Participation and Activity Rates: Monitoring Exposure Potential for Native Americans and Others in the United States
Joanna Burger
DOI: 10.4236/jep.2011.28116   PDF    HTML     4,586 Downloads   7,617 Views  


Managers and regulators are concerned about potential human health effects from exposure on lands contaminated by chemicals and radionuclides. Determining target cleanup levels is partly dependent upon future land use, and potential exposure from human use. This paper provides data from surveys of activity patterns of people attending festivals in four states, located in the vicinity of Department of Energy facilities. There were significant differences in both participation rates, and activity rates as a function of both location and ethnicity that can be used by managers to track exposure, land use, and preferred activities on natural lands. In general, 1) a higher percent of Native Americans engaged in consumptive activities than others, 2) a higher percent of Caucasians engaged in some non-consumptive activities than Native Americans, 3) a higher percentage of Native Americans engaged in activities on sacred grounds, 4) activity rates were generally higher for Native Americans for consumptive activities and religious/cultural than for Caucasians, 5) fishing rates were higher than other consumptive activities, and camping/hiking were higher than other non-con- sumptive activities, and 6) hunting rates were higher in subjects from Idaho than elsewhere. Baseline human use is critical for monitoring potential exposure, and provides the basis for monitoring, risk assessment and future land use, and these data can be used by managers for assessment and management. Tracking changes over time will reflect changing recreational, subsistence, and cultural/religious trends that relate to land use, public perceptions, and exposure.

Share and Cite:

Burger, J. (2011) Participation and Activity Rates: Monitoring Exposure Potential for Native Americans and Others in the United States. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2, 1009-1020. doi: 10.4236/jep.2011.28116.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] J. Cairns, “Rehabilitating Damaged Ecosystems,” CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1994.
[2] J. Cairns and B. R. Niederlehner, “Developing a Field of Landscape Ecotoxicology,” Ecological Applications, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1995, pp. 780-796.
[3] M. Greenberg, J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, D. Kosson, K. Lowrie, H. Mayer, et al., “End-State Land Uses, Sustainably Protective Systems, and Risk Management: A Challenge for Remediation and Multigenerational Stewardship,” Remediation, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005, pp. 91-105. doi:10.1002/rem.20072
[4] J. Burger, M. Gochfeld, K. Pletnikoff, R. Snigaroff, D. Snigaroff and T. Stamm, “Ecocultural Attributes: Evaluating Ecological Degradation: Ecological Goods and Services vs Subsistence and Tribal Values,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1261-1271. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01093.x
[5] R. W. Stoffle and J. J. Evans, “Holistic Conservation and Cultural Triage: American Indian Perspectives on Cultural Resources,” Human Organization, Vol. 49, No. 2, 1990, pp. 91-99.
[6] M. L. Tano, J. H. Reuben, D. Powaukee and A. D. Lester, “An Indian Tribal View of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Historical and Cultural Lessons,” Radwaste, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1996, pp. 44-47.
[7] S. G. Harris and B. L. Harper, “Native American Exposure Scenario,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 17, No. 6, 1997, pp. 789-795. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb01284.x
[8] S. G. Harris and B. L. Harper, “How Incorporating Tribal Information Will Enhance Waste Management Decisions,” Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Pendleton, 2008.
[9] Nez Perce Tribe, “Treaties: Nez Perce Perspectives,” US DOE and Confluence Press, Fallon, 2003.
[10] L. M. Stumpff, “Reweaving the Earth: An Indigenous Perspective on Restoration Planning and the National Environmental Policy Act,” Environmental Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2006, pp. 93-103. doi:10.1017/S1466046606060121
[11] G. Bohnee, J. Mathews, J. Pinkham, A. Smith and J. Stanfill, “Nez Perce Involvement with Solving Environmental Problems: History, Perspectives, Treaty Rights, and Obligations,” In: J. Burger, Ed., Science and Stakeholders: Solutions to Energy and Environmental Issues by Incorporating Resource Agencies, Regulators, Tribes, Industry, and Other Stakeholders, Springer, New York, 2011.
[12] Y. Yin and J. T. Pierce, “Integrated Resource Assessment and Sustainable Land Use,” Environmental Management, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1993, pp. 319-327. doi:10.1007/BF02394674
[13] G. W. Suter, R. A. Efroymson, B. E. Sample and S. D. Jones, “Ecological Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites,” Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 2000. doi:10.1201/9781420056693
[14] K. D. Crowley and J. F. Ahearne, “Managing the Environmental Legacy of U.S. Nuclear-Weapons Production,” American Scientist, Vol. 90, No. 6, 2002, pp. 514-523.
[15] R. A. Efroymson, J. P. Nicolette and G. W. Suter, “A Framework for Net Environmental Benefit Analysis for Remediation or Restoration of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites,” ORNL/TM-2003/17, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 2003.
[16] V. H. Dale and P. D. Parr, “Preserving DOE’s Research Parks,” Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1998, pp. 73-77.
[17] Department of Energy (DOe), “Environmental Justice: Five-Year Implementation Plan,” DOE/LM-1462, Office of Legacy Management, Grand Junction, Colorado, 2008.
[18] SAS Institute, “User’s Guide to SAS,” SAS Publishing, Cary, 1995.
[19] S. J. Backman and B. A. Wright, “An Exploratory Study of the Relationship of Attitude and the Perception of Constraints to Hunting,” Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1993, pp. 1-16.
[20] D. Scott and C. S. Shafer, “Recreational Specialization: A Critical Look at the Construct,” Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2001, pp. 319-343.
[21] R. G. Condon, P. Collings and G. Wenzel, “The Best Part of Life: Subsistence Hunting, Ethnicity, and Economic Adaptation among Young Adult Inuit Males,” Arctic, Vol. 48, No. 1, 1995, pp. 31-46.
[22] B. L. Harper, A. D. Harding, T. Waterhous and S. G. Harris, “Traditional Tribal Subsistence Exposure Scenario and Risk Assessment Guidance Manual,” US Environmental Protection Agency EPA-STAR-J1-R831-46, 2008.
[23] S. G. Harris and B. L. Harper, “Using Eco-Cultural Dependency Webs in Risk Assessment and Characterization of Risks to Tribal Health and Cultures,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 2, 2000, pp. 91-100.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.