Constructed soils for mitigating lead (Pb) exposure and promoting urban community gardening: The New York City Clean Soil Bank pilot study

2018 ◽  
Vol 175 ◽  
pp. 184-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Perl Egendorf ◽  
Zhongqi Cheng ◽  
Maha Deeb ◽  
Victor Flores ◽  
Anna Paltseva ◽  
...  
2011 ◽  
Vol 46 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 201-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holly Hagan ◽  
David C. Perlman ◽  
Don C. Des Jarlais

2006 ◽  
Vol 67 (03) ◽  
pp. 375-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Baca-García ◽  
Maria A. Oquendo ◽  
Jeronimo Saiz-Ruiz ◽  
J. John Mann ◽  
Jose de Leon

Epilepsia ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 1431-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma K.T. Benn ◽  
W. Allen Hauser ◽  
Tina Shih ◽  
Linda Leary ◽  
Emilia Bagiella ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. 46-46
Author(s):  
D. Russell ◽  
S.L. Szanton ◽  
J.L. Feinberg ◽  
K.H. Bowles

2013 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey H. Basch ◽  
Danna Ethan ◽  
Sonali Rajan ◽  
Sandra Samayoa-Kozlowsky ◽  
Charles E. Basch

Author(s):  
Roberta Gold

This chapter examines two neighborhood-based movements that challenged redevelopment: Morningside Heights and Cooper Square. It considers how the two areas became policy battlegrounds in the early 1960s as tenants mounted a second round of struggle against urban renewal schemes in New York City. Tenant mobilizations in both areas shared some features with the strike movement, namely tangible contributions from Old Left activists and complicated relations among left and liberal players. But Cooper Square and Morningside Heights tenants employed different ideological tools. They articulated a concept of urban community rights based on social bonds among diverse neighbors. The chapter shows how tenants' assertion of community rights against owners' prerogative challenged a pillar of postwar American ideology, namely, citizenship based on homeownership.


2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 907-912 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandro Galea ◽  
Nancy Worthington ◽  
Tinka Markham Piper ◽  
Vijay V. Nandi ◽  
Matt Curtis ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 5462-5486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadia Islam ◽  
Jennifer Zanowiak ◽  
Laura Wyatt ◽  
Rucha Kavathe ◽  
Hardayal Singh ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-30
Author(s):  
Julie Kjeldsen-Kragh Keller ◽  
Cecil Konijnendijk

Effective management of the urban forest calls for municipalities to have a tree inventory of their urban resource. The approach to urban forestry is rather different in Europe and North America, both in terms of background and culture. This contribution discusses similarities and differences in tree inventory practices, based on a pilot study of three major cities in North America (Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and Boston, Massachusetts and New York City, New York, U.S.) and three major cities in Northern Europe (Oslo, Norway; and Aarhus and Copenhagen, Denmark). The pilot study consisted of semi-structured expert interviews in each city, and an analysis of their tree inventories in terms of their level of detail, how they were undertaken, and how they have been used. Each of the cities, with exception of Oslo, had inventoried all of their street trees. Volunteers were only used in Boston and New York City. None of the cities had developed a management plan based on their tree inventory. The inventory had only been completely incorporated into the work order system in New York City and Toronto. This explorative study shows that more research is needed to investigate what subsequently happens to tree inventories in municipalities after they have been performed. Moreover, more work is needed to identify whether inventories are being utilized to their full advantage in terms of producing management plans. Some key themes for further research are described. The set up of this pilot study could serve as a format for comprehensive research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document