Programs and Communities
Filtering by
- Creators: Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering
- Creators: School of Sustainability
For decades, understanding the complexity of behaviors, motivations, and values has interested researchers across various disciplines. So much so that there are numerous terms, frameworks, theories, and studies devoted to understanding these complexities and how they interact and evolve into actions. However, little research has examined how employee behaviors translate into the work environment, particularly regarding perceived organizational success. This study advances research by quantitatively assessing how a greater number of individual employees’ pro-environmental behaviors are related to the perceived success of environmentally sustainable workplace activities. We have concluded that the more pro-environmental behaviors an employee embodies, the more positively they perceive the success of their local government's sustainable purchasing policy. Additionally, other factors matter, including organizational behaviors, like training, innovation, and reduction of red tape.
BACKGROUND: The City of Phoenix initiated the HeatReady program in 2018 to prepare for extreme heat, as there was no official tool, framework, or mechanism at the city level to manage extreme heat. The current landscape of heat safety culture in schools, which are critical community hubs, has received less illumination. HeatReady Schools—a critical component of a HeatReady City—are those that are increasingly able to identify, prepare for, mitigate, track, and respond to the negative impacts of schoolgrounds heat. However, minimal attention has been given to formalize heat preparedness in schools to mitigate high temperatures and health concerns in schoolchildren, a heat-vulnerable population. This study set out to understand heat perceptions, (re)actions, and recommendations of key stakeholders and to identify critical themes around heat readiness. METHODS: An exploratory sequential mixed-methods case study approach was used. These methods focused on acquiring new insight on heat perceptions at elementary schools through semi-structured interviews using thematic analysis and the Delphi panel. Participants included public health professionals and school community members at two elementary schools—one public charter, one public—in South Phoenix, Arizona, a region that has been burdened historically with inequitable distribution of heat resources due to environmental racism and injustices. RESULTS: Findings demonstrated that 1) current heat safety resources are available but not fully utilized within the school sites, 2) expert opinions support that extreme heat readiness plans must account for site-specific needs, particularly education as a first step, and 3) students are negatively impacted by the effects of extreme heat, whether direct or indirect, both inside and outside the classroom. CONCLUSIONS: From key informant interviews and a Delphi panel, a list of 30 final recommendations were developed as important actions to be taken to become “HeatReady.” Future work will apply these recommendations in a HeatReady School Growth Tool that schools can tailor be to their individual needs to improve heat safety and protection measures at schools.
ASU’s waste diversion goal is 90% by the fiscal year 2025 and will require collaboration across many departments and programs to be successful. Reducing plastic use, especially single-use plastic, is critical in reaching 90% waste diversion in the supply chain. To reduce supply chain single-use plastics, ASU will need the cooperation of suppliers on efforts like piloting plastic free packaging programs, packaging take back programs, alternative packaging opportunities, or promoting alternative products that contain little-to-no single-use plastic. Creating a proposed approach through identifying strategic external partners, a high-level approach to implementation, and obstacles will impact how future goals and policies are set. Determining impact and added value of the project will help cultivate support from leadership, internal stakeholders, and suppliers. The project focus will include multiple deliverables, but the final output will be a timeline that maps out what plastic streams to eliminate and when to help ASU reach their waste diversion goals. It begins with “low-hanging fruit” like straws and plastic bags and ends with a university free from all non-essential single-use plastic.
ASU’s waste diversion goal is 90% by the fiscal year 2025 and will require collaboration across many departments and programs to be successful. Reducing plastic use, especially single-use plastic, is critical in reaching 90% waste diversion in the supply chain. To reduce supply chain single-use plastics, ASU will need the cooperation of suppliers on efforts like piloting plastic free packaging programs, packaging take back programs, alternative packaging opportunities, or promoting alternative products that contain little-to-no single-use plastic. Creating a proposed approach through identifying strategic external partners, a high-level approach to implementation, and obstacles will impact how future goals and policies are set. Determining impact and added value of the project will help cultivate support from leadership, internal stakeholders, and suppliers. The project focus will include multiple deliverables, but the final output will be a timeline that maps out what plastic streams to eliminate and when to help ASU reach their waste diversion goals. It begins with “low-hanging fruit” like straws and plastic bags and ends with a university free from all non-essential single-use plastic.
ASU’s waste diversion goal is 90% by the fiscal year 2025 and will require collaboration across many departments and programs to be successful. Reducing plastic use, especially single-use plastic, is critical in reaching 90% waste diversion in the supply chain. To reduce supply chain single-use plastics, ASU will need the cooperation of suppliers on efforts like piloting plastic free packaging programs, packaging take back programs, alternative packaging opportunities, or promoting alternative products that contain little-to-no single-use plastic. Creating a proposed approach through identifying strategic external partners, a high-level approach to implementation, and obstacles will impact how future goals and policies are set. Determining impact and added value of the project will help cultivate support from leadership, internal stakeholders, and suppliers. The project focus will include multiple deliverables, but the final output will be a timeline that maps out what plastic streams to eliminate and when to help ASU reach their waste diversion goals. It begins with “low-hanging fruit” like straws and plastic bags and ends with a university free from all non-essential single-use plastic.
Methods: The traditional methodology (Forced-Stare [FS]) measures TFBUT and IBI separately. TFBUT is measured under forced-stare conditions by an examiner using a stopwatch, while IBI is measured as the subject watches television. The new methodology (video capture manual analysis [VCMA]) involves retrospective analysis of video data of fluorescein-stained eyes taken through a slit lamp while the subject watches television, and provides TFBUT and BUA for each IBI during the 1-minute video under natural blink conditions. The FS and VCMA methods were directly compared in the same set of dry-eye subjects. The VCMA method was evaluated for the ability to discriminate between dry-eye subjects and normal subjects. The VCMA method was further evaluated in the dry eye subjects for the ability to detect a treatment effect before, and 10 minutes after, bilateral instillation of an artificial tear solution.
Results: Ten normal subjects and 17 dry-eye subjects were studied. In the dry-eye subjects, the two methods differed with respect to mean TFBUTs (5.82 seconds, FS; 3.98 seconds, VCMA; P = 0.002). The FS variables alone (TFBUT, IBI) were not able to successfully distinguish between the dry-eye and normal subjects, whereas the additional VCMA variables, both derived and observed (BUA, BUA/IBI, breakup rate), were able to successfully distinguish between the dry-eye and normal subjects in a statistically significant fashion. TFBUT (P = 0.034) and BUA/IBI (P = 0.001) were able to distinguish the treatment effect of artificial tears in dry-eye subjects.
Conclusion: The VCMA methodology provides a clinically relevant analysis of tear film stability measured in the context of a natural blink pattern.
Methods: Thirty-three dry eye subjects completed a single-center, single-visit, pilot CAE study. The primary endpoint was mean break-up area (MBA) as assessed by the OPI 2.0 system. Secondary endpoints included corneal fluorescein staining, tear film break-up time, and OPI 2.0 system measurements. Subjects were also asked to rate their ocular discomfort throughout the CAE. Dry eye endpoints were measured at baseline, immediately following a 90-minute CAE exposure, and again 30 minutes after exposure.
Results: The post-CAE measurements of MBA showed a statistically significant decrease from the baseline measurements. The decrease was relatively specific to those patients with moderate to severe dry eye, as measured by baseline MBA. Secondary endpoints including palpebral fissure size, corneal staining, and redness, also showed significant changes when pre- and post-CAE measurements were compared. A correlation analysis identified specific associations between MBA, blink rate, and palpebral fissure size. Comparison of MBA responses allowed us to identify subpopulations of subjects who exhibited different compensatory mechanisms in response to CAE challenge. Of note, none of the measures of tear film break-up time showed statistically significant changes or correlations in pre-, versus post-CAE measures.
Conclusion: This pilot study confirms that the tear film metric MBA can detect changes in the ocular surface induced by a CAE, and that these changes are correlated with other, established measures of dry eye disease. The observed decrease in MBA following CAE exposure demonstrates that compensatory mechanisms are initiated during the CAE exposure, and that this compensation may provide the means to identify and characterize clinically relevant subpopulations of dry eye patients.