Under
Problem, I think we're interested in both the "drivers of" as well
as the controls on change. Under tools, I think we're
interested in urban and ecological modeling. Both are more complex
than land-use modeling. I think we ought to involve a modeler
and would suggest my colleague Subhrajit Guhathakurta. He organized
the symposium last weekend. Another application of IT (in
addition to data fusion etc. is the analysis and the synthesis
of information. In the first line of the Introduction, I'd
suggest "... region comprises a desert landscape transforming through
a suburban matrix to an urban center. ..."
On the second
page, I really love the sentence "To anticipate the future, ..."
The sentence about this year's ballot begs for more elaboration.
I'd suggest something like: Growth management is a much debated issue
in the region. It has been the subject of legislative
action, blue ribbon panels, and ballot-box initiatives. What has been
missing is in-depth scientific analysis of the consequences
of the various growth management options."
The "Changing how atlases are constructed " is neat.
Let's add post-docs to those
compiling the data. The RFP emphasizes post-docs over staff.
For real IT types he [Fink] suggested UC San Barbara and/or Los
Alamos.
I've got a good contact at UCSB, Mike Goodchild, and will contact him.
Jon will put us in touch with the national lab folks.
Possibly, but it would have to be in a peripheral role
given the Phoenix emphasis - and I'm going to have to put a lot of effort
into a proposal from here (very different topic!) -
thanks for thinking of me
I also suggested Ray Quay, the assistant Phoenix planning director who
is also a computer geek and an adjunct professor in our
school. He writes software. The NSF RFP emphasizes connections with
governments. Involving Ray would help.
Did you forward to
Suzanne? Jon said she is a terrific editor. She can help with the budget
too.
Jon said it would be good politics for us to add
match. He offered an "environmentally sensitive IT type. " Such a match
would help us run the project and not run into NSF's
staff land mine. We could shift the requested funds from a staff position
to post doc support.
I
know what you mean by "freely accessible" but it could be read that
we'll be giving the atlas away which may not be the case. How
about "easily accessible" instead?
On page 4, additional multidisciplinary strengths include our GIS certificate
and the
EPA-funded SCERP project. We're also engaged in a "virtual studio"
with three Italian universities on the planning of Sardinia.
We could involve them as collaborators. NSF encourages international
cooperation but won't fund it.
On page 5, instead of
"voters" I'd recommend "citizens."
Here we should reduce that staff request add post docs and add Jon's
staff environmentally
friendly IT type.