This thesis attempts to answer the question of whether Providence public water quality concerns can be addressed by government environmental indicators. An environmental indicator is a ‘key statistic which represent[s] or summarize[s] a significant aspect of the state of the environment, natural resource sustainability, and related human activities’. Environmental indicators are now used widely at the international, national, regional, and local level. One of the primary users of environmental indicators is the government. In Rhode Island and specifically Providence, the EPA, DEM, and Governor’s Policy Office are all now using and developing environmental indicators.

In my research I found that the public was primarily interested in the visible, tangible aspects of water quality such as: trash and litter in the water, the clarity of the water, the living resources in the water, the physical access to the water, and the ‘visual access’ to the water. These concerns have not traditionally been addressed by government environmental indicators. Government indicators have been used primarily as means of internal assessment and results reporting for state and federal statutes. As such, they have been scientific, reflecting the biotic and ecological integrity required under federal and state mandates rather than public concerns often unrelated to these statutes.

However, a growing, and increasingly recognized use of environmental indicators is to address the aspects of the environment that the public, rather than the government, cares about. If this is a use of government environmental indicators, indicators which reflect public values should be used. These indicators would not only show the public the state of the parts of the environment that they care about, but at the same time would also help to reconnect the public to the process of environmental management, show them the government’s interest in their concerns, and serve as a means of communication between the government and the public.

Public concerns regarding water quality such as those I outlined above cannot currently be addressed by government water quality indicators. The EPA, DEM, and Governor’s Policy Office are currently using indicators primarily for interagency reporting and assessment, and because of this their indicators reflect mandates and statutes and do not reflect public concerns such as those in the second paragraph. This is not a criticism. The indicators that the agencies use seem well-suited for their primary purpose of assessment and showing results. However, the agencies should not claim that the indicators reflect public concerns, because it seems clear that they do not. They reflect agency concerns, and the publicinterest . As for the future, it seems that public concerns could be reflected in water quality indicators developed by the city. While there are a number of stumbling blocks, the potential future use of environmental indicators by the city lends itself to indicators which ultimately reflect public concerns.