Ed Barbanell: Using An Ecosystem Services Approach to Water Resources in Environmental Ethics at University of Utah

Unit 1:

I implemented Unit 1 in two class sessions, rather than the three for which it was originally designed. So on the first day, I worked through all of Unit 1.1, and about halfway through Unit 1.2, through the introduction of the water balance equation and stream hydrograph. Accordingly, I added the first seven slides from the Unit 1.2 PowerPoint to the end of the Unit 1.1 In-class PowerPoint.

Prior to the first class, I had the students go through the Unit 1.1 Before-class Introductory PowerPoint and do the associated assessment (I spent just a few minutes at the beginning of class making sure there was a general understanding of the material). Also, for use as a reference document during this class and the rest of the module, I made copies of the Ecosystem Services Chart (slide #8 from the Before-class PowerPoint) for each student (this proved quite useful as a ready reference throughout the module).

Prior to the first class, I had also identified students with PC laptops who were willing to bring them to class throughout the module. I made sure that these students had downloaded both (1) Google Earth Pro and (2) the EPA Stormwater Calculator. All the students had then been put in groups of 4–5, with each group having a student with a laptop that had the necessary software installed.

Working through the first class was straightforward, and the students seemed really engaged and fascinated by Google Earth, most never having thought of the software as a research tool (!?). I added in demonstrations of two Google Earth tools that are not discussed in the PowerPoint: street view (which came in handy for Unit 2.3) and save (which is useful when the students are preparing their presentations in Unit 3.2.)

I did not do the water hydrology literacy assessment, as it would have taken me too far afield and used up too much class time.

As homework before the second class period, I assigned them to read the USGS "Effects of Urban Development on Floods." The second class period covered the second part of Unit 1.2 and all of Unit 1.3. Here is a detailed script of how we moved through the materials:

1. Using Google Earth, showed Salt Lake Valley, discussed bulleted questions under ͞Introduce the Rock creek watershed͟ in 1.2 Description and Teaching Materials. Particularly focused on (a) how precipitation is measured and (b) where output, or runoff, is measured.
2. Zoomed to U. of U. campus, and discussed the sub-watershed for our campus, which is Red Butte Creek.
3. Then switching to Surf Your Watershed͟, typed in the UofU zip code, and then looked at gauging data for Red Butte Creek—propitiously, we had just had a big rain/snow event the day before, and this was quite evident on the stream hydrograph. Discussed this for a few minutes.
4. Handed out rainfall/runoff data for Rock Creek and Big Creek, with only the Rock Creek data already plotted.
5. Asked the groups to plot out the Big Creek data and calculate the average rainfall and runoff, and plot the average runoff. (10 min) Discussed how independent/dependent data are typically plotted.
6. After coming up with the figures, used Google Earth, via the Rock Creek and Big Creek watersheds .kmz file), to show these two watersheds. Just from the Google images, asked them, in thinking about the disparity in runoff figures, which watershed was which, and that was fairly straightforward.
7. Spent the rest of class working through the Unit 1.3 Presentation PowerPoint.

Unit 2:

Prior to class, for homework, I had the students do the pre-Unit 2 assessment wrapper (and then had them do this again as a post-Unit 2 assessment wrapper at the end of the next class period). I worked through Units 2.1 and 2.2 in one class period, with plenty of time, and then worked through Unit 1.3 in one class period. The whole unit worked great. The first class period for Unit 2 went like this:

1. As a refresher from last time, went through PowerPoint 2.1, stopping on slide 6.
2. Discussed the other ecosystem services, beyond flood control, that are affected by urbanization and increased runoff.
3. Handed out Science in Action sheet and watched short intro to the Stormwater Calculator.
4. Handed out Assessing the Impact of Land Use Change on Stormwater Runoff tutorial and assessment & table for charting results.
5. Went through scenarios 1 & 2—walked around and helped groups. Went through it myself, periodically pointing out various aspects of the SWC as I overheard groups talking or was asked questions. Took about 30 minutes. Discussed the major things that changed between baseline and new scenario—runoff contained, days of flooding, change in how much rain would cause a flooding event.
6. Handed out Reducing the Impact using LIDs—went through this scenario, showing them how to get more information about particular LID controls by clicking on links in the stormwater calculator.
7. Had each group fill out the Unit 2.2 Assessment (should have allowed a little more time).
8. I wanted the students to have a little better sense of LIDs prior to doing Unit 2.3, so I assigned them for homework to watch the first 21 minutes of the YouTube video "Stormwater Management: Low impact Development and Greening Corporate Grounds."

I did not administer the Unit 2.1 Assessment because it significantly overlaps with the Unit 2.2 Assessment wrapper.

I spent the entire fourth class period having the students work through Unit 2.3, using the Red Butte Creek / Williams Building example.

At the beginning of class, for about 10 minutes, I used the street view feature of Google Earth to give the class a virtual tour of several LIDs around the University of Utah campus (which included bioswales, green roofs, catchment basins, planters and porous concrete). This was a successful enterprise, as evidenced in the students' responses for the Post-Unit 2 Assessment wrapper. When administered as a pre-unit wrapper, it showed that most students knew very little about stormwater generation and mitigation on our campus. When administered again as a post-unit wrapper, almost every student was fairly conversant about this topic!

Unit 3:

I did Unit 3.1 essentially as laid out in the Teaching Notes and Tips:

1. Did a brief overview of what we were going to be doing this week—building on the evaluation of the Williams building redevelopment, to consider ecosystem services more broadly.
2. Discussed the Chapin article, which had been assigned as homework, particularly pp. 167–68: he discusses how an ecosystem services approach tries to incorporate "values" in trade-off calculations, but he later says that cultural or aesthetic values are more simply viewed as a "sense of place—the collection of meanings, beliefs, symbols, values and feelings that individuals and groups associate with a particular locality." So, the question posed to the students from this, before they began their mind-mapping exercise, was: is an ecosystem services approach capable of capturing/modeling those thick-textured sense-of-place values?
3. Handed out markers and big Post-it pads, and had them do mind maps (25-30 min):
   a. Showed them a mind map I had done for something else, a UofU water system mind, and I also showed them a pseudo-mind map I had done for the Williams building, but in only one color.
   b. After about 15 minutes, also handed out the sheet with the MA ecosystem services categories, and asked them to incorporate that into their mind maps.
   c. We posted the mind maps on the wall and had folks look over each others' for a few minutes.
4. Went around the room and extracted from the students a variety of stakeholders and a variety of uses, and we discussed these for a few minutes (15).
5. Handed out the instructions for the summative assignment for the module.
6. Rather than assign stakeholders to the various groups, I gave them a few minutes to choose themselves what stakeholder group they wanted to represent in their position reports.

On the last day of the module, students spent about an hour working on their presentations. Due to the size of the class and number of stakeholder groups, it was not possible for the groups to present them to the class. Instead, each group was asked to briefly summarize the main aspects of their proposal. The second part of the summative assessment was assigned for homework.