This is a great example of meta-analysis in Active Living Research. There are a few things I like about it. First, it combines academic literature, other literature, and expert opinion in a very transparent and defensible way, by giving each a score. It takes a very wide array of urban design and planning choices and relates them to a number of outcomes (physical health, mental health, environmental sustainability, health and safety, and economic growth), and draws quantitative conclusions about the importance of each. Some outcomes challenge my pre-conceived notions, for example that street connectivity is bad for safety, but the methodology is very transparent, so I can dig in if I want and try to figure out whether I disagree with a particular rating, or whether I really should rethink my preconceived notion. Those of us dealing with complex planning and engineering programs (and many other complex systems) can’t realistically expect to optimize a handful of objectives any more. Instead, we can play the odds by making sure all our small, daily decisions have a better than even chance of nudging the system in a desired direction, based on the complete body of evidence out there, even with all its contradictions and confusions.
emergency fund calculator
Here’s an interesting online calculator that gives you a recommendation on how big your emergency fund should be. It says I need $10,000 which is less than I would have thought. A big factor for me is that my risk of having to do an emergency car repair is precisely zero.
U.S. Innovation Deficit
MIT is warning that U.S. investment in R&D has dropped enormously. I find this idea very disturbing, that in an age of accelerating science and technology, which corporations and governments should have every incentive to take advantage of, they are failing to do so.
Declining U.S. federal government research investment — from just under 10 percent in 1968 to less than 4 percent in 2015 — in critical fields such as cybersecurity, infectious disease, plant biology, and Alzheimer’s are threatening an “innovation deficit,” according to a new MIT report to be released Monday, April 27.
U.S. competitors are increasing their investment in basic research. The European Space Agency successfully landed the first spacecraft on a comet. China developed the world’s fastest supercomputer and has done research in plant biology uncovering new ways to meet global food demand and address malnutrition. Meanwhile, U.S. investment in basic plant-related research and development is far below that of many other scientific disciplines, despite the fact that the agricultural sector is responsible for more than 2 million U.S. jobs and is a major source of export earnings.
The report, entitled “The Future Postponed: Why Declining Investment in Basic Research Threatens a U.S. Innovation Deficit,” highlights opportunities in basic research that could help shape and maintain U.S. economic power and benefit society.
leisure time and sustainability
This article in Ecological Economics makes a link between leisure time and sustainable behavior.
The considerable gap between the individuals level of concern about climate change and the degree to which they act on these concerns is a major impediment to achieving more sustainable consumption patterns. We empirically investigate how the amount of discretionary time that individuals have at their disposal influences both what type of sustainable consumption practices they adopt and the size of this value–action gap. We contend that discretionary time has a twofold effect. Given fixed preferences, time-poor individuals tend to satisfy their preferences by adopting sustainable consumption practices that require relatively less time. Moreover, a lack of discretionary time also inhibits agents from developing preferences that actually reflect their underlying environmental concerns. Our findings support both of these hypotheses and suggest that increasing discretionary time is associated with significant reductions in the value–action gap. This suggest that policies which increase discretionary time, such as measures to improve the work–life balance, may thus help in fostering the emergence of pro-environmental preferences among consumers in the long run.
This makes some sense to me. It also makes sense to me that sustainability is partly about social capital – people having time to interact with each other through formal and informal organizations, think things through, have discussions and make ethical judgments about what kinds of actions they want to take together. When we are working 40-60 hour weeks in the single-minded pursuit of corporate profits, many of us just don’t have time and energy to engage in this sort of social capital building even if we want to.
let’s stop saying “inner city”
It’s time to stop saying “inner city” as a substitute for “poverty”. In the U.S., there is now more poverty in the suburbs than in the central cities. The article also talks about how school decline is inevitably following.
Philadelphia Bike Share
I always say Philadelphia will try things about 5 years after New York tries them. Well, here’s our bike share program.
Bike-Share Comes to Philly With the Launch of Indego from STREETFILMS on Vimeo.
I support this 100%. I know having more riders out there will make it safer for everyone, and I know the statistics on bike share safety are very positive across cities so far. Still, users are going to be hurt and killed eventually, even if the accident rate is lower than other forms of transportation, and the initial instinct will be to blame the users and the program. My only point is that having bike share is not the end of the battle, we need to be demanding safe street designs at the same time. Protected bike lanes and safer turning configurations and signals are the most important things, I think.
downscaling
Here is a useful (to me, at least) Hydrology and Earth System Sciences open article on spatial and temporal downscaling of climate change model output.
Information on extreme precipitation for future climate is needed to assess the changes in the frequency and intensity of flooding. The primary source of information in climate change impact studies is climate model projections. However, due to the coarse resolution and biases of these models, they cannot be directly used in hydrological models. Hence, statistical downscaling is necessary to address climate change impacts at the catchment scale.
This study compares eight statistical downscaling methods (SDMs) often used in climate change impact studies. Four methods are based on change factors (CFs), three are bias correction (BC) methods, and one is a perfect prognosis method. The eight methods are used to downscale precipitation output from 15 regional climate models (RCMs) from the ENSEMBLES project for 11 catchments in Europe. The overall results point to an increase in extreme precipitation in most catchments in both winter and summer. For individual catchments, the downscaled time series tend to agree on the direction of the change but differ in the magnitude. Differences between the SDMs vary between the catchments and depend on the season analysed. Similarly, general conclusions cannot be drawn regarding the differences between CFs and BC methods. The performance of the BC methods during the control period also depends on the catchment, but in most cases they represent an improvement compared to RCM outputs. Analysis of the variance in the ensemble of RCMs and SDMs indicates that at least 30% and up to approximately half of the total variance is derived from the SDMs. This study illustrates the large variability in the expected changes in extreme precipitation and highlights the need for considering an ensemble of both SDMs and climate models. Recommendations are provided for the selection of the most suitable SDMs to include in the analysis.
What is potentially useful to me is that they went to a one day time scale, and they defined an “extreme precipitation index” for storms expected to happen once a year or less on average. I am interested in how or whether these concepts can be applied to “typical” hydrologic conditions that happen at the more-than-once-a-year level. Drought and flooding are probably the two most concerning conditions impacted by climate change, but there are also questions being asked about water quality, and it is the “typical” conditions that most come into play.
Comcast
I engaged in some Comcast bashing recently. I’m not really sorry. You can argue that they do a lot for the Philadelphia economy. Well, that would also be true if they were manufacturing land mines. But here’s an article talking about how they do support some local startup companies.
Comcast invests in local startups through Genacast Ventures, a partnership between investor Gil Beyda and Comcast Ventures that helps fuel early-stage companies in the area, including LeadID, Invite Media and Packlate.com. One past success is a seed investment in Divide, a bring-your-own-device enterprise security company formerly known as Enterpriod. Divide eventually sold to Google.
“Our passion has always been to turn great ideas into powerful businesses — and that starts with finding talented entrepreneurs,” said Beyda, who leads Genacast Ventures. “Comcast Ventures, with the help of the Genacast and Catalyst funds, has provided unparalleled strategic and financial support for entrepreneurs just getting started. Identifying innovative leaders is the mission of all our partners, and the ability to support them with the assets from Comcast and NBCUniversal provides startups with a distinct advantage.”
Comcast has also collaborated with DreamIt Ventures to invest in minority-owned startups, including Philly outfits ROAR and LIA Diagnostics.
space madness
This New Yorker article compares the isolation that might be felt in future space travel to long ocean voyages in the past.
“Future space expeditions will resemble sea voyages much more than test flights, which have served as the models for all previous space missions,” Stuster wrote in a book, “Bold Endeavors,” which was published in 1996 and quickly became a classic in the space program. A California anthropologist, Stuster had helped design U.S. space stations by studying crew productivity in cases of prolonged isolation and confinement: Antarctic research stations, submarines, the Skylab station. The study of stress in space had never been a big priority at NASA—or of much interest to the stoic astronauts, who worried that psychologists would uncover some hairline crack that might exclude them from future missions. (Russia, by contrast, became the early leader in the field, after being forced to abort several missions because of crew problems.) But in the nineteen-nineties, with planning for the International Space Station nearly complete, NASA scientists turned their attention to journeys deeper into space, and they found questions that had no answers. “That kind of challenging mission was way out of our comfortable low-earth-orbit neighborhood,” Lauren Leveton, the lead scientist of NASA’s Behavioral Health and Performance program, said. Astronauts would be a hundred million miles from home, no longer in close contact with mission control. Staring into the night for eight monotonous months, how would they keep their focus? How would they avoid rancor or debilitating melancholy?
Stuster began studying voyages of discovery—starting with the Niña, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria, whose deployment, he observed, anticipated the NASA-favored principle of “triple redundancy.” Crews united by a special “spirit of the expedition” excelled. He praised the Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen’s three-year journey into the Arctic, launched in 1893, for its planning, its crew selection, and its morale. One icebound Christmas, after a feast of reindeer meat and cranberry jam, Nansen wrote in his journal that people back home were probably worried. “I am afraid their compassion would cool if they could look upon us, hear the merriment that goes on, and see all our comforts and good cheer.” Stuster found that careful attention to habitat design and crew compatibility could avoid psychological and interpersonal problems. He called for windows in spacecraft, noting studies of submarine crewmen who developed temporarily crossed eyes on long missions. (The problem was uncovered when they had an unusual number of automobile accidents on their first days back in port.) He wrote about remote-duty Antarctic posts suffering a kind of insomnia called “polar big eye,” which could be addressed by artificially imposing a diurnal cycle of light and darkness.
And of course, there is also this classic contribution to the literature:
ecological footprint vs. planetary boundary
This article in Ecological Economics tries to link the concepts of planetary boundaries and ecological footprint.
While in recent years both environmental footprints and planetary boundaries have gained tremendous popularity throughout the ecological and environmental sciences, their relationship remains largely unexplored. By investigating the roots and developments of environmental footprints and planetary boundaries, this paper challenges the isolation of the two research fields and provides novel insights into the complementary use of them. Our analysis demonstrates that knowledge of planetary boundaries improves the policy relevance of environmental footprints by providing a set of consensus-based estimates of the regenerative and absorptive capacity at the global scale and, in reverse, that the planetary boundaries framework benefits from well-grounded footprint models which allow for more accurate and reliable estimates of human pressure on the planet’s environment. A framework for integration of environmental footprints and planetary boundaries is thus proposed. The so-called footprint–boundary environmental sustainability assessment framework lays the foundation for evolving environmental impact assessment to environmental sustainability assessment aimed at measuring the sustainability gap between current magnitudes of human activities and associated capacity thresholds. As a first attempt to take advantage of environmental footprints and planetary boundaries in a complementary way, there remain many gaps in our knowledge. We have therefore formulated a research agenda for further scientific discussions, mainly including the development of measurable boundaries in relation to footprints at multiple scales and their trade-offs, and the harmonization of the footprint and boundary metrics in terms of environmental coverage and methodological choices. All these points raised, in our view, will play an important role in setting practical and tangible policy targets for adaptation and mitigation of worldwide environmental unsustainability.
I like ecological footprint because there is no ambiguity between stocks and flows. Natural capital is the underlying stock. The ecological footprint is a proxy for natural capital, the equivalent land area required to produce the annual flow of ecosystem services. It is very intuitive that if the ecological footprint is greater than the size of the Earth, you are digging yourself a deeper hole each year, and if it is less, you are digging yourself out of the hole. Natural capital is like a huge trust fund or endowment that we can live off of for a long time. But if we are consuming more than the interest produced each year, there will eventually come a day when the trust fund is depleted.
Planetary boundaries, on the other hand, try to measure a mish-mash of stocks and flows. Fertile farmland, for example, is clearly a stock of natural capital. But the amount of fresh water consumed each year is an annual flow of ecosystem services. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is a stock – a sort of anti-ecosystem service, because it represents the opposite of the atmosphere’s ability to absorb further emissions (which are an annual flow). So it all sounds very scholarly, but it needs some cleanup before it will be a clear framework for figuring out what course of action we should be taking.