.Other than energy-related facilities, projects, sites, incidents, etc.31.Agricultural32.Commercial/industrial33.Toxic/hazardous chemicals/wastes34.Municipal wastes/landfills35.Community infrastructural (excluding transportation incidents/issues, see code #05, above)36.Community environmental98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.05.02I have a map of the county. Would you be able to show me on that map where these are located? (CNTY_MAP)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes (show map)98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.06Are there now or have there ever been any things worldwide -projects, proposals, facilities, special locations, events, anything at allworldwide -that influence your perceptions of the quality of your community's natural environment? (ANLGS_WRLD)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 08.07)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.06.01(If "yes" to 08.06) Could you name or describe them for me? (WRLD_ANLG1 WRLD_ANLG5)Code NumberCode Description 03.General statements, events, conditions, consequences, causes, etc.04.Naturally occurring events, conditions, causes, etc.05. Indicators of and issues associated with environmental and community improvement, integrity, activism, stewardship,regulation
273Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 06. Indicators of and issues associated with illegal, abusive, or irresponsible management of environmentalresources10.Nuclear facilities, projects, sites, incidents, etc.11.Chernobyl12.Three-Mile Island (TMI)13.Wastes-related14.Other; general nuclear20.Non-nuclear, energy-related facilities, projects, sites, incidents, etc.21.Coal-related22.Petroleum-related23.Other energy-related (hydro/solar/wind/geothermal, etc.)30.Other than energy-related facilities, projects, sites, incidents, etc.31.Agricultural32.Commercial/industrial33.Toxic/hazardous chemicals/wastes34.Municipal wastes/landfills35.Other (infrastructural/environmental)40.Global environmental issues41.Deforestation42.Global warming/greenhouse effect43.Ozone depletion44.Acid rain98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.07How would you describe the effect that these local and worldwide factors have had on your perceptions of the quality of yourcommunity's natural environment? (ANLG_EFCTS)Code NumberCode Description 01.Negative02.Neither negative nor positive03.Both negative and positive04.Positive98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.07.01Why do you consider it to be (positive/negative/neither/both)? (WHY_EFCT1 WHY_EFCT5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Issues pertaining to environmental integrity11.Concerns over environmental quality (pollution, waste, destruction, etc.)12.Concerns over environmental management (responsibility, regulation, legislation, programs, etc.)20.Issues pertaining to environmental attitudes, awareness, or information30.Issues pertaining to trade-offs between environmental protection and economic growth/technologicaladvancement98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
274Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 08.08Who do you think should be responsible for solving your local environmental problems? (ENV_RESP1 ENV_RESP5)Code NumberCode Description 01.No one02.City government03.Township government04.County government05.State government06. Federal governmentCode NumberCode Description 07.A university-based organization08.A community-based organization09.An environmental interest group10.An association of industries11.A private management company12.Those who cause the pollution97.Other (specify)-An independent arbitrator-The news media-The people who live there-The citizenry-Individuals-A collaboration of all mentioned in the list98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.09Thinking of environmental problems in other regions of the United States, how would you say your community compares? Would you sayyour community has many fewer environmental problems, a few less, about the same, slightly more, or many more? (US_ENVPRB)Code NumberCode Description 01.Many fewer02.A few less03.About the same04.Slightly more05.Many more98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 08.10Would you say that environmental pollution worldwide is decreasing, staying about the same, or increasing? (ENVPOL_WLD)Code NumberCode Description 01.Decreasing02.Staying about the same03.Increasing98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
275Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 08.11Could environmental pollution cause the end of the world? (ENDOF_WRLD)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 09:ATTITUDES TOWARD ENERGY PRODUCTION(NOTE: Due to problems with question logic, Section 09 is not included in the EARP/RPM Database.) Q#: 09.01Can energy be produced from different sources? (ENRGY_SRC)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to Section 10)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 09.02Of these potential sources of energy, which two do you think are the most threatening? (MST_THRT1 MST_THRT2)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.Coal03.Geo-thermal04.Hydrographic (water)05.Nuclear (fission only)06.Petroleum (oil)07.Resource recovery (waste incineration)08.Solar09.Wind97.Other (specify)-No responses in this category98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 09.02.01Why is that? (Y1_MST1 Y1_MST5; Y2_MST1 Y2_MST5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Threats to environmental integrity11.Concerns over energy by-products, waste (type, volume, toxicity, containment, etc.)12.Concerns over environmental pollution (type, volume, toxicity, etc.)20.Issues related to safety/reliability/management21.Potential for accidents (technical failure)22.Potential for mismanagement (human error; insufficient regulations; political conflicts)30.Other (negative public perception; cost-ineffectiveness; non-specific reasons, etc.)98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
276Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 09.03And which two would you say are the least threatening? (LST_THRT1 LST_THRT5)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.Coal03.Geo-thermal04.Hydrographic (water)05.Nuclear (fission only)06.Petroleum (oil)07.Resource recovery (waste incineration)08.Solar09.WindCode NumberCode Description 97.Other (specify)-Natural gas-Ethanol-Soybean oil98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 09.03.01And why is that? (Y1_LST1 Y1_LST5; Y2_LST1 Y2_LST5)Code NumberCode Description 10."Natural" sources of energy20.Issues related to sustainability21.Not harmful to environment/non-polluting/renewable22.Not harmful to people/safe30.Availability/accessibility/cost/abundance31.Accessibility/cost32.Abundance/availability40.Great potential as future energy sources98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 09.04Of these potential sources of energy, which two do you think represent the greatest degree of progress? (MST_PRG1 MST_PRG5)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.Coal03.Geo-thermal04.Hydrographic (water)05.Nuclear (fission only)06.Petroleum (oil)07.Resource recovery (waste incineration)08.Solar09.Wind97.Other (specify)-Natural gas-"Electric"98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
277Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#:09.04.01Why is that? (Y1_PRG1 Y1_PRG5; Y2_PRG1 Y2_PRG5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Economic considerations11.Cheap/cost-effective/efficient12.Jobs/capital/security20.High levels of research and technology required in production30.Availability/accessibility/abundance40.Environmental integrity and health; renewability50.Great potential as primary energy sources of the future98. Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 09.05And which two do you think represent the least degree of progress? (LST_PRG1 LST_PRG2)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.Coal03.Geo-thermal04.Hydrographic (water)05.Nuclear (fission only)06.Petroleum (oil)07.Resource recovery (waste incineration)08.Solar09.Wind97.Other (specify)-No responses in this category98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 09.05.01And why is that? (Y1_NOPRG1 Y1_NOPRG5; Y2_NOPRG1 Y2_NOPRG5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Unappealing/conflict/collusion20.Unsustainable21.Non-renewable22.Not cost-effective/impractical/inefficient23.Potential for environmental damage/dirty/overused24.Unsafe/unreliable30.Old/outdated technology31.Low technology32.Lack of usage, improvement33.Needs more investment, research98. Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 10:PERCEPTIONS OF AND RESPONSES TO FERMI 2Q#: 10.01Are you aware of something called Fermi 2, or Fermi? (AWARE_FERM)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to Section 11)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
278Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 10.01.01(If "yes" to 10.01)Could you describe it to me? (FERM_DESC)Code NumberCode Description 01.Something other than a nuclear power plant (specify, then skip to Section 11)-A nuclear power plant in Cleveland-An electrical power plant, but don't know where or what kind02.Nuclear power plant (continue with this section)98.Don't know/not able to describe (skip to Section 11)99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.02Would you say Fermi 2 is located far from your community, near your community, or in your community? (FERM_LOC)Code NumberCode Description 01.Far from community02.Near community03.In community98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.03What would you say is the straight-line (linear) distance in miles between your home and Fermi 2? (FERM_DIST); and,Q#: 10.04Actual linear distance in miles between sample area and Fermi 2 (to be calculated by transect/zone) (TRUE_DIST)Code Number Code Description Code Number Code Description 01.Less than 2 miles13.25 to 26 miles02.3 to 4 miles14.27 to 28 miles03.5 to 6 miles15.29 to 30 miles04.7 to 8 miles16.31 to 32 miles05.9 to 10 miles17.33 to 34 miles06.11 to 12 miles18.35 to 36 miles07.13 to 14 miles19.37 to 38 miles08.15 to 16 miles20.39 to 40 miles09.17 to 18 miles21.More than 40 miles10.19 to 20 miles98.DonÂ’t Know11.12.21 to 22 miles23 to 24 miles99.No response/skip/notapplicable/missing dataQ#: 10.05What changes have there been in your life as a result of Fermi 2? (LIFE_CHNG1 LIFE_CHNG5)Code NumberCode Description 01.No changes02. Worried more/increased stress03.Conflict within family04.Conflict with friends05.Conflict with neighbors/community06.Tried to relocate residence07.Held off investments in home08.Held off investments in local business
279Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 97.Other (specify)-Higher electric bills-Water in Lake Erie has been negatively affected-Cold weather swimming at Sterling State Park because water has been warmed by the Fermi cooling towers-Distress due to the testing of emergency response sirens (on edge of property-A learning process-Employment-Gave community a positive lift-Late rental payments due to higher electric rates-Scared by rumors of poor craftsmanship at the facility-Change in income-Better fishing-Heightened environmental awareness-Husband worked at Fermi and died of cancer-Increased awareness of nuclear power-Loss of land -can't hunt there anymore-Stopped fishing at Point Mouille-Noticed deformed and bleeding fish-Before the "halo mist" (from cooling towers) he would eat fish from there; now he won'tDecrease in electric bills98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.06A number of advantages have been raised about nuclear power facilities. I am going to read you a list of some of these and I want youto think how they relate to the Fermi 2 facility. Using a scale from "1" to "5", where "1" indicates "no advantage at all" and "5"indicates "a major advantage," please tell me how much of an advantage you think each is.Nuclear Power Advantages, Listed by Question 10.06.01Economic benefits such as employment opportunities, the attraction of high-tech industry, the generation of taxdollars, and local revenues through energy purchases by other communities/states? (ECON_BNFTS)10.06.02Decreased dependence on foreign energy sources? (LESS_DEPND)10.06.03Cleaner than most other energy sources? (CLN_ENRGY)10.06.04Continued scientific advancement in high-technology and nuclear physics? (SCI_ADVNC)10.06.05Cheaper electrical rates? (CHEAP_RTS)Code NumberCode Description 01.No advantage at all02.Little, if any, advantage03.Somewhat of an advantage04.Considerable advantage05.Major advantage98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.07A number of concerns have also been raised about nuclear power facilities. I am going to read you a list of some of these and I wantyou to think how they relate to the Fermi 2 facility. Using a scale from "1" to "5", where "1" indicates "no concern at all" and "5"indicates "a major concern," please tell me how much of a concern each is to you.Nuclear Power Concerns, Listed by Question 10.07.01Accidental environmental contamination? (ENV_CONT)10.07.02Increased danger to public health and safety? (INC_DNGR)10.07.03Technical inadequacy to safely manage waste from energy production activities? (SAFE_MGT)10.07.04Technical inadequacy to safely operate and monitor the facility? (SAFE_OPER8)10.07.05Lack of concern for and lack of responsiveness to local values and interests? (NO_CONCERN)
280Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 01.No concern at all02.Little, if any, concern03.Somewhat of a concern04.Considerable concern05.Major concern98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.08How much of a threat do you think Fermi 2 poses to your community? (FERM_THRET)Code NumberCode Description 01.No threat at all (skip to 10.10)02.A minor threat03.A major threat98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.08.01(If "minor" or "major" to 10.08) Do you think that the threat posed by Fermi 2 is greater to some people than to others?(DIF_THRET)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.08.01.01(If "yes" to 10.08.01) What factors or conditions might expose some people more than others to a greater threat from Fermi 2?(THRT_FCTR1 THRT_FCTR5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Awareness/perception of facility20.Proximity to facility30.Facility operations40.Mode of threat98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.09At what distance would you say Fermi 2 does not present an environmental threat? (THRET_DIST)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 miles02.6 to 10 miles03.11 to 15 miles04.16 to 20 miles05.21 to 25 miles06.26 to 30 miles07.31 to 35 miles08.36 to 40 miles09.41 to 45 miles10.46 to 50 miles11.51 to 60 miles
281Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 12.61 to 70 miles13.71 to 80 miles14.81 to 90 miles15.91 to 100 miles16.101 to 500 miles17.501 to 1,000 miles18.More than 1,000 miles98.Don't know99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.10How would you define a "major accident" at a nuclear power plant like Fermi 2? (request examples) (MJR_AXDNT1 -MJR_AXDNT5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Issues pertaining to radiation, waste, or contamination20.Comparisons with other nuclear accidents (analogs)30.Human error40.Technical malfunctions98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.11What do you think is the likelihood of a major accident at Fermi 2? (AXDNT_CHNC)Code NumberCode Description 01.Very unlikely02.Somewhat unlikely03.Somewhat likely04.Very likely98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.12How soon before you think a major accident will occur at Fermi 2? (WHEN_AXDNT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 years02.6 to 15 years03.16 to 25 years04.More than 25 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.13Do you think you would be affected by a major accident at Fermi 2? (AXDNT_EFCT)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 10.14)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
282Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 10.13.01(If "yes" to 10.13) How would the effects of a major accident at Fermi 2 reach you? (EFCT_RECH1 EFCT_RECH5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Contamination of specific resource types (type of contamination)11.Water12.Air/atmospheric13.Land/soil14.Agricultural/food/food chain15.Other/general20.Mechanisms through which specific resources would become contaminated (mode of contamination)21.Water: rain/groundwater/streams/lakes, etc.22.Air/wind flow patterns23.Radioactive fallout/wastes24.Explosion/shock wave30.Secondary effects/consequences31.Health effects32.Changes in lifestyle/social relations/community response98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.14What immediate actions would you take in the event of a major accident at Fermi 2? (MED8_ACTN1 MED8_ACTN5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Respond apathetically20.Seek information30.Locate and contact family members, relatives, or friends40.Seek and secure shelter/prepare oneself/get things in order41.Seek and secure shelter42.Prepare/get things in order50.Evacuate from area51.By non-specific means/direction52.By car to north/west53.By car to south/east98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.15Do you think your community would be affected by a major accident at Fermi 2? (COM_AFCTD)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 10.16)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#:10.15.01(If "yes" to 10.15) How would the effects of a major accident at Fermi 2 reach your community? (REACH_COM1 -REACH_COM5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Same as it would reach respondent individually20.Total community destruction30.Emotional/psychological health effects40.Physical/biological health effects50.Social effects/changes in lifestyle, etc.60.Economic effects
283Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 70.Contamination of specific resource types (type of contamination)71.Water72.Air73.Land/soil74.Agricultural/food/food chain75.Other/general80.Mechanisms through which specific resources would become contaminated (mode of contamination)81.Water: rain/groundwater/streams/lakes, etc.82.Air/wind flow patterns83.Other/general98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.16If there were a major accident at Fermi 2, how long would the effects persist in your community? (EFCTS_PRST)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 1 week02.1 week to 1 month03.2 months to 1 year04.2 to 5 years05.6 to 10 years06.11 to 50 years07.51 to 100 years08.101 to 500 years09.501 to 1,000 years10.More than 1,000 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.17How important do you think it is to have an emergency response plan for Fermi 2? (RESP_PLAN)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all important02.Not very important03.Somewhat important04.Very important98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.18Are you aware of any emergency response plans for Fermi 2? (AWARE_PLAN)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 10.19)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
284Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 10.18.01(If "yes" to 10.18) Through what source did you learn of it? (PLAN_SRC1 PLAN_SRC5)Code NumberCode Description 01.Saw a story on television02.Heard about it on the radio03.Read about it in a newspaper04.Read about it in a magazine05.Telephone book06.At an organized meeting07.Informal discussion among family/friends/neighbors08.Heard about it from elected official(s)08. Religious organization97.Other (specify)-Employment at Fermi-Detroit Edison flyer through the mail (Fermi pamphlet)-Hears evacuation sirens being tested (emergency preparedness)-Spouse is a community monitor of evacuation siren system (emergency preparedness)-Spouse works for Fermi-Evacuation procedure is posted at work-Company flyer-Lives on evacuation route for people in the area-Son's Cub Scout tour of the facility-Evacuation siren at Steward and Raisinville Rds.-Participation on Civil Response Board-Fermi training program in public schools-Evacuation siren located on their private property-Son works with safety at state level -goes to meetings on this-Helped design the evacuation plan-Employed at a nuclear power plant and knows that to be licensed they must have a response plan-As a township official-Amateur radio operator -part of emergency radio services which is connected to the disaster board-County emergency preparedness system-Part of his job -as a job requirement-Seminars offered at Fermi-Public tours of Fermi-Was a student at Jefferson High School, which is next to Fermi98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.19Thinking in terms of miles from Fermi 2, how wide of an area do you think should be covered by an emergency response plan for Fermi2? (PLAN_DIST)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 miles02.6 to 10 miles03.11 to 15 miles04.16 to 20 miles05.21 to 25 miles06.26 to 30 miles07.31 to 35 miles08.36 to 40 miles09.41 to 45 miles10.46 to 50 miles
285Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 11.51 to 60 miles12.61 to 70 miles13.71 to 80 miles14.81 to 90 miles15.91 to 100 miles16.More than 100 miles98.Don't know99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.19.01Do you think that people living within that area are consulted in any way in the preparation of an emergency response plan forFermi 2? (PPL_CNSLTD)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.20I am going to read you a list of some different strategies for public participation, and I would like you to tell me how effective you thinkeach is. Would you say it is not at all effective, not very effective, somewhat effective, or very effective?Public Participation Strategies, Listed by Question 10.20.01Political representation through elected officials (POLTCL_REP)10.20.02Public education and information programs (PUBLIC_ED)10.20.03Public meetings and hearings (PUBLIC_MTG)10.20.04Scientific surveys (SCI_SURVY)10.20.05Coalitions between citizens, government, and industry (COALITIONS)10.20.06Citizen activism and incorporation (ACTIVISM)10.20.07Legal confrontation or challenge (litigation) (LITIGATION)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all effective02.Not very effective03.Somewhat effective04.Very effective98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.21Do the energy production activities at Fermi 2 produce waste? (FERM_WASTE)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to Section 11)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
286Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 10.21.01(If "yes" to 10.21) Do you think the energy production waste from Fermi 2 is dangerous or threatening? (WASTE_DNGR)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.22How would you classify the waste generated by energy production activities at Fermi 2? (CLSFY_WSTE)Code NumberCode Description 01.Solid waste02.Hazardous waste03.Toxic waste04.Radioactive waste97.Other (specify)-Filtered waste-Nuclear waste98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.23How important do you think it is to have a plan for monitoring the potential social impacts of Fermi 2? (FERMI_SIA)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all important02.Not very important03.Somewhat important04.Very important98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 10.24Thinking in terms of miles from Fermi 2, how wide of an area do you think should be covered by a social monitoring plan for Fermi 2?(SIA_DIST)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 miles02.6 to 10 miles03.11 to 15 miles04.16 to 20 miles05.21 to 25 miles06.26 to 30 miles07.31 to 35 miles08.36 to 40 miles09.41 to 45 miles10.46 to 50 miles11.51 to 60 miles12.61 to 70 miles13.71 to 80 miles14.81 to 90 miles15.91 to 100 miles16.More than 100 miles98.Don't know99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
287Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 10.25How important do you think it is to have a plan for monitoring the potential environmental impacts of Fermi 2? (FERMI_EIA)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all important02.Not very important03.Somewhat important04.Very important98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data10.26Thinking again in terms of miles from Fermi 2, how wide of an area do you think should be covered by an environmental monitoring plan forFermi 2? (EIA_DIST)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 miles02.6 to 10 miles03.11 to 15 miles04.16 to 20 miles05.21 to 25 miles06.26 to 30 miles07.31 to 35 miles08.36 to 40 miles09.41 to 45 miles10.46 to 50 milesCode NumberCode Description 11.51 to 60 miles12.61 to 70 miles13.71 to 80 miles14.81 to 90 miles15.91 to 100 miles16.More than 100 miles98.Don't know99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 11:ORGANIZATIONAL TRUSTWORTHINESSQ#: 11.01How would you say the concept of "trust" applies to the management of environmentally sensitive facilities and activities? (code"does not apply" as "01.") (TRUST_DEF1 TRUST_DEF5)Code NumberCode Description 01.Trust does not apply to environmental management10.Placing others' interests above/before one's own11.Honesty/believability/truthfulness12.Accountability/responsibility/reliability/dependability13.Beneficence/doing good for others14.Public collaboration/information/decision-making20.Possessing technical competence/sufficient knowledge21.Technical competence22.Sufficient knowledge30.Adequate safety/security regulations, precautions (monitoring/testing/inspection, etc.)98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
288Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 11.02Are there any words that have the same or very similar meaning to you as "trust?" (TRUST_WRDS)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 11.03)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 11.02.01(If "yes" to 11.02) What words would those be? (TRUST_SYN1 TRUST_SYN5)Code NumberCode Description 10.Concern/beneficence11.Honesty/believability/truthfulness12.Accountability/responsibility13.Reliability/dependability20.Competence/knowledge30.Spirituality/faith/values98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 11.03I am going to read a list of organizations and groups that could be associated with the operation or monitoring of environmentallysensitive projects or facilities. For each organization and group, please tell me how technically competent you believe it would be inoperating such projects or facilities. Would it be not at all competent, somewhat competent, or very competent?Organizations and Groups, Listed by Question 11.03.01City government (TECHOP_CTY)11.03.02Township government (TECHOP_TWP)11.03.03County government (TECHOP_CNY)11.03.04A state government agency (TECHOP_STA)11.03.05A federal government agency (TECHOP_FED)11.03.06A university-based organization (TECHOP_UNI)11.03.07A community-based organization (TECHOP_COM)11.03.08An environmental interest group (TECHOP_ENV)11.03.09An association of industries (TECHOP_IND)11.03.10A private company/business (TECHOP_BUS)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all competent02.Somewhat competent03.Very competent98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 11.04Thinking about these same organizations and groups, please tell me how concerned each would be about the interests of nearby residentswhen operating an environmentally sensitive project or facility. Would it be not concerned at all, somewhat concerned, or veryconcerned?Organizations and Groups, Listed by Question 11.04.01City government (CONOP_CTY)11.04.02Township government (CONOP_TWP)11.04.03County government (CONOP_CNY)11.04.04A state government agency (CONOP_STA)11.04.05A federal government agency (CONOP_FED)
289Appendix 13 (Continued)Organizations and Groups, Listed by Question 11.04.06A university-based organization (CONOP_UNI)11.04.07A community-based organization (CONOP_COM)11.04.08An environmental interest group (CONOP_ENV)11.04.09An association of industries (CONOP_IND)11.04.10A private company/business (CONOP_BUS)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all concerned02.Somewhat concerned03.Very concerned98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 11.05Thinking about these same organizations and groups, please tell me how technically competent you believe each would be to conductenvironmental monitoring of environmentally sensitive projects or facilities.Organizations and Groups, Listed by Question 11.05.01City government (TECHEM_CTY)11.05.02Township government (TECHEM_TWP)11.05.03County government (TECHEM_CNY)11.05.04A state government agency (TECHEM_STA)11.05.05A federal government agency (TECHEM_FED)11.05.06A university-based organization (TECHEM_UNI)11.05.07A community-based organization (TECHEM_COM)11.05.08An environmental interest group (TECHEM_ENV)11.05.09An association of industries (TECHEM_IND)11.05.10A private company/business (TECHEM_BUS)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all competent02.Somewhat competent03.Very competent98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 11.06Thinking again of these same organizations and groups, please tell me how concerned each would be about the interests of nearbyresidents when conducting environmental monitoring of environmentally sensitive projects or facilities.Organizations and Groups, Listed by Question 11.06.01City government (CONEM_CTY)11.06.02Township government (CONEM_TWP)11.06.03County government (CONEM_CNY)11.06.04A state government agency (CONEM_STA)11.06.05A federal government agency (CONEM_FED)11.06.06A university-based organization (CONEM_UNI)11.06.07A community-based organization (CONEM_COM)11.06.08An environmental interest group (CONEM_ENV)11.06.09An association of industries (CONEM_IND)11.06.10A private company/business (CONEM_BUS)
290Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all concerned02.Somewhat concerned03.Very concerned98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 11.07In forming your views about the management of environmentally sensitive projects, how trustworthy would you find each of thefollowing as sources of information? For each source of information, please tell me if you believe it is, in general, very untrustworthy,somewhat untrustworthy, somewhat trustworthy, or very trustworthy.Organizations and Groups, Listed by Question 11.07.01Television (TRUST_TV)11.07.02Radio (TRUST_RDIO)11.07.03Newspapers (TRUST_NPAP)11.07.04Magazines (TRUST_MAGZ)11.07.05Family/friends/neighbors (TRUST_FMLY)11.07.06Religious organizations (TRUST_RLGN)11.07.07Local environmental groups (TRUST_LENV)11.07.08Other community organizations (TRUST_COM)11.07.09City government (TRUST_CTY)11.07.10Township government (TRUST_TWP)11.07.11County government (TRUST_CNTY)11.07.12State government agencies (TRUST_STAT)11.07.13Federal government agencies (TRUST_FED)11.07.14National environmental organizations (TRUST_NENV)11.07.15A private company/business (TRUST_BSNS)11.07.16An association of industries (TRUST_IND)11.07.17University-based organizations (TRUST_UNIV)Code NumberCode Description 01.Very untrustworthy02.Somewhat untrustworthy03.Somewhat trustworthy04.Very trustworthy98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 12:MEDIA/SOCIAL INTERACTIONQ#: 12.01In establishing your opinion regarding the environmental quality of your community would you say you rely more upon the media orpeople that you know? (MDIA_PEPL)Code NumberCode Description 01.Media (skip to 12.01.01)02.People that you know (skip to 12.01.02)98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
291Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.01.01(If "Media" to 12.01) What kinds of media do you rely upon the most? (MEDIA_SRC1 MEDIA_SRC5)Code NumberCode Description 01.T.V.02.Radio03.Newspaper04.Magazines97.Other (specify)-CB radio with truck drivers-Organizational newsletters98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.01.02(If "Other people" to 12.01) What kinds of people do you rely upon the most? (PEPL_SRC1 PEPL_SRC5)Code NumberCode Description 01. Family/friends02.Co-workers03.People04.Local officials/officials05.Citizen activists06.Club members/membership07.Religious organizations97.Other (specify)-Self-Universities-College professors in environmental programs98. Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.02How many television sets are there in your household? (NUM_TVSETS)Code NumberCode Description 01.None (skip to 12.05)02.One03.Two04.Three05.Four06.Five07.More than five98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.03About how many years have you watched TV at home? (YRS_TVHOME)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 years02.5 to 10 years03.11 to 15 years04.16 to 20 years05.More than 20 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
292Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.04About how many hours each day do you usually watch TV at home? (HRS_TVHOME)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 1 hour02.1 to 2 hours03.3 to 4 hours04.5 to 6 hours05.7 to 8 hours06.More than 8 hours98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.05About how many years have you been regularly listening to the radio? (YRS_RADIO)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 years02.5 to 10 years03.11 to 15 years04.16 to 20 years05.More than 20 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.06About how many hours each day do you usually spend listening to the radio? (HRS_RADIO)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 1 hour02.1 to 2 hours03.3 to 4 hours04.5 to 6 hours05.7 to 8 hours06.More than 8 hours98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.07What newspapers do you usually read? (NPAP_RD1 NPAP_RD5)Code NumberCode Description 01.None (skip to 12.10)02.Monroe Evening News03.Toledo Blade04.Detroit News05.Detroit Free Press06.Ann Arbor News07.The Guardian (Monroe)08.New York Times09.Wall Street Journal10.Washington Post11.USA Today
293Appendix 13 (Continued)Code NumberCode Description 97.Other (specify)-Port-Clinton News-Herald-Ottawa County Exponent-Cleveland Plain-Dealer-Put-in-Bay Gazette-Sandusky Herald-Down-river News-Herald-Dundee Independent-Milan Leader-Village Voice (New York)-Smaller Town Newspaper-Southgate Heritage News-Taylor News-Herald-Wyandotte News-Herald-Southgate News-Herald-Isle Camera-Milan News-Romulus Roman-Ypsilanti News-Canton ObserverPlymouth Crier-Westland Observer-Ypsilanti Press98.Don't know/no preference99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.08About how many years have you been regularly reading newspapers? (YRS_PAPER)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 years02.5 to 10 years03.11 to 15 years04.16 to 20 years05.More than 20 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.09About how many hours each day do you usually spend reading newspapers? (HRS_PAPER)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 1 hour02.1 to 2 hours03.3 to 4 hours04.5 to 6 hours05.7 to 8 hours06.More than 8 hours98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
294Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.10How many magazines do you read regularly? (NUM_MAGZ)Code NumberCode Description 01.None (skip to 12.13)02.One03.Two04.Three05.Four06.Five07.More than five98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.11About how many years have you been regularly reading magazines? (YRS_MAGZ)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 years02.5 to 10 years03.11 to 15 years04.16 to 20 years05.More than 20 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.12About how many hours each day do you usually spend reading magazines? (HRS_MAGZ)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 1 hour02.1 to 2 hours03.3 to 4 hours04.5 to 6 hours05.7 to 8 hours06.More than 8 hours98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.13To how many clubs, associations, special interest groups, professional organizations, or any other types of group do you belong?(NUM_GROUPS)Code NumberCode Description 01.None (skip to 12.16)02.One03.Two04.Three05.Four06.Five07.More than five98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
295Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.14About how long have you been a member of the group you have belonged to the longest? (YRS_GROUP)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 5 years02.5 to 10 years03.11 to 15 years04.16 to 20 years05.More than 20 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.15About how many hours a month do you spend at meetings of these groups? (HRS_GROUP)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 5 hours03.6 to 10 hours04.11 to 15 hours05.More than 15 hours98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.16In general, which of the following subject areas would you say interests you the most? (SUBJCT_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Science and technology (skip to question 12.17 concerning science and technology)02.Ecology and the environment (skip to question 12.27 concerning ecology and the environment)03.Economic development and expansion (skip to question 12.37 concerning economic development andexpansion)97.Other (specify, then skip to Section 13)-Education-Humanities-Art-Music-Religion, faith-Social problems-The fine arts-Discipline in education-Farming-Sports-Politics98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataSubsection 12a: Science and Technology Q#: 12.17How interested are you in television programs concerning science and technology? (SCITV_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
296Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.18Roughly how many television programs concerning science and technology have you watched in the last month? (SCITV_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.19How interested are you in radio programs concerning science and technology? (SCIRAD_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.20Roughly how many radio programs concerning science and technology have you listened to in the last month? (SCIRAD_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.21How interested are you in newspaper articles concerning science and technology? (SCIPPR_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.22Roughly how many newspaper articles concerning science and technology have you read in the last month? (SCIPPR_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
297Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.23How interested are you in magazine articles concerning science and technology? (SCIMAG_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.24Roughly how many magazine articles concerning science and technology have you read in the last month? (SCIMAG_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.25(If "yes" to 12.13 -"Do you belong to a club or group, etc.) How interested are you when the groups or organizations you belong topresent or discuss information concerning science and technology? (SCIGRP_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.26Roughly how many of these groups' meetings concerning science and technology have you attended in the last month?(SCIGRP_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataSubsection 12b: Ecology and the Environment Q#: 12.27How interested are you in television programs concerning ecology and the environment? (ENVTV_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
298Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.28Roughly how many television programs concerning ecology and the environment have you watched in the last month?(ENVTV_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.29How interested are you in radio programs concerning ecology and the environment? (ENVRAD_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.30Roughly how many radio programs concerning ecology and the environment have you listened to in the last month?(ENVRAD_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.31How interested are you in newspaper articles concerning ecology and the environment? (ENVPPR_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.32Roughly how many newspaper articles concerning ecology and the environment have you read in the last month? (ENVPPR_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
299Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.33How interested are you in magazine articles concerning ecology and the environment? (ENVMAG_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.34Roughly how many magazine articles concerning ecology and the environment have you read in the last month? (ENVMAG_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.35(If "yes" to 12.13 -"Do you belong to a club or group, etc.) How interested are you when the groups or organizations you belong topresent or discuss information concerning ecology and the environment? (ENVGRP_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.36Roughly how many of these groups' meetings concerning ecology and the environment have you attended in the last month?(ENVGRP_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataSubsection 12c: Economic Development and Expansion Q#: 12.37How interested are you in television programs concerning economic development and expansion? (DEVTV_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
300Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.38Roughly how many television programs concerning economic development and expansion have you watched in the last month?(DEVTV_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.39How interested are you in radio programs concerning economic development and expansion? (DEVRAD_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.40Roughly how many radio programs concerning economic development and expansion have you listened to in the last month?(DEVRAD_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.41How interested are you in newspaper articles concerning economic development and expansion? (DEVPPR_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.42Roughly how many newspaper articles concerning economic development and expansion have you read in the last month?(DEVPPR_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
301Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 12.43How interested are you in magazine articles concerning economic development and expansion? (DEVMAG_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.44Roughly how many magazine articles concerning economic development and expansion have you read in the last month?(DEVMAG_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.45(If "yes" to 12.13 -"Do you belong to a club or group," etc.) How interested are you when the groups or organizations you belongto present or discuss information concerning economic development and expansion? (DEVGRP_INT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Not at all interested02.Not very interested03.Somewhat interested04.Very interested98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 12.46Roughly how many of these groups' meetings concerning economic development and expansion have you attended in the lastmonth? (DEVGRP_QTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.1 to 503.6 to 1004.11 to 1505.More than 1598.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 13:DEMOGRAPHICSQ#: 13.01What is your gender? (see cover sheet, #11) (GENDER)Code NumberCode Description 01.Female02.Male99.Missing data
302Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 13.02What is your age? (see cover sheet, #11) (RESP_AGE)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 20 years02.21 to 25 years03.26 to 30 years04.31 to 35 years05.36 to 40 years06.41 to 45 years07.46 to 50 years08.51 to 55 years09.56 to 60 years10.61 to 65 years11.66 to 70 years12.71 to 75 years13.More than 75 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.03How many people are in your household? (see cover sheet, #11) (NUM_INHOME)Code NumberCode Description 01.1 person02.2 people03.3 people04.4 people05.5 people06.6 to 10 people07.More than 10 people98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.04How long have you lived in this county? (YRSIN_CNTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 1 year02.1 to 5 years03.6 to 10 years04.11 to 15 years05.16 to 20 years06.21 to 25 years07.More than 25 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.05How would you describe the place where you live? Would you say it is rural, exurban, suburban, urban, or what? (HOME_DESC)Code NumberCode Description 01.Rural02.Exurban03.Suburban04.Urban97.Other (specify)-Country98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
303Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 13.06Skin color scale (assigned by interviewer) (SKIN_CLR)Code NumberCode Description 01.Very light02.Light03.Somewhat light04.Somewhat dark05.Dark06.Very darkQ#: 13.07What is your race or ethnic origin? (open-ended) (ETHNC_OPN1 ETHNC_OPN5)Code NumberCode Description 01.Black02.African03.African-American04.Mexican-American05.Native American06.Cherokee07.East Indian08.Lebanese09.White10.Armenian11.Belgian12.British13.Caucasian 14.Dutch15French16.German17.Greek18.Hungarian19.Irish20.Italian21.Macedonian22.Maltese23.Polish24.Romanian25.Russian26.Scottish27.Slovakian28.Spanish29.Ukrainian30.Welsh97.Other-"Heinz 57"-"Hillbilly"-"Mixed"98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
304Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 13.08What is your race or ethnic origin? (read all options) (RACE_CLSD)Code NumberCode Description 01.White, except Hispanic02.Black, except Hispanic03.Hispanic04.American Indian or Alaskan Native05.Asian or Pacific Islander97.Other (specify)-Lebanese98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.09What is your religious preference? (RELIGION)Code NumberCode Description 01.Agnostic/Atheist (skip to 13.10)02.Muslim03.Jewish04.Christian97.Other (specify)-Buddhist-Just believes in Christ98.Don't know/no preference99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.09.01If Christian, are you... (CHRISTIAN)Code NumberCode Description 01.Roman Catholic (skip to 13.10)02.Protestant97.Other (specify)-No responses in this category98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.09.01.01If protestant, what is your denomination? (PROTESTANT)Code NumberCode Description 01.Presbyterian02.Methodist03.Baptist04.Lutheran97.Other-Protestant-Full Gospel-Pentecostal-United Church of Christ-Non-denominational-Congregational-Community-Episcopalian-Bethesda Christian Church98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
305Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 13.10(For any religious preference) On average, how often would you say you go to (church/temple/worship)? (CHRCH_FRQ)Code NumberCode Description 01.Never02.At least once a year03.A few times a year04.Once or twice a month05.Almost every week06.Once a week07.More than once a week98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.11In general, what political party do you prefer the most? (POLIT_PRTY)Code NumberCode Description 01.No preference02.Independent03.Republican (skip to 13.12)04.Democrat (skip to 13.12)97.Other (specify)-Libertarian98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.11.01(If "Independent," "No preference," or "Other" to 13.11) Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or theDemocratic Party? (REPUB_DEM)Code NumberCode Description 01.Neither02.Closer to Republican Party03.Closer to Democratic Party98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.12Are you (or anyone in your family living there) a union member? (UNION_MBR)Code NumberCode Description 01.No, no one is a member02.Yes, respondent only03.Yes, respondent and someone else04.Yes, other members(s)98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.13Social class scale (assigned by interviewer) (SOC_SCALE)Code NumberCode Description 01.Abjectly poor02.Lower03.Lower middle04.Middle05.Upper middle06.Upper07.Exorbitant wealth
306Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 13.14What is the highest grade of school or year of college you completed? (YRS_SCHOOL)Code NumberCode Description 01.Grade school: 1 802.High school: 9 1203.Associate/Trade: 13 1404.Bachelor/Technical: 15 1605.Graduate/Professional: 17+98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.15To get a picture of people's financial situation, we need to know the general range of household incomes for the people we interview.Thinking about your household income from all sources, approximately how much did your household receive in 1991:(INCOME_LEV)Code NumberCode Description 01. Less than $5,00002.$5,000 to $10,00003.$10,001 to $15,00004.$15,001 to $20,00005.$20,001 to $25,00006.$25,001 to $30,00007.$30,001 to $35,00008.$35,001 to $40,00009.$40,001 to $45,00010.$45,001 to $50,00011.$50,001 to $55,00012.$55,001 to $60,00013.$60,001 to $65,00014.$65,001 to $70,00015.$70,001 to $75,00016.$75,001 to $80,00017.$80,001 to $85,00018.$85,001 to $90,00019.$90,001 to $95,00020.$95,001 to $100,00021.More than $100,00098.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.16Are you working now, temporarily laid off, unemployed, retired, a student, a homemaker, or what? (WORK_STAT1 -WORK_STAT5)Code NumberCode Description 01. Unemployed; looking for work02. Temporarily laid off03. Retired; disabled04.Homemaker05.Student06.Working now; on strike; sick leave97.Other (specify)-Worker's Compensation recipient98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
307Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 13.17What is/was your primary occupation? (what sort of work do or did you do?) (OCCUPATION)Code NumberCode Description 10.Agricultural/farming related20.Industrial/heavy equipment/factory related30.Retail/sales/general services related40.Public services/government/education, etc.97.Other98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.18Do/did you have a secondary occupation? (SECOND_JOB)Code NumberCode Description 01.No (skip to 13.19)02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.18.01What occupation is/was that? (JOB2_TYPE)Code NumberCode Description 10.Agricultural/farming related20.Retail/sales/general services related97.Other98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.19Does/did your work (for either occupation) involve regular outdoor activity or do/did you work inside a building?(IN_OUTDOOR)Code NumberCode Description 01.Work outside02.Work inside97.Other (specify)-Both inside and outside equally.98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.20Would you be willing to participate in a follow-up study of these same issues about a year or two from now? (FOLLOW_UP)Code NumberCode Description 01.No02.Yes98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing data
308Appendix 13 (Continued)Q#: 13.21And finally, do you have any comments, questions, or suggestions regarding this survey? (COMMENT_1 COMMENT_5)Code NumberCode Description 01.None02.Did not enjoy the survey experience03.Requested copy or summary of reported findings04.Observations regarding environmental issues10.Questions regarding the study11.Concerning its purpose, practicality12.Concerning the selection procedure/legitimacy13.Concerning the development of survey questions14.Concerning the management and execution of survey20.Statements in support of the study21.Demonstrates concern for people and environment22.Increases public awareness and involvement in these issues23.This kind of research is important24.Enjoyed participating in this study98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataQ#: 13.22Environmental risk perception scale (assigned by interviewer) (RISK_SCALE)Code NumberCode Description 01.Perceives no environmental risk02.Perceives minimal environmental risk03.Perceives moderate environmental risk04.Perceives considerable environmental risk05.Perceives major environmental risk99.Missing data
309Appendix 13 (Continued)INTERVIEW COVER SHEET(Note: this section is not included in the EARP/RPM Demonstration Project database.) Transect/Sample Area Number (TRAN_ZONE) (the codes for this variable are identical to those for "Sample Area Number" under the"Questionnaire Header" section on page one of this codebook.)Number of Residential Structures in Sample Area (RESTCR_QTY):Range = 001 180; vacant (e.g., possible, but no residential structures present) = 997; not applicable or possible (e.g., sample area over openwater) = 998; missing data = 999Residential Structure Number Selected for Interview (RESTCR_NUM):Range = 001 145; missing data = 999Residential Structure Description (RESTCR_DES):Code NumberCode Description 1.Single family home2.Apartment3.Condominium4.Rental house5.Vacation/recreational house6.Assisted living/elderly care/senior center9.Missing dataCall Record Total Number of Calls (NMBR_CALLS): (number of calls required to obtain the disposition of interview) Range = 01 12; Missing data = 99Call Number (CALL1 CALL12) (this variable is subsumed in the following four variables and therefore does not constitute a separateanalytical category): Range = 01 12; Missing data = 99Call Date (CALL1_DTE CALL12_DTE):Range = 09/15/92 04/26/93; Missing data = 99/99/99Day of Week that Call Was Made (CALL1_DAY CALL12_DAY):Code NumberCode Description 1.Sunday2.Monday3.Tuesday4.Wednesday5.Thursday6.Friday7.Saturday9.Missing dataTime of Day Call Was Made (CALL1_TME CALL12_TME): Range = 09.00 22.40; Missing data = 99.99
310Appendix 13 (Continued)Call Result (CALL1_RSL CALL12_RSL):Code NumberCode Description 1.Refusal2.No one home3.Respondent not home4.Appointment5.Reschedule6.Interview9.Missing dataInterview Number (IW_NUMBER):Range = 001 128Date of Interview (IW_DATE):Range = 09/15/92 04/26/93; Missing data = 99/99/99Time at Start of Interview (TIME_START):Range = 09.20 22.40; Missing data = 99.99Length of Interview (IW_LENGTH):Range = 00.01 05.15; Missing data = 99.99Number of Household Units in Residential Structure (RESHU_QNTY):Range = 001 136; Missing data = 999Household Unit Number Selected for Interview (HU_FORIW):Range = 001 056; Missing data = 999Number of Occupants (over 18 years of age) Currently Living in Selected Household Unit (NUM_OCPTS):Range = 01 06; Missing data = 99Code NumberCode Description 1.1 person2.2 people3.3 people4.4 people5.5 people6.6 people8.Don't know/no opinion9.Missing dataRandomly Assigned Occupant Number (OCPT1 OCPT6) (this variable is subsumed in the following five variables and therefore does notconstitute a separate analytical category): Range = 1 6; Missing data = 9Gender of Occupants (OCPT1_GDR OCPT6_GDR)Code NumberCode Description 1.Female2.Male9.Missing data
311Appendix 13 (Continued)Age of Occupants (OCPT1_AGE OCPT6_AGE)Code NumberCode Description 01.Less than 20 years02.21 to 25 years03.26 to 30 years04.31 to 35 years05.36 to 40 years06.41 to 45 years07.46 to 50 years08.51 to 55 years09.56 to 60 years10.61 to 65 years11.66 to 70 years12.71 to 75 years13.More than 75 years98.Don't know/no opinion99.No response/skip/missing dataOccupants Home at Time of Interview (OCPT1_HME OCPT6_HME)Code NumberCode Description 1.No2.Yes8.Don't know/no opinion9.No response/skip/not applicable/missing dataOccupant Selected for Interview (OCPT1_SEL OCPT6_SEL)Code NumberCode Description 1.No2.Yes9.Not applicable/skip/missing dataSelected Occupant Consent to Interview (OCPT1_CNS OCPT6_CNS)Code NumberCode Description 1.No2.Yes9.Not applicable/skip/missing data
312Appendix 14: A Summary Table of Demographic Characteristics forEARP Study Area Counties and Sample PopulationTable 6: Demographic Characteristics for EARP Study Area Counties and SamplePopulation Percentages by EARP Study Area Counties* and Sample Population** Demographic Characteristics Lucas County Monroe County Ottawa County Washtenaw County Wayne County County Totals Sample Population EARP Sample AreasNANANANANANA43 EARP Sample Area HouseholdsNANANANANANA2630 EARP Sample HouseholdsNANANANANANA128 EARP Sample Household PopulationNANANANANANA360 EARP Sample PopulationNANANANANANA128 EARP Responding SampleNANANANANANA108(84%)*** Study Area County Population462,361133,60040,029282,9372,111,6873,030,614NA Study Area County Households177,47846,50815,174104,528780,5351,124,223NA Female 52%51%51%51%52%52%48% Male 48%49%49%49%48%48%52% Age 18-20 5%5%4%9%5%5%2% Age 21-25 6%5%4%11%6%6%2% Age 26-45 32%32%30%36%32%32%45% Age 46-65 18%19%22%15%18%18%33% Age >65 13%10%16%8%13%12%14% Rural 5%56%75%24%1%7%(80%)**** Urban 95%44%25%86%99%93%(20%)****
313Appendix 14 (Continued)Table 6 (Continued) Percentages by EARP Study Area Counties* and Sample Population** Demographic Characteristics Lucas County Monroe County Ottawa County Washtenaw County Wayne County County Totals Sample Population White, including Hispanic82%96%98%84%57%66%91% Black, including Hispanic15%2%1%11%40%31%3% American Indian/ Alaska Native<1%<1%<1%<1%<1%1%1% Asian/Pacific Islander1%<1%<1%5%1%1%<1% Other Racial Category2%1%2%1%1%1%<1% School <9 yrs. 8%9%8%4%10%9%(7%) School 9-12 yrs. 50%54%56%28%51%49%(37%) School 13-16 yrs. 37%33%32%47%35%36%(41%) School >16 yrs. 6%4%4%21%5%7%(14%) Annual Household Income <10K18%12%12%11%22%19%(6%) Annual Household Income: 10-25K26%22%26%22%24%24%(21%) Annual Household Income: 26-50K34%36%39%32%31%32%(30%) Annual Household Income: 51-75K14%21%16%20%15%16%(19%) Annual Household Income: 76-100K4%6%5%8%5%5%(7%) Annual Household Income: >100K3%3%2%7%3%4%(5%) *County figures are based on 1990 U.S. Census Data.**Due to EARP refusals and missing data, the sum of values for certain variables may not equal 100 percent of the sample size.***Percentages listed in parentheses have been calculated on the responding portion of the sample population.****As judged by the respondent.
314Appendix 15: GLC Proposal to the NSF Biocomplexity InitiativeBiocomplexity -Incubation Activity:A Collaborative Approach to Aquatic Nuisance Species Research,Prevention, and ControlSubmitted to: Directorate for Biological SciencesSubmitted by: Dr. Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D.,Executive Director, Great Lakes CommissionSummary StatementThe introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance species (ANS) within the GreatLakes St. Lawrence River system is a case study in biocomplexity. This insidious form ofbiological pollution has had increasingly well-documented Â– yet poorly understood Â– impactson biological, physical and socio-economic systems. The expansiveness of the resource Â–the largest system of freshwater on the face of the earth Â– belies its ecological fragility. Itssocio-economic status is equally fragile; even a modest alteration in ecosystem quality orcomposition has pronounced impacts on social and economic systems, given the pervasiveinfluence of water and water-related activity in the region. Understanding the nature anddynamics of this biocomplexity and its system impacts is an essential step in addressing whatmany consider to be the greatest threat to the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes St.Lawrence River system.Understanding and addressing the biocomplexity of the ANS issue demands a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional approach. Within the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River systemis an Â“institutional ecosystemÂ” comprised of two federal governments, ten states andprovinces, four principal regional/binational agencies, multiple tribal authorities and an arrayof substate/provincial entities, and non-governmental, university, and business/industryinterests. A comprehensive and coordinated approach to understanding the biocomplexityof ANS introduction and spread is a precursor to effective prevention and control measures. Consequently, a collaborative structure featuring the varied disciplines of multipleinstitutions is needed to achieve this understanding through integrated research thatcharacterizes system dynamics and interactions.
315Appendix 15 (Continued)The Great Lakes Commission proposes to enhance understanding of the nature anddynamics of biocomplexity by forming a unique multi-institutional collaborative to addressidentified public policy priorities that concern the biological, physical and socio-economicsystem impacts of ANS introduction, spread and management. The collaborative will buildupon, and significantly enhance the potential of the Great Lakes Commission-sponsoredGreat Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. The Panel, a multi-institutional assembly ofpublic agencies ranging from the federal to local level (including tribal authorities, binationalorganizations and university consortia), serves as a forum for regional coordination andinformation exchange on ANS prevention and control. However, its potential for integratedresearch into biocomplexity and the biological, physical and socio-economic system impactsof ANS is untested. Â“Incubation activityÂ” support through the National Science Foundation(NSF) will demonstrate the potential of a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaborativein addressing a leading Â– and highly complex Â– public policy issue with profound ecological,economic and social impacts.Issue OverviewThe Great Lakes and connecting channels and rivers form the largest surfacefreshwater system in the world. The systemÂ’s water and related land resources provide thefoundation for recreation and tourism activity valued at $15 billion annually, $6.89 billion ofwhich is related to the fishing industry. Approximately 75,000 jobs are supported by sportfisheries, and commercial fisheries provide an additional 9,000 jobs (Great Lakes FisheryResource Restoration Study, 1994). This valuable fishery is threatened by the infestation ofharmful nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species, which alter the number and distribution ofnative species and have broad economic and societal impacts extending far beyond shorelineresidents and recreational users of the resource.The Great Lakes Fishery Resource Restoration Study has documented the extent ofthe threat posed by ANS in the Great Lakes Ecosystem. The Laurentian Great Lakes havebeen subject to the invasion of nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species since the settlementof the region by Europeans. Since the 1800s, approximately 145 nonindigenous aquaticorganisms have become established in the Great Lakes. The bulk of these organisms havebeen represented by plants (59 percent), fish (25 percent), algae (24 percent), mollusks (14percent) and oligochaetes (seven percent). About 55 percent of these species are native toEurasia; 13 percent are native to the Atlantic Coast.As human activity has increased in the Great Lakes watershed, so too has the rate ofintroduction of ANS. More than one-third of the organisms have been introduced in thepast 40 years, a surge coinciding with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The majorentry mechanisms, unintentional releases and ships, were responsible for all but oneintroduction in the period from 1960 to 1990.
316Appendix 15 (Continued)Approximately 10 percent of the nonindigenous species introduced into the GreatLakes have had significant impacts, both economic and ecological. The impacts of certainspecies have been enormous. The presence of the sea lamprey has resulted in substantialeconomic losses to recreational and commercial fisheries, requiring annual expenditures ofmillions of dollars to finance control programs. Alewife once littered beaches each springand altered food webs, thereby increasing water turbidity before salmonids such as Chinooksalmon (themselves nonindigenous) were stocked as predators and became the foundationof a new recreational fishery. The Ruffe, a small percid fish, became the most abundant fishspecies in Lake Superior's St. Louis River within five years of first detection in 1986. Itsrange has recently expanded to include Lake Huron. This expansion poses a significantthreat to the lower lakes fishery. Five years after first being observed in the St. Clair River,the Round Goby can now be found in all of the Great Lakes. The Goby is consideredundesirable for several reasons. It preys upon bottom-feeding fishes, overruns optimalhabitat, spawns multiple times a season, and can survive poor water quality conditions.Another nonindigenous aquatic species, the spiny water flea (BythotrephesCederstroemi), a tiny crustacean with a sharply barbed tail spine, was most likely introducedthrough ballast water. The northern European native was first found in Lake Huron in 1984. Although researchers do not know what effect the invader will have on the ecosystem,resource managers suspect that the water flea competes directly for food with small fish suchas perch. The spiny water flea is now found throughout the Great Lakes and in some inlandlakes.The zebra mussel, another ballast water introduction, has caused serious economicand ecosystem impacts as well. Municipal treatment and power plants, commercial andrecreational vessels, and beach areas are all vulnerable to the negative impacts of the zebramussel. The cost to large water users in the Great Lakes alone totals an average of $360,000per year. From 1989-1994, documented cumulative costs for users associated with the zebramussel were $120 million. The consequences of the zebra mussel are not confined toeconomic burdens alone; the potential impact of the zebra mussel on ecology is profound.For example, infestations of zebra mussels limit the availability of food and decreasespawning areas, harming fishery ecosystems.Exotic plants also have been introduced to the Great Lakes Basin. PurpleLoosestrife, a wetland plant from Europe and Asia, was introduced to the east coast ofNorth America in the 1800s. The plant invades marshes and lakeshores, replacing cattailsand other wetland plants. Purple Loosestrife is unsuitable as cover, food or nesting sites fora wide range of native wetland animals including ducks, geese, rails, bitterns, muskrats, frogs,toads and turtles.
317Appendix 15 (Continued)Eurasian Watermilfoil, accidentally introduced to North America from Europe, hasspread westward into inland lakes, primarily by boats and waterfowl. In shallow areas, theplant can interfere with water recreation such as boating, fishing and swimming. The plantÂ’sfloating canopy can also crowd out important native water plants.In 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment issued a report to Congress entitledHarmful Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species in the United States (OTA-1993) which concludedthat the total number of harmful nonindigenous species and their cumulative impacts createa growing economic and environmental burden for the country. Furthermore, the reportconcluded that Â“continued research and development of new ways to manage harmfulnonindigenous species remains essential.Â”Dozens of public and nongovernmental agencies and organizations work onresearch, use, prevention, or control of desirable and harmful nonindigenous species Theneed for a coordinated effort is therefore essential. A 1994 report to Congress, entitledFindings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions Policy Review (NationalAquatic Nuisance Species Task Force 1994), concluded that a regional approach was neededto ensure ecologically sound decisions.Proposed ElementsAs noted in the Grants Competition Announcement for the NSF BiocomplexityInitiative(NSF 1999:6-10), biocomplexity results from dynamic interactions among thebiological, physical, and social components of the EarthÂ’s diverse environmental systems.Biological invasions, for example, involve complex human and biological interactions at avariety of scales, from the very local and short term to the international and long term.Advancing our understanding of biocomplexity will therefore require new collaborations ofresearchers from a broad spectrum of fields, including the biological, physical, and socialsciences. To this end, NSF is supporting Incubation Activities through its BiocomplexityInitiative to Â“enable groups of researchers to develop management and researchinteractions that could have a large payoff relative to the resources required Â” (NSF 1999:10). This proposal responds to this call for incubation activities through the NSF BiocomplexityInitiative.In an effort to bring this proposal in line with the NSFÂ’s expectations, the GreatLakes Commission communicated by phone with representatives from various NSFprogram sections to present and discuss ideas for incubation activities. Through thesediscussions, seven Â“key emphasesÂ” were identified for this proposal, and are addressedthroughout this document. These emphases include:1)A specific research issue, for example, biological invasions/aquatic nuisancespecies, in the Great Lakes;
318Appendix 15 (Continued)2)Number and type of disciplines being brought to bear on the issue, ratherthan number and type of organizations and agencies;3)Promoting collaborative and integrated research, especially mechanisms tobridge the social and natural sciences;4)Applicability of social science methodologies, most notably in terms of riskmanagement involving Â“multiple publics,Â” to address social scienceinformation gaps in ANS management;5)Workshops and virtual meetings to identify information gaps and unmetneeds pertaining to ANS, the major players, roles and responsibilities inaddressing these, and how this information will be used to develop futureNSF research proposals;6)Public availability of the information produced through the incubationactivity; and,7)The role of outside experts not salaried by member institutions that will bringan external advisory capacity to increase credibility.The proposed project will bring collaborative efforts to bear on five distinct yetrelated aspects of ANS prevention and control. These project elements Â– all identified aspriority Â“unmet needsÂ” by the Great Lakes Panel and larger scientific and policycommunities Â– will yield: 1) a formal collaboration agreement and institutional structure forintegrated ANS research; 2) science-based standards (and associated socio-economicassessment) to guide prevention and control measures; 3) a dedicated web site to providecontinuing collaboration support; 4) a collaboration-generated inventory of ANS-relatedresearch and associated gap analysis that yields research and management priorities forcollaboration members; and 5) social science methodologies for identifying population-specific issues associated with ANS impacts. Each of these five elements is briefly describedbelow, followed by further detail on the collaborators and their approach to biocomplexityresearch.A)A Great Lakes Action Plan for Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention and Control: A growing body of research, laws and programs has been pursued at various levels ofgovernment to advance ANS prevention and control efforts. However, while theissue is receiving increased attention within the scientific, management and policycommunities, the overall prevention and control effort has lacked a well-defined andcoordinated strategy. To address this problem, and provide a framework for projectcollaborators and the larger community of Great Lakes St. Lawrence interests, theGreat Lakes Commission will develop an Action Plan for ANS Prevention andControl.
319Appendix 15 (Continued)The overall goal of the Action Plan is to enhance the health of the GreatLakes St. Lawrence Basin ecosystem by designing and implementing scientificallysound, research-based prevention and control measures. The Plan will include avision statement, a set of fundamental principles, and a series of goals and objectivesto guide the individual and collective actions of collaborators. In so doing, theAction Plan will strengthen multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaboration;ensure an appreciation for (and understanding of) biocomplexity as it relates to ANS;provide guidance for collaboration in designing and undertaking integrated research;and generally strengthen the collective research, prevention and control effort.B)Science-based Standards for Ballast Water: Ballast water from commercial vessels is widely considered to be the leading pathway for the introduction of nonindigenousaquatic nuisance species into the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters. Efforts toaddress the problem have been significantly hampered by the absence of science-based standards to guide technologies and management practices that may offereffective alternatives to the current reliance on high-seas ballast exchange. Thedevelopment of such standards requires a collaborative approach that includes asocio-economic assessment of identified alternatives. This project element will yielda detailed briefing paper on ballast water standards and associated issues, and willfeature a workshop yielding recommendations for policymakers at thestate/provincial, federal and international levels. Drawing from the briefing paperand their own experience, experts from the regulatory, maritime, research andbusiness communities will evaluate the role of standards in developing pollutionprevention technologies; the utility and limitations of existing ballast waterregulations; issues and criteria to be incorporated into a strengthened regulatoryregime for ballast water; and mechanisms that can compel and assist the maritimeindustry in complying with new standards without undue economic hardship. Detailed recommendations, as well as a framework for the standards developmentprocess, will be prepared and broadly disseminated.C) Supporting the Collaborative Through Electronic Communications Technology: The key to effective multi-institutional collaboration is open and continuouscommunication on relevant research and policy issues. To ensure such effectiveness,this project element will feature the development of a web site associated with theCommission-coordinated Great Lakes Information Network, the regionÂ’s leadinggateway to the Internet for all Great Lakes-related issues. The site, to be developedand maintained for the benefit of project collaborators and other interested parties,will feature text, graphics and extensive links for immediate access to ANS-relatedresearch, monitoring activities, laws, programs, policies, public information materialsand related items.
320Appendix 15 (Continued)Emphasis will be placed on biocomplexity considerations, and the biological,physical and socio-economic dimensions of the issue. The Great Lakes Commissionwill also maintain a listserv for project collaborators to ensure effectivecommunication. Significantly, the Great Lakes Commission commits tomaintaining/enhancing the site and associated services over the long term.D)Inventory and Analysis of ANS-Related Research: A fourth project element features the development of a comprehensive research inventory to assess current andrecently completed ANS research relevant to the Great Lakes Basin and identify gapsand other unmet needs. This initiative will build upon and expand a 1996 inventoryeffort (Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species 1997), with emphasis beingplaced on socio-economic as well as biological and physical science research. Thedescriptive inventory (generated via online survey forms, personal inquires and database review) will provide the basis for both virtual and in-person workshops at whichthe assessment will take place. These Â“by-invitationÂ” activities will be multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary in nature, and yield findings andrecommendations for broad dissemination.E)Social Science Methodologies for Risk Assessment and Management: Project collaborators will explore and develop social science methodologies for identifyingpopulation-specific issues pertaining to ANS spread and management, therebystrengthening informational links among the sociocultural, biological, and physicalcomponents of the ANS problem in the Great Lakes Basin. Such methodologies willfocus on styles of public consultation that are sensitive to sociocultural variation inorder to develop a greater understanding of how sociocultural values and practicescontribute to the spread and/or control of ANS and how they can differentiallyexpose populations to the detrimental effects of ANS. For example, Risk PerceptionMapping (RPM) is an ethnographic research technique for identifying the spatial,cultural, and social-contextual characteristics of potentially affected populations. It iscurrently the focus of a methodological demonstration project being conductedthrough an environmental anthropology research fellowship at the Great LakesCommission and, as such, may serve as a model for future research on thesociocultural components of the ANS problem. RPM applications are wellestablished in the scientific literature (Stoffle, Stone, and Heeringa 1993; Stoffle et al.,1991), and it is currently the central method for sociocultural consultation andassessment in the Science and Technology Roadmap Volume of the HanfordGroundwater Vadose Zone Integration Project (United States Dept. of Energy2000).
321Appendix 15 (Continued)The project initiatives identified above will be pursued by a multi-institutional, multi-disciplinary collaborative as embodied in the Great Lakes Panelon Aquatic Nuisance Species. Among others, collaborators will includerepresentatives form the eight Great Lakes states; two Canadian provinces (Ontario,Quebec); U.S. federal agencies (U.S. FWS, NOAA, U.S. EPA, USDA; USCG);Canadian federal agencies (Fisheries and Oceans, Transport; regional organizations(Great Lakes Fishery Commission); tribal authorities; university research institutes(Sea Grant Programs); and private sector/citizen groups. The collaborative willinclude access to all relevant biological, physical and social science disciplines.
322Appendix 15 (Continued)REFERENCES CITED FOR NSF BIOCOMPLEXITY PROPOSALDonahue, Michael J.1987Institutional Arrangements for Great Lakes Management: Past Practices andFuture Alternatives. Lansing, MI: Michigan Sea Grant.Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species1997Aquatic Nuisance Species Research Relevant to the Great Lakes Basin:Research Guidance and Descriptive Inventory. Ann Arbor: Great LakesCommission.National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force1994Conclusions and Recommendations of the Intentional Introductions PolicyReview. Washington, D.C.: National Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.National Science Foundation1999Biocomplexity Initiative Special Competition: Integrated Research toUnderstand and Model Complexity Among Biological, Physical, and Social Systems.Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Stoffle, Richard W., John V. Stone, and Steven Heeringa1993Mapping Risk Perception Shadows: Defining the Locally AffectedPopulation for a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Facility in Michigan. The EnvironmentalProfessional 15(3):316-333.Stoffle, Richard W., Michael W. Traugott, John V. Stone, Paula D. McIntyre, Florence V.Jensen, and Carla C. Davidson1991Risk Perception Mapping: Using Ethnography To Define The LocallyAffected Population For A Low-Level Radioactive Waste Storage Facility InMichigan. American Anthropologist 93(3):611-635.United States Congress1990Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 (16U.S.C. 4701-4741. (Reauthorized as the National Invasive Species Act of 1996 (P.L.104-332, 110 Stat. 4073). Washington, D.C.: United States Congress.United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment1993 Harmful Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Species in the United States.Report #OTA-F-565. Washington, D.C.: United States Government PrintingOffice.
323Appendix 15 (Continued)United States Department of Energy (DOE)2000The Hanford Groundwater Vadose Zone Integration Project: Science &Technology Roadmap Volume. Richland, WA: DOE.United States Fish and Wildlife Service1995Report to Congress: Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Interior.
ABOUT THE AUTHORJohn Stone received his BA in Anthropology from Michigan State University in 1983and his MA in Applied Anthropology from the University of South Florida (USF) in 1989.Prior to entering the Ph.D. program in Applied Anthropology at USF in 1993, he held notablepositions with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of MichiganÂ’s Institutefor Social Research and Department of Anthropology.John has managed numerous social research projects, authored more than 20 scientificpublications and technical reports, and made more than 35 presentations to professionalsocieties and associations. He co-founded the Risk Assessment and Policy Association andholds membership in the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA) and the InternationalAssociations for Public Participation and Impact Assessment, respectively. John received theprestigious EPA/SfAA Environmental Anthropology Fellowship in 1999 and served as theinaugural Fellow to the Great Lakes Commission Fellowship Program.Dr. Stone resides with his wife and children in Howell, Michigan. He currently works asa Visiting Scientist at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, an AdjunctInstructor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Project Associate withFormative Evaluation Research Associates, and a Social Research Consultant to theInternational Association for Great Lakes Research.
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com.The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.