UNPRME Library Exhibit - Right

Right side image of the UNPRME library exhibit. The exhibit occurred in Spring 2021 and was in the front right display cases as one walks into the library

UNPRME Library Exhibit - Left

Left side image of the UNPRME library exhibit. The exhibit occurred in Spring 2021 and was in the front right display cases as one walks into the library

UNPRME Library Exhibit - Center

Center image of the UNPRME library exhibit. The exhibit occurred in Spring 2021 and was in the front right display cases as one walks into the library

UNPRME Library Exhibit

Full length image of the UNPRME library exhibit. The exhibit occurred in Spring 2021 and was in the front right display cases as one walks into the library

Demand responsive transport: A review of schemes in England and Wales

Local-authority-administered Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) schemes are increasingly prevalent in England and Wales, partly as a result of the growth in the availability of government funding. However, insufficient research has been undertaken into the nature of these schemes and their performance, making it difficult to predict their future role. In this respect, a survey was undertaken to collect data on the background, operation, and performance of DRT schemes in England and Wales. It found that DRT schemes are often designed in an attempt to tackle social problems caused by poor accessibility and that they took time to become established, to achieve their objectives, and to reach an acceptable performance in terms of subsidy level. The paper concludes that local-authority-led DRT schemes have a role to play, but that lessons learned from schemes currently in operation must be heeded by those contemplating new scheme development

Comparative analysis of state environmental enforcement in Region Six of the United States

Through intense studies of agency audits, EPA policies and documents, state environmental compliance data and state agency issued documents, I have evaluated the enforcement programs of Region Six state environmental agencies. The four elements utilized to perform this evaluation were listed in EPA compliance assurance program documents. The analysis was conducted by comparing state program performance in each element. Element 1 is the “appropriate identification of violations.” Element 2 is the “timely issuance of enforcement actions.” Element 3 is the “escalation of enforcement actions when violations continue.” Element 4 is the “ability to assess and collect penalties.” These elements are interdependent. Their success depends on the perception of their success by the regulated community. A lack of success in one element will prevent the effectiveness of all elements. The community must perceive a high likelihood of being inspected, and a high likelihood of receiving enforcement orders and penalties for existing violations. Without this perception, an enforcement program cannot effectively deter the regulated community from subsequent violations. Because each agency needed to improve in some area of enforcement, it was determined that none of the Region Six state agencies were completely efficient in all elements. Because a successful program relies upon all elements, there is no best or worst program. Each agency contains strengths and weaknesses among the elements, and each agency can improve their environmental enforcement procedures