1) This case study was conducted on Indonesia by Christina Einstein. It shows that a country can be developing in a positive and negative way at the same time. Although Indonesia’s development has improved in regards to their rising economy, do to a surplus of jobs, they are still facing environmental problems with pollution in the water. Part of the development to stop water contamination was by a company called BEPEDAL that created a system that would assign a color to each company’s output of any substance that would enter the water. The colors meant different things such as “meeting the requirements” or “no effort.” With this system communities would see exactly which company was releasing harmful chemicals. With this system companies were also able to improve their overall performance and sustain the quality of the water. Without this achievement the water would’ve became so contaminated that it wouldn’t have been able to be used for any food (fish) or water. http://personal.colby.edu/personal/t/thtieten/air-ind.html
2) This case study by Benjamin D. Inskeep and Shahzeen Z. Attari looked at water usage in American households. This study focuses on the similar concept of water compared to the first study, but talks about how we must conserve water. It also reflects environmental possibilism as there is only so much water to be taken so humans must change their ways. The end use of water is to have it for environmental needs as well as human hydration, and if each household continues to use an enormous amount of 255 gallons of water a day we will not have any left. As populations are expanding, places are suddenly becoming “water scarce regions.” One of the developmental goals is to educated people on the most effective way to conserve water as many people think the number one thing they can do to conserve is to take shorter showers. There are actually better ways to conserve the water. http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2014/July-August%202014/water_full.html
3) I’m connecting these two articles to my hometown in WV. Mentioned earlier in another module the main source for water in my town is the Potomac River. The first study relates to this in the way that if the Potomac ever became contaminated the people in my town would not have any water for household usage and this has even happened in the town when I was younger. Unlike Indonesia’s plan to prevent more contamination of the water my town has no ulterior plan of another water source to use. Therefore, the water system in my town is not developing and the town could certainly adopt a similar system to what was used in Indonesia. The second study relates in the same way where my town is taking all the water from the river and we need to conserve it better. Examining different places matters because we can use their ideas. Time matter because my town needs to come up with an ulterior water plan now before it becomes contaminated again.
I thoroughly enjoyed this article. Your case studies were very well organized and concise. Your example with Indonesia seems to fit very well with this weeks lesson, especially the section that discussed Developments Downside. The way that their economic success is growing hand in hand with the detrimental effects on the environment, I believe, is exactly what that section was referring to.
Hello!
Your post caught my eye due to the first case showing the positives AND negatives. If you’re interested in reading my post here you go: https://wp.me/p3RCAy-bBm
Your first couple of sentences saying how the first case shows the positives AND negatives intrigued me – it is not often that one considers the negatives of development as it is normally seen as a positive thing. I am slightly confused though: the article says the information was not made public, but the communities were urged to put pressure on the polluters? How would the communities know? Were they putting pressure on their local supply companies?
I know that I am being picky, but to me this raises an interesting point – what was the motivation for the change. Having all of your company’s faults made public is sure to put you in the spotlight in the negative way, but having pollution to a point where you can’t even use it for food (the fish) should be motivation enough, shouldn’t it?