Author: aaron.lung

The Masdar Initiative is an ambitious and well-intentioned plan to address the issue of sustainable development for urban cities. When I opened article and read on the first page that “Masdar will be the world’s first zero carbon, zero waste, zero car city. At the cutting edge of technology and design, Masdar incorporates advanced energy and water saving techniques modeling the sustainability practices of the future,” I was surprised to see that a project of this scale existed (1). It made me very curious to read more.

Masdar seems to have many features through the use of technology that addresses the economical and environmental aspect of sustainability that the article explains well. There were two features of Masdar that I really liked in particular. One is that the city will rely independently on renewable energy for 100% of its electricity demands. I knew very little about Abu Dhabi when I opened this article. However, the one thing that I do associate with Abu Dhabi is oil, and oil, along with other fossil fuels, have many negative associations with environmental issues such as carbon emissions and unsustainability. It is great to see that Masdar is using a diverse range of renewable energies such as wind, photovoltaics, and thermal solar to supply it energy needs in an environmental friendly manner that also helps the country’s image and commercial development. The second feature that caught my eye is that Masdar will be car free, the world’s first. The fact that the City will be designed to accommodate walking and biking as its main forms of transportation will lead to many health and social benefits. The Personal Rapid Transit is a system that I hope New York City can implement as it can serve the same purpose as our current MTA while being more environmentally friendly. Of course, implementing the PRT system in New York City can be difficult due to the differences between the two cities in terms of physical size, number of residents, and the current existence of the MTA in New York City.

While my initial impressions of Masdar were filled with curiosity and delight, my conclusion about the Initiative as a “model city” for the world is that it can not be in that position. The lack of equity and economic accessibility is a tremendous flaw that, in my opinion, on its own makes Masdar unqualified to serve as a model city for the world to emulate. The article states that due to the $22 billion cost of creating Masdar, “only wealthy people will be able to reside permanently in Masdar” (6). With increasing urbanization, a greater percentage of the world population, especially the poor or less wealthy, are going to be living in cities that need to be environmentally sustainable in order to accommodate our finite supply of fossil fuels and to mitigate the amount of harmful pollution. A “model city” needs to to be accessible by everyone if it wants to inspire future progress towards sustainable cities.

Overall, despite lacking the essential characteristic in order to be a model city, I think the principle behind the Masdar Initiative and some of its technological ideas are definitely worth emulating.

The article provided an abundance of new information for me on the issue of light pollution. Before this class, I was not even aware of light as a type of pollution. The first time I had heard of light pollution was during our discussion of Urban Flyway from City at the Water’s Edge in which light at night can disturb the migration patterns of birds. Much like sound, I had experienced situations in which glare and very bright light made me annoyed. I was, however, aware of the potential health effects. One instance was with a new kitchen appliance store that had opened on the street across from my apartment. For a few weeks, the store always had very bright lights on during the night (when it was closed) that I found unnecessary. The bright lights shined on to my window and made it a bit difficult to sleep.

Despite this experience, I had not considered light to be a type of societal pollution. However, this article clearly shows otherwise. The many examples used with animals such as the birds and sea turtles clearly show that light can harmfully affect organisms. In terms specifically of humans, the article discusses how light pollution can disrupt our circadian physiology, increase our chances of cancer, cause sleep disorder, and decrease melatonin production levels. All of these health effects show that light pollution is harmful and a problem for society.

However, one aspect that is very lacking from this article are solutions. As the article acknowledges, “light pollution is still way down the list of important environmental issues needing study” (27). The big issue is money. Money is important, and the economics behind any environmental action or program is important. Outside of the common known pollutions of air and water, there is also sound, light, and many more that people might not be as aware of. Each of these problems needs money or funding to support research and programs that allow us to learn more about the problem as well as potential solutions. The important question is to how to allocate the available funding or how to expand the pool of funding available. This article, overall, made me curious about what programs addressing light pollution currently exists and how is the government responding.

The idea of bicycling has always been appealing to me. When I lived in Mount Vernon in Westchester County, I used to bike around to the places where I wanted to go because the neighborhood was suburban and thus, much less crowded and had few MTA buses and subways. When my family moved to Manhattan, I initially still rode my bike a fair amount in my local park. However, I stopped using bikes as a means of getting to places where I wanted to go mainly since the City is so crowded with cars and people that I did not feel safe (and still do not feel safe) riding my bike along with roads in fear of either running into a car or accidentally running into a pedestrian.

As the article acknowledges, safety is the main concern of cyclists and organizations such as the AASHTO that want to reduce the number of accident/crashes that occur from biking. It is surprising that the rate of crashes is smaller than I thought it would be. The findings state that over 57 years, only 55 bicycle-vehicle related crashes were reported with an overall crash rate of 2.3 per 1 million kilometers (1243). After reading these statistics, I, however, still do not feel safe or move motivated to actually ride bikes on the road. I imagine a fair amount of crashes, especially less serious crashes, and near-crashes are not reported. Another interesting fact is that of those 55 reported crashes, 41 of them occurred somewhere in New York City, with 8th and 9th Avenue having the highest volume of crashes (1244). This fact made me feel even less safe about riding a bike in New York City. The research did mention, however, that installation of cycle tracks decreased the rate of crashes by 30% and 56% on 8th and 9th Avenue, respectively (1245). I would love to read another research report about more current rates of bicycle crashes in New York City from 2011 to 2014.

Overall, I learned a lot about from this article and the presentation about the issues concerning bicycle safety in cities. The fact that only 0.5% of adults in the US ride bicycle as a means of transportation to and from work is astounding considering the health, environmental, and economic benefits that bicycling can have over public transportation and walking (1240).

The report provides a different perspective of understanding the consequences of the unfortunate September 11, 2001 attacks from an environmental and health viewpoint. Generally when most people, including myself, think about the fall of the World Trade Center as a disaster, we do not consider it an environmental disaster. However, as the report shows, the collapse of the towers had potential dangerous consequences. The report states that Lower Manhattan “was blanketed with building debris and combustible materials” and that many “residents and workers in the area would now be exposed to known hazards in the air and in the dust, such as asbestos, lead, glass fibers, and pulverized concrete” (1). The exposure to these hazards could have led to many negative health developments. For example, long term exposure to asbestos can cause fibrotic lung disease and inhaling lead can cause learning disabilities and nervous system damage for children.

The existence of these potential harmful health consequences means that the EPA had an important responsibility to address them. However, based on the report, the EPA’s program had many shortcomings including lack of public informational disclosure, adequate resources, and scope. I feel that out of its flaws, the lack of informational disclosure to the public was the most detrimental. One of the common themes we have discussed in this course is that awareness and knowledge are two important factors in encouraging people to make smart, beneficial decisions relating to their environment. For the EPA, many important pieces of information regarding its program was not explained including the limitations on its findings and the significance of these limitations.

Another concern is that the EPA, did not begin implementing its second program until late 2007, five years after the collapse of the World Trade Center. During that time, residents and workers in the area could have easily came into contact with the hazard substances and suffer some harm, unbeknownst to them. The report shows that the EPA was definitely not prepared to handle this type of situation at the time. The lack of preparedness even lead panel members to “discourage participation” in the EPA’s program which was surprising (10). If the government wants to effectively combat ecological issues, then actions such as the EPA’s can not be repeated or else many would lose more trust/faith in the government’s ability to successfully protect citizens from hazardous substances.

Hello everybody,

Here is my article for Wednesday.

It is entitled : The Influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment

Edit: Try this link if the first does not work – http://ac.els-cdn.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu/S0272494413000959/1-s2.0-S0272494413000959-main.pdf?_tid=099141f6-8cb4-11e5-bbc5-00000aacb361&acdnat=1447714238_8a32eedcc7e7b861f7a414afcd2b6d6b

Kind regards,

Aaron

The articles highlights the many reasons why sustainable planning and green architecture can be beneficial to urban cities today. One reason is the economic benefit; sustainable development projects taken up by companies can increase economic activity, leading to more employment, and more competition. In addition, the new developments in the green areas can attract visitors to the city. A second reason is the environmental benefit; green architecture can reduce “pollution on a boarder scale” and serve as checks on “resource depletion, emissions of undesirable greenhouse gases and subsequent rise in anthropogenic heat in the ambient atmosphere” (535). Both of these reasons we have discussed in our class a fair amount already in our past readings. However, one point that the article makes, which I have not though about before, is that urban green areas also can provide the benefit of “public congregation” and “social interaction” (536). The author notes that urban green areas tend to be parts of the city that are frequently visited. With proper urban planning, green areas in the city can create “cohesion between citizens” by bringing people together in order to “weave” parts of the city together (536). I found this point of the article to be the most persuasive as it reveals how urban green areas can strengthen the idea of a city as a community and solve the problems of social interactions that are very damaging on people’s minds.

Another point made be the author that was interesting was that sustainable planning needs to go beyond being just “corrective measures of regeneration” (539). The author notes that in engaging sustainable planning, there needs to be a recognition of “historic and cultural significance” that takes into account the identity of the people (539). Rather than simply correcting people’s mistreatment of the natural environment, sustainable planning projects should be considered “inventions” that benefit the people. I felt that this type of mindset is a great approach towards how people should think on green architecture and how to maximize the benefits a city could get from it.

This article provides a useful continuation on the issue of noise pollution by presenting concise information on the various, adverse health effects that can result from hearing too much unwanted sounds. One effect of noise pollution that discussed in the article and that I was not aware of is that noise can affect people in their sleep even if the noise is not harmful to a person’s hearing. When I consider the impact of noise on sleep, I generally think of the fact that noise can hinder a person’s ability to fall asleep which leads to deprivation and decreased mental performance that the authors also discuss in the article. However, the authors also state that noise “even at levels that are not harmful to hearing, is perceived subconsciously as a danger signal, even during sleep” (287). They discuss that during sleep, noise can cause negative effects such as “increase blood pressure, increased heart rate, increased pulse amplitude, vasoconstriction, changes in respiration” and more (290).

In the larger picture, the adverse effect on sleep is just one of the many negative consequences of noise pollution on human health. From Michael’s article and our discussion of it, the issue of noise pollution in New York City is definitely a problem that can impact New Yorkers, especially children, in all the ways discussed in this article shared by Lauren. The important question is how to address noise pollution. The authors mention two paths, legislation and education, that as a class we have also discussed many times regarding different issues. In terms of legislation, the authors bring up the point that domestic tranquility is one of the promises made by the Constitution and a reason why governments need to mitigate noise pollution. However, the idea of a city, especially large cities such as New York City where the problem is most prevalent, being able to monitor and control noise levels to please residents sounds like too much of a economic burden to be feasible and efficient.

Education is likely the more effective path to solve the issue of noise pollution. The authors emphasize throughout the article that children are a group that especially is vulnerable to the effects of noise pollution. Education that addresses this topic by focusing on the negative consequences to children can appeal to a wide range of people, especially parents, who would feel a greater connection and need to mitigate noise pollution. If many people do not tolerate second-hand smoke for its adverse health effects, then the attitude towards second-hand noise should also be the same (287).

This article presented a lot of interesting facts and statistics relating to New York City’s noise problem. Naturally, the article made me very curious about my own neighborhood, Chinatown. According to the data card on Chinatown, loud music/partying in my neighborhood is ranked the 11th highest in the City. Loud talking is at 14th, construction equipment is at 13th, and overall my neighborhood is at the 15th. The data isn’t very surprising as Chinatown has been increasingly louder in the past few years. From personal experience, Chinatown was relatively quiet about five years ago. Since then, more bars catering to large night parties have been built and the construction of luxury condominiums have increased. Both are the primarily sources of increased noise.

In relation to the article, although the author presents noise as a problem for the City, he does not directly address the reasons why. One of the most significant, negative effects of sound pollution on people is increased amounts of stress. From my research, sound pollution is a major source of causing stress and hindering stress recovery for people living in large, crowded urban cities. Unwanted noise such as the sound of a jackhammer, which is common throughout the City, can disturb a person’s ability to sleep which leads to sleep deprivation, a major source of stress in New York City. From there, a person would feel greater stress and fatigue the following day which could lead to a loss of productivity, a cost to companies. The human mind often welcomes the sounds of nature which reminds it of primitive states and require little processing. In contrast, unwanted noise from the City require a greater amount of processing for the mind and hinders a person’s ability to concentrate, focus, and relax.

In order to address the problem of sound pollution, the City government needs to make greater efforts to effectively update its noise code. The article states that the noise code was “modernized” in 2007. Yet, 311 still logged 140,000 noise complaints from winter 2013 to fall 2014. One of the things to note is that the City Council addresses transportation systems as the main source of the problem which is in discord with what many people complain about. Complaints relating to cars amount only to 11% of the total complaints which is significantly less than noise from loud parties. Sound pollution from automobiles contributes a large amount to the problem, larger than the percentage of human complaints. The question the City needs to ask itself is whether to address sound pollution to cater to people complaints or not.

I think one of the most important themes highlighted in the Hudson River Estuary Program’s report is the effectiveness of collaborative effort. In the introduction of the text, the Estuary Program emphasizes that the effort and contribution by “[g]overnment and non-government partners have been critical to the Estuary Program’s success during its first 25 years and will be crucial during the next 25” (3). Throughout the Estuary Program’s report, there are many examples of this collaborative effort. For example, the Estuary Program partnered with the Department of Environmental Conservation, the Hudson River Foundation, the National Estuarine Research Reserve, and several other organizations to create HRECOS, allowing the Estuary Program to monitor data of the Hudson River including temperature, tides, and weather conditions and respond to changes more effectively (5). In another example, the Estuary Program worked with the NYC Department of City Planning to research how to maximize coastal resiliency to sea-level rise and storms (8). The focus on collaboration between organizations with similar agendas is great. Even a quick skim through the report reveals that most of the goals achieved so far by the Estuary Program was due to partnering with other organizations. The idea that “[n]o one organization or agency can fund all the science, education, and conservation initiatives needed to protect and restore the Hudson and its watershed” is definitely something I agree with and creates a great model on how we need to approach the environment (3). On a global perspective, the Hudson River Estuary is just one area out of many that needs the attention of environmental organizations and communities. To help ecosystems throughout the Earth, a single organization or even a few organizations can not achieve this.

Another theme of the Estuary Program’s report that I enjoy is the focus on community benefit outside of economical terms. In our recent readings on air pollution and solar thermal energy in New York City, there was a large emphasis on the economic benefits that were achieved or could be achieved from the programs. In contrast to those reports, the Estuary Program focuses on community benefits outside of economics. For example, the improvement in clean water quality of the Hudson allows local communities to enjoy recreational activities such as swimming, boating, and fishing (5). In a second example, the efforts made towards helping the ecosystem around the Hudson River Estuary has led to the revitalization of the bald eagle population which benefits bird watches (9). The focus on these benefits is important because generating interest in the environment through fun activities allows people, especially future generations, to feel connected to the environment and be aware of problems that they could solve.

The two types of fossils that can found in the Connecticut Valley, in regards to dinosaurs during the Jurassic period, are their fossilized remains and the footprint impressions they left in rocks. Between the two, the fossilized remains offer a more precise image and clearer information about the dinosaurs that used to roam the region. The Anchisaurus, Yaleosaurus, Ammosaurus, and Coelophysis were identified and named mainly as a result of the findings of their skeletons or parts of their skeletons. The Achisaurus, for example, we understand to be around six to eight feet in length, had strong hind limbs, and had a long neck.

On the other hand, footprint impressions offer much less clear information that Colbert describes as hazy. The one advantage of footprint impressions is that they are in greater abundance relative to fossilized remains. Still, the information we can gain from them is very limited due to the difficulty in interpretation and the fact that they must be matched with dinosaur bones. The footprints found were given names but few have been correlated with a dinosaur. They could tell us information about the average size of dinosaurs that inhabited the region and which dinosaurs were abundant. However, as Dr. Donald Baird stated in the Colbert article, the information from footprints is very much speculative and not concrete due to many missing pieces of information. For example, many bones of prosauropods indicate their presence in the region but their is no evidence of their presence according to footprints. If footprints can not be correlated with bones, the information gained is very limited and becomes the subject of speculation or assumptions.

Overall, the pattern we can see here is that our knowledge of things that existed millions of years ago is based on a combination of some factual findings but assumptions and estimations also contribute significantly. In the Bedrock Geology of the Hartford South Quadrangle, we see this pattern persist. Identifying the sedimentary formations was difficult to poor exposure that resulted from years of weatherings. As a result, basalt layers were used to estimate information about the sedimentary units. The lack of information limits our understanding. As more discoveries and findings are made, maybe more can be learned

Lithology – the gross physical character of a rock or rock formation

Sinuous – having many curves, bends, or turns