ABSTRACT: With urban populations and energy requirements burgeoning worldwide, cities are increasingly important fronts in the battle against climate change. Many U.S. cities have adopted formal Climate Action Plans, with energy efficiency in buildings a prime target for action. Using grounded theory and drawing from a sample of 17 large U.S. cities, we analyzed the common characteristics of building efficiency programs, relationships with external organizations, and associated municipal governance structures that cities considered important enough to include in these published plans. We found that cities (1) applied energy efficiency policies, standards, and programs (such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED certification) to their own public infrastructure in an effort to “lead by example,” but faced challenges in extending effective policies to the private sector; (2) drew advice and support from the non-profit, academic, and utility sectors while they navigated the varied incentives and limitations of state and federal policies; and (3) had begun to develop municipal governance structures to institutionalize building efficiency practices beyond initial mayoral support. Despite the laudable initiative of cities on climate mitigation over the last few years, these nascent efforts appear more promissory than compulsory and more visionary than executable, and thus raise serious questions about their ability to produce significant GHG emission reductions without additional incentives or mandates from state and federal governments. Nevertheless, city CAPs serve as an important first step as the U.S. “warms up” for the long run ahead by promoting awareness of climate change issues and the potential for GHG reductions, by institutionalizing grassroots support for climate action, and by developing effective policies that can be adopted more widely.
Carbon and Climate Law Review. 01/2010;
ABSTRACT: In 2 experiments participants solved division problems presented in multiplication-based formats (e.g., 8 x _ = 72) more quickly than division problems presented in division-based formats (e.g., 72 / 8 = _). In contrast, participants solved multiplication problems presented in a division-based format (e.g., _ / 8 = 9) slowly and made many errors. In both experiments, the advantage for multiplication-based formats on division problems was found only for large problems (i.e., those with products or dividends greater than 25). These findings provide support for the view that large single-digit division facts are mediated via multiplication-based representations and that multiplication is the primary mode of representation for both division and multiplication facts.
Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition 04/2003; 29(2):163-70. · 2.85 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Adults (N=32) solved simple multiplication (e.g., 8×7) and corresponding division problems (e.g., 56/8). Self-reports of solution processes
were given by half of the participants. Latency patterns and error rates were closely related across operations and were similar
in self-report and no-report conditions. Solution of division problems, however, facilitated solution of multiplication problems
more than the reverse. On large division problems, participants reported that they “recast” problems as multiplication (e.g.,
56/8 as 8×?=56). These results support the hypothesis that multiplication and division are stored in separate mental representations
but that solution of difficult division problems sometimes involves access to multiplication.
Memory & Cognition 04/1999; 27(5):803-812. · 1.92 Impact Factor