GREENovation GMU Department of Environmental Science & Policy

Fall 2013

GREENovation

Fall 2013

GMU Department of Environmental Science and Policy

4400 University Drive, MSN 5F2

David King Hall, Room 3043

Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

(703) 993-1043

http://esp.gmu.edu/

Cover Photo:

The National Park Serivce/GMU 4C Summer 2013 Interns at the Kenilworth Park & Aquatic Gardens in Washington, D.C.

by Ian Barin, Summer 2013 GMU 4C Multimedia Intern July 2013

3

GREENovation Fall 2013 Contributors

Editorial staff

Samantha Oester : soester@gmu.edu

Dr. Chris Parsons: ecm-parsons@earthlink.net

Writers

Dr. Chris Parsons: Editorial: It’s all About the Funding (Page 4)

Peter Jacobs: Graduate Essay: President Obama Tweeted

My First Paper, and All I Got Was This Lousy

Backlash (Page 6)

Stephanie Sparkman: Graduate Essay: Geography of Stormwater

Management: A GIS Approach (Page 9)

Jenell Walsh-Thomas, Graduate Article: Creating Linkages: The 2013

Melissa Clark, & Climate Change Communication Internship

Claudia Harris: Experience (Page 10)

Neil Ransom: Graduate Article: Using Technology to Get Into

Nature (Page 12) HEADSHOT

Susan Keltner: Graduate Research: Understanding Energy

Consumption Motivators: Impacts of

Messaging (Page 13)

4

It’s All About the Funding

By Dr. Chris Parsons,

GREENovation Editor

Just moments ago another advertisement for an academic position came across my desk with the words “must have a strong track record in fundraising”. There was no mention of proven teaching ability or published research. This seems to be an escalating trend in universities. Fundraising through research grants is key for getting academic positions and being awards tenure. Recruiting students and developing programs doesn’t count, nor mentoring students, whether graduate or undergraduate. Leadership in, and recognition by, professional societies – doesn’t count. Poor teaching eval-uations count against you, likewise if you’re not producing at least a few peer-reviewed publications a year. But the number one criterion seems to be getting money for the university through outside research grants, and only research grants – getting money for the university through attracting meetings to the campus, from having popular and well attended classes, or through attracting more students to the university, basically doesn’t matter. This leaves me dismayed and depressed about the future of universities. I came back to academia after working for an environmental NGO, which I left because I was frustrated at spending the majority of my time raising money for administrative costs instead of achieving the aims of the organization (i.e. marine conservation). What I wanted to be doing was using my scientific knowledge to make an impact, helping to conserve threatened species and also trying to inspire and train young conservation scientists to make a difference. I thought that a university would be the best place for this. But, it seems many professors now feel like they are working for businesses, where making a profit is more im-portant than education, intellectual innovation or making the world a better place. Over the past two decades, government funding for research across the board has steadily decreased (when ad-justed for inflation; Skyler 2013). With government budget freezes, sources of funding for external research projects are declining, have been completely axed, or the government agency employees are applying for them themselves to main-tain projects and staff – with insider knowledge that makes it effectively impossible for outside academics to compete for these grants. Foundations are still offering grants, but government agencies are also applying for these grants to make up budget shortfalls, increasing competition for academics. Likewise non-governmental organizations, which may historically have been a source of funding for academics, especially those of an environmental bent, are now competing with aca-demics for grants, as opposed to offering them, with increasing numbers of staff specifically dedicated to this task. The budgetary forecast for government funding looks increasingly bleak as, with an expanding and ageing popu-lation, more government funds will have to be dedicated to programs such as Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. The only area of government funding that seems to be unaffected is military spending, and military-oriented research (Skyler 2013). Linked to these spending forecasts, funds will also be available for biomedical research. The pharmacologi-cal industry will stand to benefit from an increasing and ageing population, and associated increased healthcare spend-ing. There is a science-fiction series on television at the moment called Continuum. The show portrays a dystopian future where everything is run by corporations and the military. Is that what we are heading towards in academia, where faculty will be pressured to do research with military or medical applications so that one day these will be the only re-search fields? The race for external grants is stifling academic freedom –some university deans and administrators even push faculty to develop grants and write proposals for topics they are not even particularly interested in or think are im-portant, just because there is funding available and a possible overhead for universities. Conducting projects that really interest faculty, and may actually have big impacts in terms of environmental practice and management, is effectively looked down upon by some powers that be, because they don’t bring big money into university coffers. This financial sit-uation also encourages a climate where overheads, salary and equipment go to university coffers instead of, for example,

EDITORIAL:

5

financially struggling graduate students or conservation practitioners and environmental groups in the developing coun-tries where some projects are based. I returned to academia because I wanted to find out why things happened the way they did, and because I had ideas about the way animals or people behaved, and because there were threats to the environment and I wanted to test if my hypotheses about them were correct. But, it seems faculty find themselves spending more and more time fill-ing in forms and making up budgeting spreadsheets. Although faculty are willing to perform these tasks to a reasonable degree, they are taking precedence over what builds great universities. It’s not the best use of renowned scientists and other PhDs. The current model of university research funding is unsustainable. US government projections for expenditure are going to be increasingly invested in healthcare and the military. Moreover, industry will quite frankly use their own scientists, so we can’t look to them for funding in the future – their in-house scientists are cheaper, faster and will give them the answers they want, not the answers the data support. Not only will this future environment restrict the range of research projects that are pursued, but there will be increasing corporate influence over the interpretation and disclo-sure of results. This is certainly evident in my field of marine mammalogy. The US Navy funds 70% of all marine mammal re-search in the U.S. and 50% of marine mammal research worldwide (Weilgart et al. 2004). There is evidence that the US Navy has used the threat of withdrawing funding to stifle comments from academics (Whitehead & Weilgart 1995; Weilgart et al. 2004)*, something which I have personally experienced. In the environmental consulting field, this has long been recognized – the client often dictates the conclusions of a study, because if a client isn’t pleased, contracts and funding aren’t renewed (Wright et al. 2013). So bearing in mind the threat that restricted funding poses to academic freedoms, what could be done? Here’s just one idea: At many universities, graduate tuition fees for proposal and thesis credits go directly to the university, up to 24 credits for a PhD student at GMU (~$11,500 for instate students, $27,500 for out of state students). None of that gets credited to departments or for staffing. The departments don’t see a penny. Why not put a percentage of that tui-tion into a fund to sponsor future research? With close to 100 PhD students in the GMU ESP program at the moment, that is potentially over $1 million from graduating just our current PhD students. This could build substantially and rapidly turn into an endowment for future research, if acted on quickly. The funding situation is unlikely to improve in the near future. This will impinge on the whole nature of a univer-sity as a place of academic freedom to make new discoveries and to push back the boundaries of knowledge over a wide and varied selection of fields and disciplines. If many universities continue the way they’re going, downplaying teaching and mentoring of students in favor of making money, academic freedom will be stifled. Or, these universities could reas-sess priorities and think about innovative ways to develop independent sources of research funding. If not, the universi-ties of the future may be little more than the research wings of the military and Big Pharma.

Dr. Chris Parsons is an associate professor & the undergraduate coordinator in the Department of ESP. He is the ma-rine section president & a governor of the Society for Conservation Biology, the program co-chair for the 2014 IMCC & a national delegate to the Scientific and Conservation Committees of the IWC

References:

Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S., Wright, A.J., Rose, N.A. and Burns, W.C.G. 2008. Navy sonar and cetaceans: just how much does the gun need to smoke before we

act? Marine Pollution Bulletin 56: 1248-1257.

Skyler, J. 2013. Why you don’t “Fucking Love Science”. Published 17 Sept 2013. http://www.johnskylar.com/post/61507282912/why-you-dont-fucking-love-science

Whitehead, H. and Weilgart, L. 1995. Marine mammal science, the U.S. Navy and academic freedom. Marine Mammal Science 11: 260-263.

Weilgart, L., Whitehead, H., Rendell, L. and Calambokidis, J. 2004. Response to “Resonance and Dissonance: Science, Ethics, and Sonar Debate”. Marine Mammal

Science 20: 898-899.

Wright, A.J., Dolman, S., Jasny, M., Parsons, E.C.M., Schiedek, D. and Young, S. 2013. Myth and momentum: A critique of environmental impact assessments.

Journal of Environmental Protection 4 (8A2): 72-77.

*See also: Administrative Record, August 6-9, 2001, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2003).

6

The scientific consensus on human-driven climate change is over-whelming, and recent studies (including work by Mason researchers) demonstrate it is a powerful message. So why are key media outlets re-fusing to communicate the consensus? A few months ago, my first peer reviewed paper was accepted for publication. The paper (Cook et al., 2013) details the evolution of the scien-tific consensus that humans are driving climate change. We surveyed the scientific literature and found that of those papers that took a position on the issue in their abstract, around 97% endorsed the consensus that hu-mans are warming the planet through our emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (Figure 2). We also contacted the authors of those pa-pers and had them rate their own level of endorsement, and their respons-es matched our own. This near-unanimous consensus is also in excellent agreement with previous work, such as polls of publishing climate scientists and public statements endorsed by scientists (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009; Anderegg et al., 2010). In some ways, the reaction to our paper’s publication exceeded our wildest expectations. It has already been cited by a number of other studies across many disciplines, it quickly became the most downloaded paper in the journal’s history, and recently it became the most

downloaded paper of any journal in the Institute of Physics’ entire publishing stable of journals. It was even referenced in a tweet from President Obama’s official Twitter account. This was all the more surprising given Obama’s relative reticence on climate during his first term. A backlash from “skeptics” is par for the course these days. The num-ber of articles and blog posts critical of lead author John Cook’s website Skepti-cal Science skyrocketed immediately after the publication of our paper. Har-assing emails were sent to the journal’s editorial board, and even to some of my coauthors’ supervising faculty. Some “skeptics” took the amusing tack that our results were both fraudulent yet also so uncontroversial as to not be worth publishing. If the Obama tweet was both unexpected and elating, the response from veteran environmental and climate journalists at some of the best media outlets in the US was equally surprising, but for the opposite reason. Whereas the paper was covered extensively abroad, surprisingly, American climate beat luminaries like Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press and Andrew Revkin of

the New York Times were either silent or essentially dismissed the value of our results out of hand. Following their lead, other climate and environment re-porters from the Washington Post, Discover Magazine, and New Scientist- all

outlets that routinely cover climate news- decided that the consensus findings weren’t worth writing about. One journalist snidely called the paper “a meaningless exercise.” These same reporters have also been quick to pounce on outlier papers challenging an aspect of mainstream climate science or a purported gaffe by Al Gore. This dynamic- silence on positive information about what is known and agreed upon in climate science in favor of more uncertain, contentious, or trivial stories- seems to be becoming distressingly common-place.

Graduate Essay:

President Obama Tweeted My First Paper, and

All I Got Was This Lousy Backlash

By Peter Jacobs,

GMU Graduate Student

Tweet referencing Cook et al., 2013 , from President Obama’s official Twitter account.

(Courtesy of Peter Jacobs)

The evolution of scientific consensus on climate change over time (Cook et al., 2013).

(Courtesy of Peter Jacobs)

7

Lest it appear that this is just a case of sour grapes on my part, it’s helpful to look at the media response to the most recent In-tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers (SPM), which was of similarly “variable” quality. The IPCC SPM concluded with 95% certainty that humans were responsible for the majority of the warming since 1950, with a central estimate that human emissions of greenhouse gases caused essentially all of the observed warming. This was a much stronger statement than the previous IPCC Assessment Report, released back in 2007. While some of the media coverage of the IPCC SPM was laudable, as with our consensus paper other coverage from media out-lets that traditionally do better was puzzlingly bad. The BBC was noteworthy in its abysmal coverage, which framed the story as com-peting arguments from the IPCC on the one hand, and non-climate scientist “skeptics” like Nigel Lawson (father of television cooking per-sonality Nigella Lawson) on the other. After receiving numerous complaints about this false equivalency, the BBC demurred that its policy was to “aim to ensure that we also offer time to the dissenting voices.” This shocking display of false balance was understandably admonished by scientists and policy experts alike. John Ashton, a for-mer UK official on climate issues, called the coverage “a betrayal of the editorial professionalism on which the BBC's reputation has been built over generations”. The BBC’s coverage and policy are exemplary of a problem that has long dogged journalism’s handling of climate change, known as “balance as bias” (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004). An institutional pathology towards “balanced” coverage of any and all topics creates a tendency in the media to frame climate change coverage as opposing and equally weighted opinions of mainstream sci-entists on one side and “skeptics” on the other. In reality, as our research showed, far from a 50-50 split, “skeptics” represent a small and diminishing fraction of expert opinion. The BBC was not alone in its botched coverage of the IPCC report. Rather than focus on our increased understanding of different aspects of the climate system, or the fact that the overwhelming majority of relevant experts were in agreement on the human cause of warm-ing, the media gave large amounts of coverage to “skeptics” and focused on the relatively slower rate of warming of the past few years instead of the clear long term warming trend (Greenberg et al., 2013). “Balance as bias” no doubt played a role in some of these other sto-ries as well, a fact confirmed to me (off the record) in at least one case by a journalist friend. Revkin’s justification for dismissing our work came from a different angle - the views of Dan Kahan, Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology at Yale (and a very nice guy). Rev-kin cited and quoted Kahan extensively, and he was cited by other journalists following Rev-kin’s lead. Kahan is a proponent of the idea of “cultural cognition”, which is a form of cognitive bias that affects how people filter information with respect to their ideologies (e.g. Kahan and Braman, 2006). A flavor of “motivated reasoning”, cultural cognition essentially posits that people will accept or reject new information in a way that best accords with their existing worldview, dismissing facts that conflict with their existing beliefs and accepting facts that affirm them, irrespective of the truth or quality of the evidence in question. If Kahan was cor-rect, communicating the consensus should be meaningless, as liberals will already correctly perceive the level of consensus while conservatives will disbelieve a consensus exists and re-fuse to accept information to the contrary. Cultural cognition is an interesting idea, and one that certainly seems to apply in some cases of information assimilation. The scientific consensus on climate change just doesn’t happen to be one of them. Surveys conducted in Australia and the US have found that invoking the scientific consensus increases overall public acceptance of the reality of climate change, with only a small group of the most extreme American rightwing ideologues resisting the consensus information, and in the case of Australians found no such resistance at all (Figure 3; Lewandosky et al., 2013; Cook, 2013). George Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication (C4) researchers, along with colleagues at Yale, are currently finishing a series of five experiments focused on determining how to most effec-tively convey the extent of the scientific consensus. Their findings, although preliminary, suggest that contra Kahan and the cultural cog-nition model, simple messages can be highly effective in changing the public’s perception of the scientific consensus (although some mes-sages are much more successful than others). Aligning public perception of the consensus with reality is not just of academic interest. It turns out that the public perception of scientific agreement is itself determinative of a number of other positions. C4 director Ed Maibach and other C4 researchers coauthored a paper demonstrating that the public’s view on whether or not scientists agreed about climate change also affected belief about whether anthropogenic warming was occurring, and even public willingness to support policy action to do something about it (Ding et al., 2011). Another group recently replicated and extended the Ding et al. findings, showing while political polarization on climate exists, perceived scientific agreement is indeed a key factor in shaping public beliefs about climate change and support for policy (McCright et al., 2013). Communicating the scientific consensus, it seems, really does work. Not only that, it matters. There are a number of reasons why scientific consensus messaging may be less susceptible than other types of information to Kahan’s cultural cognition bias. In our modern culture, science is itself enormously socio-normative. While people might not like to think

Impact of consensus message interven-tion vs. control message on public ac-ceptance of the reality anthropogenic warming (adapted from Cook, 2013).

(Courtesy of Peter Jacobs)

Continued on page 14

8

United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) Symposium: On Nov. 19, GMU will hold its first UNGC Symposi-um. GMU was one of the first American universities to join the UNCG, a strategic policy initiative for businesses and other organizations committed to aligning their operations and strategies with 10 widely accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor, environment, and anti-corruption. For more information on the GMU event, visit: http://green.gmu.edu/Downloads/UNGlobalCompactSymposiumFLYER2013.pdf

Mason Dining Sustainability Interest Group: This is

designed to promote education and awareness of sustainable food at Mason through a collaborative process of input, planning, and action implementa-tion. The first meeting was in October. A presenta-tion was given outlining past achievements, current projects, and ways for students to get involved, ask questions, and give feedback.

Waste Diversion: DC Urban Greens started collecting

pulped consumer waste from campus in October. They will also soon be collecting coffee grinds from the campus Starbucks.

Real Food Collective: Mason Dining is working with a group of students interested in helping to locate and source more local, ecologically sound, and fair trade food. This group is a partnership between students, the university, and Mason Dining.

EcoScience+Art: This is a new initiative and collabora-

tion between the arts and sciences at GMU. The mis-sion is to bring together individuals working across the boundaries of ecosystem science, art, and design fields to share knowledge, expertise, and wisdom for creatively engaging in the common pursuit of a sus-tainable future. The program is co-chaired by Dr. Changwood Ahn, from the ESP Department, and Dr. Mark Cooley, from the Art Department. For more in-formation, visit: http://ecoscienceplusart.wordpress.com/

The Magic Microscope Submitted by Dr. Esther Peters,

GMU Biology Assistant Professor

Environmental scientists often play the role of crime scene investigators, attempting to tease out criminals—the causes of ecosystem degradation—by examining changes occurring in the diversity and health of the victims—the organisms living in a particular ecosystem. One of the most useful tools is the study of cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems. Microscopic anato-my, also known as histology, provides a visual record and bridge between changes occurring in cells and organisms (as a result of exposure to physical, chemical, and biological stress-ors) and the impacts to populations, communities, and eco-sytems. This spring semester, BIOL 508 002 (CRN 12039), Histo-techniques, will again be taught by Dr. Esther Peters in the GMU Histology Laboratory in David King Hall (3060/3061). This methods course is open to graduate and upper-level under-graduate students who want to learn how to prepare non-human tissue samples (animal or plant) for histopathological examination by light microscopy to support research on diseas-es, systematics and community diversity, physiology, popula-tion dynamics, microbiology, toxicology, molecular biology, climate change, or other areas. Dr. Peters has extensive expertise in histology and histo-pathology, having managed labs at the University of South Flor-ida, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Narragansett, Rhode Island, and GMU. Her research includes ferreting out the causes of coral diseases, carcinogenesis in invertebrates, and effects of chemical contaminants, protozoan and metazoan parasites, and bacteria on diverse organisms. She is working with ESP, biology, and cognitive and behavioral neuroscience students to help them learn about microbes and fish as vectors involved in coral diseases, interpreting coral biomarkers of en-vironmental stress, metal accumulation in Alzheimer’s disease in mice and rats, marine fungi that bore through coral skele-tons, and the taxonomy of Asian mystery snails in the Potomac River watershed. In addition, this introductory course can prepare anyone interested in further study at a hospital anatomic pathology lab to obtain the HT or HTL certification for a career in histotech-nology. Histotechnologists are in great demand in human and veterinary medicine (hospitals and diagnostic laboratories), industry (pharmaceutical and biomedical device development), and academic and applied research. For more information, con-tact Dr. Peters (epeters2@gmu.edu).

Around Campus:

Green Happenings @ Mason

9

As an undergraduate, I loved my remote sensing

and GIS classes and I knew one day I wanted to further my education in these fields. Almost 10 years after gradu-ating from Virginia Tech with a B.S. in Environmental Sci-ence, and following rewarding careers, moving around the country with my husband who is active duty military, and most recently having a baby, my graduate school en-deavor came true. As a current M.S. Geographic and Car-tographic Sciences student at GMU, I found out about an intern opportunity with the United States Geological Sur-vey (USGS) when my remote sensing professor, Dr. Barry Haack announced it in class. Dr. Haack is also a visiting scientist with the Eastern Geographic Science Center (EGSC), USGS. I immediately became interested as I have always respected and admired the USGS since childhood. My prior water monitoring experience with Virginia De-partment of Environmental Quality and my position as Permit Specialist with Walton County, Florida were an asset for obtaining the student stormwater position under Dr. Dianna Hogan and Dr. J.V. Loperfido with EGSC. I am excited to integrate my stormwater research project with USGS into a master’s thesis utilizing GIS. My research is briefly described below.

Human population growth and urbanization in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is on the rise. Although urban areas comprise only 7% of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, they have a significant impact on stream ecosystems. Ur-ban areas alter the water balance by covering pervious, open land with impervious surfaces such as buildings, park-ing lots, roads, and rooftops, giving stormwater runoff less chance to infiltrate and filter into the ground. When natu-ral lands and vegetation (trees, bushes, and tall grasses) that provide filtering of stormwater runoff are replaced by impervious surfaces, there is little chance for water-quality improvement. Untreated and overflowing urban storm-water runoff can cause downstream flooding, property damage, and increase contaminants that could potentially affect human health and living resources. Stormwater runoff from urban areas represents a serious impairment to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Therefore, using stormwater best management practices (SWBMPs) to protect streams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is of both ecological and economic importance. SWBMPs are designed to retain, detain, or infiltrate stormwater runoff into the ground. In addition, SWBMPs can treat stormwater runoff by removing or reducing nutrients and sediment. My work examines how varying the spatial distribution of SWBMPs (centralized versus distributed approaches) on the landscape can help protect the

health of streams draining to the Chesapeake Bay. Centralized SWBMPs are located in or directly adjacent to a stream and treat larger areas. Alternatively, distributed SWBMP design treats stormwater near the source with a series of SWBMPs located on the landscape and is intended to protect the stream riparian zone. Figure 1 be-low illustrates a distributed SWBMP treatment train that is part of my work. Storm-water runoff is collected through traditional curb and gutter inlets, directed through

the SWBMP treatment train that redundantly treats the stormwater before it is discharged to the stream from the

Graduate Essay:

Geography of Stormwater Management:

A GIS Approach

By Stephanie Sparkman, GMU Graduate Student

Distributed SWBMPs example from my study area in Mont-gomery County, Maryland.

(Courtesy of Dr. J.V. Loperfido)

Clarksburg SPA Web Info: www6.montgomerycountymd

.gov/dectmpl.asp?url=/content/dep/water/spaclarksburg.asp

Continued on page 14

10

“I believe climate change is fundamentally the greatest threat to the integrity of our national parks that we have ever experienced...This is a high-priority issue for the current Administration, including the Department of the Interior and its individual bureaus.” -Johnathan Jarvis, Director of the National Park Service 2009

When the National Park Service (NPS) made plans to create 21 new wayside exhibits showing the links between climate change and local impacts, they planned to develop modern, interactive interpretive materi-als. According to Giselle Mora-Bourgeois, science education coordinator at NPS Urban Ecology Research Learning Alliance, “The UERLA in collaboration with the Center for Climate Change Communication (4C), George Mason University, initiated in 2012 a Climate Change Communication Internship program to support the National Parks in the Greater Washington, DC area in facing the challenges posed by climate change. The focus of the program is developing outreach and education messages and products in a variety of different media for the parks while providing mentoring, training, and skills development to the student-interns.” The internship opportunity pro-vides students a unique experience, working directly with NPS staff in and out of the field. We were lucky enough to be three of the seven chosen for this summer position.

An Interdisciplinary Approach In June 2013, Justin Rolfe-Redding and John Kotcher, PhD students in Communications at GMU welcomed the seven summer interns with high expectations for their ability to work on interdisciplinary projects. Interns were selected with backgrounds in the natural and social sciences to create a well-rounded, complementary and cohe-sive team. Justin explained, "an interdisciplinary team is extremely important for climate change communication projects. You need peo-ple who understand the complex science, and people who get the equally complex ‘psycho-logic’ of how people think, and everything in between. This year we were lucky to have interns with strengths in areas such as biology, policy, psychology, and economics." As interns, we were challenged to draw on our diverse skills to develop materials for six different projects over the course of only 10 weeks. Our different backgrounds were integral in project success, as we drew on each person’s expertise to fuel our discussions and creativity. We needed to develop communication materials that could be easily implemented, appealed to different audiences, and could lead to posi-tive, measurable outcomes.

Summer 2013 Wayside Exhibit development interns worked directly with NPS staff to develop wayside exhibit content that would build on NPS’s goal to promote climate friendly practices. The aim was to meet the communication needs of each individual park, incorporate the ideas of park staff, and provide the research sources for the exhibit content. This project would move beyond traditional wayside exhib-its by including materials for activities and websites. Once we developed our ideas for the exhibits, we pitched them to the NPS Harpers Ferry Center for Media Services staff to ensure we would be delivering a product that would be implemented. This particular component of the internship allowed us to be part of a larger community of students, scholars, practitioners, and park staff. Interns split into groups to develop content for exhibits in three parks in the DC Region: Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts in Vienna, VA; Rock Creek Park, in Washington, D.C.; and Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens in Washington, D.C.

Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts: Melissa and Jenell The Wolf Trap wayside project sought to draw connections between the importance of preserving natural landscapes and how the park is being impacted by climate change. The aim was to develop a wayside that supported the park’s broader goals to develop an outdoor classroom by highlighting the native plant garden and meadow. In working with the park staff, the interns developed a narrative that used pollinators as the main character. The narrative calls attention to the importance of native plants and pollinators in creating healthy ecosystems and how citizen science at the park was creating habitat. A key component of this story was communicating how climate change is currently impacting the plant-pollinator relationship through shifting bloom times. Since Wolf Trap is the National Park

Graduate Article:

The National Park Service/GMU Center for Climate Change Communication Summer 2013 internship team.

(Photo by Ian Barin)

Creating Linkages:

The 2013 Climate Change Communication

Internship Experience By Jenell Walsh-Thomas, Melissa A. Clark and Claudia Harris, GMU Graduate Students

11

for Performing Arts, interns took a creative spin on communicating these messag-es through the use of a musical metaphor. This metaphor, “native plants and pol-linators in perfect harmony,” represents the value of the dynamic native plant-pollinator relationships that are present in Northern Virginia. This wayside ex-plains how climate is impacting pollination and the relationship between plants, pollinators, and people. This narrative encourages volunteerism and citizen sci-ence at Wolf Trap through phenological monitoring programs ranging from spe-cies counts and a picture post. In addition to the wayside content, the interactive material includes a citizen scientist video, native bee facts, and a family activity encouraging the exploration of the garden through a plant identification game.

Rock Creek Park: Claudia, Kelly and Max To tell Rock Creek’s climate story, the interns’ work focused on the wood thrush, the official bird of Washington, D.C. Interns researched why Rock Creek is an ideal habitat for the wood thrush by exploring the bird’s migratory patterns, preferred food sources, and habitat choice. In addition to working closely with parks rangers, they also had the opportunity to collaborate on work with many other agencies and organizations in the DC area specific to avian conservation work. Sharing the Wood Thrush narrative in person and online provides visitors with an in depth look at the life of the District bird. The design of the wayside creates a connection between visi-tors and the park by giving a view of the landscape as it would be seen by the wood thrush. One aspect of this story is the parallel be-tween the wood thrush’s annual migration to Nicaragua and the growing community of Latin American immigrants near Rock Creek Na-tional Park. The material accompanying the wayside content includes a storyboard for an animated video showing the wood thrush’s migratory journey and an interactive migratory timeline that will be accessible to visitors using smartphone technology. The storyboard, sketches, and references were packaged so the final design team would have the best scientific sources readily available and a developed narrative that meets the needs of the park as well as the surrounding community. Other components include citizen science opportuni-ties at the park and links to other resources, such as the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center.

Kenilworth Park & Aquatic Gardens: Ian, Nora, and Tim One of D.C.’s lesser-known hidden gems, Kenilworth Park and Aquatic Gardens in Northeast D.C., is the only park dedicated to the cultivation of water-loving plants. The wayside content focuses on the impact climate change is and will have on the phenology of the park’s iconic aquatic plant life, including its iconic water lilies and lotus, and other flora. Through these educational materials, park visi-tors are invited to observe the seasonal variations that occur in the park. Visitors are also challenged to observe how the practices used to manage the park’s gardens have had to change to adapt these seasonal variations. The wayside will help to convey that this natural and historical-cultural landscape persists due to chief gardeners' ability to maintain the lilies through the seasons, despite susceptibility to many climate change impacts. This project was unique in that the interns also conducted an oral history of the long time Gardener Supervisor, Douglas Rowley. The goal was to obtain and preserve a firsthand account of the history and management practices unique to the park and how these practices might relate to climate change. Many of the Park's hardy water lilies are direct descendants of the origi-nal lilies planted by Civil War veteran Walter Shaw over 120 years ago. While the wayside contains a very concise history and climate sto-ry, the wealth of information collected has been incorporated into online engagement through the design of an educational narrative and games.

Other Projects While the wayside projects were the main focus on the internship, several other projects were completed as well. Interns com-pleted a detailed review of the NPS’s current climate change messaging and activities in the Climate Friendly Parks Plan. A synthesis re-port on climate change science and impacts to parks was created for park rangers and the public. Interns also developed a climate change communication guidebook for park staff. The guidebook incorporates climate change impact information for the U.S. bioregions and the Global Warming’s Six Americas research conducted by Yale University and GMU highlighting the importance of communicating to a variety of audiences. Finally, interns developed new communication materials to raise awareness of the links between climate change, ticks and tick-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease.

Conclusion These projects combined scientific knowledge and communication techniques to help further NPS goals to adapt to an uncertain future, educate about climate change, continue leading efforts in carbon footprint reduction, and encourage visitors to take stewardship action. Each intern gained experience in working as part of an interdisciplinary team and grew as a scholar, scientist and communicator. It is evident that as rising seniors and graduate students, we can make a significant impact on climate change communication by applying our academic knowledge and research to the real world. Not only have these efforts benefited the interns, but also the projects devel-oped will benefit NPS staff and visitors. We look forward to seeing our products implemented in the field. We hope that our experience learning more about how to engage visitors at national parks in a climate change discussion will encourage visitors to continue this dis-cussion outside the park and create positive, actionable change.

For more information on the internship, visit: www.climatechangecommunication.org/national-park-service-climate-change-communication-internship-program

An example of a wayside exhibit at Glacier National Park.

(Photo by Melissa Clark)

12

It would be an understatement to say modern technology has had profound implications for the humanity and the Earth’s glob-al systems. Thanks to technology we live longer and have more op-tions and opportunities than ever before. Technology has also ena-bled us to be collectively smarter, creative and connected. Unfortu-nately, modern technology has also facilitated population growth and consumption patterns that have led to the degradation of the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. Some experts have also observed, as computer and communication technology has crept into nearly every facet of the human experience, we have be-come less connected with the natural world — resulting in deep im-plication for humanity and the way we approach nature. I suggest technology, while part of the problem, can also be a tool to help us engage with and understand nature. In the last few years popular books like, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder, by Richard Louv (2008) and Birthright: People and Nature in the Modern World, by Stephen Kellert (2012) have argued people have less interest in outdoor activities and exploring nature. The authors point their fingers at technology as one of the main reasons for declining interest, as people increasingly choose to spend their time online and watching TV (Louv 2008; Kellert 2012). They also caution that the decrease in nature-based activities is leading to increased levels of obesity, depression, attention disorders, and stress (Louv, 2008). Also, the lack per-sonal experiences in the outdoors are affecting our perceptions and values of nature and likely contribute to apathy toward global environ-mental problems. The solution, of course, is to step away from technology and get outside. But what if we could do both? The following are

a few suggestions how we can use technology to encourage getting out into nature and ex-ploring the great outdoors. Nature and landscape photography and video are great reasons to get outside and neither requires the expensive gear advertisements would have you believe. Practice, pa-tience and a basic camera is all you need to capture stunning images and video of Mother Nature. Of course, some knowledge of photography or video learned from the Internet or the library, a little camera gear like a tripod, and good natural light (sunrise or sunset) will also help you on your way. Joining other enthusiasts can help you learn new skills and discover great locations and Meetup.com is an excellent place to find a group to join. Another technology that will get you outside and exploring the unfamiliar is a GPS. All you need is hand-held GPS or a smartphone with a GPS app like MotionX GPS to plan hik-ing trips, record your activities and find your way home when lost. You can also use your GPS to hunt for one of the 2.25 million geocaches hidden across the globe. Geocaching is a treas-ure hunt in which you use longitude and latitude coordinates and a GPS to find small hidden objects called caches. To start geocaching simply visit Geocaching.com, create a free account and start searching for (or creating) caches. At last check there are 5 caches on GMU Fairfax

campus and 36 around nearby Burke Lake. Once you find a cache you can log back onto the website and record your findings.

Graduate Article:

Using Technology to Get Into Nature

By J. Neil Ransom, GMU Graduate Student

Photo taken at Zion National Park, Utah.

(Photo by J. Neil Ransom)

A smartphone being used as a GPS for geo-caching.

(Image by Johan Larsson, accessed from flickr.com and used under CC license)

Continued on page 15

13

With continual failure at the national and global level to decrease climate change causing emissions, it is increasingly important to understand what motivates individuals to use less energy. In environmental communica-tion one of the predominant strategies is to use message framing, in which messages can be either negatively or positively-framed. Negative messages are composed in a manner where not engaging in a desired behavior results in a worsened outcome (Petty & Wagner, 1991; Dillard & Marshall, 2003; Roth-man & Salovey, 1997; Wilson, Purdon & Wallston, 1988; Higgins & Lemm, 1995; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2007). These appeals are often accompanied with fear, shaming, hierarchical imposition and upsetting imagery in an effort to evoke an emotional response. Related to climate change, a loss-framed mes-sage would indicate that by not engaging in energy conservation, climate change will be worsened. Upsetting imagery of a drowning polar and harsh language indicating personal blame may be used. Positive messaging is the equivalent opposite, meaning that by engaging in a specific behavior, an out-come is achieved. This type of messaging often employs assurance, collective ownership for the problem, a supportive tone and heartening imagery. Using the climate change example, positive messaging would indicate that by engag-ing in energy conservation, climate change will be slowed. This message would have a supportive tone, and would likely contain heartwarming imagery such as a thriving polar bear and her cub. In environmental communications there is generally a bias towards using negative messaging to motivate behavior change. Support for negative messaging is primarily found in health research and communication (Block & Keller, 1995; Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990; Shiv, Edell & Payne, 1997). These messages have been shown to motivate a desired behavior change over other approaches, especially in instances where the public is fearful of a risk (Witte, Meyer, & Martell, 2001; Moser, 2007). For instance, several studies found negative messaging benificial in improving rates for sunscreen use and breast self-exam. However, applications of this messaging approach may not be relevant to settings which do not focus on improving personal wellbeing, such as messages related to climate change. Positive messaging is an alternative communication approach, however it is seldom used with regards to climate change messag-ing. This is because it is believed that the supportive nature of these messages is not strong enough to produce energy conscious behavior change. However, positive messaging theory indicates that when the public is largely uninterested or unengaged in a subject, as much of the US population is towards climate change, these messages can help bolster behavior change (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). Fur-thermore, in situations where there is no financial incentive to lower one’s carbon footprint, it may also yield effective outcomes (Stern, Black & Elworth, 1983; Stern, Black & Elworth, 1985). For six weeks in the Fall of 2011, as a part of my dissertation research, I ran a messaging campaign in 30 of the George Mason Resi-dence halls. Three treatment groups were utilized (positive messaging, negative messaging and control) in which students were encourage students to reduce their energy consumption. Specifically, students were asked to: 1) turn off unused lights, computers, televisions, radios; 2) only do full loads of laundry; and 3) listen to music rather than using the TV for background noise. Each building received a uniform mes-saging treatment, and the electronic output from plug load, light usage and the use of washers/dryers was monitored at the dorm level.

Graduate Research:

Understanding Energy Consumption Motivators:

Impacts of Messaging

By Susan Keltner, GMU PhD Candidate

Example from the positive messaging treatment group

(top) and the negative messaging treatment group

(bottom).

(Courtesy of Susan Keltner)

Continued on page 15 Continued on page 15

14

Graduate Essay (continued from page 7)

of themselves as holding positions inconsistent with their ideol-ogy, a significant portion may prefer to side with capital “s” Science even (or especially) when it conflicts with positions arrived at through mere “identity politics”. Whereas it might be easy to dismiss the opinion of a single “expert” when it conflicts with one’s worldview, it is altogether more difficult, if one con-siders himself a supporter of science, to dismiss 97% of scien-tists on a topic. Another reason may be that cultural cognition effects are most pronounced for extreme political ideologues and don’t apply to most people. From a communications stand-point, however, the reasons why cultural cognition doesn’t work with respect to the consensus on climate change are far less important than the fact that the consensus itself does work in changing public perception. The physical science community has undertaken a decades-long, Herculean effort to understand and disentangle the vari-ous drivers of climate in order to attribute the present warming to human causes. The consensus is as hard won as it is over-whelming. And the communications science community is in-creasingly clear that the consensus is key to public acceptance of climate science and support for climate policy. President Obama finally got the message. Isn’t it time for the media to get it, too?

Peter Jacobs is an ESP graduate student, concentrating in Earth Surface Processes and Environmental Geochemistry. He is interested in climatic and ecological changes in the Earth’s past, and how those changes can inform current policies.

Graduate Essay (continued from page 9) terminal detention pond SWBMP. My research at USGS examines catchments in Montgomery County, Mary-land and is part of the Clarksburg Monitoring Partnership; a consortium of universities along with local and federal agencies formed to monitor the long-term aquatic ecosystem changes to stream systems resulting from the associated landscape transition from agri-cultural to medium and high density residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. My study site is part of a special protection area (SPA) meaning it has high-quality or unusu-ally sensitive streams, wetlands, and soils. Special measures and land-use controls are implemented to protect these re-sources and features (in this case, the distributed SWBMPs). My study helps provide information on the ability to address the impacts of development on stream health in the Chesa-peake Bay Watershed, where population and urban land use is increasing rapidly. Specifically, my research includes understanding and quantifying watershed level SWBMP pollutant removal effi-ciencies using geospatial analyses in a GIS environment - as well as quantifying costs for a cost benefit analysis associat-ed with the use of spatially distributed vs. centralized SWBMPs. Storm sewer networks including pipes, inlets, manholes, and SWBMPs have been derived and mapped us-ing ArcMap from County data for the study sites. Nitrogen and phosphorus removal are estimated based on published literature and SWBMP design specifications, and infrastruc-ture costs for the different SWBMPs were obtained from Montgomery County. ArcMap is the primary tool being used for calculations to test my research hypotheses and store, analyze, and display research results. Although I expect that the total infrastructure costs of SWBMPs in the distributed catchment will be higher than the centralized, I hypothesize that the water quality benefit received from a distributed spatial arrangement will be greater per dollar. I will measure the water quality benefit of the SWBMPs as the amount of pollutant removed in pounds per cost ($).Understanding water quality benefits of distrib-uted vs. centralized SWMPs will generate cost-effective ur-ban landscape design and ultimately help protect the Chesa-peake Bay Watershed. Stephanie Sparkman is a graduate student in the Geogra-

phy and GeoInformation Science Department . Her research interests include applications of GIS and Remote Sensing in regional and global issues in environmental science.

References: Anderegg, W. R. L., J. W. Prall, J. Harold, and S. H. Schneider (2010), Expert credibility in climate change, PNAS, 107(27), 12107–12109, doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

Boykoff, M. T., and J. M. Boykoff (2004), Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press, Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001.

Cook, J. (2013), The Importance of Consensus Information in Reducing the Biasing Influence of Worldview on Climate Change Attitudes, 2013 Chapman Conference, American Geophysical Union.

Cook, J., D. Nuccitelli, S. A. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce (2013), Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, Environ. Res. Lett., 8(2), 024024, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.

Ding, D., E. W. Maibach, X. Zhao, C. Roser-Renouf, and A. Leiserowitz (2011), Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agree-ment, Nature Clim. Change, 1(9), 462–466, doi:10.1038/nclimate1295.

Doran, P. T., and M. K. Zimmerman (2009), Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22–23, doi:10.1029/2009EO030002.

Greenberg, M., et al. (2013), Media Sowed Doubt In Coverage Of UN Climate Report, Media Matters for America. [online] Available from: http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/10/10/study-media-sowed-doubt-in-coverage-of-un-clima/196387.

Kahan, D. M., and D. Braman (2006), Cultural cognition and public policy, Yale Law & Policy Review, 24(1), 149–172.

Lewandowsky, S., G. E. Gignac, and S. Vaughan (2013), The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science, Nature Clim. Change, 3(4), 399–404, doi:10.1038/nclimate1720.

McCright, A. M., R. E. Dunlap, and C. Xiao (2013), Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA, Climatic Change, 119(2), 511–518, doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0704-9.

Current USGS EGSC SWBMP Projects:

http://egsc.usgs.gov/currentsciencepro-

jects.html#besthogan

http://egsc.usgs.gov/bmp.html

http://chesapeake.usgs.gov/sciencesummary-

stormwatermanage-ment.html

15

Graduate Research (continued from page 12)

There is also an overflowing cornucopia of apps and ac-cessories for engaging and exploring nature with a smartphone. With a few select apps you can become an ex-pert in identifying plants, animals, and fungi. The Leaf Snap app, developed by experts from the Smithsonian Institute, University of Maryland, and Columbia University, will identify trees and plants from a user’s pictures of the leaves or flow-ers. Audubon Guides has created breathtaking field-guide apps that include resource to help identify, learn about, and track just about anything in nature you are interested in. National Geographic has also made a website and app called Alltrails.com with information, maps, images, and advice for exploring our national parks. Additionally, there are some great and affordable accessories like microscopes, temperature, humidity, and pH probes, weather stations, field microphones, and night-vision motion-capture cameras that can be used to explore the natural world in more detail. Publiclab.org creates and sells kits to build things like aerial mapping equipment or a USB spectrometer. As these examples demonstrate, the right tools can en-courage and empower us to explore the natural world. But, that’s not all! Another exciting way technology can engage people in nature is through citizen or crowd-sourced science and the collaborative power of the Internet. For example, if you are interested in birds, insects, or wildlife consider partic-ipating in a documentation project by recording animal ob-servations for Projectnoah.org or Inatrualist.org. Your partici-pation will help scientists gain understanding about regional biodiversity and animal migration patterns. Animals not your thing? Then participate in Creekwatch.researchlabs.ibm.com to help scientists understand stream health and water quality in the US. Or you can visit Scistarter.com for listings of hun-dreds of other crowed-sourced science projects ranging from measuring light pollution to collecting animal bones. Not only does engaging in citizen science projects encourage people to get outside, it also provides scientists with invaluable infor-mation they can use to address many of the challenges facing our biosphere. It’s a win-win for everyone! There are real benefits to getting outside and into nature: it makes us healthier and happier. We should take every op-portunity to explore the world around us and using technolo-gy may just be the springboard we need to get outside. More importantly, and especially for young people, outdoor experi-ences and engaging in citizen science can plant a mental seed of inquisitiveness about the natural world that grows into a career in science, technology, engineering, or math. With the right tools in hand and access to the outdoors anyone can learn to make observations, ask questions, and seek answers about the world around them. So, instead of pointing an ac-cusatory finger at the role of technology in keeping us trapped inside lets instead use that finger to turn on a GPS

unit, snap a picture, or swipe a smartphone app and start exploring the untold wonders of Mother Nature and the great outdoors. Neil Ransom is a 4th-year ESP PhD student. He is interested

in studying the role local innovation and appropriate tech-nology can play in climate change adaptation. He plans to do his research among jua kali workers in Kenya, where he grew up as a child.

Graduate Research (continued from page 13) Preliminary results reveal that positive messaging was effective at reducing energy usage compared to the control group at a p < .05. Some residence halls decreased their en-ergy consumption by up to 25% during the span of the cam-paign. Those receiving negative messaging showed no differ-ence energy consumption compared to the control. These findings are consistent with my hypotheses, however, differ from the practical use in climate change messaging cam-paigns. This research reveals that individuals perceive mes-saging related toward the environment differently than mes-saging about their own health. As such, though negative messaging is impactful under circumstances in which people care deeply about an issue, such as personal health, it is less useful in relation to the natural world. In particular because climate change which is viewed as being distance and less immediate, positive messaging should be the preferred mes-saging choice. My research illustrates for the first time that the use of positive messaging campaigns related to climate change can decrease energy use.

Susan Keltner is an ESP PhD candidate. Her research in-terests include climate change communications and al-truism studies. She lives in Reston with her husband, daughter, two cats and two dogs.

References: Kellert, S. (2012). Birthright: People and Nature in the Modern World. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT.

Louv, R. Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books: Chapel Hill, NC.

GMU Environmental Science & Policy

Graduate Student Association

http://esp.gmu.edu/students/graduate-students/esp-gsa-club/

The ESP-GSA is a GMU organization, open to all graduate students in the ESP de-partment as well as any graduate student interested in environmental science and environmental policy. A membership application can be downloaded from the ESP-GSA website.

ESP-GSA Goals

To foster a sense of community To increase communication within the ESP department and with other GMU

departments To advocate for graduate student interests and concerns To provide a unified voice for members To provide extracurricular activities and have fun! To provide special academic events relevant to student interests To showcase graduate student achievements To foster graduate student and faculty interaction ESP-GSA Committee 2013-14 President – Christine Gleason (until March 2014) Vice President - Accepting applications Secretary – Amanda Sills (until March 2014) Treasurer – Marieke Kester (until March 2014) Social Chair – Accepting applications Student Representative – Accepting applications General email : espgsa@gmu.edu Faculty Advisor: Dr. Chris Parsons