Author: Lauren Schneider

The urban heat island effect is something that has been very noticeable to me over recent years. I live in the suburbs, and I am constantly travelling back and forth between my house and the city. Every morning when I check the weather, the forecast is always warmer for the city than in my neighborhood. Because I check the weather daily, I know there is this difference in temperature in the city, but I don’t always feel it. However, specifically in the summer I found it to be significantly hotter in the city, which is consistent with the data in this paper. The paper says that in New York City, the mean heat island was 7.2°F in the summer and fall and 5.4°F in the winter and spring in 2003. These numbers are very significant, and it is concerning that not much is being done about it so it’s only going to get higher.

While I knew that the city was getting warmer than surrounding areas, I honestly never really knew what the big deal was. It obviously isn’t natural, but before reading this paper, I did not know the actually problems associated with the heat island effect. For some of the environmental problems we talk about there isn’t always a lot of evidence of the consequences. Here, there is a strong correlation between ground-level ozone and temperatures in the city. This is one of the many consequences of pollution and ozone emissions. While mentioned that I do notice the warmer temperatures in the city, I did not think that these temperatures were significant enough to cause real health problems. Like many people, I assumed it would be more of an issue in like 50 years from now. It was surprising to read that the causes real health problems, including disease and injury. It also makes sense that heat is a public stressor. I was definitely shocked to read about how heat contributes to increased mortality rates in the city, because while heat can be annoying and cause some illnesses, I did not think the temperatures in the city were high enough to cause deaths.

The good news is that there are many things that can be done to mitigate this urban heat island problem. As mentioned in the past, this is one of the many benefits of green roofs. There are so many roofs in NYC that are unused and the implementation of vegetation can help fix this problem. This is also true for cool roofs and cool pavements, which lower ozone levels and temperatures. We have the technology to fix this heating problem, but it’s up to the government and individual efforts to start putting the money and efforts into these solutions.

I like that we had to read this article on light pollution, because it is a major for of pollution that we have not discussed much in class. Most people wouldn’t call light a form of pollution, because they would not expect there to be any serious health effects or environmental consequences to artificial light. This article very clearly describes how species, including humans, are negatively impacted by artificial light. It is clearly a very relevant issue since “99% of the population of the European Union and the United

States live in areas where the night sky is brighter than the threshold for light-polluted status set by the International Astronomical Union. (A 22)” The big picture on page A 23 also shows how inefficient and unnecessary most of the artificial light is. I was shocked to read that 50% of the light is wasted and 10% produces a glare, leaving just 40% to be productive light (A 23).

One part that really interested me was when it spoke about light pollution’s impact on various species, such as sea turtles and birds. The author mentions that sea turtles get disoriented by artificial light on the beach and females become discouraged from laying their eggs. They also get lost in finding their way to the sea. Artificial light at night also confuses birds as they fly past brightly lit buildings, which must especially be an issue in NYC. I found this interesting, because normally, we all think of light as a source that gives us clarity. It makes things easier to see and prevents us from getting lost. However, the opposite is true for other species, since the birds and sea turtles actually get lost and become disoriented from the light. I was also shocked by how many nocturnal animals there are, all of which must be in danger from light pollution.

The health effects of artificial electric light are also very serious. It makes sense that light can disrupt sleep patterns. I am a very light sleeper, so if there is any light in my room, I can’t sleep. It can also disrupt circadian rhythm, which can have effects on physiological processes and can cause mood disorders, such as depression. The most shocking and most serious health consequence is that it can cause different forms of cancer. There is an association between breast cancer and exposure to artificial light at night, which can be explained by decreased melatonin levels. The article has significant evidence of this when it says, “Nurses who worked night shifts at least 3 times a month for 15 years or more had a 35% increased risk of colorectal cancer. (A 26)” A study in Israel is also quoted saying, “Women living in neighborhoods where it was bright enough to read a book outside at midnight had a 73% higher risk of developing breast cancer than those residing in areas with the least outdoor artificial lighting. (A 27)”

Towards the end of the article, it talks about how light pollution is still on the bottom of the list of environmental priorities. I think that a big reason for this is the lack of awareness on the issue. Most people have no idea that electric light can be even a little bit dangerous. If people were educated on the consequences listed in this article, limiting light pollution would become more of a priority. People would be more willing to protect themselves from light in their own homes and the government would have motivation to regulate the light outside.

I truly believe that biking is very important and beneficial for all the reasons listed in this article. Biking is an easy and affordable way to get from place to place and can also be enjoyable. I am from the suburbs and I used to always love bike riding with my friends or family when the weather was nice. But aside from the convenience and fun, biking also comes with many significant health benefits. Biking can help with fitness, weight control, and improving one’s cardiovascular health. Because of all these benefits, it is shocking that so few people use bikes. This can contribute to the amount of obesity we have in this country. I was more shocked by the fact that only 24% of bikers are female. Males might enjoy sports more and be more athletic, but you don’t need to be that athletic to be able to bike, and today there are more and more women who seem to be concerned about their weight and fitness.

Although I love bike riding when I am home outside of the city, I do not think I would be willing to risk bike riding in the city. I was always under the impression that it was extremely unsafe in New York City and that you would have to be either reckless or a very talented bike rider to be willing to bike ride in the city. There is so much traffic and so many crazy drivers in the city, which makes it such a risk. Even though there are bike lanes, they are often too small, sometimes cars drive in the bike lanes, and there is always that issue with the parked car doors. I just never thought the benefits of bike riding outweighed the possible consequences of getting into one bad crash. Also, when I think of bike riding in the city, I always think about Citi bikes. It is one of the most accessible ways to get a bike, however, I think they are very unsafe because they encourage bikers to ride without helmets, which is something I am very against.

However, this article was very encouraging about the issue. The bike-vehicle crash rate was much lower than I expected at 2.3 per 1 million bicycle kilometers. Specifically on 8^th Avenue in New York, only 20 crashes were reported over the past 2.3 years. I am skeptical about these numbers, because I think that there are probably a lot more crashes that occur that are just not reported to the police, but the ones with serious injuries probably are reported and the numbers are still very low. Also, NYC was just a portion of the study, and the number of crashes in New York is probably worse than in any other city. I like that there are studies being done of the different types of bicycle paths would be the safest feasible options. I am not sure exactly what it would take for me to feel safe riding a bicycle in the city, but I would definitely be more convinced if the bike lanes were designed in the optimal ways suggested in this article.

This was a very interesting testimony to read, because it was very different from the other readings we have done. Since it was a testimony against the EPA, the tone was harsh and the results were not manipulated to make it seem like there was more progress than there actually was. The focus of the testimony was on indoor air pollution as a result of 9/11. While I believe that the lives lost during the terrorist attack is by far the most significant impact of 9/11 and deserves the most attention, it is a big problem that the environmental pollution has been completely overlooked by most people. Before Dana told me about her paper topic, I had never thought about the environmental effects of 9/11, but now thinking about all the dust and smoke, I can understand that the pollution levels were very high. Another thing I never thought of in general was “indoor” air pollution versus outdoor “air” pollution. I never really thought that pollution could be worse indoors than outdoors, because all the cars and many of the other major sources of pollution release harmful gases outdoors. However, it makes a lot of sense that indoor pollution is such a problem. The atmosphere outdoors is more open and therefore the polluted air can spread out. Indoors, on the other, the pollution is trapped inside and may not just go away with time, as seen in this testimony of the indoor pollution since 9/11.

Based on this testimony, the whole situation of indoor air contamination following 9/11 has not been handled properly. There were many problems in the treatment of the contamination, including the program’s timing and funding. If you look at the timeline on page 4, it took about a year for the EPA’s first program to start and this program was not even effective. The EPA’s excuse for not expanding the second program was that it is too difficult to distinguish between the normal urban dust particles and the ones from 3 years after 9/11. Had they not waited so long to begin this program, they would probably have had a better chance of distinguishing the dust before they mixed. The program itself was also flawed. 80% of the samples taken were in residences that were already cleaned from the contamination, giving misleading results. Another major problem with the program was the lack of funding. They had just $7 million to work with, and that was mainly just what was leftover from the previous program. The lack of funding shows that this is not something that is considered a priority. If people or the government cared about the issue of indoor air pollution from 9/11, they would allocate more money to the cause and feel the issue is urgent enough to start right away. Like with many other issues we’ve discussed, the only way to make this a priority is to raise awareness on the issue. I think that if people knew the extent of indoor air pollution, they would actually care. People are selfish, so they don’t care about how much pollution they release into the outdoor public space. However, when it comes to people’s own personal homes, I really most people would be willing to prioritize the problem.

 

I really liked this article because it focused on the social and cultural benefits are green architecture. Instead of just looking at how we can help improve environmental natural conditions, it combines the planning with what would be useful for social gathering places. I agree with the fact that green spaces are a city’s central gathering places. New York’s parks are a great example because they are always crowded with people interacting. Green agriculture is not just about fixing ecological problems, which is definitely very important, but it also puts an emphasis on sustainable living when it comes to economic and social sustainability. I did, however, disagree with the fact that greenery represents a city’s identity. I specifically believe this when it comes to New York City. I think one of the biggest characteristics of New York is its lack of greenery. It is known for its tall buildings and beautiful skyline, but not for its greenery. We do have major parks that people love to go to, however, I do not think they contribute the identity of our city.

The process of planning and implementation that goes into the process of green agriculture seems very efficient and impressive, specifically in Baku. I was looking at the Table 1 on page 537, and I was very impressed by the significant and consistent growth of green spaces over the five-year period in Baku. Each year from 2005 to 2010 the acres of green spaces, including trees along streets, parks, and gardens, all increased dramatically. I like the fact that it takes existing structures, and instead of just demolishing them, it gets regenerated and adapted into something new. This is very efficient and also maintains the identity of what existed before. It takes something that already exists and transforms industrial spaces into green architecture structures that serve many purposes and create spatial organization.

It would be great if New York can learn from Baku and incorporate green architecture into the city. It is very difficult because of the extreme population here and lack of space, however it is very necessary. There is constantly construction, including in public spaces, so even if we have little space to work with, we really should be using green architecture in order to still make sure everything is done in the most environmentally efficient and socially beneficial ways. We always talk about how environmental efforts are not always seen as a priority by Americans, but if we spread word about all the social and economic benefits associated with green architecture and sustainable planning, specifically through the education system, maybe we can turn into one.

It is nice to see the city putting the money into programs like this to prevent further water pollution. We have discussed the impact and extent of water pollution many times in this class already. This was especially an issue when we have talked about the pollution of the Hudson and how the waters surrounding the city are so polluted that much of it is undrinkable and not even clean enough for people to go fishing and swim in. This playground in the Bronx is the perfect example of the kinds of things we need invest in to eliminate pollution. It was really cool how the playground looks exactly like a regular playground with a hard ground for a functional basketball court, yet there is absorption that occurs underneath the ground. But this playground wasn’t just created to prevent pollution from storm water. In the article, Adrian Benepe was quoted saying, “Cities can either do expensive underground infrastructure that serves only one purpose, or they can benefit from both storm-water capture and ecosystem services. Trees provide shade. Trees and other plants absorb carbon dioxide. Gardens provide habitat.” We have spoken a lot about ecosystem services and the new innovations, such as green roofs, that have allowed us to incorporate nature and greenery into urban environments. So I enjoyed reading about this real innovative example in the Bronx.

Something that I found to be very interesting was the fact that when they interviewed the students, the students said that one of the things they would want to incorporate in a recreational area is more trees. The students acknowledged the benefits of trees and green spaces. They said they would like the shade from trees and that they would lie down on soft grass during recess. This shows that there is still some hope in the younger generations. The fact that some city kids still appreciate nature and want that connection to is very encouraging. It is really great that all of these new playgrounds and plants are being incorporated in schools. It enables children to be exposed more to nature and become involved in these programs at a young age.

Hi Guys!

Here is my paper for Wednesday:

http://docs.wind-watch.org/Goines-Hagler-2007-Noise_pollution__a_modern_plague.pdf

(It would be best to read the whole thing, but if you don’t have a lot of time, you can focus on the “Adverse Health Effects of Noise” numbered 1-7 on pages 289-292.)

It should be a good continuation of our discussion from today’s class.  Enjoy!

Noise pollution has become a growing concern in many urban areas, and it is especially a problem in New York, which is one of the most lively and loudest cities in the world. Measuring the number of 311 noise complaints is very good way to record data on the noise levels in the city. It is interesting to see all the complaints organized by type of noise, time of day and week, and specific areas in the city. Some of the biggest consequences of noise pollution are the health effects on humans. One of the biggest concerns is sleep deprivation, which is clearly shown in this article since noise complaints are high at night when people’s sleep is disturbed. The health effects of noise pollution also include emotional and mental health. The high number of complaints shows that people are emotionally distressed and angered by the loud noises across the city.

However, mapping the noise based on complaints is not the most accurate way of measuring the excessive noises and their impacts across the city. For example, the article says that 37% of noise complaints are regarding loud music and partying, while car/truck horns accounts for 4% and public transit systems don’t even make the list. I definitely agree that noise from partying is a big problem, but I think that there are other noises that are louder and even more common in the city. People can be just as irritated by other noises, but they probably just feel like they have more of a right to complain about partying and loud music, while they might feel like there’s no point in complaining about the cars and transit systems since not much can be done about that. This also has a lot to do with which noises are the most common at night when people are more likely to complain because of sleep deprivation. However, we must remember that noise pollution is also a problem during the daytime, and the noise levels are probably much louder during the day than at night, even though more complaints are recorded at night.

I am also doing my paper on noise pollution, and before I started my research, I knew very little about it. I never used to think about it as a scientific health threat or form of pollution, however, I definitely noticed that the city is very loud. Some people wrote that noise pollution is less obvious than air pollution, but I completely disagree. While I think that many people may be ignorant of the fact that noise is a form of environmental pollution that can harm many species, I still think that everyone notices noise since they can hear it and get annoyed by it. The city needs to make much stricter noise codes to fix the problem, and I truly believe that laws regarding noise can be supported by the people, since it is not just a scientific environmental law that seems irrelevant to humans. Rather it is an issue that everyone gets annoyed by, and its consequences are felt immediately as opposed to in the long run.

I agree with what Robert wrote, in that this is definitely an optimistic paper. They begin by listing the specific successful plans and revivals of species, such as the bald eagles (9). It shows once again that the time and effort put into research and conservationism can actually pay off and reverse a significant amount of the contamination pollution. I feel like I have learned a lot about the Hudson River in this class, so I definitely have a stronger connection with the river than I did before. We began learning about the pollution of the Hudson in chapter 6 of City at the Waters Edge. I remember that McCully spoke a lot about the garbage dumping and the PCB’s that went into the Hudson and severely polluted it. It really made me view the current state of the river as a gross dump. Having that background made me understand the importance of the Hudson River Estuary Program, in the efforts to reverse the effects of pollution and restore the wildlife that used to be plentiful in the river. I also just wrote a paper on the geological history of the Hudson, and knowing that it is one of the most beautiful natural ecosystems in New York that has existed for over a billion years, I believe that its longevity and beauty is even more of a reason to restore it to what it once was.

At first when reading this, it bothered me that they were putting such an emphasis on human recreation and human uses of the Hudson. When preserving nature, it shouldn’t be done just so that humans can directly benefit from it. If we want drinkable water, maybe we should stop contaminating it. The authors spoke about swimming and fishing in the Hudson, and I thought that maybe it would be better off if humans were not able to go in the Hudson and disturb the ecosystems. However, I remembered from the beginning of the semester how we discussed the importance of having a connection to the environment. The recreational activity that goes on in the Hudson is actually so important in its conservation, because if people can enjoy themselves and make memories doing fun things in the Hudson, they will probably be more likely to want to help protect it.  That is why it is good and should be a priority for recreational activities to exist along the river.

This has been said many times in class, but the most important of the proposed plans in this paper is the policies made by the federal, state, and local governments. The government needs to find ways to limit pollution, so that all these efforts aren’t pointless. Also, a lot of funding needs to go towards the variety of different programs at hat are discussed. Clearly these programs have been successful, and that is why we must increase funding for them and also make more people aware of the volunteer opportunities. The importance of community efforts is also shown and it is important to remember that if we want to be able to enjoy the Hudson and drink its water we should all pitch in and help protect it. While there has been much success so far, they emphasize the need for continuous efforts  by communities and long-term planning.

I think this is one of the most important articles we had to read so far. All the problems we’ve spoken about in class are issues that are or should be dealt with in urban planning through resource management and sustainable development. We are always talking about how humans are destroying the environment and using up the resources. We have gotten to the point that there are not enough resources to sustain the entire population, and we’re running out of space to put the resources we use.  It is interesting to see how urban planning and resource management have been around for a long time,  but UP, RM, and SD have all continuously evolved and developed throughout history and will continue to change in the future. Before reading this, I knew a little bit about urban planning and resource management, but it really cleared up the specific definitions and the difference between urban planning and sustainable development and showed me the major focuses of each as they have evolved through time. It is important to remember that no method of resource management, urban planning, or sustainable development is permanent, because the environment, technology, and society’s expectations are constantly changing. That is why this article goes through all the different stages throughout history. The most significant time in history was when urban planning was developed during the industrial revolution. Cities became packed and the resource consumption increased and changed from the consumption of organic to inorganic resources. New technology and other resources enabled the population to grow dramatically. A big problem with the increased use of inorganic resources was the waste management and pollution. Then the population quadrupled in the 20^th century, and consumption increased even more (2299). I found it interesting how centuries earlier, Plato “recommended zero population growth for his utopian republic” (2298). This shows us that while RM, UP, and SD can all aim to make sure everything is done as efficiently as possible, they will not solve all our problems unless the population significantly shrinks.

SD is probably the component that I knew the least about before reading this. One of the definitions given for sustainable development is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (2296). I do not think the government always practices effective sustainable development, because the government, who often gives in to society, is too focused on currently pleasing the people, as opposed to doing what would be best long term. To connect this to one of the previous topics we’ve spoken about, I do not believe there is adequate sustainable development when it comes to storm preparation and flooding. We spoke about how the government has spent a ton of the urban planning money on building dunes and groins and providing flood insurance for the people who have beachfront properties in major flood zones. However, in McCully’s Weathering chapter, she proved to us that the groins only cause worse problems for the future. Therefore, when it comes to UP and SD, it would be more effective for the government to find a way to force people to move out of the dangerous flood zones in order to protect future generations and put the city’s urban planning budget to better use.