¹Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 91±¬ÁĎ, Orono, ME.

ABSTRACT
Rising sea levels and coastal land use are predicted to synergistically impact coastal wetlands by reducing their extent and ecosystem functioning through a process known as “coastal squeeze”. Impervious surfaces associated with coastal development prevent the natural process of wetland migration, whereby intertidal wetland area is lost at its seaward edge to rising low water lines, but is replaced by eroding uplands and accumulating new wetland at its landward edge. As these constructed surfaces prevent the replacement of lost wetland, intertidal wetlands are “squeezed” by rising sea levels until they disappear. This study uses geographic information system (GIS) to predict changes in intertidal wetland position and losses due to coastal squeeze in a midcoast Maine estuary under a 2-m sea level rise scenario. Estimates range from a net loss of 28% to 57% in intertidal wetland coverage by year 2100. The lower end of this range includes some mitigation efforts like managed realignment projects. The disparity between the currently high area of intertidal wetlands and the available area for wetlands to migrate into maybe explained by local topography and artificially high sedimentation rates associated with historic land use.

1. Introduction

Global sea levels are expected to rise by as much as 2 m by the year 2100 as a result of anthropogenic climate change (Parris et al. 2012). The rate of sea level rise (SLR) will accelerate as global temperatures continue to increase at an accelerating rate, driving oceanic thermal expansion and ice sheet meltwater runoff. A sea level rise of 2 m (henceforth SLR2) is the highest scenario predicted by the 2012 US National Climate Assessment (Parris et al. 2012). However, a recent probabilistic reanalysis of sea level rise in the twentieth century found that most future scenarios have underestimated the acceleration of historic SLR (Hay et al. 2015).

The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99% of the rest of the world’s oceans (Fernandez et al. 2015), with the International Panel on Climate Change predicting a 1.7-2.8°C increase in annual temperatures across Maine by the year 2050. The last time temperatures increased by 2°C, during the last interglacial period, sea levels in the North Atlantic rose by 4-6m (Jansen et al. 2007). Thus, SLR2 by the year 2100 could be a conservative estimate for the Gulf of Maine (Fernandez et al. 2015).

1.1 Impact of SLR on estuarine wetlands
Estuaries are expected to be severely affected by SLR, as their ecosystem functions are contingent on a balance of freshwater inputs and tidal hydrological processes (Morris et al. 2002). Tidal wetlands that fringe estuaries are important for coastal defense by attenuating wave energy during large storm surges. These wetlands provide other important ecosystem services, such as providing nursery habitat for valuable fisheries, supporting local pollinators and biodiversity, sequestering carbon, and ameliorating agricultural and industrial runoff to estuaries.

The lands surrounding estuaries are often of high real estate value, either for industrial, residential, or recreational purposes. These areas are then often flanked by artificial coastal defenses, such as sea-walls or dykes. These impervious surfaces and hard coastal defenses prevent the natural landward migration of tidal wetlands with rising sea levels, whereby intertidal wetland area is lost at its seaward edge with SLR, but is replaced by eroding uplands and accreting sediments at its landward edge. Hard constructed surfaces prevent the replacement and overall migration of tidal wetlands, causing wetlands to be “squeezed” between the rising low water line and coastal defense structures. Coastal squeeze can also occur along coastlines that have steep changes in elevation, or where the slope of the land is too great for wetlands to migrate up into (Pontee 2013).

Here I use Maine elevation, land cover, and sea level rise data to predict how wetlands might respond to a sea level rise of 2 m in a large estuary in midcoast Maine. By investigating local land cover and geography, I model the migration of intertidal wetlands and show that the extent wetland coverage would decline due to coastal squeeze processes in the SLR2 scenario.

2. Methods

2.1 Study Region
Merrymeeting Bay is a confluence of six rivers that collectively drain one third of the freshwater in the state of Maine and forms the upper portion of the Kennebec Estuary (Lichter et al. 2006). Much of Merrymeeting Bay’s 4000 ha are vegetated and its subtidal areas are shallow, with depths averaging 2 m (Lichter et al. 2006). Merrymeeting Bay is the largest tidal freshwater estuary north of the Chesapeake. Its intertidal wetlands are the largest staging ground for migratory waterfowl in the northeastern US, and it’s the only area of wetland in which all of Maine’s migratory fish species can be found (BWH 2017). The study region includes Merrymeeting Bay – the large bay-like area and the tidal portions of the rivers that confluence therein sensu Lichter et al. (2006) – and some brackish sections of the lower Kennebec Estuary as far south as the Sagadahoc Bridge in Bath, ME (Figure 1).

2.2 Data Acquisition and Analyses
Geographical base layers for Maine were obtained from the Maine Office of GIS (MEGIS; http://www.maine.gov/megis/). Wetland data were obtained from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database (https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/). Additional data on vernal pool locations (not included in the NWI) were obtained from MEGIS. A digital elevation model (DEM) (10m2 pixel-size) for the area was provided by C. Loftin. Land cover data for the study area were taken from the 2004 Maine Land Cover Database (MELCD) obtained from MEGIS. Annual tide information and tidal datums were taken from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (2015). Summarized information on data sources and formats is provided in Table 1.

Unless otherwise noted, ArcMap 10.3 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA) was used for all data visualization and analyses. All data were imported into ArcMap and were reprojected, when appropriate, to the same projected coordinate system (NAD1983 UTM Zone 19N). The DEM raster data had a pixel size of 10 m2 and so all other raster data were resampled to the same pixel size. All data were clipped to the extent of the study region (Figure 1).

2.2.1 Tidal wetland coverage
The current extent of tidal wetlands for the study area was established by selecting polygons from the NWI dataset based on their Cowardin wetland classification codes and hydrologic modifiers. Total wetland area was calculated for estuarine: subtidal and intertidal, and for freshwater: subtidal and intertidal. Full descriptions of hydrological systems and modifiers are available in Cowardin et al. (1979).

2.2.2 Coastal wetland coverage
State ordinances that dictate coastal development zoning in Maine commonly define coastal wetlands as the tidal and subtidal lands below the upper limit of the highest annual high tide (HAT). HATs are calculated by the National Ocean Service for tidal stations along the U.S. coast. For this project, the published 2015 HAT for Sturgeon Island, Merrymeeting Bay ((43° 58’ 50.04” N, 69° 50’ 4.64” W; NOAA 2015) was used to define the current extent of coastal wetlands – 0.762 m above the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). The DEM used the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) for reference. VDatum v3.4 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD) was used to convert the HAT value for Sturgeon Island, ME from NAVD88 to NGVD29 to match the DEM, which resulted in a revised HAT value of 0.970 m. This value was used in these analyses.

2.2.3 Simulating SLR2
The following procedures loosely follow those of Torio and Chmura (2013) and simulate SLR2 above the current HAT:

1. 1. Defining current coastal wetland extent: To define the current extent and area of coastal wetland in the study region, values below 0.970 m in elevation in the digital elevation model were coded as wetland and all other values being coded as upland. These data were named “current_wetland”.
   2. Defining inundated areas after SLR2: After subtracting 2 m from the digital elevation model, this process was repeated to define areas that would be in inundated after SLR2 with values below 0.970 m in elevation being coded as wetland and all other values being coded as upland. These data were named “wetland_SLR2”.
   3. Quantifying potential novel wetlands and barriers to migration: A third dataset (“potential_marsh_migration”) was generated by overlaying the “current_wetland” and “wetland_SLR2” data. If pixels in the two datasets were different (upland and wetland) then a value of “1” was assigned to them. If the pixels were the same (wetland and wetland, or upland and upland) a zero value was assigned. Zero values were removed, leaving the areas that are currently uplands or non-tidal wetlands, but would potentially become tidal wetlands after SLR2. This “potential_marsh_migration” dataset was converted to vector polygons, and then the geoprocessing function Erase was used to remove areas that are currently classified as tidally influenced wetland in the NWI. This produced a dataset that included only novel tidal wetlands (“novel_tidal_wets”). Areas that are currently classified as non-tidal wetlands were also erased to leave areas that are currently not wetlands of any type (uplands) that would potentially become tidal wetland areas after SLR. The Intersect tool was used to determine which currently non-tidal wetlands would be reached by high tides after SLR2.

To determine the net change of intertidal wetland to subtidal wetland, the subtidal (low water) line was approximated to be 1.358 m (the mean tidal range in Merrymeeting Bay [NOAA, 2015]) below the high tide line after SLR2. The predicted wetland area “wetland_SLR2” was multiplied by the original digital elevation model to create elevation data for the areas that would be inundated after SLR2. Pixels with values below 1.358 m were coded as “subtidal”, which approximated subtidal areas after SLR2. Then, a mask of wetland polygons that are currently classified as intertidal in the NWI was overlaid, which allowed an estimation of the area of intertidal wetlands that would become subtidal after SLR2.

Elevation data for the areas that were classified as novel tidal wetlands “novel_tidal_wets” were extracted from the original digital elevation model, and slope (in degrees) was calculated using the Spatial Analyst tool, Slope.

There were 22 land cover classes identified in the MELCD dataset for the study region. These 22 land cover types were reclassified into four groups based on their suitability for tidal wetland migration “Migration Potential” using a method adapted from Russell, Hawkins, and O’Neill (1997). The classification scheme used can be seen in Table 2.

3. Results

3.1 Current tidal wetland coverage
There were no NWI marine wetlands in the study region. The distribution of estuarine (brackish) and freshwater tidal wetlands closely corresponded to isohalines from previous salinity profiles for the Kennebec Estuary (Wong and Townsend 1999). Given that the geographical and hydrological conditions that create freshwater tidal areas are complex and difficult to model (Pasternack 2009), predictions of the limits of saline intrusion and relative changes in brackish and freshwater tidal wetlands are not covered in this study. Hence, estuarine and tidal freshwater wetlands were grouped by hydrology– subtidal or intertidal. Areas and geographic extent can be seen in Table 3 and Figure 2, respectively. Using the HAT definition, 6255 ha of the study region were classified as coastal wetland, 2329 ha less than those classified as tidal in the NWI.

3.2 Potential wetland coverage after SLR2

After simulating SLR2, 8928 ha was classified as coastal wetland. After correcting for differences between the NWI and HAT definitions, 1003 ha of the study region were predicted as the maximum area of novel tidal wetland (not currently tidal wetland under either definition). 454 ha of non-tidal wetlands and 1 vernal pool site were expected to be affected by SLR2 (Table 4). The predicted change from intertidal to subtidal wetlands was 2630 ha. See Figure 3 for changes in extent and affected areas.

3.3 Realized wetland coverage after SLR2
Slope values in the potential area for wetland migration (1003 ha) ranged between 0° and 5° (x̄ = 1.16 ± 0.003°). Around half (52.6%) of the wetland migration area was classified as having “Excellent” or “Good” migration potential in terms of existing land cover types (Table 5). Estimates for net realized total intertidal wetland coverage under different wetland migration success scenarios can be seen in Table 5. Figure 4 shows for the predicted geographic extent of each migration potential class.

4. Discussion

4.1 Wetland migration patterns
Merrymeeting Bay and surrounding areas currently have 4345 ha of intertidal wetlands, 60% of which (2630 ha) would be lost below the low tide line under the SLR2 scenario. This study predicts a maximum of 1003 ha of potential space for these intertidal wetlands to migrate into, based on land elevation alone. The SLR2 scenario used in this study was the highest predicted by the NOAA (Parris et al. 2012). As such, the predictions in this study for tidal wetland responses should represent one of the most extreme scenarios. Nevertheless, considering that recent reevaluations of SLR in the twentieth century have suggested that sea levels have been rising more rapidly than was previously predicted (Hay et al. 2015), and that the magnitude and frequency of storm-driven flooding has been increasing in the northeastern US and is expected to increase peak discharges of large rivers (Armstrong, Collins, and Snyder 2012), the findings of this study are not by any means implausible for the Merrymeeting Bay region. Moreover, this study doesn’t include any modeling of storm surges, which are also expected to become more frequent in Maine under climate change scenarios (Jacobson et al. 2009).

Even before barriers to wetland migration are included in the model, there would be a 38.6% reduction in the area of intertidal wetlands. There are two main classes of barriers to wetland migration: coastal development and creation of impervious surfaces; and natural steep changes in coastal elevation (Pontee 2013). Although the study region is relatively rural, around half (47.5%) of the area that wetlands could migrate into was ranked as being “Poor” or worse in terms of land cover using the definitions of (Russell et al. 1997).

It is unlikely that communities will want to (or be able to) convert the 79 ha of impervious land cover types (“Negligible” class) to wetland, as these areas include infrastructure and housing. “Managed realignment” is the process by which less valuable coastal land parcels are modified to create tidal wetlands and maximize the success of wetland migration, and has been used extensively in the UK and mainland Europe. This study identified 543 ha of land that is currently cropland or grassland (“Good”), and forested (“Poor”) that could be managed to promote tidal wetland formation. Even with Managed Realignment, natural migration in to land ranked as “excellent”, and currently non-tidal wetlands that will be reached by predicted high tides, there remains at least a 28% deficit in intertidal wetland coverage by 2100. Managed realignment may also have limited utility in the study region, as there are high monetary costs involved (beyond those associated with “losing” land to the water), which may outweigh the small increase in intertidal wetland area (Doody 2012).

4.2 Potential causes of the intertidal wetland “deficit”
While coastal development will play some role in preventing landward migration of intertidal wetlands in the study region, the relatively small area of land that will be inundated under a SLR2 scenario is the main contributor to the deficit in wetland coverage. Following Torio and Chmura’s (2013) methodology, slope was not found to be a significant impediment to wetland migration in this study region. Slope values were all below 5°, which is relatively shallow. Torio and Chmura (2013) suggest that slopes steeper than 11.5° would create a significant risk of coastal squeeze in Maine. It is likely that using a DEM with 10m2 pixels prohibited an accurate assessment of slope in the potential areas of wetland migration. While this assessment might have been possible with a 2m2 LiDAR-derived DEM, such a dataset was not available for this study.

The geography and environmental history of the study region could also explain the large deficit in intertidal coverage in the wetland migration scenario. The Kennebec estuary (and Merrymeeting Bay, by extension) is a “flooded river valley” estuary typical of northeastern North America (Belknap et al. 2002). It was likely deep prior to the arrival of European colonists. Historical references in Lichter et al. (2006) suggest that Merrymeeting Bay was deep enough for large ships to navigate as far as Brunswick until the mid-18th century, and Köster et al. (2007) found that sedimentation rates in Merrymeeting Bay were greatly elevated after the area became more densely settled after 1730 CE. This suggests that changing land cover and use, such as the conversion of forested land to agriculture, might have artificially elevated the extent of intertidal areas, as increased terrestrial erosion caused increase estuarine siltation.

Investigating patterns of land use change in the area around Merrymeeting Bay, Lichter et al. (2006) found that between 1956 and 1981, intertidal wetland area increased by 26 ha, but there has been no net change since, which the authors attribute to an increased afforestation of the surrounding watersheds. Changing land use and soil conservation practices may continue to reduce sedimentation rates in Merrymeeting Bay (sensu Meade 1982), which may exacerbate intertidal wetland loss due to SLR.

5. Conclusions

The tidal wetlands of Merrymeeting Bay and the Kennebec estuary are expected to be greatly affected by a 2-m rise in sea level. This analysis shows that coastal squeeze may cause a reduction in the area of intertidal wetlands by at least 28%. A reduction as large as 50% is likely due to topographical limits on wetland migration. Some modern non-tidal wetlands and vernal pools may become tidally influenced under this SLR scenario. However, their value in contributing to the overall area of intertidal wetland may be negated by the loss of their associated ecosystem functions and services. Targeted managed realignment projects in the area may mitigate some losses, but it is likely that the current extent of intertidal wetlands in Merrymeeting Bay has been artificially elevated by historic land use patterns, which may explain the high wetland “deficit” predicted values along a relatively rural coastline. While Merrymeeting Bay is an important conservation and recreation area, coastal management strategies should consider that the current extent of intertidal wetland may be a product of land use and disturbance, and intertidal wetland accretion may be slowing even in the absence of coastal squeeze processes.

Acknowledgements
I thank H. Greig, J. Haghkerdar, and the Sediment Ecology Research Group at the University of St Andrews for their support during the preparation of this manuscript. M. Correll, D. Hayes, and C. Loftin provided feedback on an earlier draft. I also thank C. Loftin for providing some of the data needed for this project. Comments by an anonymous reviewer greatly improved the manuscript.

REFERENCES
Armstrong, William H., Mathias J. Collins, and Noah P. Snyder. 2012. “Increased frequency of low-magnitude floods in New England.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48 (2):306-320.

Belknap, Daniel F., Joseph T. Kelley, and Allen M. Gontz. 2002. “Evolution of the glaciated shelf and coastline of the northern Gulf of Maine, USA.” Journal of Coastal Research SI 36:37-55.

BWH (Beginning with Habitat). 2017. Focus areas of statewide ecological significance. Kennebec Estuary. 9pp. Available at: https://www.maine.gov/dacf/mnap/focusarea/kennebec_estuary_focus_area.pdf Accessed: 4/1/2018

Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Doody, J. Patrick. 2012. “Coastal squeeze and managed realignment in southeast England, does it tell us anything about the future?” Ocean and Coastal Management 79:34-41.

Fernandez, I. J., C. V. Schmitt, S.D. Birkel, E. Stanicoff, A.J. Pershing, J.T. Kelley, J.A. Runge, G. L. Jacobson, and P. A. Mayewski. 2015. Maine’s Climate Future: 2015 Update. Orono, ME: 91±¬ÁĎ.

Hay, Carling C., Eric Morrow, Robert E. Kopp, and Jerry X. Mitrovica. 2015. “Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise.” Nature 517 (7535):481-484. doi: 10.1038/nature14093.

Jacobson, G. L., I. J. Fernandez, P. A. Mayewski, and C. V. Schmitt. 2009. Maine’s Climate Future: An Initial Assessment. Orono, ME: 91±¬ÁĎ.

Köster, Dörte, John Lichter, Peter D. Lea, and Andrea Nurse. 2007. “Historical eutrophication in a river–estuary complex in mid-coast Maine.” Ecological Applications 17 (3):765-778. doi: 10.1890/06-0815.

Lichter, John, Heather Caron, Timothy S. Pasakarnis, Sarah L. Rodgers, Thomas S. Squires, and Charles S. Todd. 2006. “The ecological collapse and partial recovery of a freshwater tidal ecosystem.” Northeastern Naturalist 13 (2):153-178. doi: 10.1656/1092-6194(2006)13[153:TECAPR]2.0.CO;2.

Meade, Robert H. 1982. “Sources, sinks, and storage of river sediment in the Atlantic drainage of the United States.” The Journal of Geology 90 (3):235-252.

Morris, James T., P.V. Sundareshwar, Christopher T. Nietch, Bjorn Kjerfve, and D.R. Cahoon. 2002. “Responses of coastal wetlands to rising sea level.” Ecology 83 (10):2869-2877.

NOAA. 2015. Highest Annual Tide (HAT) Levels for Year 2015. Maine Coast from Eastport to Kittery.

Parris, Adam, Peter Bromirski, Virginia Burkett, Dan Cayan, Mary Culver, John Hall, Radley Horton, Kevin Knuuti, Richard Moss, Jayantha Obeysekera, Abby Sallenger, and Jeremy Weiss. 2012. Global sea level rise scenarios for the US National Climate Assessment. In NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO-1.

Pasternack, Gregory B. 2009. “Hydrogeomorphology and sedimentation in tidal freshwater wetlands.” In Tidal Freshwater Wetlands, edited by Aat Barendregt, Dennis F. Whigham and Andrew H. Baldwin, 31-40. Leiden, NL: Backhuys.

Pontee, Nigel. 2013. “Defining coastal squeeze: a discussion.” Ocean and Coastal Management 84:204-207.

Russell, Gordon D., Charles P. Hawkins, and Michael P. O’Neill. 1997. “The role of GIS in selecting sites for riparian restoration based on hydrology and land use.” Restoration Ecology 5 (4S):56-68.

Torio, Dante D., and Gail L. Chmura. 2013. “Assessing coastal squeeze of tidal wetlands.” Journal of Coastal Research 29 (5):1049-1061.

Wong, Ming Wah, and David W. Townsend. 1999. “Phytoplankton and hydrography of the Kennebec estuary, Maine, USA.” Marine Ecology Progress Series 178:133-144. doi: 10.3354/meps178133.

The post High net loss of intertidal wetland coverage in a Maine estuary by year 2100 appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

¹College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, ME 04609
²BCM Environmental and Land Law PLLC, Concord, NH 03301

Corresponding Author: Gray Cox (gray@coa.edu)

Key Words: residential heat, culture, firewood, regional analysis, consumer behavior, ethnographic study, Maine culture, DIY

ABSTRACT
Cultural analysis is vital for understanding the causes and patterns of energy consumption (Lutzenhizer 1992, Lutzenhizer 2008, and Stephenson 2010). Here we present a study of residential heating in Hancock County, Maine that uses a mix of ethnographic methods. The results show that previous studies of Hancock County, ME energy use dramatically underestimated the use of wood as a fuel. Additionally, we find that fuel choices are very affected by two alternative subculture patterns. These patterns involve systematic differences in root metaphors for heating, values and assumptions concerning space, time, aesthetics, costs, family structure, ways of knowing, and other aspects of life. Our results have important implications for policy change and community based efforts that aim at changing energy use. They also reveal hypotheses about comparable cultural differences in other kinds of household behaviors in Maine and other parts of the world.

I. Introduction
Hancock County, Maine has 1,586 square miles of land, most of which is forested (US Census Bureau 2018). It consists of approximately 45% hardwood and 55% softwood/evergreen growth (Ten Broeck 2010). Hancock County has a population of 54,418 people and 22,149 households distributed in coastal towns and more sparsely populated rural inland villages (US Census Bureau 2018). A previous study of residential heating with wood undertaken by the U. S. Census indicated that 10% of the households in the state of Maine and 11% in Hancock County heated with wood (US Census Bureau 2017).

The ethnographic research reported here is part of a larger interdisciplinary project studying the use of wood as a fuel for residential heating in Hancock County. Previous research indicates that increased use of wood could reduce carbon footprint, promote local economic development and security, and increase regional and national energy security – all in ways that might have social and environmental costs significantly less than the costs of other fuels being replaced (Ten Broeck, 2010). This might seem initially counter-intuitive, since in many parts of the world the use of wood for residential heating and cooking is unsustainable and its health costs are very high (World Health Organization 2016). However, in rural areas where wood is plentiful, its harvest may provide a sustainable source of energy (deB Richter et. al. 2009, and Gulland 2018). Where baseline presence of particulate pollution is low and rural population is sparse, the public health costs of marginal pollution caused from efficient wood stoves may be less than the environmental costs of common fossil fuel alternatives. Additionally, burning wood doesn’t impact the global carbon cycle the way burning fossil fuels does, as carbon from the wood is already a part of the modern carbon cycle and does not add to the total load of carbon in the carbon cycle and the parts per million in the atmosphere.

Preliminary study by our team found that there was an ample wood supply source in Hancock County that could be harvested sustainably for residential heating in the county. Measurements of particulate levels in the local atmosphere and modelling of likely public health impacts indicate that the health costs of increased use of efficient wood heaters would be very low (Cass 2011).

These results suggest it would be useful to study who in the county was and was not using wood as a residential fuel and why. Previous research has demonstrated a wide range of ways in which culture plays a significant role in determining energy consumption (Lipfert 1983, Lutzenhiser 1992, Wilhite 1996, Lutzenhiser 2008, Sopha 2010, and Sovacool 2011). Considerations in addition to cost – including time use, lifestyle preference, identity, and other factors – may play important roles in the decision to use firewood or other heat sources (Force 1989, Jalas and Rinkinen 2013, and Williams 2004).

Here we present a survey of 120 households in Hancock County, ME. We find indications that dramatically more wood is used for residential heating than previously reported (US Census Bureau 2017). We find that those who use wood differ culturally in systematic ways in their heating practices. These differences are characterized here in terms of “Modern Consumer Families” (MC) and “Self-reliant Maine Yankee Families” (SMY). These differences suggest possible significant implications for understanding cultural action that might yield improved practices of sustainability.

II. Material and Methods
To research patterns of fuel use in Hancock County, we used a critical participatory research process in the tradition of “illuminative evaluation” (Cox 1986, Richards 1985). This process draws on multiple methods to develop “verbal images” of intentional structures of behavior whose accuracy could be “triangulated” using qualitative and quantitative methods (Cox 1986, and Richards 1985). These methods include: household surveys, focus groups, consultations with community leaders and experts, in-depth/semi-structured ethnographic interviews, and participant observation (Spradley 1979).

We developed and refined the household survey using initial in-depth, open-ended, ethnographic interviews from a snowball sampling of people from varied income levels, professional backgrounds, and regions of the county. We also drew on insights from participant observation and consultation with various local experts on the production and use of wood as a residential fuel source. The systematic survey instrument developed from this process is a brief questionnaire designed to simultaneously gather basic data about heating choices and elicit open-ended dialogue in which participants explain how they heat their homes in their own words and according to their own customs. Survey sessions were typically 30 to 40 minutes in length.

We surveyed 120 households, selected to systematically include representation from each town proportional to its population relative to the entire county. We selected households by identifying every Nth household in the town property list, where:

In the few cases where property lists were not available, selection of households was varied geographically to provide a representative sampling.

The basic survey questions were:

1. How do you heat? Do you heat with firewood or pellets?
2. How many cords of wood or tons of pellets do you burn a year and where do you get them?
3. What are your reasons for not using wood more for heating?
4. What matters most to you regarding home heating?
5. Do you think heating with firewood and/or pellets should be encouraged or discouraged for reasons of ecology, economy, health, or national security? Why?

III. Results and Discussion
We find that the level of residential heating with wood in Hancock County, ME is dramatically higher than previously indicated. US Census Bureau (2017) reported that 11% of households in Hancock County used wood as a heat source. We found that 58% of households use at least some wood to heat (Fig. 1). Of these, approximately 50% of households get half their heat from wood sources.

There are a number of possible explanations for why such different results were found here compared with the previous Census study. Some of the discrepancy may be explained by an actual increase in wood usage following a devastating ice storm in 1998 which caused over 360,000 people in Maine to lose electric power and, in many cases, to have to live without it for several weeks. The larger sample size (5x) of our study may also impact the different results. However, it is likely that discrepancies in self-reporting of wood use in the different contexts of the two surveys has had a large impact on our results. For example, some respondents were clearly concerned by the fact that insurance companies typically charge significantly higher premiums for houses which rely primarily or exclusively on wood heat. Thus, those households with any source of heat other than wood were likely to report the other heating source as their primary source in a survey for an official government study. Since the Census survey did not ask about supplemental or back up forms of heat, other sources would have been unregistered.

The relative percentages of different household wood heating regimes are shown in Figure 2. Initial findings included self-reported explanations as to why people did not heat with wood: 6% had allergies or asthma, 6% were elderly or infirm and no longer able to heat with wood, and 5% were renters whose landlords did not allow them to heat with wood (even if a stove and chimney were in place).

Of the “no wood” heating households, 25% fell into the “other” explanation category. Why did these households choose other heat sources over wood? One clue came from people’s direct responses to the question, “What matters most to you regarding home heating?” Surprisingly, only about half mentioned economic issues like cost or finances as mattering most – or even mentioned them at all. Further, of those who did mention economic issues, 58% of those respondents used some wood in heating their homes. This indicates that a concern with economic issues such as cost are not a predictor of which fuel people choose for heating.

Even more striking is the very different ways in which people interpreted questions of cost in terms of fuel choice. For example, in comparing wood with oil, one person said, “[Wood] costs more than oil because my time is worth more than that. You have to cut it and stack it. It’s dirty. You get tired of it.” In contrast, a second person making the comparison said: “The nice thing about wood is that it heats you three times. Once when you cut it, once when you split it, and once when you burn it.” Clearly these two had very different ways of constructing their understanding of what calculates as a cost. From the point of view of the second group, the contrast was sharpened by their perception that people who had views similar to the first person might not only spend the extra premium that heating with oil cost in dollars, but also go and spend hundreds of dollars on a membership in a fitness club in order to get exercise which the second person viewed himself as getting for free by “heating himself three times” with wood.

In closely reviewing the nuances of people’s responses and reflecting on insights from the other methods employed, we see a pattern of two different subcultures of household heating distinguished by their root metaphors, assumptions, values, and practices. Using interpretive methods of “illuminative evaluation,” we developed “verbal images” for these two groups and their behavior (Richards 1985). The first group, the “Modern Consumer” (MC) families, has as its root metaphor for heating the notion that heating should be viewed as an efficient service that is provided for you. The second group, the “Self-reliant Maine Yankee” (SMY) families, has as its root metaphor for heating the notion that heating should be viewed as a self-reliant practice that is performed by the householders themselves. Table 1 summarizes the contrasts we found between the two subcultures.

Table 1: Modern Consumer Families and Self-reliant Maine Yankees: Two Cultures of Residential Heating in Hancock County, ME.

We found systematic differences in values in these two sub-cultures. MC families value a heating service that is delivered in a homogeneous and relatively uniform distribution through space and time. They comment that: “I like to be able to walk anywhere in the house in my T-shirt and be comfortable.” They praise their conventional oil or propane gas heating system because: “I don’t have to give it a thought, just set the thermostat and you’re done.” For them, a good heating system is like a good waiter or valet who seamlessly delivers the desired service – the less you need to notice it or talk about it, the better. Typically, a neat and tidy house that is uniformly clean and well-appointed is desired.

In contrast, for the SMY families it is considered common sense that heat should be distributed unevenly through space and time. They emphasize the desirability of having a space in the house that is especially hot, noting, “There’s nothing like a woodstove if you want to get warm when you come in from the cold.” But they will often also make comments like, “I like to leave the bedrooms cold. I sleep better.” They assume further that variations over time are normal and appropriate – keeping the house at different temperatures depending on the time of day, week, or season of the year, as well as who is home and what activities are happening. They prize, in a variety of ways, opportunities to notice, talk about, and interact with the materials and devices that they use to produce heat in their homes. They will note, “I like to watch the fire and feed it. Its homey, cozy.” They savor the feel of the seasoned wood in handling it, the smell of it burning, the hypnotic flicker and glow of the fire and coals, the sparks that rise when they poke in new logs, and even the fertile mineral qualities of the ash when they use it to enrich their gardens. For SMY families, its seems normal and appropriate that there be dirty spaces where wood is brought in and handled. This extends to their utility spaces and landscaping outside the house as well, in which workspaces of different sorts are assumed to be part of the well-equipped household.

The MC families view heating as a service provided to them as consumers and the purchase of it is relatively neutral with regard to gender, age and other features of them as individuals. Either spouse can, for instance, ask the other to call the professionals and have them come and fix problems or maintain the system. In contrast, the SMY families typically suppose that it is normal and appropriate for different members of the household to have different gifts, skills and preferences when it comes to performing various heating activities. The traditional stereotypical form this could take is that the husband with greater upper body strength cuts the wood and the wife who is home through the day in the kitchen tends the fire. This is not an especially accurate stereotype but the underlying reality that it makes sense for different people to do different chores is a part of the practice-centered understanding of heating for these folks. The activities provide opportunities for creativity and self-expression in the ways wood is split and stacked and fires are built – and ways children or family and friends are involved in such activities.

In contrast to the MC families’ purchase of a service by professionals, much of the activity associated with heating in SMY families is only partially commodified, if at all. It may involve gift exchanges of work, tools or material. Much is exchanged by barter. Often wood is harvested on the householders’ own land or gleaned from public lands or lots of others. Much of the work is by people who do it only part time or as amateurs in supplying fuel or building and maintaining chimneys and stoves along with other infrastructure. The guiding and regulation of such activity is not directed by expert opinion provided by professionals as in the case of the MC families purchasing conventional heat from “Them”. Instead, it is developed and shared in a collaborative, community based epistemic process of dialogue and shared practice in which an individual may share what “I” have found and compare it with “Your” experience to develop a collective sense of what “We” would agree on – which might come, over time, to be accepted, increasingly without thinking or debate, as what “One” does in heating a house.

In their views of each other, the typical – or perhaps better said, the stereotypical – MC and SMY families have rather sharply contrasting visions. The MC family can tend to view their own approach to heating as modern and rational and in many cases see the wood heating done by SMY families as quaint, old-fashioned, poor or backwards looking and perhaps even feel compassion for “those poor b*s”.

A significant portion of the SMY families can, in contrast, view heating with wood as a source of personal and family pride and regional identity and view oil users as un-ecological, irrational householders who are irresponsible and not self-reliant, taking a risk that they will freeze in an ice storm. They may even view them as politically un-American or lacking good Earth stewardship because they are supporting “Big Oil” and not advancing oil independence or reducing their carbon footprint.

IV. Implications
The differences in household behavior and culture found here raise a variety of theoretical questions and suggest avenues for further study. The first question is, “What leads to the emergence and adoption of one subculture rather than another?” Our study identifies a variety of possible kinds of dynamics and explanatory factors that determine who takes part in the MC or SMY cultural practices. These include:

1. Some people seemed clearly to have formed their ideas and practices of heating in early childhood and maintained them since. Parents cultivated appreciation, for example, for the joys of splitting wood and then coming in to sit beside a warm wood stove.
2. Others were motivated to adopt what they perceived as the local culture when they moved in to Maine in order to define and affirm their new cultural identities as “Mainers”.
3. Others went through some kind of personal conversion experience when they had an opportunity to try an alternative form of heating. For example, some fell in love with the magic of a wood stove, or, conversely, others became enthralled with the relief of not having to feed one anymore.
4. For a few people, a major ice storm in 1998, which shut down many power lines for weeks, led them to conclude that self-reliance in heating sources was a matter of survival.
5. Some shifted to wood heat as part of the self reliance efforts of the back to the land migration to Maine in the 1960’s and 70’s.
6. Some shifted at one of the points at which the relative prices of fuels went through dramatic swings up or down leading them to rethink their approach to heating.
7. Some bought houses or started renting where the infrastructure for one kind of heating practice or the other was already in place.

These 7 examples are just a few of the explanations for the adoption or rejection of one sub-culture or the other. What these examples might lead us to overlook, however, is the very significant variation in the extent to which the patterns of behavior of one sub-culture or the other are adopted. Individual households may have members with very different backgrounds and former practices of heating – who then raise children with some hybrid mix of values, norms and practices. And individuals may be self-reliant or expert-dependent to quite varying degrees in how they install, maintain, and feed the fuel systems for whatever mix of heating systems they choose.

In the case of some individuals and households, there is an adoption of one sub-culture or the other in a systematic and relatively complete way, as though it were a Kuhnian paradigm they were committed to – a logically coherent and systematically distinct way of describing and explaining the world and interacting with it which would be incommensurable with the alternative paradigm. In the case of many other individuals or households, the elements of the two subcultures are more like elements of two different accents or regional dialects which they can intermingle and mix and match different elements from to form a linguistic pattern of their own which itself might vary considerably over time. The dynamics of the causes and motives for participating in one culture or the other merit further study.

It is also worth considering how understanding these sub-cultures can help us design and implement programs aimed at changing fuel use. Could community organizers promote one culture over another, or could policy incentives encourage the promulgation of one culture over the other? Organizers might use various kinds of community activities to encourage the sharing, elaboration, celebration, or transformation of one set of cultural practices. Policy steps promoting one or the other could reinforce such action at the community level with resources to carry on the work, with public commitments to one cultural identity, with educational initiatives within the school systems, or with subsidies and other incentives.

Another line of research is the relevance of these sub-cultures to understanding household behavior in other areas of interest in sustainability studies – such as food systems, education, or health care. Might there be sub-cultures of households in Maine where food is understood with analogous root metaphors, views of space and time, aesthetic values and other assumptions analogous to the two sketched here? Participant observation carried out as part of this study strongly suggests that many key elements of the MC and SMY subculture patterns inform people’s practices for providing themselves with food, education, and health care. Systematic research in these areas would provide fruitful insights into the cultural patterns and into the dynamics by which these patterns develop and change over time. For example, are there experiences like gardening with tomatoes or using herbal teas for medicine that provide key gateways into SMY cultural practices? Are there community institutions like farmers’ markets or CDC sponsored community health agencies that are effective vehicles for more systematic cultural change?

The “two sub-cultures” pattern found in this study might also provide useful hypotheses for exploring the consumption behavior of households in other regions of the U.S. or other parts of the world in which various forms of consumer culture – and alternatives to it – have developed in the last two centuries (Lewis 1993, Thompson 2010). The patterns studied here might also provide useful ways of interpreting household behavior in other kinds of arenas besides ones focused on resource use such as political life and voting behavior.

V. Conclusion
This study of Hancock County, Maine, demonstrated that there is dramatically more use of wood as a residential fuel than previously reported and that a majority of households use it in some form. Further, household choices of heating methods would seem to be strongly associated with two different subculture patterns that involve involve systematic differences in root metaphors for heating, values and assumptions concerning space, time, aesthetics, costs, family structure, ways of knowing, and other aspects of life. The distinctions between these two subcultures, the “Modern Consumer” families and the “Self-reliant Maine Yankees”, may provide fruitful possible ways of framing further studies that aim to understand and change heating and other kinds of household practices in order to promote more sustainable uses of resources.

Acknowledgement
Significant and much appreciated support was provided by a 2009-2011 National Science Foundation Grant # 0904155 obtained through a Maine EPSCOR grant on “Developing Our Energy Future” received by the College of the Atlantic, administered by the 91±¬ÁĎ under the “Maine’s Sustainability Science Initiative.

REFERENCES
Cass, Don. “Slides on Risk Analysis Prepared by Don Cass for Public Forum on the Firewood Project 2/24/2011”, private communication (2011).

Cox, J. Gray. The ways of peace: a philosophy of peace as action. New York: Paulist Press, 1986.

deB Richter, Jr., D., D. H. Jenkins, J. T. Karakash, J. Knight, L. R. Mccreery, and K. P. Nemestothy. “RESOURCE POLICY: Wood Energy in America.” Science323, no. 5920 (2009): 1432-433. doi:10.1126/science.1166214.

Force, J. E., “Residential Wood Energy Use in Idaho”. Forest Products Journal 1989 Vol.39 No.2 pp.25-29 ref.19.

Gulland, John. “The Argument In Favor Of Wood Heating.” A Non-commercial Service in Support of Responsible Home Heating with Wood – Woodheat.org Home. Accessed April 23, 2018. http://woodheat.org/argument.html.

Jalas, Mikko, and Jenny Rinkinen. “Stacking Wood and Staying Warm: Time, Temporality and Housework around Domestic Heating Systems,.” Journal of Consumer Culture 16, no. 1 (2013): 43-60. doi:10.1177/1469540513509639.

Lewis, George H. “The Maine That Never was: The Construction of Popular Myth in Regional Culture.” The Journal of American Culture 16, no. 2 (1993): 91-100. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734x.1993.00091.x

Lipfert, F. W., and J. L. Dungan. “Residential Firewood Use in the United States.” Science 219, no. 4591 (1983): 1425-427. doi:10.1126/science.219.4591.1425.

Lutzenhiser, L. “A cultural model of household energy consumption.” Energy 17, no. 1 (1992): 47-60. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(92)90032-u.

Lutzenhiser, L. “BEHAVIOR, ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE.” . Setting the stage: why behavior is important. Overview of address given to the behavior, energy and climate change conference. 2008.

Richards, Howard. The evaluation of cultural action. London: Macmillan, 1985.

Sopha, Bertha Maya, Christian A. Klöckner, Geir Skjevrak, and Edgar G. Hertwich. “Norwegian households’ perception of wood pellet stove compared to air-to-air heat pump and electric heating.” Energy Policy 38, no. 7 (2010): 3744-754. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.02.052.

Sovacool, Benjamin K. “Conceptualizing urban household energy use: Climbing the “Energy Services Ladder”.” Energy Policy 39, no. 3 (2011): 1659-668. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.041

Spradley, James P. The ethnographic interview. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2016.

Ten Broeck, Craig. “Reports & Data – Hancock County Firewood Initiative.” Google Sites. June 2010. Accessed November 20, 2017. https://sites.google.com/site/firewoodinitiative/data.

Thompson, Paul B. The agrarian vision: sustainability and environmental ethics. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2010.

US Census Bureau, Public Information Office. “Census 2000 data for the United States.” Census.gov. January 01, 2001. Accessed November 20, 2017. https://www.census.gov/census2000/states/us.html.

US Census Bureau. “Population of Hancock County Maine.” WebCite Query Result. Accessed April 23, 2018. https://www.webcitation.org/60639Xlle?url=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23/23009.html.

Wilhite, Harold, Hidetoshi Nakagami, Takashi Masuda, Yukiko Yamaga, and Hiroshi Haneda. “A cross-cultural analysis of household energy use behaviour in Japan and Norway.” Energy Policy 24, no. 9 (1996): 795-803. doi:10.1016/0301-4215(96)00061-4

Williams, Colin C. “A Lifestyle Choice? Evaluating the Motives of Doâ€�itâ€�yourself (DIY) Consumers.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 32, no. 5 (2004): 270-78. doi:10.1108/09590550410534613.

World Health Organization “Household Air Pollution from Cooking, Heating and Lighting.” August 04, 2016. Accessed April 23, 2018. http://www.who.int/sustainable-development/housing/health-risks/household-air-pollution/en/.

The post Modern Consumer Families and Self-reliant Maine Yankees: Two Cultures of Residential Heating appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

Extension Professor, 91±¬ÁĎ Cooperative Extension

This past spring, as I plunged my shovel into the dark cool soil, I reflected on the many seasons during which a diverse group of volunteers and I grew and delivered vegetables for low-income seniors. When I started my job at Cooperative Extension, I would never have imagined a project like the Orono Community Garden would become such an important part of my work. After completing my PhD in agronomy, I came to Maine to help farm families improve production, increase farm profitability, and reduce agriculture’s impact on the environment. I honestly didn’t understand much about the work of my Extension colleagues in social science areas like Community Development. But, after fourteen years of growing food with volunteers, the Orono Community Garden Project seems to be more about community development than applied science.

“In my first month at the University of Perugia, a colleague asked me to have lunch at his home with his family. Initially I said no because I had to work. He seemed surprised and said “John … we should work to live … not live to work.” ”

I was inspired to create the Orono Giving Garden during my five-month sabbatical leave to Perugia, Italy in 2003. Prior to this, my approach to food would have been described as typically American. Food was a necessity, and purchases were made based on cost, ease, and time. While dinner could have been a highlight of the day, all too often it was just something my wife and I did — something we had to do — in the routine of the day. Acculturating myself to Italian culinary traditions and practices took some time. For the Italians I met, family meals were special and important. In my first month at the University of Perugia, a colleague asked me to have lunch at his home with his family. Initially I said no because I had to work. He seemed surprised and said “John … we should work to live … not live to work.” My Italian education was just beginning, but the difference was clear.

Two small food markets, a butcher shop, bakery, two excellent restaurants, and a bar comprised the food and entertainment scene of the small hilltop town of Panicale where I lived. Each night, after riding the bus from Perugia back to Panicale, I would walk through town and visit both food markets. Yolanda, who sold fresh fruits and vegetables that she and her husband grew, would meet me with “ciao Ghiani … di mi”, roughly translated “hi John, tell me what you need”. Linda, the other market owner, would also greet me by name and ask me about my day. My bond with Panicale locals and good food began to grow. On warm Sunday afternoons, I would walk the narrow winding hill town streets, take in the aromas of Sunday lunch, and listen to the laughter and animated conversations of families around the table. I learned that food and family were fundamental to Italian culture, and sharing opportunities to dine with our new-found Italian friends and learning about their food traditions, changed forever my approach to food. After eating my way through an Italian summer, enjoying deliciously simple food made from fresh ingredients, I began to see food as a glue to bind family, community, and tradition.

“Dinner guests were surprised and amused when I told them they were eating Mark’s spinach or Hannah’s pork. Knowing that I was supporting the local economy became a principle that drove food purchase decisions, not the price or the amount of meat in the frozen chicken package.”

After returning to Maine, I began to localize my food world. I tossed my expired Sam’s card. The Orono Farmers’ Market replaced Yolanda as my source for fruits and vegetables. Dinner guests were surprised and amused when I told them they were eating Mark’s spinach or Hannah’s pork. Knowing that I was supporting the local economy became a principle that drove food purchase decisions, not the price or the amount of meat in the frozen chicken package. But, I found myself thinking, “Why should the economically privileged have access to good, healthy food while those less fortunate went without?” I knew access to quality food was problematic for many, particularly seniors living on fixed incomes. Perhaps, with some work and a little luck, a solution could be found.

The Orono Giving Garden idea was born. I would ask the town for access to some land and water. We would start a garden, grow food, and deliver it weekly to low-income seniors living nearby. Volunteers would be the glue to hold the project together. I would teach them how to grow organic vegetables, and then we would give away the produce we grew. I talked to our town officials, Cooperative Extension administrators, and friends. The response I heard was generally, “Great idea, and good luck with that.” I cultivated interest in the project with sign-up sheets in the senior housing developments. Forty people signed up for food in the first season. Clearly, there was a need for the food. But how much could we grow?

With the help of many volunteers, we’ve produced and delivered thousands of pounds of healthy, quality food to seniors in need each year. With financial support from sources like the Church of Universal Fellowship, the Orono Thrift Shop, and Maine Community Foundation, we have grown and delivered more than 20 different types vegetables. We also provide tasty, easy-to-make recipes for the foods delivered each day. Other educational and outreach projects have developed from this project as well.

“For me, success is getting a warm hug from Alice after a long winter or having Maybelle and her dog Buddy waiting in her yard swing for a quick chat on a warm summer night.”

Although I couldn’t bring Panicale to Orono, we are building community around quality food. Volunteers who return year after year to sustain our program do so because they feel connected. For me, success is getting a warm hug from Alice after a long winter or having Maybelle and her dog Buddy waiting in her yard swing for a quick chat on a warm summer night. Watching seniors sitting together at a picnic table, waiting to trade vegetables and give you tips on your recipes, feels more like building community than reducing food insecurity.

Doing this work, I’ve learned a lot about the aging process. I’ve watched many seniors lose their independence. Some have been force to move in with their children. Others have had to move to assisted living or long-term care. Many have passed away. While aging can be isolating, food seems to promote social interaction. Its special to work with volunteers who care that seniors aren’t hungry or lonely, who want to give, who want to connect with the earth, and who want to grow, harvest, and share good food. When the days shorten and winter’s cold settles in, its comforting to remember the smell of the earth, our conversations and laughter, and sharing melons in the warm sunshine.

I too am feeling the passing of time. When we started this garden, I had brown hair and lots of energy. Today, as I push 60, I have less hair, it’s not very brown, and my back and joints are creaky and cranky. Why do I continue doing this year after year? I need to. Quality food should be a right, not a privilege. Its fundamental to a healthy, sustainable society. But, quality food takes time to grow and time to prepare. Connecting people to the cycles of the earth, and teaching them to smell the aroma of freshly turned earth after a long Maine winter are gifts I want to share. I’ve seen fourteen seasons come and go at the Orono Giving Garden. I hope that I won’t see fourteen more seasons at the Orono Giving Garden, but I hope at least a few more are possible. If the garden continues after that, I will know we’ve built something special and developed real community in our town.

The post Good Food: A Human Right For All appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

Gulf of Maine Temperature Variability
(Watercolor, 2018)

Gulf of Maine Temperature Variability tells the story of increasing temperature fluctuations in Maine’s coastal marine environment. The watercolor uses ocean temperature data from the past 15 years to highlight how greater variability affects various species including ourselves. The piece also highlights the inattention to the coupled relationship between human action and environmental responses that has contributed to depleted fish stocks and increased ocean acidification. This Gulf of Maine story spans the water column: from the burrowing clams and bottom-dwelling lobster and shrimp, to the overfished cod which disappear across the painting as they struggle to return to a changing habitat, and finally up to the surface where fishers and managers may adopt sustainable practices or continue the practices that have resulted in overfishing and by-catch. Each species has a complex interaction with the environment, and if the imbalance of our give-and-take relationship with the ocean persists, we will continue to see new stresses that irreversibly change ocean conditions within the intertidal mudflats and into the yet unexplored ocean depths.

Data Source:

Climate Change Data
(Watercolor, 2015)

Climate Change Data depicts multiple datasets: the annual decrease in global glacier mass balance, global sea level rise, and global temperature increase. I wanted to convey in an image how all of this data must be compared and linked together to figure out the fluctuations in Earth’s natural history. One of the reasons scientists study what happened in the past is to understand what may happen now as a result of human-induced climate change. I represented this by illustrating that glaciers are melting and calving, sea levels are rising, and temperatures are increasing. The numbers on the left y-axis indicate quantities of glacial melt and sea level rise, and the suns across the horizon contain numbers that represent the global increase in temperature, coinciding with the timeline on the lower x-axis.

Data Sources:

Landscape of Change
(Watercolor, 2015)

Landscape of Change uses data about sea level rise, glacier volume decline, increasing global temperatures, and the increasing use of fossil fuels. These data lines compose a landscape shaped by the changing climate, a world in which we are now living.

Data Sources:

Habitat Degradation: Ocean Acidification
(Watercolor, 2015)

Habitat Degradation: Ocean Acidification contains ocean pH data from 1998 to 2012. The decreasing pH is due to atmospheric carbon dissolving into the ocean and creating carbonic acid. This has harmful effects on many marine organisms. Studies on clownfish show that more acidic water alters how their brains’ process information. This affects their ability to avoid predators by detecting noises and their ability to find their way home. The clownfish in this watercolor are grouped in confusion, separated from the anemone in which they live.

Data sources:

Progression
(Watercolor, 2016)

Progression uses data showing the increase in overall use of renewable energy by the United States over the last decade. As a country we are working towards a goal, but we still have a long ways to climb.

Take a Lesson from Nature: Recycle

Take a Lesson from Nature is about the importance of recycling. The piece is a collage of recycled materials including newspapers, magazines, and found natural materials such as bark, leaves, and feathers. The message is that humans should take a lesson from the natural cycles in our world and have sustainable lifestyles and societies.

Salmon Population Decline
(Watercolor, 2015)
Salmon Population Decline uses population data about the Coho Salmon in Washington. Years with drought and low snowpack in the mountains greatly deplete the state’s hydrosphere. Consequently, the water level in the the salmon spawning rivers becomes very low, and the water is too warm for the salmon to thrive. In this piece, the salmon are depicted swimming along the length of the graph, following its current. While salmon can swim upstream, it is becoming more difficult with lower stream flow and higher temperatures. This image depicts the struggle their population is facing as their spawning habitat declines.

Data source:

Increasing Forest Fire Activity
(Watercolor, 2015)

Increasing Forest Fire Activity uses global temperature data. This piece is inspired by two weeks I spent in Washington in August 2015. Massive forest fires raged throughout my stay, greeting me with many smoke-filled days. As global temperatures rise and drought and drier than average conditions persist, forest fires will become a huge threat to the forest, plants, and animals—and of course to people and structures.

Data Source:

One and the Same
(Acrylic, 2014)

This piece is a self-reflection on my relationship with nature, and how taking the time to foster that connection can define my thoughts and actions.

Perspective
(Watercolor, 2014)

This painting is about the exciting and overwhelming choices we all have to make as young adults, and certainly as college students. But it’s a reminder that there are many possible paths to happiness.

Proxies for the Past
(Watercolor, 2015)

Proxies for the Past is inspired by the universal unknowns, which humans try to solve by using materials such as ice cores, tree rings, and lichens to date past climate events. Nature reveals some of its secrets in these concentric forms, allowing us to determine information such as the average global temperature of Earth from 11,000 years ago to present. The piece is an interpretation of this data. Thus, natural materials help us to understand a small portion of Earth’s history.

Data Source:

Decline in Glacier Mass Balance
(Watercolor, 2015)
Decrease in Glacier Mass Balance uses measurements from 1980-2014 of the average mass balance for a group of North Cascade, Washington glaciers. Mass balance is the annual budget for the glaciers: total snow accumulation minus total snow ablation. The mass balances of these glaciers are consistently negative, and glacier mass loss is accelerating.

Data Source:

The post The Art of Climate Science appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

This photo was taken in a pasture on Chase Road in Veazie, Maine. Dairy cows grazed here for generations. With cows no longer pastured here, the field was hayed a few times each year for the last several decades. This green space is home to bobolinks, turkeys, rabbits, deer (including piebald and albino specimens), foxes, and coyote. It is also a hunting ground for a diversity of raptors. However, the land is slated for multi-family residential development. While attempts were made to conserve this land and the home of so many species, work on the development began in August 2017.  

The post Summer Home appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

Thinking Potatoes

French Fingerlings. Magic Molly.
In a shallow box by the window
this year’s tubers warm to the thought
of growing. They understand fertility
as a sequence of moves. Fuzzy sprouts
push from the dust-shriveled skin,
eyes urge toward an opening.

Obliging, I will place each tuber
into the soil of their dark-days
like others before me—a line of planters
who have bent over shallow trenches,
who have hilled and watered
and in summer marveled at elegant plants
bearing white and purple blooms.

The strength of these earth companions—
to burrow down and resurrect.
In the Andes, the world-mother is offered
a meal and a sprinkling of chicha.
Does she fathom the depth of our hunger?
Cradled in my hand, this nightshade
offers something like a future.

Two Logs

I thought of Galileo, how he sifted numbers
rearranging and probing the assumptions—
then the spheres expanded. A sea-change!

Today they brought in a boy on a stretcher, put him down.
I heard him moan—then it was quiet.

The days advance too fast—our divers pressuring on,
sinking through a curtain of silt. Like the calcific shells
we assess, they are worn thin by the sea.

Later I went back to look at his body and saw
how small, how frail the bones.

Geese hover by the reef—my bold singers.
The waves are folding under, the sea taking
the gravel beach. Some days seem merely adrift.

His family may never know… Whole villages
have been cracked open, buried under.

We count minutia—the sea’s smallest creatures
that feed both hunter and the hunted––our computations
desperately elegant: curves, correlations, hyperlinks.

Everyone is hungry. Fish and rice. The poorest,
invisibly, flock back across the coastal lowlands.

The sea lies open in wide troughs—our yearning.
When Galileo shattered the spheres, he blushed—
his heart, too, a rising ocean.

After Learning

I ran to the margins bordering north
where the land ends and the sea ends.
In the quiet, I could hear my own heartbeat.

When I tried to stop thinking, space rushed in,
uncontrollably. The water at my feet
did not trouble itself over me, so I stayed—

at least the ocean was right in its fervor.
The wind acted friendly sometimes,
sweeping through, cooling heads,

but terribly, I doubted
my own clinging—that history
might have taught us.

The post A Collection of Poems by Lenore Hildebrandt appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

This is a short Tanka poem for my beloved hometown. I was born and raised in the small city of Imperial Beach, California. Dubbed the “Most Southwestern City in the U.S.”, it was a pleasant place to grow up. The main street sent you straight from the shopping centers to the shoreline. You could even walk from the Tijuana Estuary into Mexico. Kids there spent their summers soaking up the gorgeous California sun, and early mornings had surfers wide awake and ready for the waves. But there’s a catch. Factories in Tijuana, Mexico often polluted the rivers and the ocean. There have been several toxic spills. There are even cases of people getting severely ill and dying after exposure to the polluted water. I remember some days when I was so excited to go to the beach, only to find that signs had been put up in the sand stating that the water wasn’t safe. Sometimes, the beach would be closed for weeks. Even though the dangers of the pollution are well known to the residents of Imperial Beach, the contamination continues, putting the beach, wildlife, and residents at risk.

Beyond Borders

Viewing the jetty
The sea wide open for me,
but poisoned once again.
Hear the tides in agony
Sewage quells the seaweed’s scent.

I traveled across
Seeking a beautiful
Renewal of faith
Some promising rumours of
A state spared by factories

In far inland Maine
A last pollution free
Unlike like the spoiled sea
But tears whelmed over the sight
Of browned rivers and creeks

Struck with disbelief
We breathe it in, pour it out
How could they stand when
The chemicals eat away
All the denials claimed at trial?

Stretching coast to coast
Enough partisan debate
Consider the fates
Of generations to come
Cherish the world we have

The post Beyond Borders appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

“Sunset”

Barred Owl, Edgecomb, Maine. Photo taken Jan. 2, 2017 using a Canon 5D iii camera and a telephoto lens at 560mm.

“The Admiral”

Sharp-shinned Hawk, Edgecomb, Maine. Photo taken Oct. 1, 2015 with a Canon 5D iii camera and a telephoto lens at 560mm.

The post Maine Birds by Stephen Burt appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

Schoodic Peninsula, ME.

Schoodic Point – Winter Harbor, ME.

Unity, ME.

Holden, ME.

View of the Bubbles – Jordan Pond – Acadia National Park, ME.

Moxie Falls – West Forks, ME.

Sunrise on Cadillac Mountain – Bar Harbor, ME.

View From South Bubble – Acadia National Park, ME.

Mount Katadhin – Northwest Piscataquis, ME.

Stillwater River – Old Town, ME.

The post The Beauty of Maine appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.

The Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens in Boothbay feature 295 acres of diverse coastal ecosystems. Dramatic tidal shores are home to more than 300 native plant species and many exotic blooms.

Monarch butterflies, like many other important pollinators, are threatened by habitat loss associated with human development. Monarch butterflies are an indicator species. While they don’t play a direct role in human food systems, Monarch butterflies help us estimate the health of an ecosystem.

This photo was taken right outside of the Bosarge Family Education Center, a LEED Platinum certified education center designed to operate with net-zero energy use. The Education Center serves as an educational tool, teaching visitors about the relationship between conservation and sustainability.

While exotic blooms, such as this Hydrangea, are eye-catching, an abundance of exotic plants disrupts ecosystems. To promote biodiversity, the Maine Coastal Botanical Gardens cultivates native plant species.

The post A midsummer stroll through the Coastal Maine Botanical Gardens appeared first on The Maine Journal of Conservation and Sustainability.