Mercader, Rodrigo J., Nathan W. Siegert, Andrew M. Liebhold, and Deborah G. McCullough. 2011. "Simulating the Effectiveness of Tree Potential Management Options to Slow the Spread of Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) Populations in Localized Outlier Sites." Canadian Journal Forestry Research. 41: 254-264.
Initially, I thought this article might reside outside the scope of my paper. But leading researcher McCullough took part, and it mentioned outlier sites, so I requested it through our interlibrary loan.
It wasn't until three days later, as I walked with my dog under the branches of ash trees, that I realized the full implication. Mankato itself is an "outlier site"!
Let me explain further. Imagine the invasion of a new pest is a giant, slow-moving storm cloud. Everyone can see it coming, inching along slowly and leaving destruction in it's wake. But the most significant portion of this storm is the front. Massive and black, foreshadowing a cold rain. This is the outlier portion. First a few drops are felt, the wind keeps still save for one or two gusts.
Only after the front passes is the storm truly upon the community.
Right now, Mankato is about to be an outlier site. The bug is two hours north and two hours east. It's a matter of time before it becomes one. So how should the city prepare? This article examines different possibilities regarding the management.
The clear winner is imidicloprid, the pesticide. Using this curbed the spread and infestation the most.
The implication are big for the pesticide industry. Also for communities who harbor concerns regarding such use. The University of Minnesota put out a great document addressing those concerns. Does the pesticide harm other insects or birds? They conclude that it does not. But in an honest assessment, they mention how harmful it can be to groundwater and honeybees. The bees won't get the insecticide from the tree, but if the area around the tree is injected, and there are flowers in that area, then the bees could be killed.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Article: What's the difference between Participation and Inclusion?
Quick, Kathryn S. and Martha S. Feldman. 2011. "Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion." Journal of Planning Education and Research. 31 (1): 272-290.
I found this article after reading Dr. Kathryn Quick's biography on the Carlson School of Management's website. Although she studies public policy, she has been conducting research on the emerald ash borer problem in the Twin Cities. So far, I gather that she is studying the ways residents and policy makers interact when creating policies to manage the bug.
I wanted to read more of her work. I found this article in a journal I've never heard of before, which is actually a positive thing, because I want to take a turn with my research. After speaking with my professor today, I realized that I need to let the research guide me. The research will lead me to areas that need to be studied more in-depth.
This turn in research guides me into the vast realm of study on public policy. I recognize the importance of this field. When agencies such as the Department of Agriculture need to engage the public, they face a daunting task. How can they get people to care? How can they get their attention? Ultimately, how can they get people to take ownership of the problem?
By defining two terms, authors Quick and Feldman use language to draw the public and the agencies into more meaningful dialogue. The two public policy terms and the definitions Quick and Feldman give are as follows:
- participation "public input oriented primarily to the content of programs and policies"
- inclusion "continuously creating a community involved in coproducing processes, policies, and programs for defining and addressing public issues" (272).
The authors build off of the idea that "engagement practices are not merely techniques to be acquired in order to organize meetings effectively, but highly consequential choices that shape the inherently political process of planning and policy making" (273). The author want government agencies to "make use of community capacities to improve planning and policy outcomes in part by building community itself as a resource for decision making" (273). In other words, they want the government agencies to collaborate with communities.
To narrow the scope of the literature review, the authors focus on the topic of public engagement. The authors describe two concepts of public engagement. In the first concept, the public must force their way into the process. They call this adversarial. In the second concept, the public and the government collaborate to create policy. The authors advocate for this second concept, stating their wish to "push [the approach] further" (273).
Here's the brief synopsis. This is a case study with four cases, each representing a different amount of inclusion and participation. All the case studies took place in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The author's methodology included interviews and observation of meetings. Their data was longitudinal, or taking place over a long period of time. It was also from several perspectives and it provided an insider view of the situations.
The authors show how inclusion builds community. And the community practice increases ownership of policy.
In one case, an advisory committee of several critical residents succeeded in a task to distribute a shrinking budget. The advisors opened a narrow discussion into a broader one by asking "What do we want for our city?" instead of "What should we cut today?" This created temporal openness, leaving the door open for future decisions. They "reframed the mission of their group from overseeing public engagement to being the venue for public engagement" by firing a city-appointed overseer. They then co-authored budget decisions in tandem with the city officials (instead of just suggesting options) (281).
It surprised me that the officials took their suggestions to heart. It even meant firing one of the higher-up administrators. But their will to enact the citizen advisor's suggestion gave the committee actual power.
The authors state the following about the powerful idea of inclusion in public policy making:
Inclusive practices involve creating community through sharing practices, bringing together what in other contexts might be different "cores"—such as different sectors or types of expertise—and creating together a moving, changing combination of them. (286)But just because the advisory committee worked in one situation, the authors caution against using it in every circumstance. What worked in one situation may not work in another. They attempt to restrain people from creating a systematic approach to public policy, instead favoring an assessment of each scenario to find what works best (285).
Monday, January 16, 2012
Narrative: Needle in a Haystack
It's winter. The weather, usually bitter cold, has been pleasant, breaching the 40s and usually hovering above the freezing point during the day. I never remember a winter like this.
But we still took in the plants. We don't have many, just a few herbs, a tomato plant, a zygo cactus, an orchid, and a succulent. I guess that's more than most people! Ha!
Anyhow, we brought the plants in mid-December. By the time Christmas arrived we had fruit flies buzzing around our apartment. At first I thought it was from some bananas on the counter. But we kept the kitchen clean and they still continued their silent flight, irritating us by landing on computer screens, the TV, and, occasionally, showing up in a glass of water. It was gross.
When I bumped one of the plants, the fruit flies came swirling out. They were living in the plant soils! So I set all the plants out on the deck and sprayed them down with soapy water. Inside, I kept smacking them, clapping my hands in the air, following them around the wall and quickly squishing them, leaving a dark mark on the white paint.
I saw one in the office. To keep his options limited, I closed the door. Our office is small, and I tried to follow him with my eyes, but lost a few times due to his zany flight path. It took about five minutes, but I caught him against the window and made him pay. Soon victory was ours and we ceased find any fruit flies.
All this got me thinking about what a huge task the USDA and other government offices have. When a ground animal is on the loose, officers get the dogs out, load guns, track prints, and capture the beast. In the ocean, the task is more difficult. A shark or harmful animal may never be in the same place at the same time, so finding a shark that bit a person isn't likely. However, crocodiles and alligator have a better chance of being caught. As do snakes.
But when it comes to tracking an animal in the air, the difficulty increases immensely. The possibilities of travel are nearly endless. Of course, birds do migrate in patterns, and they are found by the most vigilant of bird watchers. But for birds, chances for escape are plenty. They can't be cornered if they are perched at the top of a white pine near the edge of a cliff.
Tracking and trapping a nuisance flock of birds (if there could be such a thing) would be challenging. But what if the birds were the size of a dime? And what if there were billions of them? And what if people also factored into the situation by moving their habitats across the country with the birdy babies inside? It's impossible.
What I realized is that figuring out the cause of our fruit fly problem was difficult. Then getting rid of the fruit flies from our apartment took time and persistence. But they were limited: to our apartment. What if there was no limit? How could humans stop an insect infestation? Is it even possible?
This just highlights the difficult task the USDA has in battling invasive species.
As I followed one around the office I left the herbs outside, since they seemed to be the worst.
But we still took in the plants. We don't have many, just a few herbs, a tomato plant, a zygo cactus, an orchid, and a succulent. I guess that's more than most people! Ha!
Anyhow, we brought the plants in mid-December. By the time Christmas arrived we had fruit flies buzzing around our apartment. At first I thought it was from some bananas on the counter. But we kept the kitchen clean and they still continued their silent flight, irritating us by landing on computer screens, the TV, and, occasionally, showing up in a glass of water. It was gross.
When I bumped one of the plants, the fruit flies came swirling out. They were living in the plant soils! So I set all the plants out on the deck and sprayed them down with soapy water. Inside, I kept smacking them, clapping my hands in the air, following them around the wall and quickly squishing them, leaving a dark mark on the white paint.
I saw one in the office. To keep his options limited, I closed the door. Our office is small, and I tried to follow him with my eyes, but lost a few times due to his zany flight path. It took about five minutes, but I caught him against the window and made him pay. Soon victory was ours and we ceased find any fruit flies.
All this got me thinking about what a huge task the USDA and other government offices have. When a ground animal is on the loose, officers get the dogs out, load guns, track prints, and capture the beast. In the ocean, the task is more difficult. A shark or harmful animal may never be in the same place at the same time, so finding a shark that bit a person isn't likely. However, crocodiles and alligator have a better chance of being caught. As do snakes.
But when it comes to tracking an animal in the air, the difficulty increases immensely. The possibilities of travel are nearly endless. Of course, birds do migrate in patterns, and they are found by the most vigilant of bird watchers. But for birds, chances for escape are plenty. They can't be cornered if they are perched at the top of a white pine near the edge of a cliff.
Tracking and trapping a nuisance flock of birds (if there could be such a thing) would be challenging. But what if the birds were the size of a dime? And what if there were billions of them? And what if people also factored into the situation by moving their habitats across the country with the birdy babies inside? It's impossible.
What I realized is that figuring out the cause of our fruit fly problem was difficult. Then getting rid of the fruit flies from our apartment took time and persistence. But they were limited: to our apartment. What if there was no limit? How could humans stop an insect infestation? Is it even possible?
This just highlights the difficult task the USDA has in battling invasive species.
As I followed one around the office I left the herbs outside, since they seemed to be the worst.
Article: Stink Beetles and Science Reporting
Haddon, Heather. 2012. "Out of Odor: Offensive-Smelling Bugs Put U.S. Farmers on the Defensive." The Wall Street Journal. January 9.
The Wall Street Journal often runs amusing or unusual stories at the bottom of the front page. This story is unusual in the olfactory sense. It describes an invasive species to the US, the stink bug.
The articles describes how these bugs have been eating crops out East, devouring different crops and causing ... a big stink. The Halyomorpha halys came to the states via cargo ships, as did the Emerald Ash Borer. But this bug has been here for about 15 years.
Haddon cites some facts. The damage to 2010's apple crops cost $37 million. The potential risk to all crops is $21 billion (however, this isn't stated as annually or just for 2012). The USDA marked $5.7 million to researchers developing the bug's pheromones. But other entrepreneurs are in on the action, making and marketing their own traps, which people eagerly want, because the bugs sneak into houses during the winter.
The article provided a quick summary of the problem and why it is important to agriculture businesses. It provides a humorous take, mentioning the farmer who trained his dog to eat them. She says that "thousands" of the bug scurry across his floor—an exaggeration?
Haddon informs the reader of the solutions being worked on, the pheromones and the introduction of native prey in the Eastern states. The USDA is working on similar solutions for the Emerald Ash Borer as well.
This article might be a little off topic, but it interested me as research. The writing was a bit more entertaining, but it still illustrates the problem, lists potential solutions, and ends with a question of what will happen next. This outline could be followed for a similar article on EAB. But also, this shows a second case where the USDA is favoring natural biological solutions over chemical solutions. I'm sure this is a common type of solution in the 21st Century, a marked difference from Rachel Carson's 1960s.
The Wall Street Journal often runs amusing or unusual stories at the bottom of the front page. This story is unusual in the olfactory sense. It describes an invasive species to the US, the stink bug.
The articles describes how these bugs have been eating crops out East, devouring different crops and causing ... a big stink. The Halyomorpha halys came to the states via cargo ships, as did the Emerald Ash Borer. But this bug has been here for about 15 years.
Haddon cites some facts. The damage to 2010's apple crops cost $37 million. The potential risk to all crops is $21 billion (however, this isn't stated as annually or just for 2012). The USDA marked $5.7 million to researchers developing the bug's pheromones. But other entrepreneurs are in on the action, making and marketing their own traps, which people eagerly want, because the bugs sneak into houses during the winter.
The article provided a quick summary of the problem and why it is important to agriculture businesses. It provides a humorous take, mentioning the farmer who trained his dog to eat them. She says that "thousands" of the bug scurry across his floor—an exaggeration?
Haddon informs the reader of the solutions being worked on, the pheromones and the introduction of native prey in the Eastern states. The USDA is working on similar solutions for the Emerald Ash Borer as well.
This article might be a little off topic, but it interested me as research. The writing was a bit more entertaining, but it still illustrates the problem, lists potential solutions, and ends with a question of what will happen next. This outline could be followed for a similar article on EAB. But also, this shows a second case where the USDA is favoring natural biological solutions over chemical solutions. I'm sure this is a common type of solution in the 21st Century, a marked difference from Rachel Carson's 1960s.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Government Doc: Natural Resources Defense Council Sues USDA
Natural Resource Defense v. US Dept. of Agric., 613 F. 3d 76 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2010 Argued: April 6, 2010. Decided: July 8, 2010. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=836394702275181896&q=emerald+ash+borer&hl=en&as_sdt=3,24
This legal document summarizes an argument between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and some states joined together by a giant environmental non-profit organization. I'll summarize the action.
After the emerald ash borer began spreading through the country, a branch of the USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), looked into the regulations regarding wooden packing material. That's because the emerald ash borer arrived in crating material originating from eastern Asia. Of course, it isn't the first time insects have jumped the ocean by hitching a ride on some crates of Samsung TVs or large boxes of plastic bobbleheads. So it isn't surprising that APHIS would look into tightening restrictions on packing material.
The process began and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were written to evaluate the problem. The conclusion was to adopt new guidelines for incoming Solid Wood Packing Material (SWPM—I know, it doesn't seem like this needs an acronym, right?)
It turns out there are some international guidelines for such material, and they are set by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), which is somehow related to the United Nations. So the IPPC's latest guidelines are to have all wooden pallets treated with a gas or treated with a high level of heat.
This provides a good, multinational guideline. Everyone knows it isn't full proof, but it provided one more step for protection against the invasive species.
But some states and the large non-profit National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) disagreed. They sued the USDA because they felt APHIS didn't meet the high standards of the National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) and the Plant Protection Act (PPA).
Basically, the argument was that APHIS could eliminate the risk completely—but they didn't because of outside pressures. They didn't need to pass laws saying packaging should be treated with a chemical harmful to the ozone, instead they should have passed a law requiring the US to ban SWPM completely!
I imagine this would be extremely difficult to accomplish, and it would take a long time. However, it would eliminate this problematic profusion of invasive species. Why not just use prefabricated wood, which wouldn't be infested?
Well, the USDA won the case. The court decided that APHIS took all these considerations to heart, evidenced by the final EIS, in which several other options for SWPM were mentioned.
I learned a few things from this article: 1) These acronyms are out of control. 2) APHIS seems to have a near impossible task: restricting tiny insects or their larvae from entering our borders. 3) Our nation doesn't take this threat so seriously as to harm shipping patterns and trade relations. Is that good or bad? I guess we'll see in time.
I never did see final date of implementation for APHIS's recommendations, however.
This legal document summarizes an argument between the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and some states joined together by a giant environmental non-profit organization. I'll summarize the action.
After the emerald ash borer began spreading through the country, a branch of the USDA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), looked into the regulations regarding wooden packing material. That's because the emerald ash borer arrived in crating material originating from eastern Asia. Of course, it isn't the first time insects have jumped the ocean by hitching a ride on some crates of Samsung TVs or large boxes of plastic bobbleheads. So it isn't surprising that APHIS would look into tightening restrictions on packing material.
The process began and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were written to evaluate the problem. The conclusion was to adopt new guidelines for incoming Solid Wood Packing Material (SWPM—I know, it doesn't seem like this needs an acronym, right?)
It turns out there are some international guidelines for such material, and they are set by the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), which is somehow related to the United Nations. So the IPPC's latest guidelines are to have all wooden pallets treated with a gas or treated with a high level of heat.
This provides a good, multinational guideline. Everyone knows it isn't full proof, but it provided one more step for protection against the invasive species.
But some states and the large non-profit National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) disagreed. They sued the USDA because they felt APHIS didn't meet the high standards of the National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) and the Plant Protection Act (PPA).
Basically, the argument was that APHIS could eliminate the risk completely—but they didn't because of outside pressures. They didn't need to pass laws saying packaging should be treated with a chemical harmful to the ozone, instead they should have passed a law requiring the US to ban SWPM completely!
I imagine this would be extremely difficult to accomplish, and it would take a long time. However, it would eliminate this problematic profusion of invasive species. Why not just use prefabricated wood, which wouldn't be infested?
Well, the USDA won the case. The court decided that APHIS took all these considerations to heart, evidenced by the final EIS, in which several other options for SWPM were mentioned.
I learned a few things from this article: 1) These acronyms are out of control. 2) APHIS seems to have a near impossible task: restricting tiny insects or their larvae from entering our borders. 3) Our nation doesn't take this threat so seriously as to harm shipping patterns and trade relations. Is that good or bad? I guess we'll see in time.
I never did see final date of implementation for APHIS's recommendations, however.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)