Discuss Detroit Archives - Beginning January 2007 Environment Study Ranks Detroit Last in US Previous Next
Top of pageBottom of page

Pam
Member
Username: Pam

Post Number: 1087
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 7:16 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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)
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 1593
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 7:33 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This seems to be the report: http://www.earthday.net/UER/re port/ .
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner

Post Number: 1014
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 7:49 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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!
Top of pageBottom of page

Jimaz
Member
Username: Jimaz

Post Number: 1594
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 8:05 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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
Top of pageBottom of page

Lilpup
Member
Username: Lilpup

Post Number: 1712
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 8:18 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.
Top of pageBottom of page

Lowell
Board Administrator
Username: Lowell

Post Number: 3695
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Friday, February 23, 2007 - 8:27 pm: Edit PostDelete PostMove Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

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.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.