I was overall very impressed with this blog. They framed the situation and their research very well in the Introduction page, and included links that went to more pages that further explained the project. The graphics and presentation were very strong for this blog, and I especially liked the google map link. This blog also tied class concepts in very well, by discussing regionalism through the legislation passed at various scales. They explicitly pointed out local, state, and federal, and even included links to these organizations.
The only suggestion I can make is that the blog could have given more detail as to the specific projects and efforts. Some of these were mentioned in the Chesapeake Bay Program page, but not the results or much of a description. It would be useful to see the results of programs, or a look at the Bay's condition over time to see if the organization has been effective. In general, though, this blog was very well- researched and organized, with clear and effective writing.
Very interesting project-I enjoyed seeing the pie charts and the statistics on how much we pollute this watershed. It is a major problem that we have only just realized and begun to fix. I was intrigued as to whether, besides N and P runoff from agriculture, there was input from other sources (i.e. sewage discharge) and how those measure up against agricultural runoff–also, how do N and P get onto concrete and urban settings? and do you know of any agricultural alternatives to using nutrient-rich fertilizers and pesticides? Solid argument about the erosion-factor though.
This case is very complex in that it ranges across several states, some of which so far from the Bay that it is difficult to conceptualize that our actions as far north as NY and southwest as WV affect the ecosystem in the Chesapeake. Obviously this has caused a sort of bystander effect, as mentioned in the analysis, that many distant states do not feel they need to be responsible for cleaning up the watershed. Looking at the progress data, it first appears that much restoration has been accomplished (though still not sure how 103% of the land has been restored..), but I do wonder about the potential gains in progress there might be if all the states did their part. Lastly, I would not have minded receiving more information about the actual restoration programme objectives and plans, and how they are going about accomplishing their goals (is volunteer action the most time-efficient solution?) I really enjoyed this website, as I have learned a bit about the problems facing this enormous ecosystem and am a frequent visitor to the area. As beautiful as the Bay is, it sometimes seems that with continuous development and other issues (i.e. invasive species) restoring the area will take a lot of effort, and a very long time.
The blog is nicely structured. There are plenty of insights on the problems of the bay and how it is being polluted. All the graphs and charts provide a visual aspect to the problem. When you talk about how regionalism is really important to address any issue you tell us how New York, Delaware, and West Virginia are only considered headwater partners and do not participate in the Program's goal but it is unclear why they don't participate. Also, what can be done to get them on the same page so that the goals can be achieved? The provide provides suggestion on what can do done to improve the condition and one of the suggestions was to use natural alternatives instead of fertilizers and pesticides high in nitrogen. I was wondering what kinds of natural alternatives would work in the region. You also talk about how many other organizations are involved in this particular issue. I think touching on different groups would have strengthened the project. Overall, I really enjoyed reading the blog. It is short but yet effective and does provide all the information needed. Job well done!!
Overall this a great blog, short and concise with most of the important information laid out with the aid of visualaids such as the charts and maps; I especially liked the Google map provided on the main Theory and Analysis page. However, there are several points I find to either not be explained, or to be confusing to me in particular.
On “Current Progress and Challenges,” the meaning of last point directly above the visual aid eludes me. It reads “Thorough planning needs to go into new development practices: the source of 1/3 of nutrients entering the bay.” What exactly is this supposed to mean? Is the source of one third of the nutrients in the bay a mystery to those working towards Chesapeake Bay conservation? Or, on the other hand, do the conservationists aim to reduce a third of the runoff, or decrease it to a third of its present state?
It could be argued that no matter what the issue is with this 1/3 of the run-off, the root of the issue or possible help could come from these states that choose not to participate in the program. New York, Delaware, and West Virginia: the states that for some reason, have opted not to participate in this program. Is their non-participatory status the reason that the third of nutrients’ source remains a problem? If so, then would be needed to bring them into the program? Would it be possible for them to contribute enough materials to help the states that do participate fix these numbers? Regionalism does indeed have its advantages, but it appears that for some reason parts of the influential regions are not participating. Would the federal sphere of influence “nudging” these states, or giving them an incentive for joining, fix this present problem?
Fun, entertaining, and simple to follow, this group does a great job of presenting and deconstructing the only non-multi-national project. The "Runoff and the Bay" section does a very thorough job of detailing the actual environmental issues faced by the region in easy to follow terms. However, the group suggests improvements that "we" can do. While this is a good way of relating to the reader, perhaps there should have been a greater emphasis here on not a "we" which would work to reverse the environmental effects, but a more concrete power-holder (whether that group decided it to be local initiatives, intra-state coalitions, or a federal issue). In the next section, the group does mention, "it is important to include local, state, and federal governments in this process because each scale has a different investment in the program,' highlighting non-profit and local groups. However, they never go on to analyze the benefits or costs of multi-scalar interaction and control. Does, for example, a state further down the watershed have a greater say in the decision-making of the regional cooperative because they bear the brunt of the effects? How well do the states work together in reaching their goals?
It appears here that the local actors of the watershed are the driving force behind the action. A discussion challenging the misconception of the local "as immobile and relatively disempowered" brought up by Perreault would serve as a great argument in this project (Perreault 99). Clearly, NGOs and local communities are legitimized in this case study. Perreault (2003) also mentions the importance of scaling up for the grassroots parties. I am unsure of the correlation between non-state and state actors in this effort to preserve the Chesapeake Bay, still that could be a discussion. The fact that it is within the same nation could also serve as an interesting spin on this debate of scaling up. Would it be an easier task for a non-political voice to be heard by only their national government, or for multi-national sub-groups to speak out to someone at a regional (supranational) level of authority? These questions of scale and power would be great ones to pose to the reader, even if they are unanswerable.
I thought your blog was very well done. Your analysis page had a lot of hard evidence to back up your claims however some case studies to go along with that analysis would have been very helpful. Judging from the statistics, it seems that the program has been largely successful but how successful is cooperation between states? While the land restoration goal has been achieved, what are the reasons for significantly less successes when it comes to forest buffers and watershed management? It seems as though the member states are reluctant to take initiative in those regards and it would be interesting to see if anything is being done to combat that. The map of nonprofit partners is also extremely interesting. You touch briefly on the different levels on involvement in the program, it would be really interesting to hear more about the interaction between actors at the different levels, such as non profit organizations and states. Overall I thought the blog was extremely interesting and easy to follow.
Chesapeake
I thought you did a very good job of looking at the fluidity of scale in your blog€”how all the different levels of organizations and players involved had their own level of influence, and needed to find a balanced way to work together to achieve their joint goals. I did find the blog to be a bit short, but you did get the fundamental points across so it wasn't really an issue. You focuses a lot on the environmental issues and gave recommendations for these, but I felt like it needed a little stronger focus on the idea of issues with regional cooperation to achieve these goals€”I would have loved to have seen more details and information on how the states interacted in terms of federal versus state laws that were passed, any punishments for non-compliance, just a general focus on power-sharing between states and national agencies like the EPA. It would also be interesting to see a timeline of how this got started€”obviously the only state who could be massively negatively affected by this is Virginia, so it would be interesting to see how they first began the process of scaling up to achieve their environmental goals€”especially in terms of lobbying other players (for instance states with little to lose through this environmental threat) to aid this region. Good job overall, and interesting idea.
It's great that you included a link in the right-side window to the Chesapeake Bay Project YouTube channel. It's really great to include social media in a project like this, either through linking to other projects or by creating your own. We created a Twitter page for our project and while we did not fully develop it to its maximum potential, it was more about the experience of using social media to spread the word about an academic endeavor. So I really like that aspect. I also just want to say that including links to the original picture is great, because some images, such as the diagram outlining the effects of phosphorous runoff, really need to be viewed in isolation. For a non-sciency person as myself, this helped. Also, your link to a pre-searched Google Map of all organizations involved with the Chesapeake Bay was incredibly useful. Its level of detail was unmatched, and your resourcefulness is clear by including that in your blog.
You’ve set up your blog nicely, the map and charts help enforce the point you are making and the material is clear and enjoyable in nature. I’m from Virginia and Bay pollution has a become a major issue. I think your group, particularly with the church video, has touched on issues that locals fail to realize; most notably that it is not only the relationship between the federal, state, and local governments that determines what happens to the Bay, but also the daily activities and measures that schools, churches, individuals and NGO’s take to work within or around the official organization. This relates to our class discussion about scale and jumping scale. Because this is a huge watershed, I appreciate that you made a point to show how difficult it is to get every player and state involved to react to the problems caused by pollution. I was wondering how you thought the results of having a number of players with varying powers deciding to work towards improving the Bay would confront the issue of having three states virtually ignore the Bay area problems?
I was overall very impressed with this blog. They framed the situation and their research very well in the Introduction page, and included links that went to more pages that further explained the project. The graphics and presentation were very strong for this blog, and I especially liked the google map link. This blog also tied class concepts in very well, by discussing regionalism through the legislation passed at various scales. They explicitly pointed out local, state, and federal, and even included links to these organizations.
The only suggestion I can make is that the blog could have given more detail as to the specific projects and efforts. Some of these were mentioned in the Chesapeake Bay Program page, but not the results or much of a description. It would be useful to see the results of programs, or a look at the Bay's condition over time to see if the organization has been effective. In general, though, this blog was very well- researched and organized, with clear and effective writing.
Very interesting project-I enjoyed seeing the pie charts and the statistics on how much we pollute this watershed. It is a major problem that we have only just realized and begun to fix. I was intrigued as to whether, besides N and P runoff from agriculture, there was input from other sources (i.e. sewage discharge) and how those measure up against agricultural runoff–also, how do N and P get onto concrete and urban settings? and do you know of any agricultural alternatives to using nutrient-rich fertilizers and pesticides? Solid argument about the erosion-factor though.
This case is very complex in that it ranges across several states, some of which so far from the Bay that it is difficult to conceptualize that our actions as far north as NY and southwest as WV affect the ecosystem in the Chesapeake. Obviously this has caused a sort of bystander effect, as mentioned in the analysis, that many distant states do not feel they need to be responsible for cleaning up the watershed. Looking at the progress data, it first appears that much restoration has been accomplished (though still not sure how 103% of the land has been restored..), but I do wonder about the potential gains in progress there might be if all the states did their part. Lastly, I would not have minded receiving more information about the actual restoration programme objectives and plans, and how they are going about accomplishing their goals (is volunteer action the most time-efficient solution?) I really enjoyed this website, as I have learned a bit about the problems facing this enormous ecosystem and am a frequent visitor to the area. As beautiful as the Bay is, it sometimes seems that with continuous development and other issues (i.e. invasive species) restoring the area will take a lot of effort, and a very long time.
The blog is nicely structured. There are plenty of insights on the problems of the bay and how it is being polluted. All the graphs and charts provide a visual aspect to the problem. When you talk about how regionalism is really important to address any issue you tell us how New York, Delaware, and West Virginia are only considered headwater partners and do not participate in the Program's goal but it is unclear why they don't participate. Also, what can be done to get them on the same page so that the goals can be achieved? The provide provides suggestion on what can do done to improve the condition and one of the suggestions was to use natural alternatives instead of fertilizers and pesticides high in nitrogen. I was wondering what kinds of natural alternatives would work in the region. You also talk about how many other organizations are involved in this particular issue. I think touching on different groups would have strengthened the project. Overall, I really enjoyed reading the blog. It is short but yet effective and does provide all the information needed. Job well done!!
Overall this a great blog, short and concise with most of the important information laid out with the aid of visualaids such as the charts and maps; I especially liked the Google map provided on the main Theory and Analysis page. However, there are several points I find to either not be explained, or to be confusing to me in particular.
On “Current Progress and Challenges,” the meaning of last point directly above the visual aid eludes me. It reads “Thorough planning needs to go into new development practices: the source of 1/3 of nutrients entering the bay.” What exactly is this supposed to mean? Is the source of one third of the nutrients in the bay a mystery to those working towards Chesapeake Bay conservation? Or, on the other hand, do the conservationists aim to reduce a third of the runoff, or decrease it to a third of its present state?
It could be argued that no matter what the issue is with this 1/3 of the run-off, the root of the issue or possible help could come from these states that choose not to participate in the program. New York, Delaware, and West Virginia: the states that for some reason, have opted not to participate in this program. Is their non-participatory status the reason that the third of nutrients’ source remains a problem? If so, then would be needed to bring them into the program? Would it be possible for them to contribute enough materials to help the states that do participate fix these numbers? Regionalism does indeed have its advantages, but it appears that for some reason parts of the influential regions are not participating. Would the federal sphere of influence “nudging” these states, or giving them an incentive for joining, fix this present problem?
Fun, entertaining, and simple to follow, this group does a great job of presenting and deconstructing the only non-multi-national project. The "Runoff and the Bay" section does a very thorough job of detailing the actual environmental issues faced by the region in easy to follow terms. However, the group suggests improvements that "we" can do. While this is a good way of relating to the reader, perhaps there should have been a greater emphasis here on not a "we" which would work to reverse the environmental effects, but a more concrete power-holder (whether that group decided it to be local initiatives, intra-state coalitions, or a federal issue). In the next section, the group does mention, "it is important to include local, state, and federal governments in this process because each scale has a different investment in the program,' highlighting non-profit and local groups. However, they never go on to analyze the benefits or costs of multi-scalar interaction and control. Does, for example, a state further down the watershed have a greater say in the decision-making of the regional cooperative because they bear the brunt of the effects? How well do the states work together in reaching their goals?
It appears here that the local actors of the watershed are the driving force behind the action. A discussion challenging the misconception of the local "as immobile and relatively disempowered" brought up by Perreault would serve as a great argument in this project (Perreault 99). Clearly, NGOs and local communities are legitimized in this case study. Perreault (2003) also mentions the importance of scaling up for the grassroots parties. I am unsure of the correlation between non-state and state actors in this effort to preserve the Chesapeake Bay, still that could be a discussion. The fact that it is within the same nation could also serve as an interesting spin on this debate of scaling up. Would it be an easier task for a non-political voice to be heard by only their national government, or for multi-national sub-groups to speak out to someone at a regional (supranational) level of authority? These questions of scale and power would be great ones to pose to the reader, even if they are unanswerable.
I thought your blog was very well done. Your analysis page had a lot of hard evidence to back up your claims however some case studies to go along with that analysis would have been very helpful. Judging from the statistics, it seems that the program has been largely successful but how successful is cooperation between states? While the land restoration goal has been achieved, what are the reasons for significantly less successes when it comes to forest buffers and watershed management? It seems as though the member states are reluctant to take initiative in those regards and it would be interesting to see if anything is being done to combat that. The map of nonprofit partners is also extremely interesting. You touch briefly on the different levels on involvement in the program, it would be really interesting to hear more about the interaction between actors at the different levels, such as non profit organizations and states. Overall I thought the blog was extremely interesting and easy to follow.
Chesapeake
I thought you did a very good job of looking at the fluidity of scale in your blog€”how all the different levels of organizations and players involved had their own level of influence, and needed to find a balanced way to work together to achieve their joint goals. I did find the blog to be a bit short, but you did get the fundamental points across so it wasn't really an issue. You focuses a lot on the environmental issues and gave recommendations for these, but I felt like it needed a little stronger focus on the idea of issues with regional cooperation to achieve these goals€”I would have loved to have seen more details and information on how the states interacted in terms of federal versus state laws that were passed, any punishments for non-compliance, just a general focus on power-sharing between states and national agencies like the EPA. It would also be interesting to see a timeline of how this got started€”obviously the only state who could be massively negatively affected by this is Virginia, so it would be interesting to see how they first began the process of scaling up to achieve their environmental goals€”especially in terms of lobbying other players (for instance states with little to lose through this environmental threat) to aid this region. Good job overall, and interesting idea.
It's great that you included a link in the right-side window to the Chesapeake Bay Project YouTube channel. It's really great to include social media in a project like this, either through linking to other projects or by creating your own. We created a Twitter page for our project and while we did not fully develop it to its maximum potential, it was more about the experience of using social media to spread the word about an academic endeavor. So I really like that aspect. I also just want to say that including links to the original picture is great, because some images, such as the diagram outlining the effects of phosphorous runoff, really need to be viewed in isolation. For a non-sciency person as myself, this helped. Also, your link to a pre-searched Google Map of all organizations involved with the Chesapeake Bay was incredibly useful. Its level of detail was unmatched, and your resourcefulness is clear by including that in your blog.
You’ve set up your blog nicely, the map and charts help enforce the point you are making and the material is clear and enjoyable in nature. I’m from Virginia and Bay pollution has a become a major issue. I think your group, particularly with the church video, has touched on issues that locals fail to realize; most notably that it is not only the relationship between the federal, state, and local governments that determines what happens to the Bay, but also the daily activities and measures that schools, churches, individuals and NGO’s take to work within or around the official organization. This relates to our class discussion about scale and jumping scale. Because this is a huge watershed, I appreciate that you made a point to show how difficult it is to get every player and state involved to react to the problems caused by pollution. I was wondering how you thought the results of having a number of players with varying powers deciding to work towards improving the Bay would confront the issue of having three states virtually ignore the Bay area problems?