Burger Joanna
Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) and, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Division of Life Sciences, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8082, USA.
Environ Manage. 2002 Nov;30(5):631-40. doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2664-0.
In recent years there has been considerable interest in the health of humans and the environment, restoration of contaminated or otherwise degraded lands, and in long-term stewardship of public lands. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether governmental agencies and the public hold similar views about the meanings of these concepts, making policy decisions about restoration and stewardship difficult. In this paper, I explore how the public conceptualizes restoration and stewardship by examining the relative rating of several attributes of restoration, stewardship, environmental health, ecological health, environmental restoration, and ecological restoration. People were interviewed in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, near the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory. The ratings of attributes of environmental health and ecological health reported in this paper can be used to understand how the public understands these concepts. The attributes rated most highly by the subjects were more similar to definitions in the scientific literature for these terms than they were to those used by the Department of Energy. For environmental health, the highest rating related to human sanitation, while for ecological health the highest rating was for maintaining functioning ecosystems. Reduction of exposure to hazardous substances was rated the second highest for both environmental and ecological health. The wise use of natural resources, preservation of natural resources, and hazardous waste site cleanup were rated the highest attributes of stewardship. These data suggest that both expert and nonexpert perceptions about restoration and stewardship should be incorporated into environmental management decisions.
近年来,人们对人类健康与环境、污染土地或其他退化土地的修复以及公共土地的长期管理产生了浓厚兴趣。不幸的是,尚不清楚政府机构和公众对于这些概念的含义是否持有相似观点,这使得关于修复和管理的政策决策变得困难。在本文中,我通过考察修复、管理、环境健康、生态健康、环境修复和生态修复的若干属性的相对评级,来探究公众如何对修复和管理进行概念化。在美国新墨西哥州圣达菲市能源部洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室附近对人们进行了访谈。本文所报告的环境健康和生态健康属性的评级可用于了解公众如何理解这些概念。受试者评级最高的属性与这些术语在科学文献中的定义相比,比与能源部所使用的定义更为相似。对于环境健康,最高评级与人类卫生设施相关,而对于生态健康,最高评级是维持生态系统功能。减少接触有害物质在环境健康和生态健康方面均被评为第二高。明智地利用自然资源、保护自然资源以及清理危险废物场地被评为管理的最高属性。这些数据表明,专家和非专家对于修复和管理的认知都应纳入环境管理决策之中。