Post Number: 1087
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 7:16 pm: || |
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20070223/M ETRO/702230350/1003
I never heard of this group. The News should have printed some more details of this study.
(Message edited by Pam on February 23, 2007)
Post Number: 1593
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 7:33 pm: || |
This seems to be the report: http://www.earthday.net/UER/re port/ .
Post Number: 1014
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 7:49 pm: || |
Scores are very suspect, lots of redundancy.
When you look at how clean air is here now compared to what it once was, its hard to imagine. Detroit does not rank high in air pollution. Sure it could be better, but compare us to places like Chicago/Gary, Toronto, Atlanta, Los Angeles Basin, we are downright clean. Everything is scored from 1 to 5, leaving a lot of unseen (or questionable) analysis.
# of parks per acre or capita? what about giant parks like Belle Isle, Rouge, Eliza Howell, Chandler, or Palmer? Seems skewed a bit. Also when you look at the percentage of Detroit that is covered with industrial and does not support parks to area, its just an odd stat.
The point is, that these ranks try to apply a standard to everyone and are often biased in the beginning to show that places want to show as good appear as good.
Now what they should score us low on is trash blowing in the streets or abandoned homes. But there is no stat for that!
Post Number: 1594
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 8:05 pm: || |
Fargo, North Dakota was ranked number 1.
Yeah, I'm skeptical too. By limiting parks to just those in Detroit, they automatically ignore all the accessible HCMA parks that ring Detroit.
The methodology link may be helpful: http://www.earthday.net/UER/re port/pdfs/EDN_UER_Methodology_ 121206.pdf
Post Number: 1712
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 8:18 pm: || |
This is like the person from out west who said we didn't have any nature here.
We have nature, just not what middle-of-the-country mountain people or saltwatered shore people are used to.
Post Number: 3695
|Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 8:27 pm: || |
Their methodology allows sociological data into their definition of 'environment' -- social pollution along with chemical pollution. This can get judgemental. For instance, how is the number of kids better or worse?
In the end they tell the same well known story of Detroit - a city that is stuck carrying almost all the social burdens for the rest of the American side metropolis.
Otherwise the air, water and smog are above average.