Analyze

Harmful PM2.5 emissions in Dhaka, Bangledesh prompting researchers to study emissions during winter and monsoon season.

helena.dav
In response to

Assessing the PM2.5 impact of biomass combustion in megacity Dhaka, Bangladesh - PubMed (nih.gov)

This article is about crop burning in Dhaka, Bangladesh and attempts to figure out if there is more or less harmful PM2.5 particulate air pollution caused by either fossil fuels or biomass, and during which season is one or the other higher in the air pollution it produces. During monsoon season, fossil fuels lead in the most PM2.5 releases at 44.3%. When it is not monsoon season and is the winter season, the percentages are way higher for PM2.5 air particulate releases at 41.4% for the remainder of the year. Across the globe, there are now people stepping up to uncover the true and real environmental and health impacts this harmful particulate byproduct causes in different parts of the world and with differring weather conditions than what we see in North Carolina. 

Emissions from Biomass Burning in South/Southeast Asia; correcting the miscalculation about the PM2.5 emissions from burning.

helena.dav
In response to

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351209404_PM25_Emissions_from_…;

This study is set in South/Southeast Asia and uncovering that, when trying to count the percentages of PM2.5 put off during biomass, the true amount of emissions were being gravely undercalculated. Specifically rice straw burning becuase the amount burned varied so much because of different harvest and burning practices that it just wasn't taken into consideration. What this study does is go bottom up using these strategies: "subnational spatial database of rice-harvested area, region-specific fuel-loading factors, region, and burning-practice-specific emission and combustion factors, including literature-derived estimates of straw and stubble burned"(Lasko et al. 2021, 1). 

The Clean Air Act and the EPA laws and regulations against harmful PM2.5 air pollutant matter

helena.dav
Annotation of
In response to

The most common air pollutants are called criteria pollutants and are regulated by the Clean Air Act and the EPA. These pollutants are: particles, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfer dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The EPA have sections under the CAA that help regulate factories and air pollution in the environment. For example section 108 requires the EPA to identify the pollutants that are criteria pollutants, listed above, and determine if where they are coming from and if they "endander public health or welfare". Under section 109 the EPA had to set standards across the board for air pulltion in regard to human health and to the environemtn sperately (Christopher D. Ahlers 2016, 51-52).  There are many more sections that go into detail about what the CAA can do and what the EPA members are required to do as well. 

Ahlers, Christopher D. “Wood Burning, Biomass, Air Pollution, and Climate Change.” Environmental Law 46, no. 1 (2016): 49–104. 

second thoughts on willowick

mikefortun
Annotation of
In response to

Katie Cox Shrader10:44 AM Today@kimfortun@uci.edu I know what you mean about that anxiety. Two thoughts: 

- Re working with urban planners and others on gentrification: Santa Ana has a long, rich history of anti-gentrification organizing, and many of the groups involved in those have worked with UCI including planners. I recall from my time working with Montoya that some of the politics there are sensitive. I think an important next step is to be researching/documenting some of that history and reaching out to groups like el Centro Cultural de México and the Kennedy Commission. Maybe the OC library archive too. It seems really important to include gentrification as a central part of our analysis of EiJ in SA and I think we have a lot to learn from them. Those conversations may give us some insight into how outside planners might help or support, and how they might already be doing so.

- This kind of discursive risk does seem really important to track... AB 617 certainly comes to mind here. I also wonder how we might discern the difference between instances where well-intentioned interventions are captured or coopted in implementation, and those where legislation is compromised from the outset. Not to be cynical, but I am very curious about what developers supported the Surplus Land Act. Is the kind of development that Rise Up Willowick is fighting a "detour from intent" or is it a predictable/anticipated outcome of incentivizing the auction of public land for (private) redevelopment? In other words, is the Surplus Land Act a mechanism for progressive redistribution (golf courses become affordable housing), or neoliberal privatization of public assets (city-owned green space becomes a Jamba Juice)? Such a very California question.Show lessReassigned to kimfortun@uci.eduKatie Cox Shrader10:46 AM Today@mike.fortun@uci.edu  ... Now am thinking we need to have a workflow for moving these side-bar conversations into PECE as analysis of field notes. Maybe we could be in the habit of having these conversations in the text of the document, rather than the comments?

Private Digital Data

AmandaWindle
Annotation of
In response to

This is very hard to say upfront. I'm not an advocate for saving data for the sake of it.

Understanding and having the option to have some data open and some data restricted ongoing. The button at the bottom of the Annotate tool is helpful in this respect. 

Pre and During Covid-19

AmandaWindle
Annotation of
In response to

As an academic that has recently left the institutional belonging for a moment to a university, I can answer this from two perspectives.

All of my digital design research projects have very specifc ways of digitally managing data, including building platforms for researchers in tech corporations (climate change or for spaces for protecting endangered species beyond borders). To manage digital data in their platforms.

Working with women-in-tech on their public leadership. The group required data to be shared and sjupport for one another via WhatsApp. This supported their Twitter and public TV experiences live.

Or working with those not engaging in multi-arts venues via building together an app - the process being the most successful outcome. We used the data management processes the funder  required and also the design adn tech partners were using.

During Covid-19 digital data flows in the usual ways, but we're discussion new CRMs for fundraising right now. We share data in the usual way, but Zoom, WhatsApp and Skype scaffold a lot of our emphasis on face-to-face community engagement. We don't share data outside of the homeless charity on interaction numbers on the street etc, because like many charities it need not report data to the government. The charity does not share homeless data with governmental departements that share their data in ways we would not advocate for, unless it is required by law,— like auditing and tax.