Rethinking Redevelopment: Neoliberalism, New Urbanism and Sustainable Urban Design in Cleveland, Ohio

This article explores unintended consequences of recent urban design initiatives in Cleveland, Ohio. Historically rife with environmental injustice issues, Cleveland’s built environment continues to exhibit issues of distributive justice across racialized spaces. In this research project, I first investigate whether and how New Urbanist aesthetics are geared towards a white spatial imaginary and subsequently deconstructing its whiteness. I seek to answer: is New Urbanism inherently racist? I then explore how New Urbanism in the U.S. has spread into circles of sustainable urban design, pushing space and place towards a homogenized normativity. Third, I examine the history of racial prejudice in urban planning in Cleveland. Lastly, I analyze census data surrounding neighborhoods in which sustainable urban design initiatives have been implemented or are underway. In analyzing how these neighborhoods are changing as a result of these initiatives, I look for the presence of New Urbanist aesthetics or the realization of some their principles and theory. I hope to uncover some of the indirect effects of projects deemed sustainable. The purpose of this project is to look critically at initiatives that are gauged as sustainable, widening the discussion of sustainability in planning and architecture to purposefully encompass factors related to social equity and justice, beyond the ones related to environmental sustainability

Determining outcomes and improving effectiveness : an outcome study of the East Bay Agency for Children\u27s Therapeutic Nursery School

This study evaluated the effectiveness of the East Bay Agency for Children\u27s Therapeutic Nursery School (TNS) in reducing problem behaviors for troubled preschoolers. Seven preschoolers between the ages of 2 ½ and 5 years old were assessed at the start of the study (or at admission date if after) and at 9 months (or at discharge if before 9 months) in a pre-post design. The Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment (ASEBA; commonly known as the Child Behavior Checklist or CBCL) was used as the measure of problem behaviors. Three ASEBAs were collected for each participant at pre and post measures – one from the parent or guardian, one from the teacher, and one from the therapist. The TNS intervention included typical preschool educational activities, individual and group therapy, social and emotional skills training, behavioral modification, and some family work. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data seemed to indicate no significant differences between pre and post scores for most students, although the study had many possible limitations. The findings suggest a need for greater controls to adequately assess the outcome of TNS

Environmental Health Regulation in the Trump Era: How President Trump’s Two-for-One Regulatory Plan Impacts Environmental Regulation

This Article explores the Trump regulatory reform agenda and its potential impact on environmental determinants of health. The Article begins with a discussion of the Department of Commerce’s (DOC or Commerce) initial fact-finding investigation to evaluate the impact of federal regulations on domestic manufacturing. The Article next presents an overview of the Trump administration’s regulatory reform formula as announced in E.O. 13771 and the interim guidance explaining E.O. 13771 and E.O. 13777 (the executive order announcing the Trump administration’s plans to enforce the regulatory reform plan announced in E.O. 13771). The Article then examines the federal agency initiatives undertaken in response to the Trump directives, including both fact-finding dockets and regulatory action published in the federal register applying the executive orders. This Article concludes with concerns about the practical effects of the new policy on the future of environmental determinants of health and recommends that the policy be reevaluated after a year to understand the unintended effects of this means of deregulation

DRILLING FOR COMMON GROUND: HOW PUBLIC OPINION TRACKS EXPERTS IN THE DEBATE OVER FEDERAL REGULATION OF SHALE OIL & GAS EXTRACTION

Public interest in environmental and health impacts from shale oil and gas extraction (what the public calls “fracking”) is growing. Industry claims the public outcry against the new technology is not grounded in science. In February 2013, Resources for the Future (“RFF”) published a list of high priority “risk pathways” that experts from NGOs, academia, government, and industry all agreed were real concerns about fracking. This article used the risk matrix to evaluate whether public comments in dockets of federal agencies that proposed regulation concerning hydraulic fracturing tracked expert concern. The article found that the public tracked many of the experts’ shared concerns. The highest concern was water pollution in surface and groundwater from fracking fluids (or, “frac fluids”), flowback, and produced water. The public shared expert worry over cementing and casing failures and understood that these were the primary causes of most groundwater contamination. Damage to habitat was the third greatest concern raised by the public. Methane leakage into air and water was less cited. Concerns over technical matters were rarely mentioned by the general public but were often cited by self-identified experts. The article concludes that while the general public did not go into the detail about the regulatory mechanism that was often reflected by experts, the concerns raised by the public in comments to proposed rulemakings largely reflected the consensus themes of the experts. More significantly, the public writing overwhelmingly favored increased federal regulation to protect public health and the environment