Suchergebnisse

Policy analytics combines new data sources, such as from mobile smartphones, Internet of Everything devices, and electronic payment cards, with new data analytics techniques for informing and directing public policy. However, those who do not own these devices may be rendered digitally invisible if data from their daily actions are not captured. We explore the digitally invisible through an exploratory study of homeless individuals in Phoenix, Arizona, in the context of extreme heat exposure. Ten homeless research participants carried a temperature‐sensing device during an extreme heat week, with their individually experienced temperatures (IETs) compared to outdoor ambient temperatures. A nonhomeless, digitally connected sample of 10 university students was also observed, with their IETs analyzed in the same way. Surveys of participants complement the temperature measures. We found that homeless individuals and university students interact differently with the physical environment, experiencing substantial differences in individual temperatures relative to outdoor conditions, potentially leading to differentiated health risks and outcomes. They also interact differently with technology, with the homeless having fewer opportunities to benefit from digital services and lower likelihood to generate digital data that might influence policy analytics. Failing to account for these differences may result in biased policy analytics and misdirected policy interventions.

It is through urban biodiversity that the majority of humans experience nature on a daily basis. As cities expand globally, it is increasingly important to understand how biodiversity is shaped by human decisions, institutions, and environments. In some cities, research has documented convergence between high socioeconomic status (SES) and high species diversity. Yet, other studies show that residents with low SES live amid high biodiversity or that SES and biodiversity appear unrelated. This study examines the conditions linked to varying types of relationships between SES and biodiversity. We identified and coded 84 case studies from 34 cities in which researchers assessed SES-biodiversity relationships. We used fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to evaluate combinations of study design and city-level conditions that explain why SES-biodiversity relationships vary city to city and between plants and animals. While the majority of cases demonstrated increased biodiversity in higher SES neighborhoods, we identified circumstances in which inequality in biodiversity distribution was ameliorated or negated by disturbance, urban form, social policy, or collective human preference. Overall, our meta-analysis highlights the contributions of residential and municipal decisions in differentially promoting biodiversity along socioeconomic lines, situated within each city's environmental and political context. Through identifying conditions under which access to biodiversity is more or less unequal, we call attention to outstanding research questions and raise prospects for better promoting equitable access to biodiversity

It is through urban biodiversity that the majority of humans experience nature on a daily basis. As cities expand globally, it is increasingly important to understand how biodiversity is shaped by human decisions, institutions, and environments. In some cities, research has documented convergence between high socioeconomic status (SES) and high species diversity. Yet, other studies show that residents with low SES live amid high biodiversity or that SES and biodiversity appear unrelated. This study examines the conditions linked to varying types of relationships between SES and biodiversity. We identified and coded 84 case studies from 34 cities in which researchers assessed SES-biodiversity relationships. We used fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) to evaluate combinations of study design and city-level conditions that explain why SES-biodiversity relationships vary city to city and between plants and animals. While the majority of cases demonstrated increased biodiversity in higher SES neighborhoods, we identified circumstances in which inequality in biodiversity distribution was ameliorated or negated by disturbance, urban form, social policy, or collective human preference. Overall, our meta-analysis highlights the contributions of residential and municipal decisions in differentially promoting biodiversity along socioeconomic lines, situated within each city's environmental and political context. Through identifying conditions under which access to biodiversity is more or less unequal, we call attention to outstanding research questions and raise prospects for better promoting equitable access to biodiversity.