Radon Reduction in Homes: Research Phase to Operational Phase

1988 ◽  
Vol 24 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 537-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.M. Mardis ◽  
R.J. Guimond ◽  
E. Fisher
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
General Public ◽  
The United States ◽  
Evaluation Program ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Operational Phase ◽  
Mitigation Design

Abstract The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) House Evaluation Program (HEP) is an on-going programme designed to transfer research findings on radon diagnostic and mitigation technologies to the general public. The HEP accomplishes this technology transfer by providing guidance and hands-on training to States, homeowners, and local contractors while conducting radon diagnostics and mitigation design planning in houses. An overview of the HEP is given and the programme's accomplishments and findings to date are discussed.

Municipal Wastewater Treatment Technology Transfer Activities of the United States Environmental Protection Agency

1989 ◽  
Vol 21 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 685-698
Author(s):  
J. J. Convery ◽  
J. F. Kreissl ◽  
A. D. Venosa ◽  
J. H. Bender ◽  
D. J. Lussier
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
The United States ◽  
Environmental Research ◽  
Outreach Program ◽  
Small Community ◽  
Protection Agency ◽  
Transfer Programs

Technology transfer is an important activity within the ll.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Specific technology transfer programs such as the activities of the Center for Environmental Research Information, the Innovative and Alternative Technology Program, as well as the Small Community Outreach Program are used to encourage the utilization of cost-effective municipal pollution control technology. Case studies of three technologies including a plant operations diagnostic/remediation methodology, alternative sewer technologies and ultraviolet disinfection are presented. These case studies are presented retrospectively in the context of a generalized concept of how technology flows from science to utilization which was developed in a study by Allen (1977). Additional insights from this study are presented on the information gathering characteristics of engineers and scientists which may be useful in designing technology transfer programs. The recognition of the need for a technology or a deficiency in current practice are important stimuli other than technology transfer for accelerating the utilization of new technology.

scholarly journals “How Do We Actually Do Convergence” for Disaster Resilience? Cases from Australia and the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shefali Juneja Lakhina ◽  
Elaina J. Sutley ◽  
Jay Wilson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Century ◽  
Urban Resilience ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Systemic Risks ◽  
Work Community ◽  
Research Findings

AbstractIn recent years there has been an increasing emphasis on achieving convergence in disaster research, policy, and programs to reduce disaster losses and enhance social well-being. However, there remain considerable gaps in understanding “how do we actually do convergence?” In this article, we present three case studies from across geographies—New South Wales in Australia, and North Carolina and Oregon in the United States; and sectors of work—community, environmental, and urban resilience, to critically examine what convergence entails and how it can enable diverse disciplines, people, and institutions to reduce vulnerability to systemic risks in the twenty-first century. We identify key successes, challenges, and barriers to convergence. We build on current discussions around the need for convergence research to be problem-focused and solutions-based, by also considering the need to approach convergence as ethic, method, and outcome. We reflect on how convergence can be approached as an ethic that motivates a higher order alignment on “why” we come together; as a method that foregrounds “how” we come together in inclusive ways; and as an outcome that highlights “what” must be done to successfully translate research findings into the policy and public domains.

scholarly journals Gubernatorial Rhetoric and the Purpose of Education in the United States

2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dick M. Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Economic Efficiency ◽  
General Public ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Education Policies ◽  
Education Experience ◽  
Purpose Of Education

For decades, scholars have debated the purpose of U.S. education, but too often ignored how non-education-related power brokers define education or the requisite consequences.[Qu: Is there a different way of phrasing this? I'm not sure, in reading it, what you intend "the requisite consequences" to mean. Does this mean the results of education, or the consequences of inaccurate definitions of it? Also, may we rephrase "non-education-related power brokers" to something like "power brokers without education experience"?]This study examines how one of the most prominent categories of U.S. leaders, state governors, defines education and discusses the policy implications. We examine gubernatorial rhetoric—that is, public speeches—about education, collected from State of the State speeches from 2001 to 2008. In all, one purpose gains overwhelmingly more attention—economic efficiency. As long as governors and the general public, seen enthymematically through gubernatorial rhetoric, define education in economic terms, other purposes will likely remain marginalized, leading to education policies designed disproportionately to advance economic ends.

Comparative Environmental Federalism: Subsidiarity and Central Regulation in the United States and China

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huiyu Zhao ◽  
Robert Percival
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Conclusive Evidence ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Race To The Bottom ◽  
Environmental Laws ◽  
National Governments ◽  
National Environmental

AbstractThe proper division of responsibility for environmental protection between national and state governments has long been the subject of fierce debate. During the 1970s the United States Congress decided to shift the most important environmental responsibilities from state governments to the federal government. The main reason for this decision was to prevent a ‘race to the bottom’ in that states competing for industries could otherwise be lax in implementing and enforcing federal environmental standards. Yet, some scholars have argued that there could just as easily be a ‘race to the top’ among states as they compete to attract people and businesses concerned with environmental protection. China, in turn, is plagued with severe air and water pollution and soil contamination, which is attributed largely to ineffective enforcement of its national environmental laws. This article investigates whether China’s experience confirms the race-to-the-bottom theory. It demonstrates that devolution of responsibility for environmental protection to lower levels of government tends to result in lax implementation and enforcement of national environmental laws, particularly where national governments also create strong incentives for economic growth. It concludes that China’s highly devolved system of environmental governance is consistent with this theory, even if it does not provide conclusive evidence of its correctness.

The Pioneer in American Life Insurance Marketing

1938 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 65-75
Author(s):  
J. Owen Stalson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
North America ◽  
Life Insurance ◽  
General Public ◽  
Colonial America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Insurance Company ◽  
Fire Insurance

Colonial America gave little thought to life insurance selling. The colonists secured protection against marine risks from private underwriters, first in London, eventually at home. It has been asserted that Philadelphia had no fire insurance until 1752; Boston none before 1795. The first corporations formed in this country for insuring lives were those of the Presbyterian Ministers Fund (1759) and a similar company organized for the benefit of Episcopal ministers (1769). Neither of these corporations offered insurance to the general public. In the last decade of the eighteenth century many insurance companies were formed in the United States. At least five were chartered to underwrite life risks, but only one, The Insurance Company of North America, appears to have accepted any. There is no basis for saying that any of these early companies tried to sell life insurance.

Collaborative capital budgeting in U.S. local government

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hina Khalid ◽  
David S.T. Matkin ◽  
Ricardo S. Morse
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Public Management ◽  
Capital Budgeting ◽  
The United States ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Management Literature ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Local Officials

This article explores collaborative capital budgeting in U.S. local governments. To date, the capital budgeting literature has focused on practices within individual governments. This leaves a gap in our understanding because a large portion of capital planning, acquisition, and maintenance occurs through collaboration between two or more local governments. Drawing on the capital budgeting and collaborative public management literature, and on illustrative cases of collaborative capital budgeting in the United States, an inductive approach is used to: (1) identify and categorize the different objectives that motivate local officials to pursue collaborative agreements, (2) examine common patterns in the types of assets involved in collaboration, and (3) discover common institutional arrangements in collaboration agreements. The research findings demonstrate significant heterogeneity in the objectives, patterns, and institutions of collaborative capital budgeting.

Public Policy and Technology Transfer: A View from the United States

1986 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-316
Author(s):  
Martha Caldwell Harris
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Technology Transfer ◽  
The United States

El intercambio de la tecnología ha llegado a ser un punto de controversia en la relaciones estadounidenses-mexicanas. En un clima de una política incierta, el rango y la efectividad de la transferencia de la tecnología continuarán a ser limitados a menos que se tomen pasos significativos para establecer un nuevo curso de dirección.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document