Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Perception of and Public Participation in Microbial Source Tracking

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Microbial Source Tracking: Methods, Applications, and Case Studies

Abstract

Microbial source tracking (MST) is used to determine the source, extent, and content of water pollution; results from MST studies can be used to ameliorate the sources of pollution. If the general public is involved in such studies, MST can be an extremely valuable tool. (“The public” can include a local government official, a parent concerned about child safety, a congressman deciding about funding, and/or a water-resource manager; i.e., “the public” includes everyone with a stake in clean water.) But MST comes with a price tag, and national and international agencies that fund a great deal of MST work can be swayed by public opinion. Local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can help or hinder MST testing and efforts to apply the results to improve polluted waters. If the public is not involved in an informed dissemination and/or application of the results, it will be difficult for MST results to lead to improvements to the affected waters. Without a clear perception of MST by this public, cooperation in making the necessary improvements and acceptance of MST can be hindered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

     Below is a short list for further reading on public perceptions of science in general and on perceptions of environmental science in particular.

References

  • Allender-Hagedorn S (2001) Arguing the genome: A topology of the argumentation behind the construction of the Human Genome Project. Dissertation, Virginia Tech

    Google Scholar 

  • Allender-Hagedorn S (2004) Evaluating known source tracking libraries: Artificial clustering. Environ Detection News 2(1):1–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Allender-Hagedorn S, Ruggiero CW (2009) Connecting popular culture and science: The case of biotechnology. In: Hayhoe GF, Grady HM (eds) Connecting people with technology: Issues in Professional Communication. Baywood, Amityville

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (2008) Science and Policy: R&D Budget and Policy Program: Guide to R&D funding data – Total US $&D (1953). http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guitotal.html. Accessed 6 Mar 2010

  • Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2009) Building a competitive advantage for Canada. http://www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/reports/2009/prebudget_11_18_e.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2010

  • Beecher N, Harrison E, Goldstein N et al (2005) Risk perception, risk communication, and stakeholder involvement for biosolids management and research. J Environ Qual 34:122–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Belanche-Muñoz L, Blanch AR (2008) Machine learning methods for microbial source tracking. Environ Modelling Software 23:741–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson JW, Hagedorn C, Hassell A. (2006) Pathogen research symposium: Pathways and monitoring in natural and engineered systems. Symposium sponsored by Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Blacksburg, VA, VWRRC Special Report SR32–2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickerson JW, Hagedorn C, Hassall A (2007) Remediation of human-origin pollution at two public beaches in Virginia using multiple source tracking methods. Water Res. 41:3758–3770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Evans G, Durant J (1995) The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Pub Understand Sci 4:57–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskel G (2005) Interview: Public opinion in the science equation. RTDinfo 51: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo/special_euro/01/article_3148_en.html. Accessed 24 May 2010

  • Gould SJ (2000) Deconstructing the ‘science wars’ by reconstructing an old mold. Science magazine, 287 (14 Jan 2000): 253–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves AK (2000) Determining sources of fecal pollution in water for a rural Virginia community. Thesis, Virginia Tech

    Google Scholar 

  • Graves AL, Hagedorn C, Teetor A et al. (2002) Determining sources of fecal pollution in water for a rural Virginia watershed. J Environ Qual 31:1300–1308

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedorn C, Allender-Hagedorn S (1997) Issues in agricultural and environmental biotechnology: Identifying and comparing biotechnology issues from public opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory sources. Pub Understand Sci 6:233–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy DR (1990) Towards a consensus. In: MacKenzie DR, Henry SC (eds) Biological monitoring of genetically engineered plants and microbes. Proceedings of the Kiawah Island Conference, Kiawah Island, 27–30 Nov 1991

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartel PG, Hagedorn C, McDonald, JL et al (2007) Exposing water samples to ultraviolet light improves fluorometry for detecting human fecal contamination. Water Research 41:3629–3642

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson A (2008) The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses. Physics Teacher 46:404–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2001) Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409(6822):915

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (1995) Procedural choices in regulatory “Science.” Tech in Soc 17(3):279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2006) Sequestered science: The consequences of undisclosed knowledge article: Transparency in public science: Purposes, reasons, limits. Law & Contemp Probs 69(3):21–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes (2002) The citizen jury process, http://www.­jefferson-center.org/citizens_jury.html. Accessed 23 May 2010

  • Kaurish FW, Younos T (2007) Developing a standardized water quality index for evaluating ­surface water quality. J Am Water Res Assoc 43(2):533–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kern J (2002) Application of source tracking results to performing TMDLs. Environ Detection News 1(1):1–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Koshland Jr. DE (1990) Two plus two equals five. Science 247:1381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss LM (2009) An update on C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures.” Sci Am 31 Sep 2009, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=an-update-on-cp-snows-two-cultures. Accessed 5 Mar 2010

  • Leiserowitz A (nd) International public opinion, perception, and understanding of global climate change. http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/IntlPublicOpinion.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2010

  • Lemaux PG (1999) The interplay of public perception issues and federal regulatory policy in agricultural biotechnology: A U.S. perspective. http://www.cdesign.com.au/proceedings_abts1999/papers/P_G_Lemaux2.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2010

  • Miller JD (2008) The impact of college science courses for non-science majors on adult science literacy. Paper presented to symposium on the critical role of college science courses for non-majors, annual meeting AAAS, San Francisco, 18 Feb 2007. In Hobson A (2008) The surprising effectiveness of college scientific literacy courses. Physics Teacher 46:404–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel D (2009) NSF: Federal role in academic R&D funding has diminished. http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/10/06/nsf-federal-role-in-academic-r-d-funding-has-diminished.aspx. Accessed 11 Mar 2010

  • National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1992) Responsible science: vol I: Panel on scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1864page=67. Accessed 6 Mar 2010

  • National Science Foundation (2009) Federal government’s share of university R&D funding drops to 60 percent: Press release 09–182. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSFcntn_id=115710preview=false. Accessed 10 Apr 2010

  • Oppenheimer F (1968) Rationale for a science museum, http://www.exploratorium.edu/frank/rationale/index.html. Accessed 5 Mar 2010

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry (2009) Main science and technology indicators (MSTI): 2009/2 edition. http://www.oecd.org/document/26/0,3343,en_2649_34451_1901082_1_1_1_1,00.html. Accessed 5 Mar 2010

  • Phillips T (nd) About.com guide: What is orphan drug status. http://biotech.about.com/od/faq/f/orphandrugs.html. Accessed 3 Mar 2010

  • Powers S (2008) National trends in science and engineering funding and research priorities: Updates from the ASEE Engineering Research Council. http://www.asee.org/conferences/erc/2008/Presentations.cfm. Accessed 7 Mar 2010

  • Ribidous CA (1997) “The Human Genome Project: Novel approaches, probable reasoning, and the advancement of science.” In: Advances in the history of rhetoric: The centrality of rhetoric, a collection of selected papers presented at ASHR conferences in 1997 vol2, Am Soc Hist Rhetoric, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson MT (1993) Federal funding and the level of private expenditure on basic research. South Econ J 60(1):63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer KA, Bielak AT (2005) CCME: Linking water science to policy: Workshop series final report: Overview and lessons learned. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/water_wkshp_smryrpt_2004_e.pdf. Accessed Mar 3 2010

  • Science Daily (2007) Scientific literacy: How do Americans stack up? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218134322.html. Accessed 13 Mar 2010

  • Todd A (2008) Strategies for reporting results from Ontario’s water quality monitoring programs. In: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, CCME National science and technology workshop on water quality monitoring PN 1419, 5–6 Feb 2008, Fredericton. http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/wqm_workshop_2008_02_e_pn1419.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2010

  • URP Toolbox. (nd) Welcome to the citizen science toolbox. https://app.secure.griffith.edu.au/03/toolbox/index.php. Accessed 20 May 2010

  • US General Accounting Office (2002) Water infrastructure: Information on financing, capital planning, and privatization (GAO-02–764). http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02764.pdf. Accessed 5 Mar 2010

Further Reading

  • Bauer M, Durant J, Evan G (1994) European public perceptions of science. Int J Public Opinion Res 6(2):163–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collini S (1993) Introduction. In: Snow CP (ed) The two cultures (Canto). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson D (1988) The new politics of science (with a new preface). University Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Report of the experts scientific workshop on critical research needs for the development of new or revised recreational water quality criteria Report: EPA-823-R-07. Workshop at Airlie Center, Warrenton, 26–30 Mar 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayhoe GF, Grady HM (eds) (2009) Connecting people with technology: Issues in professional communication. Baywood Publ Co, Amityville

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen ET, McLellan SL (2005) Beach closings: Science versus public perception. ActionBioscience.org. http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/jensen_mclellan.html Accessed 10 Mar 2010

  • Lakes, rivers, streams and ponds partnership (2007) What’s our water worth? The economic impact of potential decline in New Hampshire water quality: The link between visitor perceptions, usage and spending, Phase IV report, May 2007, http://www.nhrivers.org/documents/Econ%20Study%20Brochure.pdf Accessed 9 Mar 2010

  • Nelkin D. (1987). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology. W. H. Freeman, Cranbury

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas L (1977) The medusa and the snail. Penguin Books, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge. (1999) Proceedings of the science for the twenty-first century, Budapest, Hungary 26 June-1 July, http://www.unesco.org/science/wcs/eng/declaration_e.html Accessed 11 Mar 2010

  • Wynne B (1995) Public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S et al. (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publ, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of English, 207 Shanks Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, 24061-0112, USA

    Susan Allender-Hagedorn

Authors
  1. Susan Allender-Hagedorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Allender-Hagedorn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Crop & Soil Environmental Sciences, Virginia Tech, Prince Hall 401, Blacksburg, 24061, Virgin Islands, USA

    Charles Hagedorn

  2. Fac. Biologia, Depto. Microbiologia, Universitat Barcelona, Avenida Diagonal 645, Barcelona, 08028, Spain

    Anicet R. Blanch

  3. Dept. Biology, Div. Integrative Biology (IB), University of South Florida, E. Fowler Ave. 4202, Tampa, 33620, Florida, USA

    Valerie J. Harwood

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Allender-Hagedorn, S. (2011). Public Perception of and Public Participation in Microbial Source Tracking. In: Hagedorn, C., Blanch, A., Harwood, V. (eds) Microbial Source Tracking: Methods, Applications, and Case Studies. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9386-1_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation