Results of recent research show that particulate matter (PM) composition and size vary widely with both space and time. Despite the variability in PM characteristics, which are believed to influence human health risks, the observed relative health risk estimates per unit PM mass falls within a narrow range of values. Furthermore, no single chemical species appears to dominate health effects; rather the effects appear to be due to a combination of species. Non-PM factors such as socioeconomic status and lifestyle are also believed to affect the health risk, although accounting for these confounding factors is challenging. Airborne PM is also responsible for a number of effects aside from human health, such as alterations in visibility and climate. Because the PM problem is associated with a range of societal issues such as energy production and economic development, making progress on reducing the effects of PM will require integrated strategies that bring together scientists and decision makers from different disciplines to consider tradeoffs holistically.

In a national online survey, 505 participants reported their perceptions of energy consumption and savings for a variety of household, transportation, and recycling activities. When asked for the most effective strategy they could implement to conserve energy, most participants mentioned curtailment (e.g., turning off lights, driving less) rather than efficiency improvements (e.g., installing more efficient light bulbs and appliances), in contrast to experts' recommendations. For a sample of 15 activities, participants underestimated energy use and savings by a factor of 2.8 on average, with small overestimates for low-energy activities and large underestimates for high-energy activities. Additional estimation and ranking tasks also yielded relatively flat functions for perceived energy use and savings. Across several tasks, participants with higher numeracy scores and stronger proenvironmental attitudes had more accurate perceptions. The serious deficiencies highlighted by these results suggest that well-designed efforts to improve the public's understanding of energy use and savings could pay large dividends.climate change | decision making | judgment | environmental behavior | anchoring A nthropogenic CO 2 emissions are contributing to global climate change (1) and could negatively impact our way of life if serious action is further delayed. The United States produces 21% of the world's CO 2 emissions, with 98% of US emissions attributed to energy consumption (2).According to Pacala and Socolow (3), increasing energy efficiency and curtailing activities that consume energy may be our cheapest options for stabilizing atmospheric CO 2 concentrations below a doubling of preindustrial concentrations. Following the analogy of stabilization wedges (3), Dietz et al. (4) devised a potential behavioral wedge, recommending specific behavioral changes, such as weatherization investments, to be adopted by US households to decrease their emissions. Vandenbergh et al. (5) identified seven actions, such as reducing automobile idling and substituting compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) for incandescent bulbs, that have the potential to achieve large emission reductions at a low cost to the government and with a net savings for individuals. In related work, Gardner and Stern (6) identified a short list of the most effective actions US households could take to decrease their contributions to climate change. They argued that by changing the selection and use of household and motor vehicle technologies, households could reduce their energy consumption by nearly 30%-without waiting for new technologies, making major economic sacrifices, or losing a sense of well-being. If households effectively implemented all of Gardner and Stern's recommended changes, US energy consumption would be reduced by approximately 11%. Similarly, Dietz et al. (4) estimated that behavioral interventions could reasonably achieve a 20% reduction in CO 2 emissions from household energy use (a 7.4% reduction in total US emissions) within 10 y.Gardner and...

Purpose-The purpose of this paper is to identify the key aspects of transformation of universities towards sustainability, such as the ideal characteristics of the "sustainable university", and the drivers and barriers in the transformation, by comparing the strategies of seven universities worldwide. Design/methodology/approach-A systems transformation analysis of seven case studies has been applied through a self-evaluation based on the tridimensional Framework-Level-Actors (FLA) method. Findings-The study shows that none of the three dimensions of change is predominant over the others. The main barrier to be overcome is the lack of incentive structure for promoting changes at the individual level. The main drivers for change are the presence of "connectors" with society, the existence of coordination bodies and projects, and the availability of funding, all of which are important for progress. Enhancing interdisciplinarity is a strategic objective at almost all of these universities, while transformative learning is less present. A common characteristic for most of the institutions is establishing and supporting networks of expertise within the universities. These universities show important strategic efforts and initiatives that drive and nucleate change for sustainable development, the result of a combination of drivers. Practical implications-The FLA-method has proved useful for being used at the level of comparing case-studies through a bird's-eye perspective. Originality/value-The paper demonstrates the application of a simple tool that gives a global perspective on transformational strategies used in seven cases worldwide in the search for commonalities and differences.

Traditional infrastructure adaptation to extreme weather events (and now climate change) has typically been techno‐centric and heavily grounded in robustness—the capacity to prevent or minimize disruptions via a risk‐based approach that emphasizes control, armoring, and strengthening (e.g., raising the height of levees). However, climate and nonclimate challenges facing infrastructure are not purely technological. Ecological and social systems also warrant consideration to manage issues of overconfidence, inflexibility, interdependence, and resource utilization—among others. As a result, techno‐centric adaptation strategies can result in unwanted tradeoffs, unintended consequences, and underaddressed vulnerabilities. Techno‐centric strategies that lock‐in today's infrastructure systems to vulnerable future design, management, and regulatory practices may be particularly problematic by exacerbating these ecological and social issues rather than ameliorating them. Given these challenges, we develop a conceptual model and infrastructure adaptation case studies to argue the following: (1) infrastructure systems are not simply technological and should be understood as complex and interconnected social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs); (2) infrastructure challenges, like lock‐in, stem from SETS interactions that are often overlooked and underappreciated; (3) framing infrastructure with a SETS lens can help identify and prevent maladaptive issues like lock‐in; and (4) a SETS lens can also highlight effective infrastructure adaptation strategies that may not traditionally be considered. Ultimately, we find that treating infrastructure as SETS shows promise for increasing the adaptive capacity of infrastructure systems by highlighting how lock‐in and vulnerabilities evolve and how multidisciplinary strategies can be deployed to address these challenges by broadening the options for adaptation.

No abstract