Unusual Metrics: Documenting our Workload

Dissected sand crabs in the PIRatE Lab

Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts. — Albert Einstein

 

We have been fortunate to have been running a Summer Institute for undergraduates from CSU Channel Islands and our regional Community Colleges since 2009.  Every June we pull in students from these campuses and embed them in intense academic research in a variety of disciplines.  Most recently Project ACCESO, a program funded by a grant from the US Department of Education, has been the funder of this summer work.  Our ESRM faculty have worked collaboratively to study beaches over the past three years.  This year, we adapted some of our planned work to document and assess the oiling of many of our beaches.  These 13 students were awesome and really stepped up to the plate.

When we talk about scientific work we frequently talk about the numbers of papers published in academic journals or the amount of grant money we are able to bring into our respective institutions.  This is usually a “we rock, you suck” type endeavor with the good ol’ boys or good old ways of doing things begetting more good ol’ boys or the same old same old. But there are many, many more important metrics that are often hard to quantify.  These are often intangibles or things for which we do not have a well-developed framework for assessing (although we could if we got serious about this).  The ultimate goal for those of us working on training people to better conserve our natural resources centers around an amalgamation of:

  1. better understanding our planet’s interrelated systems
  2. translating that understanding into working knowledge within our students
  3. deepening the practical skill sets of the budding researchers (in this case, our undergraduates) who are/will be doing the work
  4. materially improving our planet’s condition
  5. (we might list a fourth essential component of getting gainful employment which utilizes all this skill and knowledge but that can take time to get)

We have just compiled a small set of such metrics for our Summer Institute work (for the three weeks it ran in June).  They are fun to look over (if you are into these kinds of things).

Category Value Metric
Environmental Variables
Stressors 62 dogs counted
38 off leash dogs
24 on leash dogs
2,491 cars counted parked at beach
326 trash cans
5,131 humans counted on the beach
2.8 kg of tar collected from 0.25m 2 quadrats
Organisms Encountered 146 grunions seen
500 grunion eggs found
12 dead vertebrates (fish, birds, pinnipeds) found on beach
66 crabs killed in EcoToxicology Experiments
3,332 crabs measured
2,265 birds counted
10,218 infaunal invertebrates counted
3,488 parasites encountered
Sampling Logistics
Things Sampled 49 beaches assessed
4 Counties visited
78 sand samples sieved for grain size
190 infaunals transects
652 datasheets filled out
5,358 shovels/core scoops of sand
3,655 quantiative cores of sand
1,703 supplemental shovels to find crabs
Opinion Polling 210 opinion polls conducted
115 people who were asked, but declined to take our opinion poll survey
Transportation 84 gallons of gas used
2,130 miles driven (across all vehicles)
26 km walked during quantiative bird surveys
2.45 km 2 of beach surveyed intensely
Equipment Damaged 1 clam guns lost
3 transect tapes compromised
23 article of clothing lost to tarring
Surviving Our Sampling 74 cups of coffee consumed
512 songs listened to
414 metal songs
1 parking tickets
14 lbs of chips (primarily tortilla) consumed
12 pieces of equipment needing de-oiling
8 sand sifting screens destroyed by tar
25 Sean’s random additional surveys
Student Growth
13 Summer Institute Student Researchers
4 Summer Institute Faculty
2,584 person hours
1,768 person field hours
52 person hours in the field in the rain
816 person lab hours
3 weeks of work
121 people asked our students what they were doing
38 people thanked students for doing their work
59 rejected hypotheses
1 games created
1 TV News stories featuring Summer Institute Students
7 students presenting scientific data (in poster form) for the first time
6 students speaking in public for the first time about science


Summer Research Institute Carpinteria North Team 2015 06 05

First hints at changing perceptions

Our on-going public opinion polling of beach goers in the wake of the Refugio Oil Spill is beginning to show some interesting patterns.  We are still in the midst of collecting data (check back in a week or two when we have had a chance to fully explore this data coming in daily), but a few trends are beginning to come into focus.

Anonymous beach goer taking our brief opinion survey in the make of the Refugio Oil Spill at Haskell's Beach in Santa Barbara a few days after the pipeline break.

Anonymous beach goer taking our brief opinion survey in the make of the Refugio Oil Spill at Haskell’s Beach in Santa Barbara a few days after the pipeline break.

For example, there appears to be a difference in the public’s perception of the safety of seafood from the Santa Barbara area in the wake of the Refugio Spill.  As we have seen with the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Fukushima disaster in Japan, and several other recent coastal catastrophes, the public is quick to take a dim view of the safety of food from impacted areas.  We have already seen a change in the perception of the safety of seafood from Santa Barbara relative to other regions of California (see figure below).

Our surveys ask if people feel seafood from various regions of the globe is safe to eat.  Below you will see our interim results as of this past Wednesday.  In the wake of the spill there is now an apparent hesitancy amongst a subset of the public with regards to consuming seafood from the spill-affected (and as always happens in such situations) and nearby regions.  This whole matter is complicated by the fact most people don’t ask about where their seafood comes from on a day-to-day basis, but that is a discussion for our post on seafood.

 

Is seafood from here safe to eat?

Other changes in levels of public sentiment are becoming evident.  This is perhaps best exemplified by changed support/opposition for offshore drilling off of our California coast.  As you may well expect, we have been finding decreased support in recent weeks for offshore oil and gas drilling in California waters relative to our “normal” opinions collected each fall (where we conduct 1,000 to 1,500 in person surveys each year from mid September to mid October).  The graph below contrasts our most recent fall data (2014) to data we have been collecting over the last few weeks.

 

reduced support for CA offshore drilling post spill<br><sub>CSUCI Coastal Opinion Polls: Sept 2014 vs. June 2015</sub>

We are also beginning to see the shaping up of possible geographic patterns of perceptions and behaviors related to the intensity of tar a region received over the past few weeks.  An example of this is our willingness to spend money based on where we are and how long we might stay around.  As of yet this is only hinted at in the patterns of responses we are seeing (i.e. it is not yet statically significant).  But as we increase our sample size, we may well see these differences become robust and statistically significant.  Unlike seafood, I would expect this effect to be comparatively fleeting.  Assuming this is a truly significant trend we are documenting, my best guess is that such a difference would have disappeared by the end of the summer tourist season (barring some unforeseen new development that would keep the spill in the public’s eye). The following figure hints that the more tarring a site accumulates, the lower the financial input to that beach and adjacent areas from beach-going visitors.  Presumably this is being driven by the fact that people are less likely to stay around.  I should note that these sites are not necessarily clumped in one or two spots adjacent to Refugio; the recent tarring across our region has afforded us a much more robust opportunity to study such questions without the typical spatial autocorrelation (that’s fancy statical talk for the problem that we sometimes have a situation where chance and happenstance corrupt our nice, objective exploration of the natural world and render powerless our normal tools to detect differences).  This data comes from more than 33 beaches/sampling points across our study region in coastal southern California.

How much money have you spent/will you spend at the beach this week?

My students, colleagues, and I are very keen to explore further the interactions across these coupled human-natural systems.  Many hypotheses and patterns are available for us to test given our wealth of long-term annual surveys and dozens of recent beach ecological assessments we have conducted over the previous weeks and years.  If only we didn’t need to sleep, we would have these analyses done by now!

Stay tuned.