Strategies for Change and Macro-Level Interventions

Kelly Graham

Walden University

Strategies for Change and Macro-Level Interventions

Tens of millions of people in 50 countries are falling ill to arsenic water in groundwater. High natural levels of arsenic are characteristics of the groundwater and theses countries include Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Mongolia and the United States. Contamination is due to mining, fertilizers and pesticides, waste disposal and manufacturing however most of the issues are due to arsenic leeching that are dissolved from rocks underground by highly acidic water. The World Health Organization also known as WHO created guidelines for drinking water containing arsenic and the levels are not to exceed 10micrograms per liter. Exposure to contaminated drinking water and irrigated crops are leading to severe health, social and economic consequences including skin lesions, cancer, lung, liver and kidney disease. In Bangladesh alone, the lost productivity rate has sky-rocketed to a 13.8 billion in 10 years. There are 6 approaches to removing arsenic from water and these low-cost technologies have been achievable and efficient from 50% to almost 100% in Argentina, Bangladesh and United States. However only 5 countries have reached he WHO standard. The cost to treat a cubic meter of water ranges from near zero to 70.00$. The cost incurred is from materials used, energy required, labor used. The geographic location also plays a huge part in effectively removing the arsenic from the water.

There are countries that have resource constraints and certain environmental circumstances that prevent them from meeting standards with WHO. Globally, there are millions of people that are exposed to higher than allowed arsenic concentrations and wide implementation of remediation solutions have been put in place to eradicate this issue. I believe in any macro intervention a psychologist is needed. A psychologist would need to be present in the bottom up, middle out and top down strategies. For beginners a strategy must be put in place to reach a large amount of people and their leaders. To stratify initially, the psychologist would need to use a top down approach. Going directly to those leaders that oversee the area where the main source of water is, should be contacted. Meetings would need to develop to discuss the impact the contaminated water already had on the area. An excel sheet of numbers of those that have gone ill due to certain diseases and ones that have been fatally hurt by this contamination. The article discussed that there are people within the leadership role that do not believe their water is a problem even though it does not meet the WHO standards. (Shan,2019) These people will be identified and brought in to meetings so this issue can be addressed. Knowledge about the issue needs be the first step in fixing the problem, so having a convention with representatives from each section would be appropriate.

Discussion of the cause and effect, reporting of numbers and ideas of resolution will all be discussed at this global meeting. The second approach would be the middle-out approach. This will be necessary after the plans and tools need to complete each project has been determined. It will take mid-level workers to test the water and perform the manual labor. These mid-level workers do have to be present at the convention meeting however instructions will be given to them that must be carried out. The psychologist can work with the mid-level making sure that any conflicting issues are resolved. Also, an evaluation can be performed on these workers to make sure that they are capable to carry out the instructions provided. Some of the areas are desolate or presented with harsh environments so having healthy, sound workers is an important part in achieving good drinking water globally. The bottom- up approach would be advocators who are helping the world become knowledgeable of the issues and getting the information to the local villager or resident. This is important at this level because many people may not be aware of the problem and can become fearful of the situation. There would need to be a professional to explain these issues and help with fear of water systems or even getting sick themselves. The numbers globally area real shocker, so for someone in small village to hear how so many are affected can be overwhelming. The most effective strategy would be the combination of the grass roots bottom up and top down. We can start at bottom up to diminish panic within the communities, that way they can be fully aware of any new action being made within the community.

It is always best to let the people that are being affected, know what’s going on. We need the top down approach because after advocating clean water there would be no type of action involved resolving the issue. Top down allows change. The combination of the two will allow for change to be set in motion and help with any anxiety feelings that come from the public. The psychologist can also work with doctors that treating those that already been exposed to the contamination. These many people would also like comfort in knowing that their love one did not die in vain or that they are not next to die, due to this problem. Psychologist would need to be on standby for every step pf the way ensuring that emotions and consciously aware people continue to live their lives abundantly. (Stevens,2007)

References:

Stevens, M. J., & Gielen, U. P. (2007). Toward a glob al psychology: Theory, research, intervention, and pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yina Shan,2019, Intel Press Service, http://www.globalissues.org/news/2019/02/01/24938.p.1