The Big Picture. The primary purpose of this document is to provide information that can be used by protected area managers in their development of cooperative management programs. It is our hope that the managers use this document as a reference during the formal workshop sessions, and as guidance during the process. While in the short- term this document and the associated workshops will help to define specific issues, develop a process for collaboration, and create a coordinated vision for management actions in the Transboundary Corridor, it is important to recognize the long-term goals. As previously noted, the ultimate goal of these initial processes is to establish a framework for coordinated regional-level management activities involving all five protected areas. This document, in conjunction with the workshops, will initiate a dialogue among the protected area managers and establish a level of familiarity and trust with one another. These are essential to the long-term success of regional cooperative programs (Appendix A). While the document and workshops will help to develop binational cooperation on specific projects/activities, the ultimate goal is to develop large-scale management programs that rely on and utilize the combined knowledge, resources, and expertise of the Mexican and American protected areas. The development of such an “ecosystem management” perspective will ultimately result in improved management of biodiversity within the Chihuahuan Desert Transboundary Corridor. establish open dialogue between managers of the five protected areas WORKSHOP #1 Goal: To select one topic or select an issue of common interest to be addressed cooperatively identify concerns, issues, and priorities for each protected area issue that will be addressed collaboratively. assign oversight committee for program management and coordination Managers obtain information on the "status" of the selected issue in their area between Workshops 1 and 2 each manager presents a "state of the issue" report managers identify specific program goals and potential obstacles WORKSHOP #2 experts discuss technical, funding, and policy aspects of the issue Goals: To identify program goals and to develop a managers create an Implementation Plan strategy to achieve these goals. Program is implemented and oversight group monitors progress and maintains open channels of communication WORKSHOP #3
The Big Picture. In summary, telemedicine is an emerging technology that has the ability to improve rural population health by creating greater access to clinical services. Telemedicine allows for the exchange of health information (between patient and provider) across geographic, economic, time and cultural barriers, in the face of challenges such as financing, safety standards, security, and infrastructure.xiii In an effort to fully explore the benefits and advantages of telemedicine, this thesis has proposed a technical approach and recommendation for adopting telemedicine systems, beginning with a prototype, to address the needs of rural populations in America. The overarching framework or ‘big picture’ approach detailed in this body of work is outlined below in Figure 4:
The Big Picture. Discussion of Results The two case studies provide similar results regarding the research and hypotheses. Regarding Hypothesis 1, power parity has no discernable effect on the fairness of agreements. In fact, the overwhelming conclusion regarding the fairness of agreements is that agreements over water resources in these two river basins are almost always fair. In both case studies a much more powerful nation entered into fair and equitable agreements with less powerful nations. There are two likely reasons that agreements are always fair, at least in their explicit terms. The first possibility is that states entering into agreements over such an invaluable resource do not want to risk defection by any party because that could hinder any cooperative efforts for some time. Therefore, they make relatively fair agreements but may not apply them in the same way. The relatively powerful country can still act unilaterally if it deems the agreements as not conducive to its interests. Egypt acted unilaterally with the construction of the Aswan High Dam, and the United States acted unilaterally with the renovation of the All-American Canal. The second reason that agreements tend to be fair regardless of other factors is because the agreements avoid highly contentious issues. Both cases reveal a necessity to revisit allocation agreements, but the agreements do not mention new allocations. This is especially important in the Nile Basin where the scarcity and dependence levels are very high. In fact, the latest agreement allocating the Nile’s waters was the Xxxx Xxxxxx Treaty of 1959, which only apportioned water to Egypt and Sudan. With rapidly growing populations in the upper basin and an obvious increase in water use, the NBI’s main focus should be revisiting allocations. Nevertheless, no mention of specific allocations is found in NBI documents. It is considerably easier to agree over water quality issues or power sharing than it is to agree over what truly matters, and that is access to the water for the country’s own use. As the results indicate, high levels of water scarcity and high levels of dependence increase the salience of access to water resources. While they do not affect the terms of the agreements for the reasons mentioned earlier in this section, they promote tendencies to bypass or repudiate agreements and pursue unilateral strategies. Hence, the results do not support Hypotheses 2 and 3 because the equitability of agreements is constant. Neverthele...
The Big Picture. In 2005, the City of Knoxville began seriously examining ways to aid in revitalizing the South Knoxville waterfront area directly across from downtown. Cities all over the nation have engaged or are engaging in this same effort to rehabilitate riverbanks that have primarily housed commercial and industrial uses. Though Knoxville is not unique in the attempt, the approach is unique. Instead of purchasing waterfront land, designing, and constructing the improvements to rehabilitate the area for public use, the City of Knoxville has invested in a master planning process, the implementation of which is private sector and market driven. If a developer expresses interest in an area on the waterfront, the City plans to purchase right of way and green space areas shown in the Vision plan associated with that area, and construct public improvements to compliment that development and encourage additional redevelopment interest. The Public was involved throughout the open visioning process and participated in the details of development, resulting in an unusually high level of community input and support. Planning efforts produced City Council adopted 20-year Vision and Action Plans, a Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing district, and a form based development code. The City’s South Waterfront plan is to aid in the redevelopment of a historically industrial, commercial, and residential area through public-private partnerships; essentially, publicly funded infrastructure and green space development that is intended to attract and compliment mixed use private redevelopment throughout the waterfront, to ultimately reenergize the economy in this area and allow the Public to enjoy a currently inaccessible riverfront. This Xxxxxxxxxx Assessment Project will provide environmental exploration of the Redevelopment Area as a whole, instead of a project by project approach, and will be a significant planning asset to the Community, City, and private developers.
The Big Picture. The exposed Westward Ho Sewer was undermined as a result of the storm and subsequent channel erosion that occurred. The District determined that the existing sewer siphon should be replaced with a deeper pipeline that would be safe from future storm erosion.
The Big Picture. Worksheet 9.1 Fill in the blank spaces and answer these questions with your own thoughts and ideas. Shame category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What are the social-community expectations around ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who sets these expectations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How are these expectations communicated to us? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How are we affected by the expectations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
The Big Picture. When you consider the stakeholders who directly address the issue of older drivers, the stakeholders can be grouped into four categories according to their essential function.
