Perhaps some may recall hearing about the algae bloom known as red tide that devastated sea life off the coast of Florida in 2018. Last year’s algae bloom was one of the worst blooms the state had seen in over a decade (Wei-Hass, 2018). Some have argued about its cause, the governor dismissing it as “naturally occurring” (Fleshler, 2018). These algal blooms are nothing new. Spanish explorers reported this phenomenon back in the 1500s (Wei-Haas, 2018). But the reason this one garnered so much attention, was due to its duration. But what was causing the algae blooms to be this severe? Are they natural or man-made environmental disaster? This issue presents itself as a social dilemma since human behavior seems to be one of the culprits. Compound that with interventions aimed at educating the public have not been successful, it would seem that government intervention is the only solution.
This is a good example of a social dilemma. The citizens of Florida don’t perceive a reward for cooperating with efforts to decrease the flow of nutrient-rich runoffs into the state’s waterways. They prefer the short-term reward of a green lawn, versus having clean beaches. Instead, there was little reward to individual citizens because neither them,or the sugar industry, nor new developments sought to diminish their reliance on fertilizers. Along with killing countless sea life, beaches had to be closed down negatively impacting local economies.
There are many factors that led to last year’s algae bloom. The nutrient-rich runoff did not only affect the coastal waterways, it also caused problems inland. As noted by Wei-Haas (2018), just north of Lake Okeechobee, nutrients poured in from agricultural runoff which then feeds cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria, which resembles green smoothie, covered the lake, eventually making it into the ocean, which then fed K.brevis as cyanobacteria decomposed (Wei-Haas, 2018). To make matters worse, new developments and sugar farms just south of Lake Okeechobee, prevent the water from naturally flowing through the Everglades, which works to filter the water before it enters the ocean. (Wei-Haas, 2018).
Scientist have pointed to strong hurricane seasons as the reason for the algae blooms. These hurricanes hit the state, and “cause nutrient-rich runoff into the gulf” (Wei-Haas, 2018). But those are human-released nutrients according to researchers Larry Brand and Angela Compton. Environmental groups have tried to educate the citizens of the state through outreach programs (Nierenberg et al., 2011). These outreach programs, which started in the early 2000s by Florida Red Tide Research Group (FRTRG), included press releases and interviews with local media (Nierenberg, 2011). They also distributed print materials in the form of posters and flyers. The problem with this was that evaluating its distribution proved to be “tricky”. There was no way of knowing if the 211,000 pieces of material ended up in the hands of the public, or if they were simply sitting somewhere (Nierenberg et al., 2011).
With our oceans are only getting warmer due to climate change, one can only imagine things are going to get worse. It would seem as if not many people are willing to change their behaviors because the perceived rewards may not seem as enticing. But if things are to change, it must start at the state level. Floridians may love waking up in the morning and looking out their window to see their lush green lawns, but at what cost? The fertilizers used end up in the waterways that then make it in to the ocean providing K. brevis (red tide) with the nourishing nutrients it needs to thrive. If decades of education have not worked, legislation should be passed limiting the use of these harmful fertilizers.
Interventions are not always successful, and when necessary the government needs to intervene to help curb harmful behavior, in this instance polluting the waterways. It isn’t just individual citizens who should feel the effects of new legislation, but the industries whom also release these chemicals in the Florida’s waterways. Red tide will continue to be a nuisance for the state, but its citizens should not be contributing, nor should they do nothing simply because it is a natural occurrence.
References
Fleshler, D. (2018, October 2). Is red tide natural, or is it a human-cause crisis? Retrieved from South Florida Sun Sentinel: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/florida/fl-ne-red-tide-causes-20181002-story.html
Nierenberg, K., Hollenbeck, J., Fleming, L. E., Stephan, W., Reich, A., Backer, L., Kirkpatrick, B. (2011). Frontiers outreach and education: The Florida Red Tide Experience. Harmful Algae, 10(4), 374-380.
Wei-Hass, M. (2018, August 10). Red Tide is Devastating Florida’s Sea Life. Are Humans to Blame? Retrieved from National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/08/news-longest-red-tide-wildlife-deaths-marine-life-toxins/
I think this is a very interesting topic and one that certainly warrants discussion. I think your point about the perceived failure of educational campaigns is largely accurate in that it has not yet caused any noticeable changes in behavior, but I think this assertion somewhat overlooks the purpose of information-based interventions. As the text states, “the value of educational campaigns lies in their priming ability; that is, they get people ready to make a change rather than actually get them to change” (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012, p. 307). I think it’s possible that, depending on whether or not this information actually made it to its intended recipients, these informational campaigns may have actually already made the difference they were intended to make. However, the end result remains the same and, as you said, further intervention is clearly necessary.
In terms of governmental interventions, I think there are a couple existing programs that Florida could draw from for inspiration. I actually talked about this in my post, but in California, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) will pay homeowners to rip out their lawns and replace them with native/drought resistant plants, artificial turf, or rocks and gravel (Vercammen, 2015). Florida could do something similar as all of these options would require less fertilizer. (I’m assuming that native plants would be more likely to flourish without aid but they could take that part out if it didn’t end up helping.) This helps provide an incentive for Floridians and, since they’ve actually ripped out their lawns, provides a maintaining factor for continued reductions in fertilizer use.
Additionally, I was part of an energy conservation program at my old school, and during their energy use competition, they offered to switch out people’s light bulbs for energy efficient ones. This is an antecedent strategy, which can help address the preceding factors that contribute to the problem (Schneider et al., 2012). For example, if there are any fertilizers that are less harmful, Floridians might think that it’s too much of a bother to figure out which ones are better and to actually go out and buy them. If a program went door to door handing out free, more environmentally friendly fertilizer or offering to exchange it for their current fertilizer, this would help overcome these factors and the people might be more likely to use it.
Overall, a very interesting post. I really enjoyed reading it and learning more about the topic!
References
Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Vercammen, P. (2015, June 27). California drought: Rebates for ripping up lawns. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/us/california-drought-lawn-sod-replacement-rebates/index.html