Lobos Love Bees! @loboslovebees - Tumblr Blog

Pesticide Assessment: Conclusion

Omega Delgado, Sharlynn Lee, Earl Shank, and I determined that UNM’s pesticide use is not as harmful as one might initially believe if he or she is looking at a list of almost fifty pesticides that includes nothing but their names. The active ingredients and their effects clearly matter in a pesticide. For example, an insecticide that targets the nervous system and is known to kill over 250 different types of insects probably kills or inflicts damage on just about any insect that comes into contact with it, including beneficial insects. Yet this same insecticide is not a risk to pollinators if it is applied in an area that pollinators will never touch, such as the sealed inner parts of a trash chute in the UNM Residence Halls. The majority of insecticides used at UNM can harm pollinators, but a majority of the insecticides will never touch pollinators at all.

We learned that UNM mainly applies pesticides in order to protect the health of the UNM community from pests that carry disease (West 2014). These pests include cockroaches and mice, among others. It is estimated that less than 5% of the pesticides applied on UNM campus are for aesthetic purposes (West 2014). The ones that are applied for aesthetic purposes normally are applied within two feet of walking paths (West 2014), and these are normally herbicides that are not known to impact pollinators or people at all. Pesticides are also not regularly applied anywhere, PPD only applies spot treatments (West 2014). Only indoor bathroom areas are regularly monitored for pests, but this does not mean that pesticides will always be applied (West 2014).

The Grounds and Landscaping section of the UNM Physical Plant Department (PPD) possesses a clear pest management plan in which it tries to be as sustainable as possible in its use of pesticides. Pesticides are never the first course of action if legal alternatives are available. This is especially true of pests that are not insects. According to Mr. West, vertebrate pests are almost always relocated. For example, Mr. West told us a story about the numerous skunks that wander onto campus. PPD is not allowed to relocate the skunks, so PPD circumvents killing the skunks by giving them to a UNM biologist to relocate for them. Surprisingly, we learned that UNM is actually forbidden to use some of the alternatives that are proposed for pest management, especially when it comes to the management of noxious weeds and invertebrates such as insects. For example, two super-effective alternatives to poison are boiling water and bleach, but the New Mexico State Department of Agriculture forbids the application of these two alternatives on state property (West 2014). Private universities can adopt pest management plans that are better or worse than the state standard, but public universities do not have that option (West 2014). It seems that the law needs to change before UNM can hope to become a pesticide-free campus.

Our team successfully accomplished our project goals even though we unexpectedly found that we could not map pesticide application sites. The map is still pertinent because it indicates that UNM does harbor a large number of people and pollinators in close proximity to each other. Therefore UNM is an important urban refuge for people and pollinators. Hopefully more will be done in the future to increase UNM’s pollinator-friendliness with this in mind. The list was an overwhelming success, enlightening others on the nature of the pesticides used at UNM. Finally, we successfully remained objective even though some resources posing as scholarly appeared often during our research process. We managed to monitor our own biases well, eliminating certain diction from the pesticide list.

In conclusion, there is still much that we do not know about the pesticide situation on campus. There are some pesticides in which long-term research has not been conducted on people or pollinators, as mentioned in the results blog post for this project. MSDS all contain short-term health consequences for humans, but long-term studies are often lacking. In addition, there is much we still need to learn about the pollinator and plant populations on campus. One day of monitoring is not enough to comprehensively know the status of the populations, but it is all we had time for this semester. A long-term pollinator population monitoring program should be formed in order to better inform the UNM community if pollinators are declining or prospering at UNM, and to see what activity (not just pesticide activity) may be affecting pollinator populations.

References:

West, Willie. 2014. Personal Communication.

#bees #unm #pollinators #pesticides #sustainability #submission #amy a

Pesticide Assessment: Results

I constructed figures 1-4 based on the information contained in the UNM pesticide table constructed by Omega Delgado, Sharlynn Lee, Earl Shank, and I. This pesticide table will be henceforth known as “Table 1.” The table can be accessed through the following link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UkI5KxXOj-NYZpwSPM3PFj27tmPuzcHeGYBG1UhJ7a8/edit?usp=sharing

I constructed Figures 1-4 in order to perform a pesticide risk assessment for pollinators that visit UNM Main Campus. A human pesticide risk assessment was not performed, as the MSDS in Table 1 cover what is known about human risk already. First, the “active ingredients” column was analyzed in order to determine if neonicotinoids and synthetic pyrethrins were present in the pesticides that have been applied on UNM Main Campus (Figure 1). As stated in the introductory blog post for this project, neonicotinoids and synthetic pyrethrins have been repeatedly shown to contribute to pollinator decline around the world (Easton and Goulson 2013, Maund et al. 2012, Mommaerts et al. 2010, and Whitehorn et al. 2012). Endosulfan and Spinosad are also suspected of harming pollinators, (Beyond Pesticides 2014 and Watanabe 2014). Only two of the top twelve chemicals that contribute to pollinator decline have been used on UNM main campus in the past decade (Figure 1). The chemicals in question are the synthetic pyrethrins Fipronil and Deltamethrin (Figure 1). These chemicals were only present in two pesticide products used at UNM (the pesticides are Termidor and Suspend, both insecticides), collectively comprising 4% of the total pesticide products used at UNM (Figure 1). None of the other ten main deadly chemicals were present in any of the products used at UNM. It appears that UNM is completely free of neonicotinoids, and it is relatively free of other agents of pollinator decline (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Only the synthetic pyrethrins Fipronil and Deltamethrin are present at UNM out of the top twelve chemicals that contribute to pollinator decline. Percentages were derived by dividing the number of pesticides products in which the chemicals did or did not appear by the total number of pesticide products.

Next, the “effects on pollinators” column was analyzed in order to quantify how many pesticides contained ingredients that could harm pollinators (Figure 2). Eighteen out of 43 pesticides contained active ingredients that could potentially harm pollinators, comprising 42% of the total (Figure 2). The pesticides that could potentially harm pollinators were generalized insecticides that usually target insect exoskeletons (Table 1). Seventeen out of 43 pesticides contained active ingredients that are not known to affect pollinators at all, comprising 40% of the total (Figure 2). We were data deficient for seven out of 43 pesticides, or 18% of the total (Figure 2). Data deficiencies occurred due to conflicting information about the mode of action of certain pesticide products (Table 1).

Figure 2: This pie chart shows how many pesticides are known to harm pollinators or not. Percentages were derived by dividing the number of pesticides products for each category (the three categories are data deficient, harmful, and no effect) by the total number of pesticide products.

Although it was determined that pesticides that can harm pollinators constitute a small majority at UNM, the information was deemed irrelevant without knowing how much pollinators may actually be exposed to these pesticides. According to Willie West, the Grounds and Landscaping Manager of UNM’s Physical Plant Department (PPD), almost no insecticides are applied in the open outdoors, where pollinators are most likely to come into contact (Table 1). Usually insecticides that are applied outside are sprayed directly into ant, hornet, or wasp nests, which pollinators probably would not touch (Table 1). One general turf insecticide is in Table 1, but it is not often used.

Figure 3: Over half of the pesticides applied outdoors have no effect on pollinators. Most of the pesticides in the data deficient and harmful categories probably do not come into contact with pollinators. About half of the total pesticides used at UNM (22 out of 43) are used outdoors. Percentages were determined by dividing the total number of pesticide products in each category (the three categories are data deficient, harmful, and no effect) by the number of pesticides used outdoors.

The pollinator risk assessment was concluded by determining pollinators’ overall exposure to pesticides that can potentially harm them (Figure 4). Out of the eighteen pesticides that could harm pollinators, pollinators are potentially exposed to a total of four, or 22% of the total risky pesticides (Figure 4). The other 14, which comprise 78% of the total risky pesticides, are used in areas such as the insides of buildings (Figure 4). Pollinators are not known to frequent such areas.

Figure 4: Four of eighteen pesticides (22%) are used outdoors, in areas where pollinators could potentially be exposed. The remaining fourteen, or 78%, are not.

A map showing the locations of people, pollinators, and stakeholders at UNM was constructed upon conclusion of the pollinator risk assessment (Figure 5). We were planning to include a pesticide layer on the map, but no UNM pesticides are applied consistently except to indoor bathroom areas (West 2014). Therefore we decided that such a layer was not practical.

Figure 5: People, pollinators, and stakeholders dwell closely to each other on UNM main campus. This information was collected with the help of the entire Sustainability 434 class.

References:

Beyond Pesticides. 2014. http://www.beyondpesticides.org/about/mission.php

Easton, A.H., and D. Goulson. 2013. The Neonicotinoid Insecticide Imidacloprid Repels Pollinating Flies and Beetles at Field-Realistic Concentrations. PLoS ONE 8(1): e54819. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054819

Maund, S.J., Campbell, P.J., Giddings, J.M., Hamer, M.J., Henry, K., Pilling, E.D., Warinton, J.S., and J.R. Wheeler. 2012. Ecotoxicology of Synthetic Pyrethroids. Topics in Current Chemistry 314(1): 137-165.

Mommaerts, V., Reynders, S., Boulet, J., Besard, L., Sterk, G., and G. Smagghe. 2010. Risk assessment for side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging behavior. Ecotoxicology 19(1): 207-215.

Watanabe, M. 2014. Pollinators at Risk. BioScience 64(1): 5-10.

West, Willie. 2014. Personal Communication.

Whitehorn, P.R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F.L., and D. Goulson. 2012. Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production. Science 336(6079): 351-352.

#bees #unm #pollinators #pesticides #sustainability #submission #amy a

UNM Pesticide Assessment: Methods

Our group’s first priority was to discover what pesticides were used at UNM. We figured that if we at least knew the names of the pesticides, we would be able to conduct other research to complete a pesticide risk assessment for the campus. We planned for our pesticide risk assessment to cover pollinators, people (people included students, staff, and faculty that participate in the daily community life of UNM), and key stakeholders. We decided to define key stakeholders as individuals or offices that play a key role in UNM’s sustainable pesticide handling. Earl Shank, a member or our group who also happens to be the Sustainability Officer for the Physical Plant Department (PPD), spearheaded the effort on stakeholder analysis (see his blog for more details about his methods).

Other information that our group decided that we needed to uncover in order to successfully conduct our pesticide risk assessment included UNM’s current policy for pest control as well as details about the five W’s (who, what, when, where, why) regarding pesticide application. We clearly needed to figure out UNM’s central authority for pest management and contact them for information. A little bit of internet research revealed that Mr. Willie West is the Grounds and Landscaping Manager of UNM’s Physical Plant Department (PPD), which is a large role that includes enforcing pest management strategies at UNM. We collected his contact information from the following link: https://iss.unm.edu/ppd/staff.html two weeks prior to Spring Break (Spring Break was March 17-21, 2014). Sharlynn graciously volunteered to be our group’s main representative for communicating with Mr. Willie West. She corresponded with him throughout the two week period, and we met our primary obstacle in the process.

As Sharlynn corresponded with Mr. West, she learned that he had misgivings about how our project would portray PPD. He reasonably questioned our intentions with our project. Would we try to slant our project to inaccurately depict PPD as an irresponsible, poisonous entity that indiscriminately and irresponsibly blanketed the campus with pesticides? No, we did not intend to do that at all. His questions caused us to reinforce one of our main goals, outlined in the introductory blog post for this project: remain objective and professional throughout our project in order to avoid any accidental obscuring of the truth and misrepresentation of ourselves and others. Our main goal was to collect and report information about how UNM manages pests. The main problem in our project was that we and others on campus were unaware of how pests were managed on campus. We did not know enough to claim that there was a problem with the way UNM managed pests or not, and we hoped to dispel ignorance about UNM pest management through our findings.

Although we took Mr. West’s concerns seriously and treated the matter delicately, we discovered that others failed to do so. This consequently delayed our progress by a few weeks. It seems that multiple pollinator advocacy groups exist on campus (not just from our class), and at least one of them (we do not know who) approached Mr. West for the names of the pesticides used on campus. Mr. West happily provided them with the list and supplemental information about pest management. However, Mr. West was shocked and dismayed when he learned that the list was published with the slant that the 43 pesticides on the list blanketed UNM campus and were said to cause harm to people and pollinators. The names only were published without any of the supplemental information that our group was after, and the claims were not supported. A lady called Mr. West to tell him that he was trying to kill all of the pollinators at UNM. He learned that he was reported to have said things that he never said. Naturally, he did not trust our group’s intentions after someone else wronged him, but we finally managed to meet with him on Friday, April 25th to learn all of this and listen to him. We left the meeting with the hope that our project could help combat the false information that others were spreading around campus.

Omega Delgado, Sharlynn Lee, Earl Shank, and I constructed a table that contains a listing of the 43 pesticides that have been used at UNM in the last decade. Omega and I filled in information for insecticides and other pesticides that target animals while Sharlynn and Earl filled in information for herbicides. We each extensively researched eleven pesticides (Figure 1). One of the pesticides assigned to Sharlynn was excluded from the final count because it appeared on the list twice (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Division of labor in order to construct pesticide list.

Columns in the table include the pesticide name, type of pesticide, targeted pest, active ingredients, effects on pests, effects on pollinators (if any), alternatives, Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), location/notes, and application procedures. The table can be accessed through the following link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UkI5KxXOj-NYZpwSPM3PFj27tmPuzcHeGYBG1UhJ7a8/edit?usp=sharing

In addition, we constructed a map that showed areas of high human, pollinator, and stakeholder activity at UNM. We used the computer program “Photoshop” to make our map. We compiled the information for the map as we waited to learn more about pest management from Mr. West. First, we printed an enormous map of campus and mounted it on cardboard (Figure 2). During the annual Lobo Growers’ Market and Sustainability Expo on Earth Day April 22nd, we asked people to place pins in locations where they liked to hang out on campus. We translated this information into “Photoshop” later. In addition, Earl located key stakeholders and the Sustainability 434 class helped us survey for pollinators on campus. In order to survey, we divided main campus into four quadrants lettered A, B, C, and D. Four groups split up at 1:30 pm on April 24th to note field observations about pollinators and the plants they frequented. Observations included photographs like Figure 3.

Figure 2: Our Earth Day display.

Figure 3: Citizen scientists (our class) collected information about plants frequented by pollinators.

References:

West, Willie. 2014. Personal Communication.

#bees #unm #pollinators #pesticides #sustainability #submission #amy a

UNM Pesticide Assessment: Introduction

Since World War II, pesticide use in the United States of America and the world has steadily increased (Pimental et al. 2007 and Watanabe 2014). Pesticide use is continuing on its trend of exponential growth even now, for industrial agriculture is now the world’s primary food system and requires chemicals in order to support the vast monocultures that exist (Pimental et al. 2007 and Watanabe 2014). In addition, cities are steadily increasing in size and population (Pimental et al. 2007). As urban centers are growing more rapidly than ever before, so are the pest populations occupying the urban centers, including cockroaches (Pimental et al. 2007). Pesticides are viewed as an obvious solution to the health and sanitation issues associated with such pests. As time passes, pests grow resistant to the poisons, so new ones need to be found to replace them (Maund et al. 2012 and Watanabe 2014). This results in an endless cycle of chemicals in and out of the market, and it is no easy task to monitor these chemicals (Maund et al. 2012 and Watanabe 2014). What does this mean for living beings that encounter the chemicals?

For larger beings, such as humans, the enormous rate of pesticide application means 67,000 pesticide poisonings in the United States alone (Pimental et al. 2007). On average, 27 U.S. citizens die annually from pesticide poisonings (Pimental et al. 2007). Various research around the world also shows that chronic exposure to pesticides leads to increased incidences of cancer and obesity (Wei et al. 2014 and El-Zaeney et al. 2013). For example, in a long-term study from Australia it was found that women become more likely to develop breast cancer as the amount of pesticides in the environment increases (El-Zaeney et al. 2013). In addition, women aged 25 years or younger are at the highest risk for developing breast cancer at some point in their lives if they are regularly exposed to pesticides in their everyday environments (El-Zaeney et al. 2013).

For smaller beings, such as insect pollinators (these include bees, butterflies, and flies), the consequences of the enormous rate of pesticide application are catastrophic. Pollinator populations around the world are declining, with the most notable declines occurring in populations of honey bees (Henry 2012, Pettis 2013), bumble bees (Mommaerts et al. 2010, Whitehorn et al. 2012), and monarch butterflies (Watanabe 2014). Data is lacking for most non-commercial pollinators (Easton and Goulson 2013), so the status of wild pollinator populations is inferred from the collapse trends of these charismatic species. A number of environmental issues have been named as contributors to population declines, but pesticides have been identified as the leading cause (Watanabe 2014). Pesticides that have appeared in the past decade are specifically identified as key contributors to decline. These pesticides include a class of chemicals called neonicotinoids, such as imidachloprid, clothianidin, acetamiprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam(Easton and Goulson 2012, Henry 2012, Mommaerts et al. 2010, and Whitehorn et al. 2012). Synthetic pyrethrins such as bifenthrin, fluvinate, permethrin, fipronil, and deltamethrin are also included among the deadliest chemicals known to pollinators (Maund et al. 2012). A total of twelve chemicals have been listed as the main chemicals that lead to pollinator decline. In addition to the neonicotinoids and synthetic pyrethrins already named, endosulfan and spinosad are on the top twelve list (Watanabe 2014). These chemicals mainly appear in agricultural situations, rendering agricultural sites the most toxic to pollinators across the globe (Watanabe 2014). Therefore, urban areas have been named as the current best refuge for pollinators (Pimental et al. 2007 and Watanabe 2014). Although cities widely use pesticides as well, they are more hospitable to pollinators than the agricultural areas because normally the pollinators’ food source is not directly contaminated (Watanabe 2014).

Clearly pesticides pose a problem to both people and pollinators, to say nothing of the rest of the world’s biodiversity. Pests also pose a problem, eating agricultural crops and spreading disease. In the context of these two large problems, universities in urban areas need to carefully plan how to best manage their pests and promote the health and well-being of humans and pollinators. I specifically name universities because young people are the most at risk for pesticide poisonings, and universities harbor numerous young people (El-Zaeney et al. 2013 and Pimental et al. 2007). Universities also harbor lush landscapes for pollinators. Therefore universities play a meaningful role in this issue. The University of New Mexico (UNM) is one such example. Naturally representatives of both sides of the issue weigh in and make claims (sometimes unsupported) about the sustainability and efficacy of UNM’s pesticide management. Therefore, we decided to perform a pesticide risk assessment for people and pollinators at UNM in order to dispel misconceptions people may have about pesticide use at UNM.

I teamed up with Omega Delgado, Sharlynn Lee, and Earl Shank from UNM’s Sustainability 434 class in order to determine the following:

1) Identify what pesticides are applied at UNM, where, and their effects.

2) Map key locations of people, pollinators, pesticides, and stakeholders on campus.

3) Maintain objectivity and professionalism throughout the project.

Deliverables for this project include a map of people, pollinator, and stakeholder populations on campus. We also planned to show pesticide application sites in our map. We hypothesized that people, pollinator, stakeholder, and pesticide concentration areas overlap or are in close proximity to each other on UNM’s main campus. We predicted such overlap would be a problem if chemicals that have been proven to cause harm to pollinators and people were present in the environment. We were not sure if the pesticides used on campus caused harm or not, so we also included a list that delineates the nature of the pesticides used on campus in our deliverables for this project.

Literature Cited

El-Zaeney, S., Heyworth, J., and L. Fritschi. 2013. Noticing pesticide spray drift from agricultural pesticide application areas and breast cancer: a case-control study. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Public Health 37(6): 547-555.

Henry, M., Beguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J.F., Aupinel, P., Aptel, J., Tchamitchian, S., Decourtye, A. 2012. A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. Science 336(6079): 348-350.

Pettis, J.S., Lichtenberg, E.M., Andree, M., Stitzinger, J., and R. Rose. 2013. Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae. PLoS ONE 8(7): e70182. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070182

Pimental, D., Culliney, T.W., and T. Bashore. 2007. Public health risks associated with pesticides and natural toxins in foods. Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook.

Watanabe, M. 2014. Pollinators at Risk. BioScience 64(1): 5-10.

Wei, Y., Zhu, J., and A. Nguyen. 2014. Urinary concentrations of dichlorophenol pesticides and obesity among adult participants in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2005-2008. International Journal of Hygeine & Environmental Health 217: 294-299.

Whitehorn, P.R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F.L., and D. Goulson. 2012. Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production. Science 336(6079): 351-352.

I teamed up with Omega Delgado, Sharlynn Lee, and Earl Shank from UNM’s Sustainability 434 class in order to determine the following:

1) Identify what pesticides are applied at UNM, where, and their effects.

2) Map key locations of people, pollinators, pesticides, and stakeholders on campus.

3) Maintain objectivity and professionalism throughout the project.

Literature Cited

Pimental, D., Culliney, T.W., and T. Bashore. 2007. Public health risks associated with pesticides and natural toxins in foods. Radcliffe’s IPM World Textbook.

Watanabe, M. 2014. Pollinators at Risk. BioScience 64(1): 5-10.

Whitehorn, P.R., O’Connor, S., Wackers, F.L., and D. Goulson. 2012. Neonicotinoid Pesticide Reduces Bumble Bee Colony Growth and Queen Production. Science 336(6079): 351-352.

#unm #pollinators #pesticides #sustainability #submission #amy a

Entry 4: Discussion

We fell short of both our original goal of surveying 500 respondents and our revised goal of 300 respondents. However, we were on the way to reaching the goal of 300, stopping short at 268 total responses. This was somewhat disappointing, due to our objective of protecting the +-7% confidence interval, but we are not far away, as 200 responses would have net us a +-8% confidence interval. Therefore, we probably ended up with close to a +-7.3% confidence interval.

However, our sample demographics closely matched the overall UNM demographics in all areas that were found to have significant (at 5%) relationships to our areas of interest. Therefore, we are confident that the correlations described in our results are reliable, and thus we felt no need to weight any of the data.

We found significant correlations for all of our hypotheses except #3; for all others, the analysis of the data gave us sufficient cause to reject the null in favor of our hypotheses. We found a very strong positive correlation with regard to hypothesis #4, which leads us to believe that a person’s level of knowledge about pesticide use heavily influences their level of support for pesticide-free initiatives.

However, inferring a causal relationship may be premature; the inverse relationship may also exist. In other words, a person’s support for pesticide-free initiatives may motivate them to educate themselves about pesticide use. Therefore, more research is required to establish concrete theories on this relationship.

We were not surprised to find that women favor pesticide-free and organic food policies, though we do not have enough data to surmise a reason for this result. Again, a more specific study may result in greater knowledge in this area.

We were somewhat disappointed to find that over 60% of respondents had no knowledge about pesticide use, and over 80% had little or none. This indicates widespread ignorance about this issue however, the cause is uncertain. Some have surmised that this is due to a lack of data that is being made available to the general public, but this may be assuming too much. It is also possible that people simply don’t care enough about the issue to educate themselves about it.

The general level of ignorance about pesticides was evident when we compared the levels of support for a pesticide-free campus versus a pollinator-friendly campus. While both showed positive correlations with the respondent’s level of knowledge about pesticides, they are demonstrably different when compared with each other. The level of support for a pollinator-friendly campus was far greater across the board than the level of support for a pesticide-free campus. Since these two ideas are essentially the same thing, the vast difference in support shows a general lack of knowledge about pesticides. This ignorance is so prevalent that support for a pesticide-free campus ranks dead last in the overall concern about various campus issues, while support for a pollinator-friendly campus ranks second.

Taken as a whole, these results indicate a need for education about pesticides and related issues. Only when information about pesticides is made widely available and discussed as a prominent issue will we know with more certainty whether people really care about this issue. If information about pesticides is brought into the public eye and the response elicited from the UNM community is not heavily in favor of pesticide-free policies, then we can probably assume that people simply don’t care very much about this issue. However, if the response is in favor of establishing pesticide-free policies, then we can assume that people were simply uninformed. If the latter is the case, then perhaps we can make substantial progress towards eliminating pesticide use from the UNM campus.

#campus survey #submission #tony p

Entry 3: Results

I. Demographic Information

Survey Data UNM 2012-2013 FactBook/Enrollment Report

A. Occupation A. Occupation

Undergrad: 86.8% Undergrad: 63.3%

Graduate: 7.7% Graduate: 13.5%

Non-Degree: 3.0% Non-Degree: 4.9%

Staff/Faculty: 2.6% Staff/Faculty: 13%

B. Credit Hours B. Credit Hours

Full-time: 94% Full-time: 63.4%

Part-time: 6% Part-time: 36.6%

C. Age C. Age

<25: 78.6% <25: 74.5%

25-29: 8.9% 25-29: 11.1%

30-39: 8.6% 30-39: 8.9%

40+: 3.9% 40+: 5.6%

D. Sex D. Sex

Male: 44.4% Male: 42.7%

Female: 55.6% Female: 57.3%

E. Race/Ethnicity E. Race/Ethnicity

African Am.: 3.1% African Am.: 2.1%

NH/PI: 0.8% NH/PI: 0.2%

Hispanic: 33.3% Hispanic: 38.8%

Am. Indian: 3.5% Am. Indian: 10.9%

Asian: 5.4% Asian: 2.7%

White, Non-H: 41.5% White, Non-H:37.0%

International: 1.9% International: 2.9%

2 or More: 10.5% 2 or More: 2.5%

II. General knowledge about Pesticide Use

A. Respondents’ Knowledge About Pesticide Use, % of respondents by category

a. None: 60.3%

b. A Little: 22.1%

c. Some: 10.3%

d. Quite a Bit: 5.7%

e. Complete: 1.5%

B. Chart:

Level of Knowledge about Pesticide Use:

III. Statistical Significance of Correlations for support for 1) A Pesticide-Free Campus, 2) Establishing Organic Food Policies, & 3) Establishing a Pollinator-Friendly Campus (5%)

Age was not found to be a significant predictor of any of these variables.

Sex was found to be a significant predictor of Support for Establishing Organic Food Policies & Pollinator-friendly Policies, but not of Support for a Pesticide-free campus.

Histograms:

Support for Establishing Organic Food Policies by Sex:

Support for Establishing Pollinator-friendly Policies by Sex:

Full-time vs. Part-time enrollment status was not found to be a significant predictor of any of these variables.

Occupation was not found to be a significant predictor of any of these variables.

IV. Exposure to pesticides

The average amount of time that respondents spent sitting on the grass on campus is 1.37 hours per week, with a standard deviation of 2.34.

Time spent sitting on the grass was not found to be a significant (5%) predictor of Support for a Pesticide-free Campus.

Respondents’ support for a pesticide-free campus and/or pollinator-friendly campus, grouped by level of knowledge about pesticide use (scale: 0-4)

None

i. Average support for a Pesticide-free campus is 2.3, with a standard deviation of 1.51

ii. Average support for Establishing Pollinator-friendly policies is 2.68, with a standard deviation of 1.49

A little

i. Average support for a Pesticide-free campus is 2.34, with a standard deviation of 1.41

ii. Average support for Establishing Pollinator-friendly policies is 2.79, with a standard deviation of 1.2

iii. Histograms:

Some

i. Average support for a Pesticide-free campus is 3.19, with a standard deviation of .96

ii. Average support for Establishing Pollinator-friendly policies is 3.11, with a standard deviation of 1.19

Quite a Bit

i. Average support for a Pesticide-free campus is 3.2, with a standard deviation of 0.94

ii. Average support for Establishing Pollinator-friendly policies is 3.33, with a standard deviation of .072

Complete

i. Average support for a Pesticide-free campus is 2.75, with a standard deviation of 1.26

ii. Average support for Establishing Pollinator-friendly policies is 3.25, with a standard deviation of 0.96

f. Histograms:

Support for a Pesticide-free Campus by Knowledge of Pesticide Use:

Support for Pollinator-friendly Policies by Knowledge of Pesticide Use:

V. Preference for organic vs. non-organic food

83.9% of respondents would prefer to eat organic food if price and access were not an issue.

Respondents’ support for establishing organic food policies, grouped by level of knowledge about organic vs. non-organic food consumption (scale: 0-4)

None

i. Average support is 2.02, with a standard deviation of 1.56

A Little

i. Average support is 2.37, with a standard deviation of 1.28

Some

i. Average support is 2.68, with a standard deviation of 1.18

Quite a Bit

i. Average support is 3.09, with a standard deviation of 1.07

Complete

i. Average support is 3.78, with a standard deviation of 0.83

C. Histogram:

Support for Organic Food Policies by Level of Knowledge about Organic vs. Non-Organic Food:

VI. Relative support for various campus concerns

A. In order from respondent’s greatest to least level of support, the issues are ranked as follows:

1) Anti-discrimination activities

2) Establishing pollinator-friendly policies

3) Crime prevention activities

4) Student success incentive programs

5) Budget/cost control endeavors

6) Establishing organic food policies

7) Establishing a pesticide-free campus

#campus survey #submission #tony p

Entry 2: Methodology

From the outset, we had a specific goal of avoiding any kind of bias, especially sample bias stemming from selective sampling of groups that are affiliated with sustainability or sustainability studies. This had been a major flaw in the methodology of previous surveys conducted on this subject (Reynolds, H. T., 2011). In addition, the phrasing of previous surveys was such that their clear intent was to garner support for eliminating pesticides from UNM campus. This was also an introduction of bias, and a violation of general survey principles (Reynolds, H. T., 2011).

Therefore, while we recognized that due to budgetary and time constraints we would be relegated to convenience sampling, we sought to avoid taking responses from any single campus location. In addition, we carefully avoided locations and times that would produce a higher probability of respondents who are involved in sustainability studies. As an added safety feature, the demographic questions were pre-determined in order to ensure that the respondents matched UNM demographics as closely as possible. We chose specific questions and responses that exactly matched demographic categories from the most recent iterations of the UNM Factbook and the UNM Enrollment Report. Thus, if respondents’ demographics were highly skewed away from overall demographics, we would have a legitimate basis for, and gauge by which to weight responses.

Aside from demographic information, the relevant questions were as follows (all Likert scale questions used the following scale: None, A little, Some, Quite a bit, Complete, N/A):

Approximately how many hours per week do you spend sitting on the grass on campus?

If price and access were not an issue, would you choose to eat conventionally grown or organic food?

How much knowledge do you have about the following campus issues (Likert scale):

Pesticide use

Organic vs. non-organic food consumption

To what extent would you support the following campus initiatives (Likert scale):

Budget/cost control endeavors

Student success incentive programs

Establishing a pesticide-free campus

Crime prevention activities

Anti-discrimination activities

Establishing:

Organic food policies

Pollinator-friendly policies (bees, butterflies, etc.)

In order to avoid response bias, we structured the survey in ways that obfuscated its true intent. We also discouraged straight line responses by varying the order of the questions. By ordering closely situated questions in such a way as to request information about differing subjects, respondents were encouraged to think more about their responses prior to answering questions. We also made a conscious effort to keep the survey relatively short, in an effort to avoid respondent fatigue.

For the administration of the survey, we relied on volunteers from our own and other sustainability classes. Due to time and human resource constraints, this was the most feasible method of gathering paper responses. However, in order to ensure that the surveys were conducted in a uniform fashion, we created a set of specific instructions for the volunteers. We also held a short training session for students in the SUST 134 class.

After the survey was completed, we created a spreadsheet with all of the relevant data, and utilized IBM SPSS software to analyze it. We ran descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and linear regressions on all relevant data.

LITERATURE CITED

Reynolds, H. T., Buttolph Johnson, J., & Mycoff, J. D. (2007). Political science research methods. (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

#campus survey #submission #tony p

Entry 1: Introduction

Chemical pesticide and herbicide use in areas of human and animal habitation and consumption have been known to contribute to various health problems. (Fareed, M. et al. 2013) Bees and other pollinators are facing dramatic declines in population worldwide in large part due to such pesticide use. (Gold, S. 2011)

However, the UNM Physical Plant Department (PPD) continues to utilize these chemicals on a regular basis, maintaining that “in any sustainable landscape, the effective and economical use of some form of chemical pesticides is usually required.” (Smith, R.G., 2014)

While we recognized that these issues are problematic, we had no idea whether the UNM community was widely aware of them. We also didn’t know what the general sentiment was among the UNM community, regarding pesticide use. In an effort to gather this information, we decided to conduct a large campus survey.

While previous surveys had been conducted about these issues, the methodology with which they were formulated and administered was unreliable in terms of providing unbiased and accurate data (Reynolds, H. T., 2011). Therefore, we resolved to construct and administer a survey according to generally accepted best practices (Pettit, R., 2010).

At the outset of its creation, we had developed several questions that the survey data was intended to answer. Among these were the following:

1) What is the general level of awareness regarding pesticide issues on campus?

2) Is there a correlation between sex and support for reform of pesticide policies?

3) Is there a correlation between exposure to pesticides and support for reform of pesticide policies?

4) Is there a correlation between knowledge about pesticides and support for reform of pesticide policies?

5) How do concerns about pesticides rank in comparison with concerns about various other issues?

From these questions, we developed four distinct hypotheses, all of which are specific to UNM Main Campus:

1) Women favor the elimination of pesticide use more than men.

2) Women favor establishing policies that encourage organic food consumption more than men.

3) People who spend a greater amount of time exposed to pesticides will show greater support for establishing a pesticide-free campus.

4) A person’s support for pesticide-free initiatives will have a positive correlation with their knowledge of pesticide issues.

We then spent several weeks administering the survey and collating the relevant data. After this time, we analyzed the data using statistical analysis software. We examined the relationships of variables that were specific to our hypotheses and came up with some interesting results. Most of our hypotheses were supported by the data, but one was not.

We then interpreted the results of the statistical analysis in lay terms and I will present that data in the “Results” section of this blog. I will then discuss the implications of the results, and make some recommendations for future endeavors related to establishing pesticide-free policies.

LITERATURE CITED

Fareed, M., Pathak, M. K., Bihari, V., Kamal, R., Srivastava, A. K., & Kesavachandran, C. (2013). Adverse respiratory health and hematological alterations among agricultural workers occupationally exposed to organophosphate pesticides: A cross-sectional study in north india. PLoS ONE, 8(7), 1-10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069755

Gold, S. (Performer) (2011). Brief: Un [Radio series episode]. Hamburg, Germany: dpa. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/detail?vid=14&sid=1b07398b-fde8-42f0-8e3a-62225943c5f4@sessionmgr4002&hid=4102&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ==

Reynolds, H. T., Buttolph Johnson, J., & Mycoff, J. D. (2007). Political science research methods. (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Smith, R. G. (Editor) (2014). The sustainable campus landscape [Web]. Retrieved from http://iss.unm.edu/ppd/webpdfs/smith-sustainablecampuslandscape.pdf

Pettit, R. (2010). The march toward quality. Journal of Advertising Research, 50(2), 120-124. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libproxy.unm.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1b07398b-fde8-42f0-8e3a-62225943c5f4@sessionmgr4002&vid=22&hid=4102

#campus survey #submission #tony p

Discussion, Survey Group, Jessie P

Looking at the results it is possible to unpack the data regarding the campus’s opinions on establishing pollinator-friendly policies and establishing a pesticide-free campus. An important result of our survey was the low knowledge base about pesticide use on campus. This indicates that there is a great need for information to be disseminated on this issue. One possibility is through a targeted awareness-raising campaign on campus. In order to have an in-depth and lively conversation about campus policy, a well-informed campus population is fundamental.

Another important outcome of our survey was the discovery of an apparent disconnect between support for eliminating the use of pesticides on campus and support for pollinator-friendly policies. This is a useful discovery in showing us how to effectively target information to raise awareness on campus. It demonstrates the need for clear information showing how these two topics are related. Assuming that this disconnect is common to policy makers, this may also be useful in designing presentations to departments and campus officials.

An interesting result from our survey was that sex is a predictor of support for pollinator-friendly policies. Specifically, women surveyed were more supportive than men. This again is useful information in that it shows demographic strengths and weaknesses relative to this issue. The strengths can potentially be built upon by targeting awareness messaging to women. It may be, too, that more investigation into this difference in needed in order to better understand it and find ways to increase support among men. One possibility is that with greater campus awareness through information dissemination may close this gap.

#unm #pollinators #pesticides #campus survey #sustainability #submission #jessie p

Results, Survey Group, Jessie P

With the empirical data gathered from this survey, we were able to demonstrate the general opinion of the campus population about the use of pesticides and their effects on pollinators. Our total survey count was 268. Establishing pollinator-friendly policies on campus ranked second out of seven community concerns. Establishing a pesticide-free campus was ranked the last out of our list of seven. This indicates that the campus population does not generally see a connection between pesticides and pollinators. 72.4% of those surveyed responded that they knew little or none about pesticide use on campus (see Figure 3).

Sex was found to be a significant predictor of support for establishing organic food policies and pollinator-friendly policies. Close to 100 of the women surveyed said they would give ‘complete’ or ‘quite a bit’ of support to establishing pollinator-friendly policies on campus. In comparison, less than 60 of the men reported ‘complete’ or ‘quite a bit’ of support for establishing pollinator-friendly policies (see Figure 4).

Time spent sitting on the grass was not found to be a significant (5%) predictor of support for a pesticide-free campus. This disproves our hypothesis that these measures would be positively correlated.

Figure 3. Level of Knowledge about Pesticide Use

Figure 4. Support of Establishing Pollinator-friendly Policies by Sex

#unm #pollinators #pesticides #campus survey #sustainability #submission #jessie p

Methods, Survey Group, Jessie P

We created a survey in order to gain insight into campus opinions on the use of pesticides and establishing pollinator-friendly policies. Because we didn’t want our respondents to be biased by a perceived goal of the survey, we included a diversity of question topics in no apparent order. By including a variety of questions, the intention was to protect against an easy discernment of the survey’s intended outcomes. This also helped safeguard against the interpersonal influence between the surveyor and the participant—who might be influenced to be agreeable to a perceived bias of the surveyor (Reynolds et al, 2011).

In order to achieve sample-population congruence, we aimed to administer surveys to as broad of a sample population as possible around campus. To this end we surveyed students and faculty at various areas on campus at different times and on different days. Our goal sample size was 500 which would give us a confidence interval of about +/-5.5% (Reynolds et al 2011). At a minimum we wanted to collect 300 surveys, putting our confidence interval at +/- 7% (Reynolds et al 2011). One important aspect of our method was to keep our survey relatively short. Its brevity made it easier to pitch to potential respondents who may not otherwise have time to engage in a lengthy interaction.

After collecting the surveys, we utilized statistical analysis software at UNM to analyze our results. We created charts and tables as visual representations of the data. Along with the software we relied on printing to be available on campus for the surveys. As a team we split up the task of printing. See table 1 for the expected timeline.

Literature Cited

Reynolds, H. T., Buttolph Johnson, J., & Mycoff, J. D. (2007). Political science research methods. (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

#unm #pollinators #pesticides #campus survey #sustainability #submission #jessie p

Introduction, Survey Group, Jessie P

Pesticide use has been linked with declining pollinator populations around the world (Kaplan, 5). Besides the intrinsic value of these creatures, including bees, butterflies and bats, they provide value to human systems by pollinating crops and landscape plants and by making honey. The economic value of pollinators to the world agricultural market is over $211 billion annually (Gallai et al). This is an issue of global concern that touches the spheres of ecology and economics. This global issue affects many places locally in a variety of ways. Here at the University of New Mexico, a nationally recognized arboretum with a vested interest in botanical diversity, synthetic pesticides that affect pollinators are regularly used.

Having a vital and healthy environment for the campus’s trees and other green life has important benefits in the energy conservation of building and walkway heating and cooling. The shade and transpiration of water vapor provided by trees cools adjacent buildings. Trees also slow down the wind reducing the infiltration of outside air into indoor spaces and heat loss (Smith). Yet in order to maintain these beneficial aspects of the landscape the Physical Plant Department (PPD) contends that chemical pesticide use is necessary (Smith).

Given health and safety concerns to pollinators and humans it is important to involve decision makers in whether to continue the present landscape management practices. In order to bolster support for our campaign for a pesticide-free campus, my group conducted a campus survey of attitudes about pesticides and pollinators. Previous surveys conducted were limited in scope and cannot be used effectively to make a case for determining the concerns of campus population. Our intention was to create and administer a more thorough and methodical survey to gauge campus attitudes.

LITERATURE CITED

Biron, C. L. (2013). U.S. links pesticides to honey bee deaths, but resists ban.IPS - Inter Press Service http://search.proquest.com/docview/1351993586?accountid=14613.

Gallai, N., et al. “Economic Valuation Of The Vulnerability Of World Agriculture Confronted With Pollinator Decline.” Ecological Economics 68.3 (2009): 810-821. Business Source Complete. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

Kaplan, J. Kim. “Colony Collapse Disorder.” Agricultural Research 60.6 (2012): 4-8. Business Source Complete. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

Reynolds, H. T., Buttolph Johnson, J., & Mycoff, J. D. (2007). Political science research methods. (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Smith, R. G. (Editor) (2014). The sustainable campus landscape [Web]. Retrieved from http://iss.unm.edu/ppd/webpdfs/smith-sustainablecampuslandscape.pdf

WATANABE, MYRNA E. “Pollinators At Risk.” Bioscience 64.1 (2014): 5-10.Environment Complete. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.

#unm #pollinators #pesticides #campus survey #sustainability #submission #jessie p

Part Four

Part Four- Discussion

Thanks to the 2014 University of New Mexico Growers Market event and the booth that was set up to house the petition, signatures skyrocketed and awareness of the pesticide issues on campus was increased. Perhaps the most important and interesting part of this project was how many people came to the booth to discuss possible alternatives and answers for the campus bureau towards this pesticide problem. The booth allowed for open dialogue about a problem that affects every person who walks on campus or lives in the city of Albuquerque. Some of the passerby that came to the booth were not aware of CDC or its devastating effects on bee populations globally, but upon arriving were given a brief description of the issues that bees are facing (vanEngelsdorp, Evans, Saegerman, Mullin & Haubruge, 2009). The booth was also a fun place to get people talking lightly about bees, where they could talk frankly and honestly about the role bees play in our ecosystem. Many people mentioned that they disliked bees and were afraid of them. This is a typical human response to what are identified as ‘dangerous’ entities in our environment (Mühlhans & Münstedt, 2013). This was good that they brought up these concerns because group members and students of the sustainability 434 class were able to explain why there is no reason to be afraid of bees, and additionally, that such a ban on pesticides would also be beneficial to butterflies, moths and other insects.

I personally enjoyed the chance to work with classmates to find creative solutions to a problem that we are all invested in solving. It was exciting seeing each person bring his or her own ideas to the big picture of our events project. The idea of making shirts was creative while the idea of bringing laptops on site was genius and certainly helped to increase our signature response. I think that the class did a good job of getting their work together on time for the Growers Market event where there was a large audience to draw in toward this cause. I thought there could have been more use of the ‘shock’ factor as far as drawing people in goes. It was clear that some people were tired of being approached for their signature and email, so I think if there is even a similar event it would be beneficial to find a way to set this type of petition apart from the others that are always circulating. Group morale was high and everything came together to make the event a success. External factors were at a minimum: the weather was agreeable, there were little or no internet connectivity issues and most people seemed eager to sign once they heard a bit about the cause. Even the bees buzzing in the trees above us seemed pleased with the results of the project.

It seems that the recipe for success in such an event is a balanced mix of creativity, organization, aesthetic appeal, location and clarity of information. Picking an appropriate audience is important which is why the market was such an interesting area to work on this project. People were mostly attending for the growers market, but many had also just come by for the entertainment and food. This mix meant that some people were eager to sign while others seemed annoyed that they were being approached.

The petition continues to gather names online as well as through paper signed petitions. The Growers Market served as platform for a variety of causes as it brought people together from different areas of campus. In a way the growers market was a strengthening event for the campus as a community because it connected people who normally may not have come across one another (Payet, Gilles & Howat, 2005). The cause of fighting for pollinators on campus is also of community importance and needs the community behind it to get any results.

Sources Cited:

Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study vanEngelsdorp D, Evans JD, Saegerman C, Mullin C, Haubruge E, et al. (2009) Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study. PLoS ONE 4(8): e6481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006481

Mühlhans , A., & Münstedt, K. (2013). Fears, phobias and disgust related to bees and other arthropods. Advanced Studies in Medical Sciences, 1(3), 125 - 142.

Payet, J., Gilles, M., & Howat, P. (2005). Gascoyne growers market: a sustainable health promotion activity developed in partnership with the community. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 13(5), 309-314. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2005.00722.x

#submission #bees #pollinators #unm #sustainability #pesticides #brystal b

Part Three

Results –

In the weeks leading up to the Earth day event, class members were already busy spreading the online petition through social media and word of mouth. Several hundred signatures had been acquired before the event on April 23rd. On the day of the event, several hundred additional signatures were added to the list of petitioning community members. Many people stopped by to discuss the matter of bees on campus and also to offer their own knowledge about the importance of bees to our community. Everything that needed to be done prior to the event was accomplished and the result led to added signatures toward petitioning pesticides on campus.

Group members followed the following time structure in order to get everything done on time:

PROCEDURES

MEETING #

NEEDS

ACTIVITIES

RESOURCES

(In class)

Assembly of all group members for discussion

Design information pamphlets

Journal articles, books, internet sites

(In class/after class)

Materials for booth, for information panels

Made information presentable for booth and in pamphlets

Use of materials gathered in previous meeting

(After class)

Planned for any unforeseen issues during the following weeks leading up to the Growers’ Market

Group members met and discussed any concerns or issues before proceeding with following activities

Reserved booth for growers market online with Jessica Rowland

(Outside of class)

Materials for actual booth (table, chairs, awning, cups, etc.)

Group set up a mock booth before in order to see what was missing or still needed to be added

Volunteers sought out to donate/lend materials for the booth

(Outside of class)

Top bar slides for demonstration at booth on Earth Day.

Organize laptops for online signatures

Group collaborated to get all the materials together for the day of the event

Bee keepers in connection to the SUST program at UNM or perhaps keepers found online or through group connections

(Outside of class at Market)

Group members worked the booth, refreshments and walked around getting signatures

Hosted the booth during the growers’ market and educated

passersby

Information panels created, information pamphlets, refreshments

See figures 1 – 4 for photos of the final product with this booth on Earth Day.

Figure One: a list of facts and foods that result from successful pollination

Figure Two: A list of all the pesticides use on University of New Mexico campus

Figure Three:Warnings and aditional information about the dangers of pesticides

#submission #bees #pollinators #unm #sustainability #pesticides #brystal b

Part Two

Methodology

It was decided that the best way to reach the desired audience to talk to about bees and their negative reactions to various pesticides would be a booth at the University of New Mexico growers market that took place on Earth Day. It has been widely observed that Growers’ Markets can have numerous positive effects on a community ranging from better health to increased solidarity (Payet, Gilles & Howat, 2005). This booth served as a main location for group members to orbit around while asking for additional signatures from passersby. The booth had a variety of information available to passerby on the various pesticides used on campus as well as information on Colony Collapse Disorder (CDC) and presented a depleted vision of what food choices will be available in a world without pollinators. Additionally, top bars were on display from a top bar hive in order to give visitors to the booth a chance to see inside a bee hive and familiarize themselves with the life of a bee which ultimately should also help with reducing their fear toward honeybees on campus. A significant part of the display and information on bees was important for helping to reduce the fear that people feel toward bees. “However, with regard to our finding that knowledge is inversely correlated with disgust, we believe that improving knowledge about arthropods and their ecological importance could be another approach to reducing anxiety and disgust”(Mühlhans & Münstedt, 2013). An important technique used against this fear was approachability of the booth itself. Bright colors were used as well as very friendly looking bee posters with an inviting staple of foods indicating what foods rely on bees for their survival.

Research at a London University campus showed that a majority of students do not realize the potential benefits from urging their campuses to go green and ban pesticide use (Dahle & Neumayer, 2000). This is typically because those students do not realize the negative effects of pesticide use around them and have not been made aware of the consequences of less and less pollinators in our environment. This is why making a colorful and attractive booth was the idea for attracting outsiders in, in order to get them to sign the petition against campus pesticide use. Additionally, it was important to give signers a brief history and explanation about the entire pesticide use situation and to tell them the possibilities for active students to get involved. Sustainability classes on Cornell campus have shown that the cultivation of bees and other sustainable practices are feasible on university campuses and are proof that the same practices can be easily employed on our campus here in Albuquerque (Bassuk & Trowbridge, 2010). Clearly there is a need for bee education on campus at University of New Mexico, and this is why the events group chose to present a visual and pleasing experience of education on honeybees and pollinators during Earth Day.

Bassuk, N., & Trowbridge, P. (2010). Creating the urban eden: Sustainable landscape establishment in theory and practice. Sustainability and Hortocultural Education, 20(3), 485-486.

Dahle, M., & Neumayer, E. (2000). Overcoming barriers to campus greening: A survey among higher educational institutions in london, uk. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 2(2), 139-160. doi: 10.1108/14676370110388363

Mühlhans , A., & Münstedt, K. (2013). Fears, phobias and disgust related to bees and other arthropods . Advanced Studies in Medical Sciences,, 1(3), 125 - 142 .

#submission #bees #pollinators #unm #sustainability #pesticides #brystal b

Lobos Love Bees: Discussion

The amount of enthusiasm and willingness to engage shown by community members at both the Sustainability Expo and La Posada events put on by our group demonstrated that our hypothesis was correct: the UNM community is educated and cares about pollinators and pesticides, and more education isn’t necessarily needed. Offering a petition to people mobilized existing energy and allowed us to mobilize the community around these issues.

People were appreciative of having options so that more people could sign the petition on their own terms- we collected many signatures on both the online and paper iterations of the petition. The electronic version seemed to appeal to tech-savvy people in a hurry, and allowed them to quickly sign. The paper petition appealed to people who were wary of putting their personal information online, to less tech-savvy people, and to families. Even some children signed the petition, and having the paper version was important in offering these people to participate.

The Sustainability Expo, which intentionally coincided with Earth Day, offered an ideal audience for our campaign. The Expo attracted a large amount of people to the area, who were enthusiastic about sustainability and interested in participatory actions. This environment was highly conducive to speaking and engaging with people about our project, and having a booth at the Expo was a successful means to achieve our goals.

The event at La Posada was also highly successful. Because the staff provided special parfaits for the night, all our group had to do was decorate, post signage, provide paper petitions and pens, and stay nearby to answer any questions about the project. Because La Posada regularly offers special menu items, cafeteria patrons were already used to the idea, and didn’t have to be convinced to take advantage of the offer. Placing the signs and petitions near where people waited in line was effective because it allowed people to read and sign them at their leisure, allowing for a more open interaction than if we had been approaching people in the cafeteria with the petition.

Ultimately, we were successful in our first goal, which was to engage with the campus community and activate existing energy to support pollinators and a more sustainable campus. We were able to collect many signatures, thereby allowing community members to take a concrete action. Even if we stopped working on the project now, we would have succeeded in bringing people together around an important issue, and in engaging people in way that didn’t exist before. Although many people were already aware about the issues surrounding pollinators and pesticides, they didn’t necessarily feel like they had a voice or community to participate in around these issues. Energy existed, but was isolated to individual people because of the lack of collective action. Through our project, we offered our community not only a way to participate and have their voice be heard, but also illuminated the existing passion that people had but didn’t necessarily know they shared with others. In this way, we created a stronger sense of community and empowered people to participate in creating change.

Our next step is to ensure that our voices are heard by delivering the petition to relevant stakeholders. As identified on our petition, these stakeholders include President Robert Frank, the Board of Regents, the Physical Plant Department, and the Office of Sustainability, and our petitioning of these stakeholders has strong precedents in their official missions and goals (Lobos Love Bees 2014).

We will discuss how best to present our petition and research to these stakeholders with other groups, but ultimately, the goal is that our petition will reach those in power at UNM.

Literature Cited

Lobos Love Bees (Kate Alaya, Ian Kerstetter, Amy Seibert, and Taylor Small). 2014. Make UNM a pollinator-friendly, pesticide-free campus. Petition on Change.org. https://www.change.org/petitions/the-university-of-new-mexico-make-unm-a-pollinator-friendly-pesticide-free-campus

#petition #sustainability expo #submission #ian k #bees #pollinators #unm #sustainability #pesticides

Lobos Love Bees: Discussion

The event booth at the Earth Day Sustainability Expo went better then we could have ever planned. We were able to teach students, staff, and visitors at UNM about the risks of pesticides and their use on campus. We were able to meet with our peers and educate them as well as be educated by them as well; it was a great event of shared knowledge. The experience was an eye-opening event to the community at UNM and I think it was very successful at addressing the goals of our project; educating and receiving signatures for the Lobos Love Bees petition to ride the UNM campus of pesticides. It was a good experience to put the methods we chose (Creswell, 2013, Dahl, 2003) in effect at the booth to test their success. We discovered that shock imagery was very successful as it drew in a lot of people to our booth. The image of the marketplace with honey bee-dependent crops and another image of the same marketplace, but without the crops we rely on honeybees for (see Fig 1) was a great conversation started across all demographics. The image was quick and simple and drove home the important point that honeybees are important for our environment, which was a great way of persuading people to sign the petition. Another great image we used was the image of the honeybee with the caption” if we die, we’re taking you with us” (see Fig 2). This image helped bring in a variety of audiences. The people I talked to that were interested in this image didn’t really know what it meant; they just thought it was cute. Once I gave a quick explanation of what the image was trying to get across, that bees are at a great risk and we are dependent on them for many of our food crops, they immediately became interested, wanted to learn more, and were excited to sign the petition to rid the UNM campus of pesticides, a large factor against bee populations. These images and our banners and signage were a great drawing point to our audience and really helped captivate them. It was great to see everyone’s reactions to the signage and then be able to talk with them.

Our booth was successful because it was an important step in getting rid of pesticides on campus. Although the ultimate goal is to rid the campus of pesticides and make it as pollinator friendly as possible, our event helped give this idea a foot in the door as it provided the petition with 297signatures. Our event also brought awareness to the issue of pesticides on campus and began the conversation about getting rid of them, which is an important step create support for the cause. Hopefully the people we talked to will now stay active with the cause and support it through all of it’s instances; as the petition makes it to the plant department, as the Plant Department and Sustainability Program work together to create different forms of keeping plants healthy and weeds out of the landscape, and as the pollinators enter the campus to live harmoniously at UNM.

As the pesticide-free campus movement begins at UNM it is important to create as much support as possible. This means educating the population at UNM by talking about it with friends and family, as well as constantly educating ourselves. Staying up to date on studies on the effects of pesticides is an important way of keeping ourselves aware of our surroundings and therefore more aware of environment and ways of protecting it. This event at the Earth Day Sustainability Expo is just the beginning down the road towards a pesticide-free campus that is pollinator friendly. But once this goal is reached, UNM will enter into the ranks of the few great schools that have gone pesticide free (Abercrombie, 2005) and be a leader in the world of sustainability. Hopefully this event will serve as an example for future events towards this or any other great sustainability cause.

Fig 1. Image used at the event booth at the Earth Day Sustainability Expo an April 22nd, 2014. The image shows a grocery store with crops provided by pollination by honeybees and shows the same grocery store without these crops.

Fig 2. Image used at the event booth at the Earth Day Sustainability Expo on April 22nd, 2014. The image shows a honeybee with a truth-revealing caption: “If we die, we’re taking you with us.”

Abercrombie, S. (2005). Pesticide-Free Campuses. Environmental Practice, 7(01), 10-12.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.

Dahl, Darren W., Kristina D. Frankenberger, and R. V. Manchandra. (2003). “Does it pay to shock? Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university students.” JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH-NEW YORK-43.3 (2003): 268-280.

#sustainability expo #submission #shileen b #bees #pollinators #unm #sustainability #pesticides

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Lobos Love Bees!