National Academies Press: OpenBook

TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation (2013)

Chapter: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Evaluating Sustainable Development: A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making

« Previous: INTRODUCTION: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Improving the Quality of Life
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Evaluating Sustainable Development: A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22466.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Evaluating Sustainable Development: A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22466.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Evaluating Sustainable Development: A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22466.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Evaluating Sustainable Development: A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22466.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Evaluating Sustainable Development: A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22466.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Evaluating Sustainable Development: A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22466.
×
Page 9

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TR N EW S 28 8 SE PT EM BE R– O CT O BE R 20 13 4 The author is Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Sustainable development and environmentalsustainability—although not new concepts—have been elevated in recent decades into the laws, policies, and regulations that shape decision making about transportation and land use. Sustain- able development requires a stewardship approach to assuring the quality of life for individuals and soci- ety and to preserving natural and human-made cap- ital. Communities and transportation networks that are developing sustainably are more likely to con- tinue to develop and innovate and to demonstrate resilience in response to setbacks. The 2012 surface transportation reauthorization act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), not only articulates a performance-based planning paradigm for national transportation investment but also explicitly cites environmental sustainability as one of seven national transporta- tion goals. The legislation is potentially transforma- tive. Along similar lines, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Pro- tection Agency formed the Partnership for Sustain- able Communities in 2009 to improve access to affordable housing and transportation while pro- tecting the environment. This effort draws attention to quality-of-life goals, such as livability and public health, which may be pursued more effectively through interagency collaboration. Transportation, land use, and environmental decisions should be made collaboratively, not just concurrently. Effective data and analysis tools are important for a decision-making framework that has a quality-of- life focus, helping communities and agencies imple- ment their visions for positive impacts on individual and societal quality of life. The goal is to encourage economic competitiveness without sacrificing envi- ronmental quality. Evaluating Outcomes Quality of life is multidimensional—it depends on internal conditions, such as well-being and personal satisfaction, and on external conditions, such as the built and natural environments and social and eco- nomic conditions, which include air quality, access to health care, educational attainment, and income (1–3). To demonstrate that communities are preserving or advancing quality of life, as well as the ability to deliver quality of life, the impacts of decisions—poli- cies, plans, programs, and projects—should be eval- uated. Models are being developed and applied to evaluate the quality of life and other outcomes of sus- tainable development. The literature reveals that effective methods for Evaluating Sustainable Development A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making A D J O A . A M E K U D Z I In 2010, the city of Greenville, South Carolina, received a grant through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities to support planning and revitalization of the downtown area. The 20-acre Falls Park on the Reedy River, part of the city’s redevelopment, now is a regional attraction. Environmental Sustainability in Transportation P H O TO : JA SO N R IED Y

TR N EW S 288 SEPTEM BER–O CTO BER 2013 5 modeling and evaluating sustainable development share the following characteristics: u An unambiguous definition of sustainable development and a clearly defined terminology; u The potential for interdisciplinary approaches; u The ability to address long-term intergenera- tional concerns; u The capacity for managing uncertainty; u The ability to address local–global interac- tions—including, for example, urban–rural issues; u The ability to accommodate stakeholder par- ticipation; and u The ability to accommodate process-based and outcome-based measures for sustainable develop- ment. Several modeling approaches have been applied to evaluate sustainability in development, including macroeconometric models, computable general equilibrium models, optimization models, system dynamics models, multiagent simulation models, Bayesian network models, integrated dynamic mod- els, multiobjective models, and resource footprints (4–6). Three model applications to address quality- of-life issues in transportation decision making are presented here: u The sustainability footprint, u Multiple-attribute decision making (MADM), and u Strengths–weaknesses–opportunities–threats (SWOT) analysis. Sustainability Footprint The sustainability footprint model evaluates the effects of civil infrastructure on the quality of life and on other measures of sustainable development. The model was developed in the late 2000s (7) and builds on earlier research (5, 8, 9) to measure the impact of infrastructure system performance on social quality of life, the use of natural resources, and the generation of waste (see Figure 1, below). The model indicates that infrastructure systems— that is, services and products—that have the highest positive impacts on the quality of life for users and affected populations have the highest value from the viewpoint of a community that is developing sus- tainably. The model can include an economic com- ponent that captures the life-cycle net benefits of the system (10). The Central Corridor, a light rail line in Minneapolis–St. Paul, Minnesota, is a case study of the Partnership for Sustainable Communities. P H O TO : M ETR O T R A N SIT Quality of Life, Z e.g., % Congested Travel Waste Generation, X e.g., Emissions Generation Resource Usage, Y e.g., Fossil Fuel Consumption A1996 B1996 B2006 A2006 (0, 0, 0) FIGURE 1 Sustainable footprint model for calculating the impact of infrastructure system performance on social quality of life, natural resource use, and waste generation. [A, B = stakeholder entities: city A, city B. A1996 = (XA 1996, YA 1996, ZA 1996), or the location of city A in the XYZ space of quality of life, resource usage, and waste genera- tion in 1996. SFA, 1996-2006 = (dZA/dt, dYA/dt, dXA/dt)1996-2006— that is, the sustainability footprint of city A between 1996 and 2006 is the system-related quality-of-life change in city A as a function of resource usage and waste generation between 1996 and 2006. The SF of an entity—for example, a municipality, metropolitan area, or nation—between two definite points in time, t = i and t = i + 1, can be formulated as a vector of quantities showing baseline conditions (Zc, Yc, Xc); the marginal rates of change with respect to time (dZc/dt, dYc/dt, dXc/dt); and resource efficiency measures (dZc/dYc, dZc/dXc) that capture the rate of change of one type of capital with respect to another.]

TR N EW S 28 8 SE PT EM BE R– O CT O BE R 20 13 6 Footprinting Chicago and Atlanta The sustainability footprint was used to evaluate the metropolitan highway networks of the Chicago, Illi- nois, and Atlanta, Georgia, regions in the decade of the 1990s, with data from the Texas A&M Trans- portation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report. Table 1 (above) shows the quality-of-life and natural envi- ronment data that were used in evaluating the high- way networks; the assessment did not include economic data. The example in Table 1 depicts the status and evolution of the Atlanta and Chicago metropolitan area highway networks from 1990 to 2000 with respect to congested travel, a quality-of-life measure; excess fuel consumption, a measure of resource con- sumption; and delay, a surrogate measure of vehicle emissions and waste. The model evaluated both base- line and marginal measures; the baseline measures showed that Atlanta was better off than Chicago at the beginning of the analysis period in terms of the percentage of congested travel per system user and in terms of annual excess fuel consumed per person; highway users in Atlanta, however, were experienc- ing more delays, on average, than those in Chicago. Marginal rate-of-change measures show that both Atlanta and Chicago moved away from sustainabil- ity during this period; in Atlanta, the per person peak vehicle miles traveled increased by 37 percent, com- pared with an 11 percent increase in Chicago. The Atlanta metropolitan area also showed a greater increase in annual excess fuel consumed—14 gallons per person compared with 5 in the Chicago area. Atlanta experienced a moderate reduction of 3 per- son-hours in delays, however, compared with Chicago’s increase of 8 person-hours of delay. The analysis results from the sustainable foot- print model indicate higher growth in congestion in Atlanta than in Chicago, with a corresponding increase in fuel consumption, but a slight reduction in delays per person. Chicago, in contrast, showed a relatively moderate increase in congested travel in comparison with Atlanta, with a correspondingly moderate increase in fuel consumption; nonetheless, Chicago’s increases in delay per person were higher than Atlanta’s. Analyses with the sustainable footprint model can be retrospective, to evaluate the quality of life related to developing sustainably, as well as prospective, to forecast the impacts of alternative plans, policies, and programs. A broader scope of measures can cap- ture the key quality-of-life issues of concern or inter- est to communities in the area under study. Evaluating Alternatives MADM methods, created to address issues related to sustainable development, were used to evaluate alter- natives for transportation and land use plans in the Atlanta metropolitan region (11–14). First, critical sustainability issues or goals were identified in Mobility 2030, the long-range regional transporta- tion plan for metropolitan Atlanta. Transportation system effectiveness was evaluated based on the regional goals of u Improving accessibility and mobility, u Maintaining and improving system perfor- mance and preservation, u Protecting and improving the environment and quality of life, and u Increasing safety and security. TABLE 1 Sustainability Assessment for Atlanta and Chicago Metropolitan Area Highway Networks: Quality-of-Life and Natural Environment Data Sustainability Element Selected Measures Year Atlanta Chicago Quality of life Congested travel (percent of peak 1990 43 69 vehicle miles traveled) 2000 80 80 Resource consumption Annual excess fuel consumed 1990 7 9 (gallons per person) 2000 21 14 Waste generation Annual delay per person 1990 55 17 (person-hours)* 2000 52 25 *Annual delay used as a surrogate for vehicle emissions. The Tom Moreland Interchange northeast of Atlanta, Georgia, also known as Spaghetti Junction, was included in a sustainability footprint evaluation of the region’s highway networks. P H O TO : U .S. G EO LO G IC A L S U R V EY

TR N EW S 288 SEPTEM BER–O CTO BER 2013 7 The second step was to define performance mea- sures for each goal and analyze and quantify the impacts of each plan. The measures were normalized to construct a composite sustainability index from the criteria, weighted to reflect the relative impor- tance to the decision maker. The results were plotted on a four-dimensional (4-D) graph, generating a sus- tainability diamond, a visualization tool that can help in identifying the dominant alternatives and in eval- uating the trade-offs between alternatives (see Figure 2, right). Using MADM methods to evaluate quality of life and the impacts of other policy, plan, and program alternatives for sustainable development can highlight the relative importance of the decision criteria—for example, safety or congestion reduction—and can facilitate analysis of the many influences on the ways that communities protect their quality of life and sus- tainable development. The method focuses on the rel- ative effectiveness of the alternatives, helping decision makers identify the dominant alternatives when con- sidering all the decision criteria; this was done for the Mobility 2030 Plan (Figure 2). The method also helps in evaluating the trade-offs—such as the economic impacts or the effects on the natural environment— when no alternatives are dominant. Seven States Assessment Transportation and other agencies can use SWOT analysis as a strategic planning tool to support and advance a variety of quality-of-life standards for com- munities. A SWOT-based assessment framework tool was applied to seven state DOT programs pursuing sustainable performance outcomes in transportation decision making (15). The evalua- tion considered the agencies’ sys- tems and programs in terms of functional performance, as well as of the triple bottom line of financial, social, and environmental perfor- mance. Although other tools are available, the SWOT self-assessment frame- work is appropriate for evaluations at the strategic and organizational lev- els, guiding agencies through an ex- amination of the strengths, weak- nesses, opportunities, and threats to achieving sustainability and perfor- mance outcomes through trans- portation decision making (Figure 3, right). A panel of executive-level practitioners assisted in developing 32 factors for internal self-assessment, applicable to four major areas: u Frameworks that assign priority to sustain- ability considerations in strategic planning, u Organizational culture and structure, u Collaboration and communications, and u Institutionalizing sustainability. Also identified were 16 external factors, covering the economic, environmental, social, and techno- logical pressures that state DOTs face in working toward their goals. The factors related to the various phases of the planning and design process. Environmental Sustainability Economic Sustainability Transportation System Effectiveness 1 Highest Level of Sustainability Achievable Social Sustainability Aspirations 2030 73.1% Baseline 2005 69.8% Mobility 2030 90.6% 0 FIGURE 2 The sustainability diamond visualization tool showing the relative effectiveness of transportation and land use alternatives for metropolitan Atlanta. FIGURE 3 SWOT self- assessment framework.

TR N EW S 28 8 SE PT EM BE R– O CT O BE R 20 13 8 States’ Findings The results of the SWOT evaluation showed that the participating state DOTs identified two internal fac- tors as their strongest: u Communicating and collaborating with exter- nal stakeholders, and u Demonstrating a sustainability ethic. The DOTs judged internal promotion of a sus- tainability culture, however, as the weakest factor. Respondents identified a range of high priorities; common to all were multimodal investment and maintenance and rehabilitation. Although admitting a disconnect between policies or plans and the allo- cation of resources, the agencies had positive views of the external conditions influencing the pursuit of sustainability. The agencies cited opportunities aris- ing from public opinion favorable to sustainability, the deployment of new technologies, and increased employment. Issues and impacts related to climate change were viewed as a threat to achieving sustain- ability goals. The study recommended that state DOT analyses of sustainability initiatives include the following fac- tors: land use, routine education programming, pro- curement processes, and implementation. The study also recommended the linking of strategic planning to actions and performance measures. The SWOT tool can guide strategic planning by business units within an agency; can support strate- gic planning at an organizational level through con- sensus building, and can facilitate executive-level discussions with other state agencies. The SWOT tool also can be used to assess an agency’s readiness to address sustainability issues strategically and sys- tematically in a performance context. Additional Resources Several additional analytical and data resources are available for decision making to improve societal quality of life and to pursue other elements of sus- tainability in development. Key examples include the following: u The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Livability in Transportation Guidebook pre- sents planning approaches that promote livability.1 u FHWA’s Transportation Planning for Sustain- ability Guidebook offers an extensive catalogue of Pavement restoration and rehabilitation on Route 501 in Virginia, an example of sustainability efforts commonly under the purview of state departments of transportation. Light rail in historic Southend, Charlotte, North Carolina, was studied in the Federal Highway Administration’s Livability in Transportation Guidebook for integrating land use and transit plans. P H O TO : A L C O V EY, V IR G IN IA D O T P H O TO : JA M ES W ILLA M O R 1www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/case_studies/guidebook/liv abilitygb10.pdf.

TR N EW S 288 SEPTEM BER–O CTO BER 2013 9 analytical and data resources for addressing quality of life and other sustainable development consider- ations in transportation decision making.2 u NCHRP Report 708, Guidebook for Sustain- ability Performance Measurement in Transportation Agencies, describes performance measures and data to address quality of life and other elements of sus- tainable development.3 In addition, several initiatives in research and practice can serve as resources for addressing qual- ity-of-life issues in decision making, including find- ings and applications on adapting to climate change (16–18); on infrastructure resiliency (19); on life- cycle assessment (20); and on scenario planning and backcasting, strategic environmental assessments, health impact assessments, context-sensitive solu- tions, equity analysis, and asset management. The growing national and international focus on quality-of-life outcomes reflects a deepened under- standing that economic, technological, and other advances can be made without sacrificing the qual- ity of life in societies or the quality of the natural environments, in the short term or the long term. Pursuing a stewardship approach to the physical, human, and natural environments can improve the quality of decision making through appropriate applications of sustainability and performance eval- uation tools that make values and trade-offs explicit. These decision-making processes can help in actualizing the vision for economic competitiveness in livable and resilient communities and in achieving a higher level of stewardship for quality of life in this and future generations. References 1. Felce. D., and J. Perry. Quality of Life: Its Definition and Measurement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995, pp. 51–74. 2. Boschmann, E., and M-P Kwan. Toward Socially Sustain- able Urban Transportation: Progress and Potentials. Inter- national Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2008, pp.138–157. 3. Fischer, J., and A. Amekudzi. Quality of Life, Sustainable Civil Infrastructures, and Sustainable Development: Strategically Expanding Choice. ASCE Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 137, No. 39, March 2011, pp. 39–48. 4. Wackernagel, M., and W. Rees. Our Ecological Footprint. New Society Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1996. 5. Wiedmann, T., and J. Minx. A Definition of “Carbon Foot- print.” In Ecological Economics Research Trends (C. C. Pertsova, ed.), Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, N.Y., 2008, pp. 1–11. 6. Hillman, T., and A. Ramaswami. Greenhouse Gas Emis- sion Footprints and Energy Use Benchmarks for Eight U.S. Cities. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2010, pp. 1902–1910. 7. Amekudzi, A., C. J. Khisty, and M. Khayesi. Using the Sustainability Footprint Model to Assess Development Impacts of Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 43, No. 3, May 2009, pp. 339–348. 8. Pearce, A. R., and J. A. Vanegas. Defining Sustainability for Built Environment Systems. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2002, pp. 94–113. 9. Chambers, N., C. Simmons, and M. Wackernagel. Shar- ing Nature’s Interest: Ecological Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan, London, 2000. 10. Amekudzi, A., J. M. Fischer, M. Khayesi, C. J. Khisty, and S. Asiama. Risk-Theoretical Foundations for Setting Sus- tainable Development Priorities: A Global Perspective. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011. 11. Vreeker, R., P. Nijkamp, C. T. Welle. A Multicriteria Deci- sion Support Methodology for Evaluating Airport Expan- sion Plans. Transportation Research, Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2002, pp. 27–47. 12. Zietsman, J., L. R. Rilett, and S. Kim. Transportation Cor- ridor Decision Making with Multiattribute Utility Theory. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Vol. 7, No. 2/3, 2006, pp. 254–266. 13. Ramani, T. L., J. Zietsman, W. E. Knowles, and L. Quad - rifoglio. Sustainability Enhancement Tool for State Departments of Transportation Using Performance Mea - surement. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 137, No. 6, pp. 404–415. 14. Jeon, C. M., A. A. Amekudzi, and R. L. Guensler. Evalu- ating Plan Alternatives for Transportation System Sus- tainability: Atlanta Metropolitan Region. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 4, No. 4, July 2010, pp. 227–247. 15. Barrella, E., A. A. Amekudzi, and M. Meyer. Evaluating Sustainability Approaches of Transportation Agencies Through a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Framework. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2358, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 41–49. 16. Deakin, B. Climate Change and Sustainable Transporta- tion: The Case of California. Journal of Transportation Engi- neering, Vol. 137, No. 6, pp. 372–382. 17. Oswald, M., and S. McNeil. Climate Change Adaptation Tool for Transportation: Mid-Atlantic Region Case Study. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Volume 139, No. 4, 2013, pp. 407–415. 18. Meyer, M., A. Amekudzi, and J. P. O’Har. Transportation Asset Management Systems and Climate Change: Adap- tive Systems Management Approach. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2180, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 12–20. 19. Attoh-Okine, N., A. T. Cooper, and S. Mensah. Formula- tion of Resilience Index of Urban Infrastructure Using Belief Functions. IEEE Systems Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 147–153. 20. Chester, M., and A. Horvath. Life-Cycle Assessment of High-Speed Rail: The Case of California. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 5, 2010, pp. 1–8. 2www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/sustainab ility/resources_and_publications/guidebook/sustain00.cfm. 3www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/166313.aspx. Transit and other sustainable development initiatives are examined in National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 708.

Next: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Online Tool Invests Highway Projects with Sustainability »
TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation Get This Book
×
 TR News September–October 2013: Environmental Sustainability in Transportation
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This issue of the TR News focuses on environmental sustainability in transportation and how it can help improve the quality of life for individuals and communities. Articles highlight practice-ready research and cover such topics as integrating vegetation and green infrastructure into sustainable transportation planning; implementing the Eco-Logical approach in Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Montana, Washington, and Oregon; Virginia's improved construction specifications for stormwater pipe-lining materials; creating a multiagency sustainability framework in Colorado; effective noise barriers in North Carolina; Delaware's use of recycling materials and techniques; sustainability in airspace system planning; and more.

The September-October 2013 issue of TR News includes the following articles:

Environmental Sustainability in Transportation: Improving the Quality of Life

Evaluating Sustainable Development: A Quality-of-Life Focus for Transportation Decision Making

Integrating Vegetation and Green Infrastructure into Sustainable Transportation Planning

Eco-Logical in Practice: Implementing an Ecosystem-Based Approach, Streamlining Environmental Processes for Transportation Projects

Soundscapes: A Sustainability Approach to Transportation Noise Management

Sustainability in Airspace System Planning

Research Pays Off: Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement with Steel Slag Aggregate: Successful Use in Illinois Pavements

The TR News is TRB's bimonthly magazine featuring timely articles on innovative and state-of-the-art research and practice in all modes of transportation. It also includes brief news items of interest to the transportation community, research pays off articles profiles of transportation professionals, workshop and conference announcements, new book notices, and news of TRB activities. Submissions of manuscripts for possible publication are accepted at any time.

Copies of the TR News may be purchased individually or ordered on an annual subscription basis.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!