Environmental Justice in the Elizabeth River Watershed: Exploring the Utility of Environmental Justice Screening Tools

The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement has long highlighted the disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards experienced by Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) and low-income communities across the country. Environmental practitioners have recently focused on utilizing EJ screening tools, which combine environmental and social data to visualize vulnerable communities, to begin to address environmental injustice rampant in BIPOC and low-income communities. This project explores EJ theoretical frameworks and the historical context of social oppression and environmental pollution in the Elizabeth River watershed (ERW) of Virginia to: 1) understand the social, political, and economic context behind environmental injustice; and 2) generate goals to address environmental injustice with a particular focus on utilizing EJ screening tools. This project highlights five EJ theoretical frameworks that can be used to explain disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards: 1) Racism and Discrimination; 2) Exploitation, Manipulation, Enticement, and Intimidation; 3) Institutional Practices; 4) Economics; and 5) Physical Characteristics and provides an overview of the history of the ERW to highlight the operation of these frameworks. Further, this project suggests three major goals to address environmental injustice: 1) empowering communities through equitable and just community engagement; 2) mapping distributions of environmental hazards, social factors, and institutional practices using EJ screening tools; and 3) ensuring that environmental amenities, burdens, and practices are equitably distributed and target vulnerable communities using EJ screening tools. This project serves as a framework for exploring the social, political, and economic contexts that give rise to environmental injustice and how EJ screening tools can be used to begin addressing them

Human adaptation strategies are key to cobenefits in human–wildlife systems

Sustainable development goals such as global food security and biodiversity conservation can conflict because these efforts create situations where humans and wildlife share landscapes, often leading to interactions that detrimentally affect both groups. Therefore, coexistence between humans and wildlife is more likely when adaptation strategies produce and sustain cobenefits, rather than benefitting one group only. However, we lack a good understanding of how different social and ecological factors contribute to cobenefit outcomes, which limits our opportunities to address local issues and scale up successful conservation actions. Here, we performed the first global review of the human–wildlife interaction literature to assess which human adaptation strategies generated cobenefits and how stakeholder involvement and other context‐specific conditions mediated those outcomes. We found that active guarding, fencing, repellents, and socioeconomic mechanisms consistently led to cobenefits across species and contexts. Thus, these interventions might be the best candidates for scaling up coexistence from local to regional or national scales. Surprisingly, stakeholder involvement was less consequential than other variables, yet, overall, it played an important role in sustaining cobenefits regardless of adaptation strategy or social–ecological context. We highlight future research directions to help manage tradeoffs and achieve sustainable coexistence outcomes in shared landscapes.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167539/1/conl12769.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/167539/2/conl12769_am.pd

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo