Click to access whitefield-nature-walk.pdf

Final Project: Research Proposal with Human Participants

1. Name of Principal Investigator.

Dave Holmander-Bradford

2. Project Title.

Green Space Ecological Attitudes in Southern Coos County,NH

3.  Start. Expected starting date for data collection. 

August 1, 2019

4.  End. The expected completion date for data collection.

January 31, 2020

5. Project Purpose.

The findings will be utilized by town governments in developing green space and the viability of projects succeeding in those particular communities or areas? Respondents will answer the question, would green space benefit the community by offering lifestyle choices, promoting eco-tourism, and identifying ecological sites?

6. Participants.

Research focus is 21 years plus, with participation rate of 20 percent of the target community, e.g., Whitefield population is 2200. Average voter turnout of four hundred. To clarify, participants will be divided into two groups labeled “renters” and “owners”? It is believed that property owners have a higher participation rate in voting than renters; and, there could be a direct economic impact on them through local taxes when setting aside new green space.

Gender and age will be collected in the research and tabulated in the coding process, but it will be incidental to the study.

7. Selection.

Research participants will be identified as either general public or community leader. A broad sampling of the general public in the rural target community will be encouraged to participate in the research. The notification process to participate in the study will be orchestrated through public notices posted instrategic locations, e-mail, newspaper, and word of mouth.

Ten community leaders will be asked to participate in a separate interview process. Their specific input is viewed as vital because some of these individuals could be the final decision makers if new green spaces are allowed to be developed.

8. Procedures. 

The research survey has three specific processes for collecting data. The first two are identified as online survey and paper survey, each with ten questions using the Likert scale and the opportunity to provide written comments; and, the third method will be interviewing community leaders.

The paper and online surveys will be completely anonymous. All community members will have the chance to participate in these.

The researcher believes there is a value-weighted judgment to be obtained from the strategic community leaders. The interview survey method use constitutes this process. The researcher will develop a set of uniform questions, e.g., When I mention green space, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Answer will be recorded keeping handwritten notes.

The empirical data will receive a code in a generic format. Written comments will also be assessed to determine their theme, which will then be assigned a code. Information collected from community leaders will be collated thematically, coded and combined with the other data presented as qualitative data analysis.

The researcher does not envision any other methods of inquiry; however, the analysis may be expanded to a series of small group discussionsto receive additional information. This would be triggered because of the favorability in green space indicated from early returns to the online and paper surveys.

9. Harm.

a. Risk.

The research will collect data on public acceptance of new green space. Informationwill be used to inform the community of the feasibility in establishing new green space because the community has indicated it either supports or does not support new green space. Research is limited to personal preference and does not convey any negative impact. 

     b. Benefits.

The research will provide the community with critical data when planning new green space. Decision makers will have a clear understanding of the community’s acceptance or rejection of new green space and its willingness to support any projects.

10. Privacy.

The research provides optimal privacy; the bulk of the research data is collected anonymously, and the interview worksheets of community leaders will have no identifiable personal information.

The solo researcher will record each of his findings on separate interview worksheets. The ten community leaders interviewed will be conducted separately. The only purpose of the separate checklist will be identifying community leader interviews completed, and those who are not. This checklist may be destroyed once 10 interviews are complete.

The researcher who conducted the interviews will not participate in the coding of the interview worksheets.

11. Paradigm.

The research uses two distinct paradigms. The paper survey and online survey fit within the postpositivist paradigmbecause the researcher has established a clear distance between the subject and himself while seeking incomplete ontological feedback. The epistemology is modified objectivist because research data is mostly subjective and qualitative.

The interview process is constructivist because theontology revolvesaround a dynamic social relationship between the interviewer and subject. The epistemology supports the subjective nature of the interview and the methodology is hermeneutical.

Holmander, Dave

Instructors: James Gruber and Patience Stoddard

ES-7000 Ecological Thought

June 9, 2019

Maasai Land Critique

A cursory reading of both articles reveals the two complement each other, because, they buttress nicely together without overly repeating material researched in one and presented a second time by the other.  Environmental Justice Case Study, by Julie Narimatsu, offers an examination of the roots to the historical issues confronting the Maasai’ tribes of Kenya and Tanzania by bringing context to the ongoing conflict and inequities. My opinion about Narimatsu’s writing style and the argument is less favorable than Hughes. There are numerous places where specific points are stated without providing context and background to the reader.

Hughes, in Land Alienation and Contestation in Kenyan Maasailand, writes in an easy manner, briefly references some historical markers throughout as necessary to bring context to the contemporary interpretation while providing up to date analyses of current standing and a possible path forward by suggesting solutions applicable to the 21^st century.   

Narimatsu begins to lay out his argument in a very detailed structure. Immediately, the case for discourse identifies the problem (p. 1). “Maasai Tribes of Kenya and Tanzania have endured a long history of colonization by the British” (p.1). The case references the displacement of the indigenous people who are supplanted to undesirable arid lands and negates the nomadic nature and social sensibilities of their culture engaging in a lively pastoralist (Narimatsu, p.1). There is every indication this action has commercial interests in favor of settling white Europeans in the lush grazing land of the Maasai’. The effect created an environmental calamity; because the Maasai’ are forced to overgraze an arid land not sustainable for year-round grazing and orchestrates displacement of wildlife. A social backlash ensued continuing into this day. The evidence provided points to coercion and brute force to extract them from their native lands. 

I found a few examples where I was questioning the arrangement of facts cited within the article, i.e., “The Maasai people probably arrived in East Africa during the 15^th century A.D.” (background, p.1) which is contrast to “They have interacted with the land, sustainably, for thousands of years by migrating in order to allow the grass to regenerate” (key actors, p.3). These two statements appear to contradict each other; therefore, they weaken the credibility of the discourse.The strength of the article provides an overview of the historical context of the Maasai’ peoples plight, while squarely placing blame on its colonial intruders and a litany of misdeeds from within their indigenous society.

In the abstract of Land Alienation and Contestation in Kenyan Maasailand, Hughes states the goal of the article. Because of the forced removal of the pastoral Maasai’ people, even though a new constitution is in place, wherein, they now have a voice, 50% of their former common land is held in private hands, and it is unlikely to be returned and their common pastoralists lifestyle restored (Hughes, p.1). However; Hughes, cited an example of a younger generation stepping to the fore willing to take ownership of the current situation and forge a new path forward (p.14). The article is loaded with specific anecdotal facts and first-person oral accounts.   Hughes does not gloss over the troubled pass. He offers some positive changes which if pursued, could provide some sense of dignity and restoration to the Maasai’ people.  Identifying systemic problem, Hughes says, “patronage resource by political leaders, who call in favors” (p.5), and “colonial intervention in Maasailand led to the breakdown of traditional ecosystems” (p.7) lead to these problems; however, there are five specific (p.10) actions listed which offer positive change. These actions if continued would provide some sense of dignity and restoration to the Maasai’ people.

In summary, I find both articles provide an important voice, one to past grievances because it set the foundation to a claim against injustices, while the other to a positive path forward. Hughes is pragmatic, the road ahead will not be an easy one; but, the Maasai’ people will need to take advantage of a variety of measure, using all means available, social pressure, political will, and litigation. In doing so, the Maasai’ people might be able to right past wrongs and become proud owners of their own destiny.

Work cited:

Narimatsu, Julie, Environmental Justice Case Study: Maasai Land Rights in Kenya and Tanzania, date unknow, MS, AUNE.

Hughes, L., Land Alienation and Contestation in Kenyan Maasailand, date unknow, MS, ANUE.