Literatura académica sobre el tema "Cycling Planning History"

Academic texts on cycling research are expanding rapidly. A dominant theme among these is the use of infrastructure measures to assist promotion of cycling as part of a movement towards sustainable mobility. Physical infrastructure is currently posited as the primary key to unlock cycling’s potential as a primary mode of sustainable transport. Individual studies rarely stand together to be read back to back, in order to allow comparison between them. The privilege of academic conferences is that they allow the attendee to compare and contrast different academic agendas and concerns of research

This chapter, drawing on a broader body of research into the history of cycle activism and its role in shaping Amsterdam as a cycling city (Feddes and de Lange, 2019), four important contributory elements are examine. First, favourable qualities of the urban structure, some dating from long before the existence of the bicycle. Second, there is a wider social and political context of the 1960s and 1970s when cycling found new impetus despite severe external threat. Third is the subsequent construction of a systemic cycling city in which the relation between bicycle activism, (local) government, and the broader ‘bicycle culture’ is examined. Finally, the chapter discusses the roles played by cycling activists organized in Fietsersbond, and the city government of Amsterdam. It concludes that there motorised modes of transport play a dominate role in urban and transport planning in Amsterdam. If Amsterdam is widely regarded as a cyclists’ paradise, the city has obtained this honorary title on the cheap. Much of the indispensable observational, analytical and conceptual expertise on which the bike city’s success is built was delivered for free by devoted citizens working towards a more liveable city.

This chapter seeks to contribute to the debate about cycling policies by examining the struggles that help bring cycling to the political agenda in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Advocaty for cycling infrastructure in São Paulo started in a context in which the urban form was already dominated by automotive-oriented transportation infrastructure. The initial political mobilisation for bicycling also occurred at a moment of political instability in the 1980s during the re-democratisation of the country, with the cycling agenda reaching the higher level of institutionalisation after one of the most massive protest movements in the history of Brazil. This chapter explores the physical infrastructure not only through a policy and planning perspective but also by considering the social infrastructure in civil society that made these changes possible. The fragility of the physical infrastructure, given its subsequent decommissioning after a turnover in political administration, raises our awareness of the vulnerability of many infrastructure transitions and the need to think through a lens of spatial justice when considering the linkages between physical and social infrastructures. It is colcluded that the implementation of hard infrastructure as part of the city’s provisioning is an outcome of complex and longstanding manoeuvring.

As you walk into the current University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, on the second floor of Russell Laboratories, you’ll see it is a far cry from Leopold’s 424 Farm Place, next to the university cow barns. Even so, resting just outside the department’s office door is a handmade Leopold Bench—one of those simply designed pieces with crossed-plank legs holding up a plank seat and back. As the Environmental Protection Agency’s Landscaping site states: “To spy a Leopold bench in someone’s yard is to know something about the family who there resides. … Its form, resting alone under a tree or in congregation around a fire-pit, reminds us of Leopold’s thoughtfulness.” This handmade blond bench, though, is over a half-century old. It was a gift to the Professor from his department—and wood-burned into it are the names of Aldo’s secretaries and graduate students for him to remember them by, and now for us to do the same. The department, of course, has changed radically since Aldo unexpectedly left. It web page displays a photo of Aldo in the upper corner and lists twenty-two faculty members, four of whom are women (which he would have liked). The fields of expertise presented at first seem like Leopold methods and topics on steroids: forest biometry, forest genetics, molecular ecology, forest remote sensing, spatial analysis, modern climate change. Other specialties are perspectives he had already been integrating into his thinking and planning: landscape ecology, forest ecosystem ecology, tree physiology, forest and environmental history, conservation biology, land use/land cover change, hydrology, population dynamics, conservation management extension, resource policy, ecosystem management, society and natural resources. Scanning the expertise of the emeritus and affiliate faculty, you can see even further outgrowths of Leopold’s far-ranging, integrated thinking and imagining: forest pathology, natural resource and land economics, biogeochemistry, international forestry, development planning, recreation management, economic forecasting, forest soils, human behavior and resource management, nutrient and carbon cycling in forest, nursery, and urban ecosystems.

The temporal perspective provided by the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) program places individual, limited, short-term observations and experiments in a valuable context. Proper interpretation of short-term results may be incomplete without a longer-term perspective. This often makes me skeptical of individual studies. The remote location and harsh environment of Antarctica place special demands and constraints on research, collaboration, and education. Meeting these challenges is one of the most exhilarating aspects of our LTER project. Keeping the proper balance between maintaining continuity of observations and keeping the research program new and innovative is another key challenge for research in the LTER program. But rather than constraining them, the ongoing nature of the LTER program facilitates and enhances creative observations and innovation. In 2001, I joined the LTER network as lead principal investigator for the Palmer LTER project (PAL), one of two pelagic marine sites in the LTER network. That was my first formal exposure to the LTER program, about midway through my scientific career. After majoring in the history of science in college, I received my PhD in environmental engineering from Harvard in 1977. I was originally trained as an environmental microbiologist and gradually evolved into a biological oceanographer and ocean biogeochemist. Prior to joining PAL, I worked in other large, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary ocean science programs. In addition to leading PAL, I study the roles of ocean microbes in the biogeochemical cycling of carbon and other elements in the ice-influenced ocean surrounding Antarctica. As a principal investigator, I participate in planning and guiding the LTER network. Network participation has significantly broadened my perspective on my own personal scientific work. This participation has been one of my more interesting and fulfilling experiences as a scientist. Over the past 20 years, research has shown that the western Antarctic Peninsula is one of the most rapidly warming regions on earth, and we are gradually beginning to understand how the ecosystem is responding to this unprecedented rate of change. Joining PAL changed my life. (Actually, going to Antarctica for the first time changed my life, but the LTER program gave me the opportunity to go there every year.)