Under federal statutes, transportation planners have an obligation to actively engage community members and to conduct equity-based analyses on transportation plans to ensure that people of color, low-income people, and other historically disenfranchised groups are neither disproportionately burdened nor denied the benefits of transportation investments. Planning professionals have an ethical and moral responsibility to involve and engage the communities they serve—to intentionally center community members in planning decision-making processes regarding their communities and ensure equity within the field. Equitably engaging all community groups is critical because having a political voice may empower community members to voice issues concerning their community. For instance, they may raise concerns about safety at an intersection, which may result in further investigation by agency staff. Community participation may also result in a city’s Active Transportation Plan or Circulation Element in the General Plan to take a different form if planners apply the community’s priorities and visions in these plans.

Field ecologists and macroecologists often compete for the same grants and academic positions, with the former producing primary data that the latter generally use for model parameterization. Primary data are usually cited only in the supplementary materials, thereby not counting formally as citations, creating a system where field ecologists are routinely under-acknowledged and possibly disadvantaged in the race for funding and positions. Here, we explored how the performance of authors producing novel ecological data would change if all the citations to their work would be accounted for by bibliometric indicators. We collected the track record of >2300 authors from Google Scholar and citation data from 600 papers published in 40 ecology journals, including field-based, conservation, general ecology, and macroecology studies. Then we parameterized a simulation that mimics the current publishing system for ecologists and assessed author rankings based on number of citations, H-Index, Impact Factor, and number of publications under a scenario where supplementary citations count. We found weak evidence for field ecologists being lower ranked than macroecologists or general ecologists, with publication rate being the main predictor of author performance. Current ranking dynamics were largely unaffected by supplementary citations as they are 10 times less than the number of main text citations. This is further exacerbated by the common practice of citing datasets assembled by previous research or data papers instead of the original articles. While accounting for supplementary citations does not appear to offer a solution, researcher performance evaluations should include criteria that better capture authors’ contribution of new, publicly available data. This could encourage field ecologists to collect and store new data in a systematic manner, thereby mitigating the data patchiness and bias in macroecology studies, and further accelerating the advancement of ecology and related areas of biogeography.

Negative stereotypes associated with immigrants have resulted in the socially constructed notion of "illegality." Nativist sentiments have perpetuated a barrage of anti-immigrant laws that have become largely associated with Mexican immigrants (De Genova, 2004). Recent implementation of draconian laws such as Arizona's SB 1070 and Alabama's HB 56 provide an opportunity to investigate the impact such laws have on the identity, social interactions, and academic experiences and aspirations of undocumented Latina/o students in the U.S.

Research on immigrant youth has favored assimilation frameworks, which highlight deficiencies and perpetuate stereotypes overlooking the systemic role racism and nativism play in the educational outcomes of undocumented students (Perez Huber et al., 2008). In contrast, taking a strength-based approach, this study applies Social Identity Theory (SIT) and Latina/o Critical Theory (LatCrit) which privileges the in-depth stories of 12 Latina/o undocumented high school, community college, and university students between the ages of 14 and 25.

Findings suggest that anti-immigrant sentiments exacerbate the negative connotation of an "illegal" identifier for certain identities such as class, student, and sibling identities. An "illegal" identifier also influences social interactions. For example, students reveal having a small group of trustworthy friends to whom they confide their immigration status. In addition, students discuss how well-informed and supportive teachers and counselors make a positive impact on their academic progress. Moreover, students share their excitement over the personal benefits of President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In this study, three legislations--California's AB 540, DREAM Act, and DACA--are credited for diminishing the economic challenges associated with school related expenses, such as tuition, housing, and books. Research findings will be shared with all research sites in order to help administration create/expand resources, academic programs, and support systems for this student population.

The UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) and California Walks (Cal Walks) developed the Community Pedestrian Bicycle Safety Training (CPBST) program to train and mobilize communities to address pedestrian and bicycle safety and to strengthen collaboration with local officials and agency staff. SafeTREC and Cal Walks work hand-in-hand with communities to plan and facilitate workshops that are reflective of each community’s needs and priorities.

This report provides a summary of the qualitative and quantitative methods used to evaluate the CPBST program, the findings of the evaluation, and lessons learned during the process. The report may provide an evaluation framework that other organizations can use, as the current goals and objectives can be modified to suit individual program requirements. It is suitable for many purposes, including measuring program effectiveness and monitoring program implementation. The measurement tools used are included in the Appendices.