2a. What is a good example of a dominantly affective response to primary sensory or emotionally cognitive perceptions of your natural resource? This would be a strong emotional or aesthetic reaction that makes people care about it, or not.
-Dams block passageways from both steelhead and salmon which among other things, majorly decreases fish numbers. People care because low salmon numbers impact people in the form of the indigenous communities that rely on salmon as a principal food source, and animals such as grizzly bears that rely on salmon for growth and reproductive purposes.
-One of the dominant emotionally cognitive perceptions revolving around hydroelectric energy is strong consumer satisfaction as hydro-energy allows for low electricity costs to those regions who use its renewable energy source.
2b. What would be a small but critical set of objective, scientific facts (perhaps including facts about how people behave) and how they interact in a well-established systematic way that informs a problem regarding your natural resource?
-There are ongoing discussions regarding the issues of hydroelectric power, and whether the environmental drawbacks affecting Salmon and Steelhead fish population and migration outweigh the benefits hydroelectric power provides. Opponents of dam and hydroelectric power grid removal most commonly cite lost hydroelectric power as their main issue. Scientists and researchers note the dwindling populations of orcas as a result of reduced Salmon migration (their primary food source) as a significant area of concern.
–https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/damsimpacts
–https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/feds-wont-allow-oregon-dams-to-be-removed-to-aid-salmon-recovery
-“Scientists also warn that southern resident orcas are starving to death because of a dearth of the chinook salmon that are their primary food source.”
-“Lost hydroelectric power was the most commonly cited reason for opposing dam removal.”
2c. What would be a social narrative about what people (including companies) do for or too each other and why they do it that describes a problem or issue about your natural resource? This would be about people’s motivations and suspicions about others as driving forces in their perceptions, financial behaviors, and political activities, and how they garner benefits to themselves or their community and shift costs onto others in space and time.
-An example of a small but critical objective would be the organization Save Our Wild Salmon, which strives to secure strong, science-based plans which aim to restore salmon and steelhead numbers.
-Politicians who have supporters in either nature conservation groups or in the energy sector are definitely influenced by their policies when it comes to hydroelectric dams, and there are narratives on both sides of the issue that either tout the positives or illustrate the negatives when it comes to hydroelectric power and dams. Social narratives could be around the fish populations and effects they have on our ecosystem, or also the jobs and benefits of clean energy that comes with supporting this natural resource.
2d. What is an example of how any two of the above types of answers compound each other in political discourse and public perceptions of policy acceptability? This could be about how one primary perception, fact or social narrative reinforces in the same direction (positive or negative) another primary perception, fact or social narrative. Or, it could be how they cancel each other to reduce collective social-political interest or concern about your resource.
-The effect of hydropower being a renewable energy source is an offset for the environmental impacts created by hydropower sources such as dams. Being that dams alter the natural landscape around which they reside, the natural habitat too becomes altered. Environmentally-conscious individuals are mostly concerned with effects on salmon runs and silt build-up, but they are also concerned with the effects non-renewable sources have on the atmosphere and other natural habitats. This situation causes a public perception of cancellation, where the positive environmental impacts of hydropower facilities, overall, cancel out the negative externalities they produce.