In an effort to address the lack of literature in on-campus active travel, this study aims to investigate the following primary questions:<br/>• What are the modes that students use to travel on campus?<br/>• What are the motivations that underlie the mode choice of students on campus?<br/>My first stage of research involved a series of qualitative investigations. I held one-on-one virtual interviews with students in which I asked them questions about the mode they use and why they feel that their chosen mode works best for them. These interviews served two functions. First, they provided me with insight into the various motivations underlying student mode choice. Second, they provided me with an indication of what explanatory variables should be included in a model of mode choice on campus.<br/>The first half of the research project informed a quantitative survey that was released via the Honors Digest to attract student respondents. Data was gathered on travel behavior as well as relevant explanatory variables.<br/>My analysis involved developing a logit model to predict student mode choice on campus and presenting the model estimation in conjunction with a discussion of student travel motivations based on the qualitative interviews. I use this information to make a recommendation on how campus infrastructure could be modified to better support the needs of the student population.

In this synthesis, we hope to accomplish two things: 1) reflect on how the analysis of the new archaeological cases presented in this special feature adds to previous case studies by revisiting a set of propositions reported in a 2006 special feature, and 2) reflect on four main ideas that are more specific to the archaeological cases: i) societal choices are influenced by robustness–vulnerability trade-offs, ii) there is interplay between robustness–vulnerability trade-offs and robustness–performance trade-offs, iii) societies often get locked in to particular strategies, and iv) multiple positive feedbacks escalate the perceived cost of societal change. We then discuss whether these lock-in traps can be prevented or whether the risks associated with them can be mitigated. We conclude by highlighting how these long-term historical studies can help us to understand current society, societal practices, and the nexus between ecology and society.

What relationships can be understood between resilience and vulnerability in social-ecological systems? In particular, what vulnerabilities are exacerbated or ameliorated by different sets of social practices associated with water management? These questions have been examined primarily through the study of contemporary or recent historic cases. Archaeology extends scientific observation beyond all social memory and can thus illuminate interactions occurring over centuries or millennia. We examined trade-offs of resilience and vulnerability in the changing social, technological, and environmental contexts of three long-term, pre-Hispanic sequences in the U.S. Southwest: the Mimbres area in southwestern New Mexico (AD 650–1450), the Zuni area in northern New Mexico (AD 850–1540), and the Hohokam area in central Arizona (AD 700–1450). In all three arid landscapes, people relied on agricultural systems that depended on physical and social infrastructure that diverted adequate water to agricultural soils. However, investments in infrastructure varied across the cases, as did local environmental conditions. Zuni farming employed a variety of small-scale water control strategies, including centuries of reliance on small runoff agricultural systems; Mimbres fields were primarily watered by small-scale canals feeding floodplain fields; and the Hohokam area had the largest canal system in pre-Hispanic North America. The cases also vary in their historical trajectories: at Zuni, population and resource use remained comparatively stable over centuries, extending into the historic period; in the Mimbres and Hohokam areas, there were major demographic and environmental transformations. Comparisons across these cases thus allow an understanding of factors that promote vulnerability and influence resilience in specific contexts.