DECISION-MAKING IN THE DEVLOPMENT OF URBAN WATERFRONTS FOR PARK/BUSINESS USE1

Abstract: Opportunities for the development of an amalgam of park and leisure-oriented commercial establishments in urban-core waterfont settings exist in many U.S. cities. Public awareness of the need to enhance the environmental quality of these waterfont areas has resulted in a demand for planning and implementation action. However, the lack of understanding of urban political systems has been an inhibiting factor in the development of this park/ business concept. The major factors that influence the decision-making process leading to the development of urban-core waterfronts for park/business use are identified inthis paper. Understanding this decision-making process can aid project implementation and avoid waste of planning effort in time, dollars, and productivity.     

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND RECEIVING-WATER STANDARDS1

ABSTRACT: An important enforcement question is, “What should be the relationship between ‘Best Management Practices’ (BMP) and receiving-water standards?” Nonpoint pollution dischargers are concerned about implementing a BMP program, only to find themselves in violation because receiving-water standards still have not been met. They are also concerned about the procedures a regulatory agency will utilize to determine the relative success of a BMP program. Successful management of nonpoint pollution requires that these concerns be addressed. Three alternative relationships have been developed. The recommended alternative is to implement the BMP program and use standards as a measure of the effectiveness of the program. Failure to achieve the standards would lead to a reevaluation of the BMP program. Enforcement activities against nonpoint dischargers would be restricted to the failure on their part to implement the previously agreed upon BMP program. Recommendations are also made as to measures regulatory agencies should take if their procedures to judge the relative success of a BMP program are to be technically and politically effective.     

COMPARING METHODS OF HYDROLOGIC REGIONALIZATION1

ABSTRACT: Data splitting is used to compare methods of determining “homogeneous” hydrologic regions. The methods compared use cluster analysis based on similarity of hydrologic characteristics or similarity of characteristics of a stream's drainage basin. Data for 221 stations in Arizona are used to show that the methods, which are a modification of DeCoursey's scheme for defining regions, improve the fit of estimation data to the model, but that is is necessary to have an independent measure of predictive accuracy, such as that provided by data splitting, to demonstrate improved predictive accuracy. The methods used the complete linkage algorithm for cluster analysis and computed weighted average estimates of hydrologic characteristics at ungaged sites.     

Twelve years of assessing the quality of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders

Objective

Genomics Quality Assessment has provided external quality assessments (EQAs) for preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for 12 years for eight monogenic diseases to identify sub-optimal PGT strategies, testing and reporting of results, which can be shared with the genomics community to aid optimised standards of PGT services for couples.

Method

The EQAs were provided in two stages to mimic end-to-end protocols. Stage 1 involved DNA feasibility testing of a couple undergoing PGT and affected proband. Participants were required to report genotyping results and outline their embryo testing strategy. Lymphoblasts were distributed for mock embryo testing for stage 2. Submitted clinical reports and haplotyping results were assessed against peer-ratified criteria. Performance was monitored to identify poor performance.

Results

The most common testing methodology was short tandem repeat linkage analysis (59%); however, the adoption of single nucleotide polymorphism-based platforms was observed and a move from blastomere to trophectoderm testing. There was a variation in testing strategies, assigning marker informativity and understanding test limitations, some clinically unsafe. Critical errors were reported for genotyping and interpretation.

Conclusion

EQA provides an overview of the standard of preimplantation genetic testing-M clinical testing and identifies areas of improvement for accurate detection of high-risk embryos.