Research Article: Reweaving Earth: An Indigenous Perspective on Restoration Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act

2009

Environmental Research

103

Studies of fish consumption often focus on awareness of and adherence to advisories, how much fish people eat, and contaminant levels in those fish. This paper examines knowledge and accuracy of risks and benefits of fish consumption among fishers and other recreationists in the New York Bight, indicative of whether they could make sound dietary decisions. While most respondents knew about health risks (70%) and benefits (94%) of consuming fish, far fewer could name specific risks and benefits. Less than 25% of respondents mentioned mercury and less than 15% mentioned that pregnant women and children were at risk. Far fewer people mentioned polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Nearly 70% said it was healthy to eat fish, and 45% were aware that fish were rich in healthful oils. Despite the lack of details about what specific risks and benefits of fish, well over a third did not feel they needed more information. Other respondents had basic questions, but did not pose specific questions about the fish they caught or ate that would have clarified their individual risk-balancing decisions. Knowledge of which fish were high in contaminants did not match the mercury or PCB levels in those fish. There was a disconnect between the information base about specific risks and benefits of fish consumption, levels of mercury and PCBs in fish, and the respondent’s desire for more information. These data indicate that respondents did not have enough accurate information about contaminants in fish to make informed risk-balancing decisions.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of the risks and benefits of fish consumption: Individual choices to reduce risk and increase health benefits

2009

Environmental Research

103

“…Native Americans believe that a healthy ecosystem is one that supports its natural plants and animals, as well as sustaining the biophysical, cultural, and spiritual health of native peoples (Stoffle and Evans 1990;Tano et al 1996;Harper 1997, 2008;Nez Perce Tribe 2003;Stumpff 2006;Bohnee et al in press). These authors suggested that (1) tribal peoples view natural resources holistically and combine traditional goods and services together with cultural ones rather than considering them separately, (2) many individual, spiritual, and cultural activities encompass a holistic view of nature (intact, not degraded, and not polluted), and (3) resources considered to be cultural by Western scientists have a natural resource base as an integral part of cultural use by Native Americans (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing perceptions of the important environmental characteristics of the places people engage in consumptive, non-consumptive and spiritual activities

Journal of Risk Research

Jeitner

et al. 2011

Managers, risk assessors, tribal leaders, public policy makers, and the public are increasingly interested in the characteristics of natural habitats where people like to engage in recreational, subsistence, or spiritual activities. Such data are critical for making decisions about human and ecological risk deriving from contaminants, as well as resource protection and land use. In this study we examined the perceptions of Native Americans and Caucasians about the natural places they prefer to engage in consumptive, non-consumptive, and spiritual activities which might expose them to contamination or other stressors. Subjects were interviewed at Post Falls and Fort Hall in Idaho, Cookeville in Tennessee, and at two sites in Long Island, New York, and northern New Jersey. Our objectives were to determine differences in perceptions as a function of category of activity, type of activity, location, and ethnicity. The data indicate that: (1) the highest rated characteristics were unpolluted water, lack of radionuclides that present a health risk, clean air, and no visible smog in the air; (2) all four were among the top-rated ones for each of the four sites; (3) all four were among the top-rated ones for places to perform consumptive, non-consumptive, and spiritual activities; (4) at each site, mean ratings were lowest for spiritual activities; (5) where there were differences, Native Americans rated all characteristics as more important than did Caucasians; and (6) where there were differences, ratings in New Jersey/New York were lower than those from respondents elsewhere. There are many statistically significant response differences between Native Americans and Caucasians, but overall one is impressed by the similarity in relative rankings. These perceptions will be helpful to risk assessors and risk managers in evaluating risk and potential solutions, to land managers for managing environmental resources, and to public policy managers for evaluating how people view natural environments.

“…While many of the environmental assessment approaches that served the nation in the past involved environmental protection laws, regulations, and top-down decisions, this approach may no longer work. The science, and the eventual solutions, may require more broadly based characterizations of the contaminants of concern, the resources at risk (both ecological and cultural), fate and transport (and exposure pathways), and the inclusion of a wide range of stakeholders (PCCRARM 1997;Goldstein et al 2000;Harris and Harper 2000;Burger et al 2003Burger et al , 2007cStumpff 2006). In this context, we use stakeholders very broadly to include Native Americans, regulators, local governments, managers, public policy makers, scientists, conservationists, involved and affected citizens, and others of the public, although we recognize that Native Americans have a Sovereign Nation status (Nez Perce Tribe 2003) and unique ecological, cultural, and exposure information needs (Tano et al 1996;Harris and Harper 2000).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information needs for siting new, and evaluating current, nuclear facilities: ecology, fate and transport, and human health

Clarke

2010

Environ Monit Assess

The USA is entering an era of energy diversity, and increasing nuclear capacity and concerns focus on accidents, security, waste, and pollution. Physical buffers that separate outsiders from nuclear facilities often support important natural ecosystems but may contain contaminants. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses nuclear reactors; the applicant provides environmental assessments that serve as the basis for Environmental Impact Statements developed by NRC. We provide a template for the types of information needed for safe siting of nuclear facilities with buffers in three categories: ecological, fate and transport, and human health information that can be used for risk evaluations. Each item on the lists is an indicator for evaluation, and individual indicators can be selected for specific region. Ecological information needs include biodiversity (species, populations, communities) and structure and functioning of ecosystems, habitats, and landscapes, in addition to common, abundant, and unique species and endangered and rare ones. The key variables of fate and transport are sources of release for radionuclides and other chemicals, nature of releases (atmospheric vapors, subsurface liquids), features, and properties of environmental media (wind speed, direction and atmospheric stability, hydraulic gradient, hydraulic conductivity, groundwater chemistry). Human health aspects include receptor populations (demography, density, dispersion, and distance), potential pathways (drinking water sources, gardening, fishing), and exposure opportunities (lifestyle activities). For each of the three types of information needs, we expect that only a few of the indicators will be applicable to a particular site and that stakeholders should agree on a site-specific suite.