The fruits of their labor

April 28th, 2012

When we talk about environmental sustainability, we tend to think about actions that protect and preserve ecosystem processes. But from a different perspective, an essential requirement of sustainability is education:  teaching people about the environmental challenges we face, and teaching them why they should care about these issues.

The outcomes of a good environmental education were on full display yesterday at the College of Wooster’s research symposium, where students present the results of their senior research projects. I didn’t make it to all the enviromentally-focused ones, and haven’t even tried to count how many there were.  But a panel I attended Friday morning did a great job of demonstrating why environmental studies is a multidisciplinary field.  The session (ironically scheduled at the same time as one on environmental science), titled “Science and Public Policy”, included presentations from students majoring in each of the College’s three divisions.

Natural science was represented by Travis Calkins, a biology major who studied the conservation status of a tree frog.

Travis Calkins '12

 

Kyle Schutz, a German major, discussed nuclear policy in Germany.

 

Kyle Schutz '12

Finally, Amanda Koehn, a psychology major, presented work on public attitudes toward climate change.

Well done, panelists, and everyone who participated in the symposium!

Amanda Koehn '12

“Tomatoland”: Author Barry Estabrook visits Wooster

April 11th, 2012

The Environmental Studies program welcomed food writer Barry Estabrook as our distinguished visiting scholar last week.  Barry came from his home in Vermont for a packed three days, visiting multiple classes, dining with students and faculty alike, and delivering a public lecture to an overflowing room on his recent book Tomatoland:  How Modern Industrial Agriculture Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit.

We live in the middle of a “foodie revolution,” popularized by writers such as Barbara Kingsolver and Michael Pollan – so much so that topics like local food and organic farming have almost become passé.  Barry’s talk thus was both a pleasant surprise and also a little startling, as he quickly dispensed with the issue of the food itself – though not before pointing out the insipid taste, deficient nutrient content, and physics-defying durability of the modern tomato — and turned his attention to the labor process that produces food.  Most of his talk concerned the labor conditions of the migrant tomato pickers of southern Florida — which are, not to mince words, a modern form of slavery — as well as the attempts by those workers to band together and demand change, even incremental change.  It was a sobering talk with a note of optimism at the end, at the very least for the power of activism to change the buying practices of large food corporations and fast food chains.  Barry has written several excellent long-form pieces of journalism about this issue, which you can read here and here.  He also maintains a blog that features updates on food and the culture and politics of food.

A tomato worker hunched over picking a 32-pound tub of green tomatoes. He will be paid 45 cents for this tub. He will continue picking these tubs in the broiling sun, working at a furious pace the entire day without a break. "Working at breakneck speed, he might be able to pick a ton of tomatoes on a good day, netting about $50"

 

Barry’s visit served another interesting purpose, which was to drive home how refreshing and educational it can be for both faculty and students to hear from a popular writer and journalist rather than an academic scholar.  The clamor only grows louder throughout higher education to connect academia to the outside world, to take on real-world problems, to engage with the public — and yet the list of distinguished speakers and presenters invited to universities and colleges across the country continues to be dominated by academics.  I am all for a good scholarly debate or presentation, but there is no question that the students in particular connect more naturally and with more interest to someone who is writing in a journalistic style and crafting a public narrative.  Certainly if we want our students to become good writers there are few better models than a New York Times bestseller!

The purpose of public land

March 11th, 2012

I thought Rick Santorum was going to be the anti-environmental presidential candidate, with his talk about global warming as a hoax perpetrated by left-wing scientists. But now I think Mitt Romney has an oar in this pool as well.  Apparently he told a crowd at a campaign event that he “didn’t know what the purpose” of public land was.  Of course, regular readers of this blog know how valuable a tree can be.  But that’s just from an economic point of view.  Here we are at a liberal arts college; what do other perspectives have to tell us about the benefits of publicly-owned nature?

Of course, from a psychological point of view I would refer you to the research on the benefits of nature on physical and mental health. We see this on campus too:  students talk about the fact that walking across campus and hearing the birds sing helps them de-stress.

Ecologists, too, can easily describe the role of undeveloped land in maintaining a healthy ecosystem; and if pressed, they will even tell you about the human benefits provided by such ecosystems. There are centers and software programs that attempt to put a dollar figure (there’s the money again) on these benefits.

But there are things that aren’t so easily quantified.  You English majors out there probably have a better sense than I do of the volume of literature that has emphasized nature.  It’s vast. Wooster’s own Dan Bourne specializes in nature-oriented poetry. The ways in which nature can convey emotional experience, cast new perspectives on our self-understandings, and sometimes create social bonds are powerful and profound.

You can fill in some other disciplines — what would philosophy, geology, history have to say about the value of public land?  One thing I hope a liberal education provides is the ability to look beyond the obvious.

In Yellowstone National Park

 

Vive la Biodiversite!

March 3rd, 2012

Last month I was fortunate to visit the  French Museum of Natural History in Paris (the Musee Nationale d’Histoire Naturelle, MNHN), where there is a great deal of  interesting work going on.

At the lab I visited, a number of people trained primarily in ecology are thinking about the human element.  Their approach, in general, is to examine whether people know what biodiversity is and care about it; whether certain characteristics (like age, education, and scientific training) are associated with valuing biodiversity; and how care for biodiversity can be encouraged.  In particular, this research group is trying to incorporate awareness of biodiversity into the everyday experience of urban residents.

Most people don’t go to Paris to see nature. But it’s there, and we’d miss it if it were not. In addition to big parks like the Tuileries and the Luxembourg Gardens, there are many small neighborhood parks where people go to walk their dogs, appreciate the greenery, and enjoy the fresh air. My French colleagues at the MNHN have tried organizing activity days in the parks to encourage people not only to visit but also to think more carefully about why they enjoy the parks, and to continue to think about nature when they have gone home, for example by building window boxes to attract pollinators.

Why bother? The goal is two-pronged. A diverse ecosystem is likely to be more healthy, providing the services that we take for granted (and that we’ve mentioned on this site before, like removing pollutants from air and water). There’s also an almost-unspoken sense that people lose out when they don’t connect with nature.

Wooster students (and faculty) love their beautiful green campus. But do we think about what it needs to thrive, and how our behavioral choices might affect it?  This is the question driving the research:  not, do we care? But do we notice? And do we make the connection?

 

Rising seas

February 11th, 2012

The current exhibition at the Wooster art gallery focuses on work by LTL architects, some of which was designed to address a problem:  the rising sea levels projected to result from global climate change. Another exhibit is an installation of a video by Finnish performance Antti Laitinen, who repeatedly builds his own island by dragging sandbags into the sea (which the sea then destroys). Given this thematic overlap, a roundtable discussion was organized last Thursday to present multiple perspectives on changes in sea level. We heard about the distinctive chemistry of water, evidence for previous changes in sea level, and speculation about what the near-term future might bring, from Dr. Melissa Schultz in chemistry and from Dr. Greg Wiles and Sarah Appleton ’12 (taking time out from working on her Independent Study!) in geology. From my behavioral science perspective, two important issues came to the forefront.

First, what is the impact on people?  Rising seas are already having an impact, displacing some coastal communities (e.g. in Alaska), and threatening many more.  People in low-lying islands are being forced to relocate.  It’s easy to underestimate the grief that people can feel at the loss of their home, or anxiety at its vulnerability.  Broader effects are felt by societies as a whole scale when entire communities have to move, abandoning their regular habits and ways of life and threatening their cultural traditions.  It’s important to remember that climate change is not an equal-opportunity disaster. Some people and groups are affected more than others; usually, of course, those who were poorest and most vulnerable to begin with.

The second issue is one that we all need to consider:  given the changing climate, how can we best adapt?  This was the goal of LTL architects’ design for an oceanfront setting in New York City. Architecture has an important role to play in confronting climate change, not only through designs that minimize the use of natural resources (as reflected in LEED certification, like our new Scot Center), but also through designs that anticipate the changing landscapes we might see in the future : High tides, more rain, less rain, different temperatures. Really innovative designs can encourage people to think about the landscape they inhabit and how to live more harmoniously within that landscape.

Buildings have always adapted to their settings, through things like thick walls, south-facing windows, slanted roofs, and deep porches. The spread of central heating and airconditioning has led to a lot of buildings that don’t fit where they are. But consciousness of place is important for buildings as well as for people. We can’t live sustainably  – especially in a changing climate — without thinking about where we are living.

A liberal education

January 30th, 2012

Last year I posted about a workshop whose goal was to define environmental literacy. The workshop concluded that environmental literacy was not just about knowledge but also required some element of motivation or involvement. (The document that emerged from the workshop is available here.) This is a somewhat radical idea, because we think of education as designed to convey information. Education that is designed to affect attitudes can sound suspiciously like propaganda; education to affect behavior can sound like indoctrination.

In reality, information can’t be fully disentangled from values. As a simple example, you might value something more (like, say, bats) once you learn what beneficial role they play. And education is supposed to affect your behavior. Ever taken driver’s ed? The difference between propaganda and education is that a good educator will not tell you how to act or how to think, but give you the information that allows you to make good choices.

Recently, President Cornwell, along with other college presidents from around the world, was in a working group whose mission was to define the goals of a global undergraduate education. Their essay, to be published next fall in Liberal Education, argues that education has to prepare people for participation in society. Such an education includes literacies (here’s where traditional learning fits), skills, and disposition. I particularly like a couple of the dispositions they identify:

Agency: the resolve to transform commitment into action by promoting change, by resisting the unacceptable, and by championing justice

Service: a commitment to support the wellbeing of others and the global commons more broadly

As President Cornwell states in the paper,

“The kind of education we propose is practical… it is preparation for effective and responsible adult agency throughout a life engaged with the global realities we describe.”

You can only be free to make your own choices if you understand the forces that act upon you and use this understanding to guide your own behavior.

The fundamental message is that education is not something that a faculty delivers to a student, but a product of the interaction between them. The teacher’s job is to provide information (e.g., about climate change, desertification, or species loss). But the student has to use the information, and incorporate it into decisions that will shape the future of society.

Beyond ideology

January 24th, 2012

In a New York Times piece earlier this week, columnist Thomas Edsall interviewed conservative scholars to ask what they thought the left got “right”. (An earlier piece asked liberals what the right got right.)  A common theme was that liberals were more likely to be correct about climate change.  ”Liberals do not dismiss or treat as ideologically motivated scientific findings, especially… that human beings contribute significantly to climate change.”   When it comes to global warming, “Liberals are firmly on the side of science.” “[Liberals] are less likely to pretend that scientific questions — is the planet getting warmer, for example… are really ideological questions.”

I found this really interesting. There are plenty of data that show that people on the left of the political spectrum are more likely to believe that climate change is occurring, and people on the right more likely to deny it.  (See the Yale project on climate change communication, for example.)  But these interviews suggest that some on the right recognize this as a problem.  That is, although some people’s attitudes about climate change are determined by ideology, other people’s are determined by the facts.

I’m a psychologist, and I know that facts alone are not enough to convince everyone. Nor are attitudes enough to determine behavior. But there are other ways to transcend ideology. Some people behave in more environmentally sustainable ways in order to save money; others just love nature and want to protect it. (Neither of these attitudes is restricted to liberals.) A recent paper by Markowitz and Bowerman (in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2012) found that a large majority of Americans, of all ages, genders, and political orientations, thought that the country would be better off if we all consumed less.

Policies designed to protect the environment are often hijacked by the political process. But sustainability is a value that should transcend ideology. On this issue, our shared concerns are more significant than a difference in political opinion.

 

What’s in a name?

January 16th, 2012

Biology professor Rick Lehtinen named two frog species last summer: http://www.wooster.edu/News-and-Events/News-Releases/2011/June/Lehtinen-Frogs

Geology professor Mark Wilson has named several (though they are all extinct): http://woostergeologists.scotblogs.wooster.edu/2011/04/03/

http://www.cleveland.com/science/index.ssf/2010/02/ancient_clams_discovered_by_co.html

Putting aside the question of why we care about new species… What’s the big deal about naming them? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”… right?

Wrong, for at least two reasons. One, which is probably uppermost to biologists and geologists, is that an accurate name provides information. It tells you where the species fits.  So if you really understand the name, you have a broader understanding not just of that species but of the whole amazing network that connects each part of an ecosystem to the others, each part of the evolutionary record to those that came before and after.  Carl Linnaeus, the “father of taxonomy,” said “If you do not know the names of things, the knowledge of them is lost too.”

A second reason, more salient to psychologists, is that the act of naming is powerful.  By naming something you assert a kind of ownership. That’s why people enjoy the privilege of naming, and sometimes pay for the privilege.

But do you care about something more if you have named it? That’s the question I set out to answer with Finnish biologist Anu Veijalainen. She was able to give a group of high school students in Finland the opportunity to name a new species of wasp. To see if this made a difference, we designed a study with two control groups of students who did not get to name the wasp.  All three groups heard a lecture about the loss of biodiversity. We wondered if the naming group would feel more concerned, pay more attention to the lecture, or engage in more behavior designed to protect the environment compared to the other two groups.

This was not an ideal study:  our sample was small and we couldn’t randomly assign people to condition.  It turned out, too, that our test questions were too easy — all three groups scored pretty well, with no significant variability.  We did find, though, that the naming group reported more intention to engage in pro-environmental behavior, once we compensated for differences in personality among the groups.

Alas, when we re-measured them 4 months later the difference had disappeared. It was probably too much to hope that a single short lecture and a one-time opportunity to name a wasp would have a permanent effect. Still, the short-term effect suggests that naming the insect had at least a brief impact on motivation. If we could design an entire course that incorporated this opportunity, and gave them follow-up information about the wasp, maybe pride of ownership would be more powerful. We’ll be thinking about other educational interventions that might tap into this effect.

This is a known wasp, very similar to the one the students named

New research on rain gardens

January 9th, 2012

One source of environmental stress that many people aren’t aware of comes from the water that runs across the ground during rainstorms.  That water does what water typically does, which is go down: either into the storm drains or absorbed into the ground. This leads to two problems.  One is that the runoff, during major storms, can overwhelm the capacity of the storm drains and lead to flooding and erosion.  The other is that as the water is rushing over the ground it picks up pollutants: herbicides and pesticides that have been applied to gardens; oil and gas residue from parking lots.

Rain gardens are gardens that are constructed specifically to slow the absorption of water and reduce the burden on the storm drains.  Ideally, they can filter out some of the pollutants as well.  This fall, research by Dr. Paul Edmiston and ABS materials has been testing a rain garden that has been enhanced with his amazing invention, Osorb. (See earlier post here.)  His research team created two rain gardens on the site of Crandall Park, just below the parking lot: one standard garden and one in which Osorb had been mixed in with the soil. Dr. Hanbae Yang (PhD from OARDC and now at ABS Materials) led the design and Zachary Harvey CoW ’14 did much of the chemical analysis through sophomore research. Funding came from the National Science Foundation and Campus Grounds did the installation.

Preliminary results show that, indeed, both gardens substantially reduced runoff volume (by 95%). Beyond that, the Osorb-enhanced garden increased  the removal of nitrates and phosphates from fertilizer by 40% compared to the standard garden. More detailed analysis is ongoing.

Way to use those Wooster resources — landscape, labor, and creative ideas — to address environmental threats!

Figure courtesy of Paul Edmiston

 

Take control of your life in 2012!

January 1st, 2012

There’s nothing like New Year’s Day to make us feel like we can start over and do things right: this year I will stop procrastinating, exercise every day, be nicer to others, save money, eat more healthily… Of course, we all recognize we’re not starting from scratch, but coping with the aftereffects of previous less healthy decisions.

On your list of resolutions, be sure to include protecting the planet.  We can, and should, reduce our carbon emissions in 2012. Of course, we are coping with the effects of previous levels of emissions.  Carbon in the atmosphere will continue to rise, and the planet continue to warm, due to things that we’ve already done. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do anything.

There are two bits of good news to motivate us.  One is that we can make a difference.  Individual households in the US contribute approximately 38 percent of carbon emissions.  It’s not just about industry. Here are some easy and effective things you can do: reduce driving – e.g., by carpooling; replace incandescent lightbulbs with CFCs; turn down your thermostat. Keep your tires inflated and wash your clothes in cold water. (Read more here. ) None of these things will reduce your quality of life. As a fringe benefit, research by social psychologist Nick Epley suggests that carpooling might improve your mood by building more social interaction into your day.

The second good thing is that we can multi-task.  Eating more healthily (less red meat!) can protect the planet.  Exercising (walk or bike instead of driving!) can protect the planet.  Saving money (lower heating and electricity costs!) can protect the planet.  And protecting the planet is one of the most important things we can do to be nicer to others, particularly those who will have to cope with the effects of our decisions.

Stop procrastinating.  Happy new year!

 

This land is your land

Next »