Photo Credit: Tesla

“Smokey, old diesels” – this summarizes a long-held perception of the trucking industry.  It has been, perhaps, a valid perception. Nevertheless, with electric transports entering the industry, opinions may be poised to change. Where has the trucking industry been and where is it going? How is geography going to impact the emergence of electric trucks?

Diesel exhaust has choked cities for decades. Diesel-powered transports have traditionally spewed up to 30 percent of the particulate matter (PM) in polluted urban air (Toy, Graham, & Hammit, 2000). Particulate matter in the United States alone caused 15,000 premature deaths each year (Nel, 2005). Diesel PM has been tied to increases in emphysema, asthma, and heart disease. Moreover, long-term exposure to diesel exhaust particles also poses the highest cancer risk of any toxic air contaminant (American Lung Association, n.d.).

Likewise, trucks have conventionally comprised about 10 percent of nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions in America (Toy, Graham, & Hammit, 2000). Exposure to ground-level ozone – for which NO_x is a precursor – has been linked to lung inflammation and decreased immunity (American Lung Association, n.d.). Furthermore, diesel exhaust is an irritant to mucosal membranes (eyes, nose, throat) and can precipitate coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, nausea, and allergies.

Air pollution and public health, however, are not the only concerns weighing heavy-duty vehicle transportation. Trucking accounts for approximately 20 percent of North America’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (U.S. Department of Transportation, n.d.).  The preponderant GHG’s include water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O). The primary GHG’s associated with trucking are CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and HC (US EPA, 2010).

In the interest of public health and environmental preservation, curtailing freight truck emissions is evidently prudent. In March of 2011, President Obama announced – with liquefied natural gas (LNG) trucks as a backdrop – a public-private partnership aimed at reducing gasoline and diesel consumption in large commercial fleets. Trucking companies throughout Canada and the United States began branding themselves “green” by embracing LNG engine technology. LNG, however, has its own issues. Though inherently cleaner burning than diesel, LNG is still a fossil fuel. While natural gas is touted as having an environmental advantage over diesel in terms of life cycle (Riva, D’Angelosante, & Trebeschi, 2006), the ability to extract copious volumes of natural gas from vast shale reserves in North America still poses problems, including aquifer contamination, water use, fracking fluid impacts, land industrialization, and fugitive emissions (Verrastro & Branch, 2010).  And although LNG has had a rather exemplary safety record, fears about attacks, vapour cloud fires, and accidental spills have been raised.

Electrics, hybrids, LNG’s, diesels with particulate filters/selective catalytic reduction – technology has always driven change in the trucking industry. Simpler solutions –reducing truck idling time, installing speed limiters, training “green” drivers, and improving service inefficiencies – also reduce fossil fuel consumption. Yet, an even more obvious answer exists: reduce vehicle miles driven! How senseless it seems to transport bottles of water thousands of miles when, for many, potable water is available from a kitchen faucet. How peculiar that we opt to move millions of pounds of food that could be grown in backyard gardens. Regardless, the foremost dilemma with solutions aimed at resolving these peculiarities is that it places the burden on humanity; it would encompass a difficult social paradigm shift.

Fortunately for humanity, technology marches on. The new year rolled in with big trucking news – the Tesla semi-truck. Though not the first electric semi-truck, the Tesla has an enviable range of up to 800 km (Clouthier, 2018). Ultimately, however, geography will determine any realized range. Temperature, wind, grade, payload, traffic, and topography will all influence actual range. Regardless, fewer fossil-fuel-powered trucks on the road is good news in terms of air quality and GHG emissions (assuming renewable electric generation). Again, this assumption is highly dependent upon geography; it obviously makes more sense to run electric trucks in areas where electricity is generated from renewable sources.

Even with consideration of all these existing variables, there is still one major hurdle electric trucks must overcome, one that that share with passenger vehicles – adequate recharging networks. In a recent paper that highlights strategies to increase electric vehicle uptake, the absence of recharging stations is earmarked as a key concern among potential customers. Surveys indicate that some drivers are more concerned about inadequate infrastructure than vehicle cost (Broadbent, Drozdzewski & Metternicht, 2017). The authors go on to state that faster transition to electric vehicle adoption should include appropriate legislation, sufficient recharging networks, procurement programs, and information programs. Adoption of electric semi-trucks would surely benefit from similar programs. Realizing these objectives will not be easy, but certainly worth it – for the health of the public and the planet.

References

American Lung Association. (n.d.). Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust. Retrieved 2018 from Air Toxicology and Epidemiology: http://www.oehha.ca.gov/public_info/facts/dieselfacts.html

Broadbent GH, Drozdzewski D, Metternicht G. (2017). Electric vehicle adoption: An analysis of best practice and pitfalls for policymaking from experiences of Europe and the US. Geography Compass. 2017;e12358. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12358

Clouthier, D. (2018). Using electric trucks for what today’s technology allows. Retrieved 2018 from Truck News: https://www.trucknews.com/blogs/using-electric-trucks-todays-technology-allows/

Nel, A. (2005). Air Pollution – Related Illness: Effects of Particles. Science, 308, 804-806.

Riva, A., D’Angelosante, S., & Trebeschi, C. (2006). Natural gas and the environmental results of life cycle assessment. Energy, 31(1), 138-148.

Toy, E., Graham, J. D., & Hammit, J. K. (2000). Fueling Heavy Trucks: Diesel or Natural Gas? Retrieved 2017 from Harvard School of Public Health: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/hcra/diesel/diesel.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2011). Transportation and Climate Change Clearinghouse. Retrieved 2017 from: http://climate.dot.gov/

U.S. EPA. (2010). Regulations and Standards: Heavy-Duty Regulations. Retrieved 2017 from Transportation & Climate: http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/420f10901.htm#1

Verrastro, F., & Branch, C. (2010). Developing America’s Unconventional Gas Resources: Benefits and Challenges. CSIS Energy & National Security Program

By Patrick Rickles, UCL

I guess I’m not alone in either struggling with GIS (Geographic Information System) technologies, or seeing colleagues struggle to effectively use it. When the GIS does not work, or when learning resources use jargon that the would-be GIS users do not understand, they tend to blame themselves. This should not be the case – though never intentional, badly designed systems, materials or practices should be held accountable and either improved or completely rethought. These problems exist, regardless of discipline, when using GIS.

My professional experience includes working in private, public and academic sectors, across a variety of industries, and I have seen this same issue continually arise – enthusiasm turning to frustration when people cannot do what they want to do with the GIS, so they abandon the technology. As GIS professionals, I believe we have a duty to do better and promote the overall understanding of GIS and associated materials, to improve the likelihood of success and uptake. It is my hope that through my research, we can learn how to better support an increasingly diverse range of GIS users, foster that enthusiasm for GIS and create a better and more inclusive community of practice with and around GIS.

Patrick Rickles helping an interdisciplinary researcher learning GIS

My recently published article, published in Geo: Geography and Environment, titled “A suggested framework and guidelines for learning GIS in interdisciplinary research”, is based upon my PhD research and has been written with co-authorship and support from my supervisors, Claire Ellul and Muki Haklay. In the article, I share elements of my PhD work which focused on how people go about learning to use GIS, particularly in the context of interdisciplinary research. From this work, I make recommendations on how these results can be used, going forward, to improve the process of learning GIS for future learners.

To begin, I had to first understand what interdisciplinary researchers were doing with GIS and the issues they faced that might affect uptake. These preliminary findings were discussed in Rickles & Ellul (2015), which identified challenges and suggested solutions in interdisciplinary research, as well as a theoretical understanding of learning approaches. Based on an evaluation of prominent interdisciplinary studies using GIS, and observations of an interdisciplinary team’s use of GIS, the relevance of those challenges and suggested solutions were reviewed to support a learning approach. The knowledge gap and time constraints were the most common challenges, with building relationships and training often suggested as solutions.  Problem Based Learning (PBL) – where learners restructure their knowledge to solve real world problems as part of a collaborative process with other learners and/or educators – was put forward as a viable approach for learning GIS in interdisciplinary research.

Modified Technological Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework for learning GIS in interdisciplinary research

This article provides updates to and further enriches that initial research. An online survey of interdisciplinary researchers provided verification of the issues uncovered in the first article, with interviews providing a more in-depth exploration of what those issues may mean in a practical sense. An overview of those findings shows that interdisciplinary researchers are using GIS to create, analyse and visualise information; that they are using ArcGIS and QGIS desktop platforms as well as web GIS platforms such as Google Maps/Earth and ArcGIS Online; and that they are using informal learning methods (e.g. internet searches, watching a video, asking a more experienced person). The findings also suggest a more structured learning approach may be supportive of the learner, but PBL can be time consuming for both the learner and educator. Therefore, Context Based Learning (CBL), which recognises the importance of the context of the problem domain for the learning activity, but allows for materials to be created in advance, may be a more appropriate approach. Combining these elements, which modify the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework, guidelines and a specific framework are suggested for educators to use to support interdisciplinary researchers learning GIS. My further research has applied these in a practical setting using a learning resource titled “GIS Lessons for You” (www.patrickrickles.com/tutorial), to test the guidelines and framework. The results will be published as part of my PhD and potentially as a future article.

About the author: Patrick Rickles is a PhD student in the Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering at University College London, and is also an Implementation Analyst for the Department of Communities and Local Government.

[reblogged from Geo: Geography and Environment. Read the original: https://blog.geographyandenvironment.com/2018/01/08/improving-learning-and-applying-gis-in-interdisciplinary-research/]

Rickles, P. & Ellul, C. (2015). A preliminary investigation into the challenges of learning GIS in interdisciplinary research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 39(2), 226-236

Rickles P., Ellul C., and Haklay M. A suggested framework and guidelines for learning GIS in interdisciplinary research. Geo: Geography and Environment, 2017; 4 (2), e00046 (open access)

By Liz Charpleix, University of New England, Australia

Whanganui River at Pipiriki, December 2014 © Liz Charpleix

The recent election of Labour politician Jacinda Ardern as Aotearoa/New Zealand’s youngest Prime Minister since 1856 has caught the world’s attention, for reasons ranging from the personal to the political. One of the planks in her party’s policy platform is ‘Clean rivers for future generations’, an appropriate goal for a nation that markets itself as ‘100% Pure’ and ‘the home of Middle Earth’. In pursuing this policy, the party has declared that they intend to ‘work with iwi [people who share a common ancestor] to resolve [Waitangi] Treaty water claims in a manner that respects iwi’s mana [authority], and restores the mauri [life force] of our rivers and lakes’ (Labour, nd).

Given that Aotearoa/New Zealand was colonised on the basis of a treaty signed by Māori chiefs and the English Lieutenant-Governor at Waitangi in 1840, a declaration of respect for Māori culture and law by the nation’s ruling government should not need explicit expression today. However, due to the mistranslation of the treaty from English into Māori at the time of signing, the rights and obligations of each party were different in each language. Disputes ensued as a result of the mistranslation and, finally, in 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to settle such disputes; the declaration by the Labour Party emphasises its support for the corrective process set in train by the tribunal.

One Waitangi Treaty claim that sought to restore respect for an iwi’s mana and a river’s mauri was Wai 167, which resulted in the recognition of the legal personhood of the Whanganui River. The enacting legislation, passed in March 2017, brought to a conclusion more than a century of legal and direct actions by Te Atihaunui-a-Paparangi, the Māori who live along the river and have long disputed the removal of its management and control from their hands by the European colonists (known as Pākehā ). I have described this case, and discussed its contributions to decolonising a legal system shaped within a colonial context, in a paper recently published in The Geographical Journal. Although place-specific, the claim demonstrates the potential for environmental management to be enhanced by drawing upon relational ontologies with less anthropocentric visions than the dominant Western model.

Inherent in the relational ontology of the Māori is the concept that ‘it is not possessions that most count but how we relate to, and respect the mana of each other and the environment’ (Waitangi Tribunal 1999, xix). Throughout their long dispute, Te Atihaunui battled a range of issues that demonstrated the colonisers’ lack of respect for the Māori and the standing held by the river in their culture. These issues predominately stemmed from the treatment of the river as an economic resource by the Pākehā, such as water abstraction for the Tongariro power scheme, damage to in-river fishing structures, and removal of gravel from the river for commercial reasons. Compounding the disrespect is the fact that for the Māori, a river comprises much more than a stream of water: ‘… it include[s] all things related to the river: the tributaries, the land catchment area… the silt once deposited on what is now dry land’ (Waitangi Tribunal 1999, 39). If the river is damaged, then it is not only the water that has lost mauri; the harm seeps into the earth beneath and beyond.

By contrast, Western hierarchical ontologies locate rivers as one thing and land as another, with humans overseeing them all. From this anthropocentric point of view, environmental features are resources to be used in support of, but never as an equal participant in, the human economy. The idea, as demonstrated by the outcome of Wai 167, that a river can be a person in its own right  supports the egalitarian perspective that a river has the right to stand up for its own health. It has the right to demand back its mauri, to expect a restoration of its mana, to require, in conjunction with the iwi that live upon and by it, respect.

Imagine the river and its surrounding environment, including the Māori and other residents and visitors to the river, as an interconnected network, radiating its mauri outwards along pulsing riparian arteries. The end result, which hopefully wouldn’t take another 150 years to achieve, would be much more than clean rivers and lakes. It would be a healthy vibrancy that permeates the entire nation, infusing humans, flora, fauna, air, water and earth alike with a prospect of a positive future.

About the author: Liz Charpleix is PhD candidate at the University of New England, Australia. 

References

 100% Pure New Zealand nd Home of Middle-Earth (https://www.newzealand.com/au/home-of-middle-earth/) Accessed 13 November 2017

 Charpleix L 2017 The Whanganui River as Te Awa Tupua: place-based law in a legally pluralistic society The Geographical Journal doi/10.1111/geoj.12238

 Jones A 2017 Jacinda Ardern: ‘Stardust’ ousts experience in New Zealand BBC News October 19 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41226232) Accessed 10 November 2017

 Labour nd Clean rivers for future generations (http://www.labour.org.nz/water) Accessed 6 November 2017

 New Zealand Parliament 2017, March 28 Innovative bill protects Whanganui River with legal personhood (https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/innovative-bill-protects-whanganui-river-with-legal-personhood/) Accessed 10 November 2017

 Waitangi Tribunal 1999 The Whanganui river report: WAI 167 GP Publications, Wellington

By Jillian Smith, University of Birmingham 

Rupert’s Land

Is decolonising geographical knowledges actually reproducing coloniality? Geographers have recently been posed this question for consideration; in fact, the 2017 RGS-IBG chair’s theme states that debating decoloniality might be a good starting point towards decolonisation (Esson et al., 2017). This statement complements Tuck and Yang’s earlier notion that the recent proliferation of decolonial language by non-Indigenous scholars can have the effect of reproducing coloniality (2012). Esson et al. (2017) assert that as we open geography out to the world in an effort at decolonisation, we actually “run the risk of speaking instead of those eager and equipped to speak for themselves.”

I took this last statement as an invitation to offer up my own unsolicited version of what prompted my interest in geography ­– my Indigenous forefathers. At the risk of romanticizing my Métis heritage, I often think of my Indigenous ancestors as early geographers. As Indigenous trappers, fur traders, and Voyageurs on the Great Lakes of Turtle Island (now North America), my ancestors undoubtedly had vast geographical knowledge of their territory. But like so many things in the colonial era, it did not last. The quasi-nomadic lifestyle ended as new settlers arrived and the First nations and Métis people living in Canada were assigned parcels of land under new colonial structures. By 1840, my 4^th great-grandfather had signed a petition (with all the makings of an early treaty) requesting traditional land back from the Crown.  Though his petition was unsuccessful, I am a proud that my grandfather was not only an early geographer, but an aspiring decoloniser.

Indisputably, one of colonisation’s earliest effects was Indigenous land dispossession; as such, it is imperative that any discussion of decolonisation must include programming to reconnect Indigenous peoples to the land that was lost, and the knowledge, languages, and relations associated with the land (Wildcat et al., 2014). Tuck and Yang (2012) go further to suggest that decolonisation must go beyond repatriation of land; they infer that decolonisation is also about deconstructing colonial institutions.

Meanwhile, Matsunaga (2016) notes that governments and academics are expanding transitional justice theory to harms inflicted to Indigenous peoples in settler states such as Australia, Canada, and the United States. Matsunaga adds that two faces of transitional justice will need to be examined if decolonisation is to occur: an internal focus on reconciliation, and an external focus on the expertise required to heal a fragile state.  The use of the term ‘fragile state’ here is significant. Recall that fragile states have traditionally been regarded as post-conflict states. Australia, Canada, and the United States are certainly not ‘fragile’ in this context. Nonetheless, a historical injustice has occurred in each of these nations, and as Teital (2003) astutely notes, the paradoxical goal in transition is to undo history. The mechanism in which transitional justice will contribute to decolonisation in Canada, or in any settler state, remains to be seen (Park, 2015).

Esson et al. (2017) concur with Tuck and Yang (2012) and explain that the decolonisation of geographical knowledges cannot occur while structures inherited from geography’s colonial past are upheld. It is, however, still possible (and indeed, desirable) that geographers engage in discussions about Indigenous worldviews. Without Indigenous involvement in these discussions, however, they are moot. For example: the reputable British journal, Third World Quarterly (an egregious 40-year-old journal name itself), recently published a piece entitled, “The case for colonialism.” Astoundingly, the author, Bruce Gilley, states that colonisation has been wrongly vilified and that it is time to re-colonise parts of the world (2017). Would my Indigenous ancestors, friends, and relatives of Turtle Island believe that re-colonisation is a good idea? Assuredly not. A petition asking for the article’s retraction has been signed many thousands of times and fifteen of the journal’s thirty-four editorial board members have resigned in protest (Flaherty, 2017). Though the outrage over the piece has been swift and ferocious, the fact that the article was published at all illustrates a point that Western notions of ideology still exist in academia.

Resistance, reconciliation, repatriation, storytelling, deconstruction, transitional justice – decolonisation means different things to different people in different parts of the world.  Perhaps it should be less about what decolonisation is, and more about who is unlocking their voice in the discussion. Indigenous voices have been silenced for hundreds of years. If we collectively spend more time listening, and less time proselytising, perhaps those of us attempting to decolonise knowledges will have a better chance at avoiding any reproduction of coloniality.

References

Esson, J., Noxolo, P., Baxter, R., Daley, P., & Byron, M. (2017). The 2017 RGS-IBG chair’s theme: decolonising geographical knowledges, or reproducing coloniality? Area, 49:384-388. doi:10.1111/area.12371

Flaherty, C. (2017). Resignations at ‘Third World Quarterly’. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/20/much-third-world-quarterlys-editorial-board-resigns-saying-controversial-article

Gilley, B. (2017). The case for colonialism. Third World Quarterly, 1-17.

Matsunaga, J. (2016). Two faces of transitional justice: Theorizing the incommensurability of transitional justice and decolonization in Canada. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 5(1), 22-24. Retrieved from: http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/26530/19735

Park, A. S. (2015). Settler Colonialism and the Politics of Grief: Theorising a Decolonising Transitional Justice for Indian Residential Schools. Human Rights Review, 16(3), 279– 293.

Teitel, R. G. (2003). Transitional Justice Genealogy. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 16, 69.

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40. Retrieved from: http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554

Wildcat, M., McDonald, M., Irlbacher-Fox, S., Coultard, G. (2014). Learning from the land: Indigenous land based pedagogy and decolonization. Decolonization: Indigneity, Education & Society, 3(3).