Libraries as a Community Resource
for Environmental Information

The National Dialogue on Libraries as a Community Resource for Environmental Information is an Environmental Law Institute project funded by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. Information Renaissance hosted this online discussion that explored how libraries can libraries can function better as a source of environmental information for local stakeholders. 544 librarians and citizens registered for the discussion and 171 actively discussed these issues with each other and a panel of experts. The experts represented a broad spectrum of interests, including the library community, the states, environmental organizations and business.

The discussion focused on two major themes - how EPA and libraries can work together more effectively and how EPA's Web site can better serve the needs of all its stakeholders. The agenda started with the types of data that local groups and individuals are seeking and then looked at how library capacity can be built to meet these needs.

By the start of the second week, the Dialogue had split into two broad discussions - librarians interested in the EPA/library connection and those registrants concerned with EPA's practices in providing information online. However, many participants posted their thoughts in both topic areas. In addition, the registrants interacted with panelists and with each other, answering queries and providing resources and network links.

Information Needs of Local Stakeholders

The first week of the discussion focused primarily on the environmental information that citizens are seeking online. Some of the discussion dealt with needed tools, but much of it centered on the types of data people are seeking.

Steve Curwood, the moderator for the first week of the Dialogue, began by asking what kinds of information people want. Many participants agreed with the formulation of one of our panelists - that environmental information should be collected, organized and released using "key identifiers" that reflect the common sense ways people search for information online. Others stressed the need for citizens' guides that better explain the regulatory process and translate technical materials into layperson's terms.

Two industry and state agency panelists expressed alternative views. Businesses are concerned that EPA may post misleading data on its site; thus they advocate a mechanism for the prompt correction of errors. A state official pointed out that incompatible data systems and inaccuracies in past reporting could flaw the transmission of information. Later in the Dialogue another panelist pointed out that the Paperwork Reduction Act prevented EPA from surveying industry to correct many errors in its databases and that states have to assume a greater burden in fixing the errors that make facility identification difficult.

Many registrants called on EPA to place more data collections online. Librarians requested this because it would lower acquisition costs, whereas citizens and activists sought greater access information in EPA's files. Examples include IRIS, hourly AIRS Data, pesticide health effects data and more trend data. Other participants complained about data gaps and data that have disappeared from the EPA Web site. Participants also requested that EPA compile new types of lists that would help citizens to participate in agency activities.

Other suggestions included online permit notification materials, lists of expired NPDES permits and facility compliance data. Finally, many participants think EPA should release draft policies and reports online, so that the policy making process would be more transparent.

Several participants are seeking a broader network of links that will allow a citizen to move easily from local to regional to state and federal sites. This group criticized EPA for not constructing a Web site that allows fluid movement from the national level to the local level and back up again. Many saw the need for supplemental links to industry, NGO and academic sites as well while. o Others wanted a free national database of federal, state and local laws and regulations. However, the participants did not explore the policy implications of making the last two sets of changes.

Many of the Dialogue participants find the Freedom of Information Act process to be slow and expensive and suggest online access to documents that already have been released. Others observe that documents found only in Agency reading rooms should be placed online to expand public access. Other registrants focused on how to reform the public participation process by making improvements in the distribution of materials online and by the greater involvement of libraries as information centers.

Participants expressed strong differences in their preference for the HTML or the Adobe Acrobat format. At the end a consensus developed that EPA should offer users a choice. One group lobbied hard for continuing print distribution, while others emphasized the importance of print archives. On a related note, several participants asked EPA to archive older EPA documents online, which the agency has recently started to do.

Most participants called on the Agency to post more data on its Web site and to develop better online tools that enable laypersons to understand environmental information easily. The suggestions also included demands for more materials explaining regulatory processes. Their recommendations include:

• developing better search engines and navigational aids;
• developing better mechanisms to search the Federal Register;
• posting all text materials in formats that can be searched online;
• posting issued permits and better maps to aid citizens reviewing a permit application;
• placing major documents like Environmental Impact Statements online;
• placing EPA's "grey" literature online;
• adding drop-down dictionaries defining technical terms in "street language;"
• assigning reading levels that categorize the technical complexity of a document;
• posting more organizational structure and contact information;
• improving the consistency of regional and program Web pages to simplify navigation;
• designing routine data collections for electronic management;
• cataloguing all EPA documents;
• establishing bibliographic Web sites for both online materials and books;
• providing more links on its Web site to other federal, state, regional and local repositories of environmental information;
• using automated link checkers to hunt down dead links;
• establishing an e-mail list for those interested in public participation and building stakeholder capacity; and
• using EPA librarians to help the public and librarians conduct searches of their site.

At the end of the first week, a polite but spirited debate grew out of the Steve Curwood's question - can the public trust EPA as an organization and a provider of data? This discussion thread ranged broadly over whether people can trust individual staff or the Agency not to push a particular agenda. The second concern dealt with EPA's competence. This group worried that the Agency had far too much on its plate given its mandates, its staff shortages, and its budgetary shortfalls. In this context, many of the critics praised the EPA staff that participated in the Dialogue for their openness.

Library Issues

During the first week many librarians pointed out that, while the Internet has changed the way the public looks for information, the role of libraries is still vital. Patrons need help both in navigating the Web and in mediating large data sets. A panelist mentioned one promising software option, a "Talk to a Librarian" feature that would allow a Web user to query a remote reference librarian.

When the second week began, many librarians had different suggestions for building capacity. Their focus was on both local and national projects, with a major emphasis on the need for increased funds.

Local Projects

Many participants found a local study circle project on sustainable agriculture to be a useful and adaptable model. Librarians also suggested other models such as a "hot topic" collection on breaching the Snake River dams and a Web-based project in Boulder on watershed issues.

The county environmental agency in San Diego pointed out that that it had built an environmental library in partnership with the city's library system. The local library catalogued the materials and made them available to the broader public. Other participants asked for other success stories where local libraries and their communities worked together to build sustainable communities.

Several environmental activists and librarians recommended measures that local libraries could undertake to provide more public outreach. They suggested providing public participation materials, displays on hot topics, meeting rooms and depositories for certain materials on permits or local Superfund sites.

Other librarians viewed this as too much of an attempt to commandeer the local library's mission to focus exclusively on a single issue. This group argued that library resources are scarce and that libraries must serve multiple community interests not just environmental issues. Others worried that in some locales a particular issue may prove too controversial for the library to handle. As a general matter most agreed that librarians would be in the best position to decide how best to serve the expressed needs of their communities through use of EPA resources.

National Issues

Many suggested that EPA build an online equivalent to the National Institute of Health's Medline, that it plot out a National Environmental Information Action Plan and that the National Institute for the Environment concept be revived. Some suggested that more governmental databases should be posted on the Web so that libraries do not have to pay for costly private compilations of these materials.

Others suggested that information clearinghouses and networks be developed and funded by EPA. A panelist urged the formation of networks on toxicological and environmental health issues at the national, regional, state and local levels. Several librarians also criticized EPA's EMPACT program for not building local and regional libraries into their grants. Several suggested establishing more formal relationships with state libraries while another suggested working with library schools and information science programs. EPA's librarians noted that they have listserves that inform libraries of new publications and upcoming activities.

Training

Several participants suggested that EPA work with state library associations to hold regional training events where EPA staff would familiarize local and regional libraries with their resources. EPA also noted that its Online Library System [OLS] catalogues EPA documents and makes them available to other libraries. Librarians also wanted EPA to fund and maintain clearinghouses of environmental information. Others suggested that EPA should hire local staff that could focus on a particular area's needs. EPA's librarians noted that they do participate with national and local ALA groups and at conferences to publicize EPA's activities.

The Government Printing Office

Several academic librarians expressed their concern that the Government Printing Office was using the Web as a substitute for print publication with no clear guidelines from Congress and no clear directives for libraries that operate as Federal Depositories. Other participants suggested that if Web-based materials were not to be distributed in hard copy, those libraries should be able to bill the federal government for their printing costs although no mechanics for such a process were suggested.

Technical Issues

The librarians discussed numerous technical issues, such as how to store and provide better access to "grey" literature. They pointed out that searching EPA's web site for a particular document is too often a hit-or-miss proposition and that awareness of the Agency's Online Library System [OLS] is low. They also recommended that the OLS become Z39.50 compliant, which is the international metadata standard.

Digital Divide Concerns

EPA and many of the registrants discussed how to bridge the digital divide. Many see a need to provide more resources to rural communities and to groups like Native Americans, but the group realized that the gap was wide and the dollars few.

Others complained that government Web sites have grown too "glitzy" and too difficult for older computers to download. Still others observed that the Americans with Disabilities Act would soon require all governmental sites to be read by a text-based browser.

Other participants focused on expanding access to computers by placing them in retail areas, police/fire departments, schools, ATMs, senior centers and other places where people congregate.

The Dialogue Process

While the Dialogue itself has ended, an archive of the discussion and a complete reference library with background materials for the discussion remain online at the project Web site. The archive is indexed in several ways - by date of submission, by author, subject and by thread. The thread index groups messages on related topics, as designated by the individuals submitting those messages. It provides an easy way for readers to navigate through any of the various topics mentioned in the preceding summary.

In addition to these indices, the Web site has a search engine that readers can use to perform key word searches of all submissions to the Dialogue and of all the background materials. The overall architecture of the site - with an informational section About the Dialogue, a Briefing Book of background materials and the discussion archive - enables new visitors to understand the event and its conclusions.

The Web site also contained a quick comment opportunity. Using this feature Information Renaissance posted a Web form that asked the registrants to indicate what they thought of the points made during the discussion. While the response rate was not that high, the commentary is informative.

Comments received from panelists and participants indicate that they appreciated the lively and polite tone of the discussion. Additionally, 31% of the total registrants posted messages during the discussion whereas typical contribution rates to online discussions are closer to 10%.

In this regard online Dialogues provide a forum midway between a public hearing and an in-person conference. Through their archival feature they provide a long-term record that few hearings or conferences can equal. As one registrant noted, "I hope EPA plans more of these environmental e-forums. ... Stakeholder dialogue via the Internet provides equal access and participation to those who can't fly to Washington on a weekday."

Several other aspects of the Dialogue are noteworthy. Our audience was nationwide, thereby allowing groups and individuals with differing backgrounds to share their experiences with one another. As an example, after a registrant explained her library's study circle experiment, many other participants were eager to learn more about this effort.

Conclusion

During the final part of the Dialogue discussion in the quick comment responses, many participants praised EPA for funding this effort. As one participant noted, "I am glad that EPA feels confident enough about its mission to be open to new ideas."

These comments also revealed that most of the participants were enthusiastic about the Dialogue and that a majority learned "a lot" about the topics covered. In addition, 75% of those responding wanted to continue to work online with other participants. Finally, many registrants expressed a strong desire to continue to work on information access and library issues after the conclusion of the Dialogue.

In summary, this Dialogue provides EPA with a broader picture of what librarians and local stakeholders need from the Agency in terms of online and print resources. This discussion and the depth of information that it provides should prove useful to EPA in determining what steps to take next in building local stakeholder capacity. The archive should also serve as a valuable educational resource for the participants and the general public who visit the site in the future.