Image 1: Innovation Food Forest (Office of Sustainability, 2022a)
The topic of my interaction is rainwater runoff in Innovation Food Forest (IFF). Human altered landscapes, such as impervious surfaces and disturbed wetlands, increase rainwater runoff. This has negative effects on the environment such as erosion, sedimentation, increased pollution, and increased temperature of waterways (Ndulue et al., 2015). Because of where the Fairfax campus is situated, rainwater runoff is a major issue for George Mason University and there are many programs in place to manage stormwater (Facilities, 2022). Runoff continues to be an issue at IFF. Currently, the pathways of IFF are gravel. Gravel is permeable, so the issue is not impervious surfaces in this case. The problem with the gravel is that it is easily washed into piles during heavy rain. This is not aesthetically pleasing, creates a tripping hazard, and reduces the benefits of the gravel since when stream paths are created by runoff, the gravel is not as effective at slowing water. The Office of Sustainability manages IFF and must reposition the gravel by hand after heavy rainstorms (Office of Sustainability, 2018). A solution would be to install permeable pavers (Liu et al., 2020). In fact, permeable pavers were in the original plan for IFF which states that “it will be necessary to replace the crushed stone paths with a more permanent and effective solution. The most effective solution would be permeable pavers, which would eliminate erosion of the crushed stone, allow for stormwater infiltration, and handle the pedestrian traffic” (Innovation Food Forest Management Plan, 2016). The Office of Sustainability manages IFF, however installing permeable pavers also falls under Facilities. Cultural factors and economic development play a role. Permeable pavers are expensive and laborious to install. The university prides itself on keeping campuses and landscapes clean and pristine (Office of Sustainability, 2022b). Although permeable pavers are not an easy solution, they would solve the issue of gravel being washed away while keeping the benefit of permeability. The university is aware of the issue, and of runoff issues on campus in general and may be using other methods to reduce runoff, such as the large dry stream installed on the hill adjacent to IFF.
Ndulue, E. L., Mbajiorgu, C. C., Ugwu, S. N., Ogwo, V., & Ogbu, K. N. (2015). Assessment of land use/cover impacts on runoff and sediment yield using hydrologic models: A review. Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment, 7(2), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.5897/JENE2014.0482
My Mapping Mason project focuses on trash that is scattered from some of the bins around campus, specifically the one located outside the Johnson Center facing David King Hall. What makes this bin a problem is that it has no lid, so winds and animals are able to rip garbage right out and scatter it. This litter may have plastics, inks, or other materials that leach out over time.
Resource Characteristics
The environmental factors involved include the local weather patterns, because when and how fast the wind blows will change the amount of trash scattered; animal behavior, because scavengers will scatter the trash themselves, consume it, and become ill;[1] and the local soil and water quality, which may be degraded by some of the chemicals released. While plastics may take a long time to leach into the environment, the ink on product packaging[2] and heavy metals from e-waste[3] are common pollutants that leach faster. The Johnson Center has many stores inside with colorful product packaging, as well as an electronics store.
The human side of the interaction includes anyone who throws trash in the bin, the employees who empty the bins, and anyone who helps clean the litter. There are no political institutions, but the university as an institution is responsible for campus cleanliness, custodian hiring, and replacing trash bins. They are driven in this situation to provide bins for student well-being, but this is undermined by the open top that allows garbage to escape. Those cleaning the mess may also be motivated by a desire to help the environment.
Social Context
Our views on disposable goods play a role, as well as our access to reusable ones. Food packaging is the majority of garbage I see scattered, probably due to the fact that many dorm residents don’t have access to kitchens, or they are too tired from class to bother cooking. Commuter students are too far from home to cook, so if they are hungry on campus then buying food from a store is their only option. In the JC, many stores are stocked with grab-and-go meals for busy academic life, and this is reflected in the single-use packaging rather than trays or dishware.
What Can We Do?
The easiest solution is to add a lid to the tops of any open trash bins on campus. This would include the ones I pass daily in the A lot that are frequently surrounded by garbage. The better solution, however unfeasible at this point in time, is to fade out our use of disposable goods. That way we would need fewer trash bins overall, leaving fewer chances for garbage to escape into the ecosystem.
University Actions
GMU has employees changing out the bags and cleaning larger litter clumps. Students may even clean litter independently while walking by. However, there is always some left behind, and more is scattered almost every day. Fortunately, many trash cans are already lidded or indoors, making them less of an issue.
References
Blanchard, D. (1997). Ecology and the environment and how they will affect the ink industry. Surface coatings international, 80(10), 476-478.
Katlam, G., Prasad, S., Aggarwal, M., & Kumar, R. (2018). Trash on the menu: patterns of animal visitation and foraging behaviour at garbage dumps. Current Science, 115(12), 2322–2326. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26978598
Xu, X., Zeng, X., Boezen, H.M. et al. E-waste environmental contamination and harm to public health in China. Front. Med.9, 220–228 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-015-0391-1
Innovation Food Forest has a fair share of interactions with the surrounding environment and the people who utilize it. One of which is what it was designed for: restore the natural cycles, biodiversity, and habitat of a forest by capturing and using energy, water, as well as other resources while providing sustainable perennial food sources for people and wildlife (Innovation Food Forest – Office of Sustainability, n.d.).
Resource Characteristics:
Food forests have quite the impact on the surrounding environment – in a positive sense. Food forests essentially emulate young forests while having the plants present be edible, this helps contribute to reforestation (Food Forests to Feed the Future, 2021).
Governance/User Characteristics:
Volunteers run the food forest and keep up with the maintenance. The Office of Sustainability also hires staff to aid in managing it (Innovation Food Forest – Office of Sustainability, n.d.). For political institutions, the only one’s present would be those overseeing any potential expansions to the Food Forest, which would be through the Mason Green Fund and the Office of Sustainability.
Related Ecosystems:
Economically, the Innovation Food Forest shows development, it adds income to the economy by allowing those who work there to participate economically. It also allows people to save on money by providing some food to the community. Food forests also have a social and cultural setting for those that participate. Since the edible plants are easily accessible to people, it reconnects healthier eating habits as well as developing a neighboring community (Riolo, 2019).
Improvements:
The most massive improvement to an already great initiative would be to expand the food forest. Currently, it’s not listed as to how large the food forest actually is. However, there has been a study that showed that one hectare (~2.47 acres) can supply carbohydrates, fats, and a small amount of protein (Nytofte & Henriksen, 2019). Another improvement would be to add more native flora to the Food Forest. Of the 24 species listed on the plant inventory page, approximately eight of them are native to Virginia (Innovation Food Forest – Office of Sustainability, n.d., Native Plants for Conservation, Restoration and Landscaping, n.d.).
Nytofte, J. L. S., & Henriksen, C. B. (2019). Sustainable food production in a temperate climate – a case study analysis of the nutritional yield in a peri-urban food forest. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 45, 126326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.04.009
Riolo, F. (2019). The social and environmental value of public urban food forests: The case study of the Picasso Food Forest in Parma, Italy. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 45, 126225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.10.002
The human-environment interaction I chose is bird-building collisions due to glass windows. Glass windows are all around campus and specifically prevalent on the new Horizon Hall. These windows reflect the sky and surrounding area making them almost invisible to birds. Currently it is estimated that 100 million to 1 billion birds are killed annually due to collisions with windows (Loss et al., 2014). With a great deal of bird presence on campus, due to the high availability of food, this poses a major threat.
Resource Characteristics
As glass windows reflect the environment it makes it difficult for birds to know that there is a wall blocking their path of flight. Mortality rates increase even more when the percentage and surface area of the building covered in glass increases, the presence of vegetation increases, and larger amounts of light are emitted through the windows specifically at night (Loss et al., 2014). Birds will also occasionally see their own reflections in the window and attack causing their deaths (Powell, 2022). With the high percentage of windows covering Horizon hall, specifically on the lower level, it presents a high danger to local birds colliding with the windows.
Governance Characteristics
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, which is overseen by The Fish and Wildlife Service, set out to ensure the safety of all protected migratory bird species (Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 2020). It protects these species against killing, capturing, trading, and transport, but does not include one of the most major anthropogenic causes of bird death bird-building collisions (Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 2020). There is currently ongoing research and recommendations for a reevaluation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to include precautions to reduce avian mortality and increase the number of new buildings constructed with bird-friendly glass (KLEM et al., 2004). The Audubon society also does a great job in educating the public on how people at home can prevent these collisions in their homes and advocates for further governmental action to take place.
Social Context
I think the main issue for this topic is that the public does not realize that this issue is as prevalent as it is. With the new idea of “green” buildings many of the designs include open spaces with lots of glass windows and greenery outside. Even though these designs are visually appealing and more sustainable than other buildings, without proper precaution they can lead to increased local bird death. Bird-safe glass is also 5% more expensive than standard glass. While it is not that much more expensive, when ordering a large quantity of glass for buildings on campus the price can add up quickly and deter companies from implementing bird-safe options.
What can we do?
The best thing we could do is change all of the windows on campus to bird-friendly glass. Bird-friendly glass is designed with almost unnoticeable patterns or designs etched into the glass itself (How bird safe glass can save millions of birds, 2022). This is done by the “2 by 4” rule. There cannot be 2 inches or less of horizontal space or four inches or less of vertical space left untreated (How bird safe glass can save millions of birds, 2022). This would be the most ideal situation, but we can also encourage staff to not put plants close to windows, putting up blinds, installing screens on windows, or putting up patterns onto campus windows.
University Actions
I could not find any sources that say Mason is actively pursuing any specific actions to prevent bird-building collisions. At the Mason-Smithsonian campus they do utilize bird-friendly glass options in their resident building and their academic building. It would most likely cost the university a lot of money to switch to bird-friendly windows, so I don’t see them changing all the windows in the near future. They could, however, take smaller steps to prevent bird-building collisions encouraging staff to not put plants close to windows, putting up blinds, installing screens on windows, or putting up pattern onto campus windows.
KLEM, D., KECK, C., MARTY, K, MILLER BALL, A, NICIU, E, PLATT, C. (2004). Effects of window angling, feeder placement, and scavengers on avian mortality at Plate Glass. The Wilson Bulletin, 116(1), 69–73. https://doi.org/10.1676/0043-5643(2004)116[0069:eowafp]2.0.co;2
Loss, S. R., Will, T., Loss, S. S., & Marra, P. P. (2014). Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor, 116(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1650/condor-13-090.1
Image 1: Innovation Food Forest (Office of Sustainability, 2022a)
The topic of my interaction is rainwater runoff in Innovation Food Forest (IFF). Human altered landscapes, such as impervious surfaces and disturbed wetlands, increase rainwater runoff. This has negative effects on the environment such as erosion, sedimentation, increased pollution, and increased temperature of waterways (Ndulue et al., 2015). Because of where the Fairfax campus is situated, rainwater runoff is a major issue for George Mason University and there are many programs in place to manage stormwater (Facilities, 2022). Runoff continues to be an issue at IFF. Currently, the pathways of IFF are gravel. Gravel is permeable, so the issue is not impervious surfaces in this case. The problem with the gravel is that it is easily washed into piles during heavy rain. This is not aesthetically pleasing, creates a tripping hazard, and reduces the benefits of the gravel since when stream paths are created by runoff, the gravel is not as effective at slowing water. The Office of Sustainability manages IFF and must reposition the gravel by hand after heavy rainstorms (Office of Sustainability, 2018). A solution would be to install permeable pavers (Liu et al., 2020). In fact, permeable pavers were in the original plan for IFF which states that “it will be necessary to replace the crushed stone paths with a more permanent and effective solution. The most effective solution would be permeable pavers, which would eliminate erosion of the crushed stone, allow for stormwater infiltration, and handle the pedestrian traffic” (Innovation Food Forest Management Plan, 2016). The Office of Sustainability manages IFF, however installing permeable pavers also falls under Facilities. Cultural factors and economic development play a role. Permeable pavers are expensive and laborious to install. The university prides itself on keeping campuses and landscapes clean and pristine (Office of Sustainability, 2022b). Although permeable pavers are not an easy solution, they would solve the issue of gravel being washed away while keeping the benefit of permeability. The university is aware of the issue, and of runoff issues on campus in general and may be using other methods to reduce runoff, such as the large dry stream installed on the hill adjacent to IFF.
Liu, W., Feng, Q., Chen, W., & Deo, R. C. (2020). Stormwater runoff and pollution retention performances of permeable pavements and the effects of structural factors. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 27(24), 30831–30843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09220-2.
Ndulue, E. L., Mbajiorgu, C. C., Ugwu, S. N., Ogwo, V., & Ogbu, K. N. (2015). Assessment of land use/cover impacts on runoff and sediment yield using hydrologic models: A review. Journal of Ecology and The Natural Environment, 7(2), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.5897/JENE2014.0482
Locate it on a map – Mark the location of your “interaction” on the attached map with a red X and take a photo of it. Also include this photo with your submission on Blackboard so we will know where to place your addition on the campus map. (Please only select locations on Mason’s Fairfax campus—preferably that are easily walkable from our classroom.) (0.5 points)
Location of the Human-Environment interaction
Interactions – Describe the human-environment interaction(s) that are the topic of your map addition. (2 points).
Students at George Mason University have probably seen or passed the Mason Pond many times near the Center for Performing Arts concert Hall. Some students might even have picnics or just want to hang out by the mason pond and in sitting on the grass or just walking around the pond during nice spring, summer, or fall weather. The pond also has a lot of geese and ducks that like to come swim or walk along the grass.
Resource Characteristics – Describe the characteristics of the resource systems and/or units, e.g. the environmental side of the interaction. What aspect of the environment is involved? How? What are some of the critical ecological factors? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points).
On the Mason Sustainability Website, the map of GMU shows that the Mason Pond is made out of stormwater. When you click on the stormwater icon on the digital map it says “Mason Pond is a wet pond built in 1989. It is a major stormwater feature on Mason campus. It treats one third of the total Fairfax campus area with drainage area of approximately 163 acres. Additionally, Mason Pond is a working lab for stormwater research through the National Stormwater Monitoring Project and is regularly measured for its chemistry as part of this research as well a for compliance reasons (ArcGIS Web Application).” The mason pond helps make the environment good to enjoy and also know that the sustainability office is doing research at the pond. At GMU the Office of Sustainability tries their best at trying to protect and conserve our water on campus. “Mason manages its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit with approval from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Mason submitted two Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Action Plans so far that demonstrated how Mason intended to meet three milestones: a 5% reduction in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended solids by 2018, an additional 35% by 2023, and the final 60% by 2023.” (Water).
Governance/User Characteristics – Describe the characteristics of the governance systems and/or users, e.g. the human side of the interaction. Who is involved? What political institutions? How are they involved? What might be some of the drivers? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points).
I believe that the university and the office of sustainability are in charge of the pond. I am sure that also people who work with the campus landscaping also have something to do to be involved with the mason pond. “Stormwater management is an integral component of the design, construction, maintenance, and management of Mason’s facilities and campuses. The stormwater management program at Mason minimizes the impacts of runoff by providing water quantity and quality control associated with land disturbance such as flooding, erosion, and water pollution. Additionally, as construction activities take place, the university incorporates measures that protect and improve natural areas during and after construction. Within its buildings, Mason uses faucet aerators, motion sensors, and waterless urinals. On the Fairfax campus, our irrigation system has sensors that register when there is rainfall; thus water less if at all, while at the Science and Technology campus, the irrigation system evaluates local weather data. Additionally, the campus strives to create more vegetated regions, such as our green roof, vegetated gardens and swales. We also aim to increase pervious areas, and design additional dry and wet retention ponds to reduce stormwater runoff and pollution in our waterways.” (Water).
Social/cultural/economic/political settings or related ecosystems – Do any of the following play a role? [Social context] Cultural factors, economic development, demographic trends, political stability, resource policies, market incentives, media organization; [Related ecosystems] Climate patterns, pollution patterns, ecological flows in/out of the SES. (2 points).
There are other places on campus that collect stormwater. By looking at that virtual map above there are a few other places on campus that collect stormwater just like the pond does. You see iconic photos of campus with the pond in front which helps get students to come here because it is a pretty environment to be in and just relax with friends or by yourself. I see people all the time having picnics and just hanging out on the field around the pond.
What can we do? – What are the implications of this interaction on humans and the environment? How could we do differently at Mason to improve them? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points).
I think we got to keep doing stormwater management like what the website said. I don’t know when the website was updated last but I believe it’s still true and a way to take care of the environment and to enjoy the scenery around us on campus.
If relevant – Is the university acting on this issue? State any actions that are already underway or have been taken by the university. (1 point).
I believe that the office of sustainability is still acting on the water management on our campus. Being environmentally friendly and sustainable are very important things for the office of sustainability.
The human-environment interactions taking place at this spot-on campus is the future impact of the dormitory construction project in the future and the pollution this will cause on mason creek and mason pond. This will and has taken place through runoff of soil as well as construction pollution.
Resource Characteristics:
The units in my system include the stream, Mason Pond, the construction site, and the bank of the stream. The critical ecological factor at play here is water quality. Specifically physical and chemical stream and pond characteristics. This could potentially cause high turbidity and low dissolved oxygen levels. In addition to the potential for hazardous chemicals to runoff into these water systems (US EPA, 2020).
Governance/ User Characteristics
There is a lot of governmental and bureaucratic pressure on the human side of this issue. Specifically, from George Mason itself. GMU is the fastest growing university in Virginia, and enrolled 6,864 students in Fall 2021, a very big step up (Cristodero, 2021). This puts the university on track to surpass 50,000 students in the next decade. Being the largest university in Virginia will necessitate large amounts of undergraduate housing. This is where the dormitory construction project comes in. Without these new dorms, GMU cannot continue its growth path like it wants to. This pressure means that new dorms will be built in the coming years.
Social/ Cultural/ Economic/ Political settings or related ecosystems
Cultural factors on this issue include the societal urge of the institution and its members to grow, as we have become known for our rapid growth. This ties in hand in hand with economic development of the institution. As the university grows, the more students they have, the more tuition they receive, and profits from such. A demographic trend of GMU student body growth would be an increased diversity of George Mason. There specific resource policies the university will need to institute for this construction, including water resource management policies. Climate systems play a large role in this development. For example, during particularly rainy seasons, such as spring, will yield far worse runoff of pollution than a drier season. This ties hand in hand with pollution patterns, these patterns are typically synonymous with weather patterns. There are a few flows in and out of the Social Ecological System. These include the construction workers, their impacts on the environment, the stock of the water quality, and the stock of the pollution in the area.
What can we do?
The implications on the environment are that there may be large pollution and water quality impacts on mason stream and mason pond. The impacts on humans are almost strictly positive as it creates living spaces for new students and can foster lifelong relationships, which can be a huge boost to society and mental health. This project is not a bad idea by any means, however certain things should be done to prevent these potential issues. These could include the pollution filter barriers in addition to nets in mason stream that are regularly cleared. This should be bolstered by water quality checks at a minimum of once a week (Construction, 2019).
If relevant
The university is not currently acting on this issue, although I suspect they may have ideas about this issue in the future. No actions have been taken, although some may be in the works.
The interaction I’ve chosen is at Mason pond, located between lot K and the arts building on this map.
Interaction
The interaction I’ve chosen to focus on at this location is run off. There are multiple small streams on campus and areas of lower land which lead to mason pond. When it rains all oil from cars, waste, and pollutants from landscaping end up in mason pond.
Resource Characteristics
This is less of a resource since it is a retention pond, but it is a freshwater pond with life in it nonetheless. There are primary streams which lead into the mason pond and it is very shallow. These streams carry fresh water from higher ground on campus to the pond. The pond also hosts freshwater submerged aquatic vegetation, small species of fish (like sunfish), and birds (like geese). The main aspects of the environment involved here are aquatic life and the water cycle.
Governance/User Characteristics
Because the mason pond serves as a retention pond, it is unlikely there is any governance over the pond. The streams that lead into It, however, are more likely to be governed by a body like the EPA. It is not clear if these streams are manmade, natural, or a combination of the two so it is not clear if they are governed. The university is certainly involved in the upkeep of this resource, but it is not clear how they are involved beyond landscaping. However, the users do have a large impact on the water that leads to mason pond. The way students and staff treat the surrounding area has a direct impact on the water quality within the pond and the ecosystem within it. Some driving forces of influence here would be automobile use and the pollution that comes with it and nitrogen/phosphorous presence from landscaping around campus.
Social/cultural/economic/political settings or related ecosystems
Of these potential influences, cultural, social, and related ecosystems are most likely affecting mason pond. The cultural and social side of it is seen in the way students and staff members treat the pond and surrounding environment. Socially, it is relevant as a place to gather and run events. As far as related ecosystems go, the surrounding environment directly affects the health of the ecosystem within the pond. Climate patterns also, more directly, affect the pond itself as it is, again, a retention pond. The pond certainly follows the ecological flow of the surrounding environment. How many species and individuals of each species are influencing the pond reflect fluctuations in the surrounding environment.
What Can we Do?
This small ecosystem reflects the ways all similar ecosystems are treated within the Northern Virginia and DC metropolitan area. To influence the environment positively humans need to be more careful about what permanent waste products and chemicals are released into the environment and how they influence the environment. Action can be taken to aid in the environment’s recovery. For example, the planting of SAV beds is appropriate and helpful in some areas and reduction of pollution is appropriate in any instance.
3) Photo—Take a photo of the campus “human-environment” interaction that you are describing. For example, if it is a soda machine, take a photo of the soda machine. Include the photo in your Blackboard submission. (0.5 points)
I did not take this photo, but I needed a view of the whole area for my point in this paper. This is where Robinson Hall was previously located, next to Horizon Hall.
4) Locate it on a map.—Mark the location of your “interaction” on the attached map with a red X and take a photo of it. Also include this photo with your submission on Blackboard so we will know where to place your addition on the campus map. (Please only select locations on Mason’s Fairfax campus—preferably that are easily walkable from our classroom.) (0.5 points)
5) Interaction(s)—Describe the human-environment interaction(s) that are the topic of your map addition. (2 points)
In a suburban setting, such as Fairfax, there are many barriers separating areas of wildlife habitat from one another. These include roads, buildings, fields (such as sports fields on GMU’s campus), parking lots, etc. In Fairfax County, and on George Mason campus, the wildlife most likely to feel the effects of common barriers such as roadways would be those that spend most of their time in trees. Roads and buildings make it so that fewer, if any, tree branches overlap in these areas, making fewer paths for animals like squirrels to get around.
For this paper, I have chosen the previous location of Robinson Hall as the focus of habitat fragmentation on gmu’s campus. As can be seen in the image above, this space is currently comprised of a mixture of grass/green spaces and paved spaces. This is a good example of gmu’s habitat fragmentation because this land could have been, and likely once was, forested land inhabited by local wildlife. Now, the land is being used for student recreation, and there is little plant material here. Nearby, there are large trees and areas where wildlife likely lives. This makes the Robinson Hall area a place of fragmentation by separating the forested land from other potential areas of habitat.
6) Resource characteristics—Describe the characteristics of the resource systems and/or units, e.g. the environmental side of the interaction. What aspect of the environment is involved? How? What are some of the critical ecological factors? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points)
“These disruptions occur in local regions, but their effect 14 is on a global scale, resulting in loss of habitat, fragmentation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change (Balmford et al. 2003, Lindenmayer & Fischer, 2006)” (Fabien 2016). Habitat fragmentation can cause a variety of negative effects for the environment. Loss of forested land promotes erosion and increases pollution into waterways. “One primary cause of species loss is habitat destruction and fragmentation (Tilman et al. 2001)” (Krauss et al. 2010). Wildlife are left with fewer areas to inhabit and the areas that remain are separated by human development, making it dangerous to cross from one space to another. Furthermore, deforestation as a whole leads to an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, causing an increase in climate change.
George Mason campus alone is not causing such widespread effects, however, any land that was previously forested that is no longer is adding to the problems listed above. For every space that is being used for roads, buildings, recreation, etc. some deforestation has occurred, meaning less habitat for wildlife and ultimately an increase in climate change.
7) Governance/user characteristics—Describe the characteristics of the governance systems and/or users, e.g. the human side of the interaction. Who is involved? What political institutions? How are they involved? What might be some of the drivers? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points)
Construction on campus is meant to improve student life and appeal to potential new students and staff. It is a political move to create these spaces. However, in doing so, the natural ecosystems in and around campus suffer. Even if new construction takes place where there was no forest, such as the recreational space now occupying the land where Robinson Hall was, pollution resulting from construction can enter the ecosystem and cause problems. “…lawn shall be used only as necessary for public gathering spaces and recreation, not as a general ground cover” (3.4 environmental standards – george mason university, 2013). As of 2013, lawns were expected to be kept to a minimum to keep more natural plant material and thereby provide more habitat. Personally, I don’t think gmu has kept with this expectation.
8) Social/cultural/economic/political settings or related ecosystems—Do any of the following play a role? [Social context] Cultural factors, economic development, demographic trends, political stability, resource policies, market incentives, media organization; [Related ecosystems] Climate patterns, pollution patterns, ecological flows in/out of the SES. (2 points)
Economic development: “Landscapes in northern Virginia, are also becoming fragmented by anthropogenic events such as the construction of roads, houses, and man-made lakes, and also resource extraction and agriculture (Lindenmayer & Fischer, 2006, Chupp et al., 2013,)” (Fabien 2016). Construction is a means to make money for some, and an opportunity to make money in the future for others. Building houses for example costs money that will be paid to construction workers and those that provide the materials to them. However, the person paying to build the house may sell it upon completion, so the purpose was to make money.
9) What can we do?—What are the implications of this interaction on humans and the environment? How could we do differently at Mason to improve them? Cite at least one academic source supporting your description (in addition to any course readings cited). (2 points)
“In its 2002 Master Plan, George Mason University outlined its commitment to employ strategies to efficiently use its land resources for development; promote a pedestrian and bicycle friendly campus; and strategically preserve its woodlands, wetlands, and waterways to maintain the campus image and provide for ecological diversity” (3.4 environmental standards – george mason university, 2013). Gmu sets up a good framework for minimizing habitat fragmentation and deforestation. However, I don’t believe they have kept to the Master Plan very well. If we promote these ideas and perhaps devise new plans as well, and get the community involved, there could be great outcomes.
Qthis issue? State any actions that are already underway or have been taken by the university. (1 point)
“established ‘ecological corridors’ following drainage ways, streams, and topography, that Chap. 3, Design Standards 3.4 Environmental Standards 3.4.4 Sustainable Sites 28 June, 2013 3-163 buffered development, preserved essential natural features and provided for a connective network of walking trails and bikeways” (3.4 environmental standards – george mason university, 2013). To try and combat the issue of habitat fragmentation on gmu’s campus, gmu claims to have multiple corridors in place for wildlife. However, I have not noticed any signs of these corridors.
Fabian, T. (2016, April). The effects of habitat fragmentation and habitat management in the Piedmont, Northern Virginia. MARS Home. Retrieved April 10, 2022, from http://mars.gmu.edu/handle/1920/10501
Krauss, J., Bommarco, R., Guardiola, M., Heikkinen, R.K., Helm, A., Kuussaari, M., Lindborg, R., Öckinger, E., Pärtel, M., Pino, J., Pöyry, J., Raatikainen, K.M., Sang, A., Stefanescu, C., Teder, T., Zobel, M. and Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2010), Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels. Ecology Letters, 13: 597-605. https://doi-org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01457.x
The human interaction that was noticed is that most outdoor trashcans around campus do not have lids. This allows birds and other small mammals to easily access the trash and scatter trash nearby and possibly consume harmful substances like plastic. A lid would be designed to prevent this. This issue is most seen in the parking lots around campus. It is not uncommon to see trash scattered around while crows scavenge through the central trashcan. Simply, the resolution to this problem as stated would be lids. With access denied for the animals to enter the trashcan, the amount of human waste will be contained in the trashcan.
Resource characteristics
A particular pollutant that enters the environment from being displaced from the trashcan is plastic. Plastic is particularly dangerous in the environment because critters may eat the plastic which often directly leads to their death (Webb Et Al). This is because the animals become entangled in plastics and they block airflow if ingested. Not just directly, but the accumulation of plastics in the environment lead to “biomagnification and may potentially pose a direct risk to human health (Webb et al).”
More risks with the trash entering the environment are the common known effects of pollution, leading to microplastics in the environment which end up in the food we consume. A recent study shows that pollution goes well beyond the expected pulmonary and cardiovascular implications, suggesting that pollution/microplastics affect our neurological development as well (Sidney J). so, we have many consequences with allowing trash to enter the natural environment.
Governance/user characteristics
So, after some scoping on the website, the office of sustainability appears to be in charge of the trashcans, this is surprising because to me it seems so obviously unstainable that the outdoor trashcans do not have lids. There was project started to place geogrid trashcans, though the link was broken to access more information about this project. I did find something interesting on the GMU event procedures and guidelines. This is about disposal of ashes after using a personal outdoor grill. They state “Ashes must be disposed of in a metal trash can or container. Ashes may not be placed cool or hot in any plastic container or trash receptacle, including dumpsters (GMU Guidelines)” I find this interesting because the outdoor metal trashcans do not have garbage bags in them either, so small substances like ashes will not be contained in the trashcan either because they have small holes on the can like shown in the pictures.
Social/cultural/economic/political settings or related ecosystems
The only outside factor affecting this decision of placing lids on trashcans is that it may very minimally make it slightly more inaccessible for people throwing trash in the can, they need to make sure the trash goes into the can, by opening the lid. But this is outweighed by the stated pollution impacts from animals scattering trash.
What can we do?
So, as stated, the most feasible solution is to add lids, but to incorporate an academic source, the lids must be self-latching, which ensures the animals can not easily open the lid (USA Department of Agriculture). Another common animal access prohibition method is to anchor the trashcan to the ground with a post, this is to stop larger animals from tipping the trashcan, but interestingly, I noticed the GMU trashcans use this method, they are anchored to the ground.
These two photos show the problem, you can see pieces of trash laying outside of the trash cans, the two animals I have seen do this are crows and squirrels. One trashcan does not have a trash bag either. This is particularly an issue in the parking lots because there is less foot traffic deterring animals.
Map
Works Cited
Segalowitz, Sidney J. (2008) Public health, brain health, and the dangers of air pollution for neural development. American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Apa PsycNet. American Psychological Association. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2008-15657-001
Webb, H. K., Arnott, J., Crawford, R. J., & Ivanova, E. P. (2012, December 28). Plastic degradation and its environmental implications with special reference to poly(ethylene terephthalate). MDPI. Retrieved April 12, 2022, from https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/5/1/1/htm
