About a decade ago, a group of climate scientists described. Called the (SSPs), these scenarios suggest how socioeconomic development could evolve in worlds with differing challenges to climate adaptation and mitigation.��

One SSP, “Sustainability,” envisions a collective shift toward green energy, reducing economic inequities and investments in research and development. Another, “Regional Rivalry,” paints a picture of a world riven by nationalism and fighting over resources. In that future, high levels of conflict stifle economic development. Rich countries see slower population growth, while birth rates increase in poorer nations.��

Scientists and policymakers use SSPs to project how today’s choices affect tomorrow’s world. But for complex subjects like public health, these intentionally simple scenarios don’t capture every complexity. Under the SSP “Fossil-Fueled Development,” for example, the world doubles down on fossil fuels, spurring rapid economic growth. That growth, according to the scenario, would spur investments in education and health. But at the same time, increased emissions would degrade the environment, exacerbating health risks.

That description leaves many public health questions unanswered: Would hospital systems be better prepared to handle the increased volume? Could more frequent heat waves lead people to spend more time inside, amplifying mental health burdens?��

Last year, a group of 63 experts in climate change and health met in Vienna to extend the SSPs to better reflect the dynamic nature of public health over the course of the century. Their expanded narratives, published , provide comprehensive visions of possible population health and health system development and explore how communities might better prepare for shifting future health risks.

, a UW doctoral student in environmental and occupational health sciences, attended the workshop and is lead author of the accompanying paper. UW News sat down with Green to talk about where previous climate scenarios fell short, the conference’s work and how we can better prepare to keep each other safe in an uncertain future.��

What are the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, and how do we use them?��

Carole Green: Shared Socioeconomic Pathways are a narrative framework that can be used in conjunction with pathways of greenhouse gas emissions to project future climate impacts to 2100. The SSPs are basically descriptions of the societal choices that affect the magnitude and pattern of interventions to protect human health and well-being.

The SSPs are essentially five possible alternatives for our future world. These pathways have been expanded to incorporate a wide range of issues of relevance for public health, and have been downscaled to describe what the future might look like in different countries and regions.

SSPs are featured in global processes like United Nations, where negotiators come from around the world to debate and agree on approaches to build resilience and sustainability to climate changes. The models help us understand how those choices interact and what the effects might be.��

We also use the SSPs in health research to understand the possible magnitude and geographic pattern of health impacts from climate change over the course of this century. Many projects at UW use future warming levels to analyze things like future wildfire impacts on Washington residents (research done by UW’s Climate Impacts Group).��

What do the SSPs leave out?��

CG: SSPs assume that humans will make socioeconomic changes in the future. The changes described in the pathways originally quantified GDP and population changes. Our work adds complexity, specifically to understand how the future of public health could evolve under these five pathways.

A lot of people are interested in heat waves, for example. Climate modeling alone can capture the planet’s warming, but doesn’t consider issues like how access to hospitals and healthcare could change by 2100. Current heat wave modeling looks at the climate interactions that shape health impacts but don’t explore how concurrent changes in society could interact with climate change to impact people’s well-being.��

Once you added complexity into the SSPs, what changed in your understanding of possible futures? Did you learn anything new or surprising?

CG: We learned that the drivers of health impacts are complex, and many are neither entirely good nor bad. Prioritizing sustainability, mitigation and adaptation will not necessarily lead to the best world for each future health outcome, but it definitely affects the future of health and well-being. Health futures we face globally are not predetermined. Different pathways could lead to vastly different health outcomes, with governance, health-system capacity, resources, equity, and cross-sectoral factors such as water and energy playing critical roles.

For example, under one of the scenarios, people don’t prioritize reducing greenhouse emissions, focusing instead on adapting to the changing climate. Strong investment in technology leads to quite a lot of wealth, which can benefit some health outcomes. But it’s not ideal, because people would also have to spend more time indoors because of the growing heat burden and would have to reduce connection to the outdoors and nature. You really don’t want to live in that scenario.

It’s very much a mix, which is challenging.��

Now that we have these fleshed-out scenarios, what does that allow us to do?��

CG: It allows us to have a more complex understanding of future health risks from climate change. Now we can add a layer of understanding and think about more variables than just warming levels and population numbers. It’s made of a lot of complexities that affect health, and those have their own effects.

In future climate scenarios, what does access to healthcare look like? What is the extent of food insecurity? How are we making sure people have access to clean air and water? When we have some understanding of those interactions, then it can motivate decision-makers to develop appropriate policies.��

What comes next?��

CG: We will apply these narratives to six different countries where there has been limited research using the SSPs. We’re working in Brazil, Senegal, South Africa, India, Vietnam and the Solomon Islands. We’ve started identifying key leads across these countries, where there is quite an appetite for this research. All countries are required to develop national health adaptation plans and to conduct vulnerability and adaptation assessments. They are also interested in modeling future health risks. We want to explore the extent to which the SSP narratives apply in their country’s context. Do they fit? How would they look different? There’s a lot of interest in building on local knowledge and bringing local experts together to talk about possible futures.��

We’re also quantifying specific disease burdens, universal healthcare access, water and sanitation infrastructure and digital health. Some quantifications will look at pairing SSPs with certain warming levels to project impacts.��

Last question: This group — including dozens of the world’s leading experts on climate and health — chose you to write the paper. How did that happen?��

CG: I am definitely not the leading expert in that room, so it was very much an honor to work on this and lead the writing. A lot of it comes from my advisor, , who is very supportive of me and my work. That’s been really meaningful. She encouraged me to take this on.

I often tell people that my job is to listen to experts and write down what they say. It was very meaningful to get to make those connections.��

For more information or to reach the researchers, contact Alden Woods at acwoods@uw.edu. Other UW authors include , professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, of global health, and of emergency medicine in the UW School of Medicine; and , research associate professor of urban design and planning.

Source

Last month, a group of 175 researchers, including eight from the ������˾��, co-authored published in Earth’s Future and the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

The paper provides a roadmap for future climate assessments in the U.S. by synthesizing the science and identifying research priorities based on existing gaps. “U.S. Climate Collection: Informing Assessment of Risks and Solutions” is the first article to appear in a launched by the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

Many of the scientists who co-authored this commentary were invited to contribute to the sixth National Climate Assessment (NCA), slated for early 2028, but were then dismissed in April 2025 after the Trump Administration for the assessment. The fifth NCA was published in 2023.��

The federal government is legally required to produce a National Climate Assessment chronicling climate change every four years per the . These assessments track new and evolving risks related to climate change, as well as options for mitigation and adaptation. The national scope is key to ensuring that funding and policies represent a broad range of experiences and concerns. 

“International assessments are valuable, but they are not always tailored to the specific regions and issues that are important in the United States. National assessments fill that gap,” said , Washington state climatologist and a research scientist in the UW Climate Impacts Group.

The special collection is not intended to replace the NCA but rather compile research for other scientists, policymakers and members of the public to aid in decision making. The commentary kicks off the collection by identifying where research has advanced, and how risks have changed, in the years since the last assessment. 

“Our understanding of climate change and its impacts continues to evolve,” said , professor of global health, of environmental and occupational health sciences, and of emergency medicine in the UW School of Medicine. “Conducting regular climate assessments allows us to systematically evaluate that new evidence, incorporate it into our understanding of current circumstances, present it to stakeholders, and apply it to near-term decisions in our respective sectors.” 

UW News asked each of the UW contributors to elaborate on their role in authoring the commentary and how it connects to their research.

, research scientist, UW Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies: “I’m an oceanographer with intimate experience in federal research funding mechanisms and with a broad familiarity with ocean warming and CO2 uptake with associated acidification and feedback on marine ecosystems and fisheries. Initially I was appointed to coordinate among federal agencies, academics and policymakers, but that changed dramatically when the Trump administration eliminated NCA6. In the scramble I became more of an author, and an editor of the Ocean section. 

“Some of my research at the UW involves ocean model development in collaboration with NOAA. It was a natural fit to contribute to the discussions on ‘Simulations of ocean conditions’ and on ‘Innovations in ocean observation and data science.’”

, professor of urban and environmental planning “I led the urban team and the section on urban regions. Urban regions are central to climate assessments. They concentrate populations and human activities, contribute substantially to climate change, and shape how impacts propagate across neighborhoods, metropolitan systems, national supply chains, and global markets. They are also critical places to examine where mitigation and adaptation reinforce one another, where they create trade-offs, and how benefits, costs, and risks are distributed across communities. 

“Our section argues that future assessments must represent cities as complex dynamic systems. We call for comparative, long-term evaluation of urban mitigation and adaptation strategies. For nature-based solutions, that means testing performance under future climate conditions and assessing multiple functions, life-cycle costs, social and ecological outcomes, and trade-offs rather than simply measuring short-term, project-level benefits.”

Mauger: “I contributed to the Northwest section of the paper, based on my expertise in regional climate impacts and adaptation science, specifically around water and flooding. Our synthesis reflects many of the emerging issues I see in my work helping communities, tribes, agencies and others to understand and prepare for the effects of climate change. For example, we highlight new research on the effectiveness of resilience actions — as more communities take action on climate, I am seeing a greater need for research of this kind.”

, principal scientist, UW Climate Impacts Group: “I also contributed to the Northwest section of the paper. My work at UW aims to provide the science, tools and guidance needed by governments and communities as they respond to climate impacts and prepare for those to come. Most of this work is focused on the Northwest, with a heavy emphasis on ecosystems and natural resources. The Northwest section of the paper highlights many of the climate risks and adaptation advances and challenges my partners on the ground face every day.”

Hess: “The takeaways from the health section, which I helped draft, are that we need more information on health impacts from extreme weather and compound events, as well as information on the costs of these impacts. We also need more strategies for advancing adaptation in public health and health care systems; we need health care interventions to protect patients at particular risk; we need more information on nature-based solutions; and we need more information to help convey the health benefits of a clean energy transition. 

“The recommendations related to interventions and adaptation in the health sector are particularly relevant to my work at the UW, which is focused on climate change health impacts and opportunities for increasing resilience of the public health and health care systems. I research these issues and also provide leadership related to sustainability and climate resilience for UW Medicine.”

, professor of global health and of environmental and occupational health sciences: “I was an author on the Air Quality chapter that focused on how climate change could alter exposures to poor quality, from pollen to wildfire smoke to indoor and outdoor air quality. One of my areas of research at UW is quantifying the extent to which reducing greenhouse gas emissions could reduce morbidity and mortality from outdoor air pollution. The evidence is robust that the economic value of the health benefits from reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be of the same order of magnitude — if not larger — than the costs of reducing emissions. In other words, reducing greenhouse gas emissions would benefit Americans by decreasing hospitalizations and deaths.”

Other UW co-authors include , research scientist of environmental and forest sciences and Deputy Director of the Western Fire and Forest Resilience Collaborative and , affiliate professor of environmental and forest sciences. 

For more information, contact Alberti at malberti@uw.edu.

Source

Over the past decade, cities around the world have increasingly turned to nature-based infrastructure to become more resilient in the face of a changing climate. Urban forests provide shade during heat waves and improve air quality; wetlands filter stormwater and reduce flooding; and restored oyster reefs filter water, create habitat and reduce wave energy along shorelines. When carefully designed and managed, these “nature-based solutions” can support climate adaptation, biodiversity and public health.

There’s a catch, however: Living things are not static building materials. They evolve and adapt in response to changing conditions, sometimes in unpredictable ways. As the climate shifts, the natural systems that humans depend on shift too.��

, professor of urban design and planning at the ������˾��, studies how cities and nature influence one another. in Science, Alberti and collaborators explore how evolutionary change can affect the long-term performance of nature-based solutions.

UW News spoke with Alberti about what’s at stake and how city planners can work with evolution rather than simply reacting to it.

Why did you want to study evolution within nature-based solutions?

MA: Today, an increasing share of infrastructure investment is going to nature-based solutions because they can cost-effectively reduce climate-driven risks to cities while supporting biodiversity, public health and climate adaptation. However, their long-term performance depends on a fundamental biological process that is still rarely considered in design: evolution. These systems are not static infrastructure. They depend on living organisms — plants, microbes, oysters, corals and others — whose traits can shift over time as urban environments change. Cities expose these organisms to heat, drought, flooding, pollution, nutrient enrichment, disease, habitat fragmentation and new species interactions. Those pressures influence which organisms survive, reproduce and continue providing the ecological functions that cities rely on. Over time, ecological and evolutionary responses may alter the very processes that allow these systems to cool neighborhoods, filter water, stabilize shorelines or reduce wave energy.

So the central question is not simply whether a project works on day one. It is whether it can continue to perform as the organisms within it respond to climate stress, urban pressures and the intervention itself.

The problem is that implementation of nature-based solutions is outpacing the science needed to evaluate long-term performance. For these solutions to serve as resilient infrastructure, they must be designed as living, dynamic, evolving systems.

Did you find examples where evolutionary change can affect infrastructure performance?

MA: We found examples showing that evolutionary change can affect traits directly linked to the performance of nature-based solutions. Urban or climate pressures can favor traits that alter the processes these systems rely on, affecting their ability to deliver intended functions.

For example, coastal marsh plants such as are used to stabilize sediment, reduce erosion and help buffer waves. In marshes exposed to excess nutrients from sources such as fertilizer runoff, wastewater, stormwater and upstream land use, however, Spartina can shift biomass allocation toward shoots and away from roots. This shift can reduce the sediment-stabilization function that restoration projects depend on.

In another example, urban tree populations may evolve greater drought tolerance to help them survive hotter and drier periods. But evolutionary responses that improve survival do not necessarily preserve the desired functions for cities. Those trees may persist but grow more slowly or produce less canopy, which could in turn reduce shade, carbon uptake or pollutant removal.

When can evolution strengthen nature-based solutions?

MA: Evolution can strengthen nature-based solutions when populations have enough variation in traits to help them survive and retain their function under changing conditions. Coral reefs are a great example of this. Corals build reef structure, support biodiversity, store carbon and help reduce wave energy along shorelines. and functional decline. To increase their resilience, researchers are testing assisted-evolution approaches, . On the Great Barrier Reef, this includes selecting corals that maintain photosynthetic performance and stable symbiotic relationships under heat stress.

These approaches could help sustain reef-based coastal protection as oceans warm, but they also carry risks, including reduced genetic diversity, tradeoffs with other functions and uncertain responses to future conditions.

Oyster reefs show the same principle in another coastal system. filter water, create habitat, support fisheries and build reef structures that reduce wave energy. They face disease, warming, acidification, and low oxygen. Selective breeding and genomic tools can help identify oyster lines better suited to these conditions, but restoration efforts should avoid narrowing genetic diversity. Genetically diverse, site-appropriate stocks are more likely to maintain the functions that coastal communities value.

What were your biggest takeaways from reviewing the available research?

MA: The key lesson is that nature-based solutions are not static assets. Their performance depends on ecological and evolutionary processes that continue after design and deployment.

A second lesson is that context matters. In urban environments, environmental factors, such as temperature, pollution, hydrology and soil conditions, can vary across neighborhoods, blocks and shoreline segments. The same species or design may therefore perform differently in different parts of a city.

Third, variation is central to resilience. Genetic diversity, trait diversity and community diversity can increase the capacity of a system to respond to changing conditions.

Fourth, current adaptation does not guarantee future performance. Populations of organisms in long-urbanized environments may be adapted to present conditions, but those adaptations may not align with future climates.

Finally, a reminder and a caution: Evolution does not necessarily favor the traits that make species effective nature-based solutions. Traits that help organisms persist under urban stress may not be the same traits that support cooling, water filtration, shoreline protection or habitat formation. The challenge for planners is to design and manage these systems so that survival and function remain aligned over time.

What steps can urban designers and planners take?

MA: Planners should design for long-term performance. That means asking: Which organisms provide the desired function? Which traits matter for that function? What environmental pressures will those organisms face? Is there enough genetic, trait or species variation to support future adaptations?

In practice, this means using diverse, site-appropriate source material and considering both local adaptation and future climate conditions. It also means reducing pressures that can weaken performance, such as excess nutrients, contaminants and pollution, while maintaining the habitat conditions organisms need to persist and adapt over time.

It also means monitoring differently. Cities should track not only whether a project is working now, but also whether the organisms, traits and ecological processes that support its performance are changing over time.��

Designing nature-based solutions for changing climate conditions requires sustaining genetic diversity, supporting ecological function and maintaining evolutionary potential.

UW co-authors include , a doctoral student of urban design and planning. A complete list of co-authors is .

This research was funded by the National Science Foundation.

For more information, contact Marina Alberti at malberti@uw.edu.

Source

Yocom has served as interim dean since October 2024 and is a professor in the Department of Landscape Architecture, where he previously served as department chair. A longtime member of the UW faculty, Yocom brings deep institutional knowledge, a collaborative leadership style and a long-standing commitment to the college’s mission of advancing justice, sustainability and resilience through the built environment.

“Ken has been a thoughtful and steady leader during a critical period of transition,” Serio said. “He brings not only deep institutional knowledge but a clear vision for how the college can meet the challenges and opportunities of the future. His collaborative approach and student-centered focus will continue to strengthen the college’s impact in our region and beyond.”

Yocom’s research and teaching examine the relationships between ecological systems and the built environment, with a particular focus on how infrastructure, water and landscape shape communities. His work reflects the college’s commitment to place-based, interdisciplinary solutions that respond to today’s most pressing societal challenges — from climate change to housing access to public health.

“It’s an honor to continue leading this remarkable college — a community defined by purpose, creativity and care,” Yocom said. “At the College of Built Environments, we don’t just prepare students to design buildings or plan cities — we help them imagine and shape a better world. I’m inspired by the ways our faculty, staff and students come together to confront urgent challenges, and I’m excited for what we will build — together.”

Yocom holds a master’s degree in landscape architecture and a doctorate in built environments from the ������˾��. As dean, he will lead a college that brings together architecture, construction management, landscape architecture, real estate and urban planning in pursuit of transformative solutions for communities and the planet.

Source

The vast majority of earthquakes strike inside the , a string of volcanoes and tectonic activity that wraps around the coastlines of the Pacific Ocean. But when an earthquake hits, the areas that experience the strongest shaking aren’t always the places that suffer the greatest damage.

Take the massive , which caused extensive damage in Taiwan in the fall of 1999 and killed more than 2,400 people. The distribution of damage followed an uneven pattern: Deaths caused by the earthquake were concentrated not in densely populated city centers, but in those cities’ suburbs and outer fringes. A similar pattern has occurred following earthquakes in China, Chile and Nepal.

More than two decades later, researchers at the ������˾�� have identified a hidden factor behind what they call ‘suburban syndrome’ — migration. Workers from small, rural communities often move into the outer edges of cities, which offer greater economic opportunities but often have low-quality housing that is likely to suffer greater damage during an earthquake. The risk grows even more when migrants come from low-income or tribal villages.

The findings, , suggest that emergency management organizations should pay greater attention to migration and housing quality when developing disaster mitigation and response plans.

UW News spoke with lead author , an assistant professor of environmental & occupational health sciences and of urban planning, to discuss ‘suburban syndrome,’ how migration can amplify disparities in a disaster’s impact, and what U.S. officials can learn from a Taiwanese disaster.

Your work on this study builds on an existing model that assesses earthquake risk by considering migration patterns and the movement of vulnerable populations. What does the existing model miss, and why is it important to fill those gaps?����

Tzu-Hsin Karen Chen: This risk-assessment model has been used by many organizations internationally and in the United States. For example, FEMA uses a similar risk model to assess populations exposed to hazards, vulnerabilities and potential disaster impacts. They typically do a comprehensive risk assessment geographically within states and counties, identify areas with potential larger impacts, and then draft a preparedness plan.

In United States, temporary domestic migrants and undocumented immigrants don’t always officially register in government systems. One common reason is the fear of deportation or other legal repercussions. And so, when a government agency like FEMA allocates resources for disaster preparedness or recovery, relying on registered population data can lead to an underestimate of the support required in certain areas.

In Taiwan, our study case, many migrant workers moving from rural to urban areas don’t update their registered residence. They still have their registration back in their hometown, like in a tribal area. It just doesn’t make sense to re-register, because they might have multiple jobs within a single year in different places. To minimize expenses, some workers look for the lowest possible rent, and their rental housing might not be officially registered either. Those could be informal housing structures, like a metal floor added on top of a concrete building, which don’t comply with safety regulations. The informality of this process can help lower their cost of living, but can also leave them more vulnerable to disasters.

How did you get started in this research?��

TKC: I’ll share my personal story, but I also want to acknowledge my co-authors for their years of work in risk assessments. For me, it started back in 2010, when I volunteered in a tribal area of Taiwan teaching computer skills. This provided bigger lessons for me than anything I could’ve taught them. I learned how teenagers often move from their tribal areas downhill to nearby cities to take construction jobs during the off-crop seasons. Those jobs pay more than farm work, but they’re also very physically demanding and often lack worker protections like job security and health insurance. Seeing that put a seed in my mind.��

When I was a master’s student, a team from the National Earthquake Center and Academia Sinica in Taiwan was working on a risk assessment of the Chi-Chi earthquake using the exposure, vulnerability and hazard framework. They had already published a fundamental , and reached out to me to develop an extended study by incorporating spatial statistics. That collaboration eventually evolved into the study in this paper.��

The COVID-19 pandemic also shaped this study. I came across news about how migrant workers were stuck in urban fringe areas of India. Because of the lockdown, they weren’t able to continue their work, and their crowded living conditions left them at even greater risk during the pandemic. I started to wonder: How can we shift from a pure statistical model to something more meaningful? How can we bring migration into the center of the discussion?��

The final push came from colleagues’ work at the UW. I’ve noticed initiatives for undocumented students and research efforts around environmental justice and health equity. For example, my co-author ’s research on migrant worker’s health was particularly motivating. We read and wrote back and forth to refine the framing and discussion in this paper. ��

How did you incorporate migration data into a larger earthquake-risk model, and what did you find?

TKC: At the time of the Chi-Chi earthquake in the late 1990s, we didn’t have any detailed migration data. Today, new research uses mobile phone signals to track people, but such data wasn’t available back then. So we adapted the — a model widely used to predict human migration — to estimate migration flow and used it as a new way to estimate migrants from low-income and tribal areas. This provided new variables to incorporate into the large risk model.��

Most of our findings are supportive of previous studies, where we can see, logically, if there’s stronger ground movement, there are likely to be more fatalities. That’s a very straightforward way of thinking of how disasters can happen. However, it’s not just a physical story. We also confirm that in areas where incomes are lower, there are more fatalities. Income is a known risk factor in the vulnerability theory. What’s unique in this study is that we tested whether an increase in migration flows leads to an increase in fatalities, and we found that to be true.��

Tell me about the migration model. What is it estimating?��

TKC: We applied the radiation model and adapted it to measure different migration populations. The fundamental idea of the radiation model comes from a simple model called the . In this context, gravity refers to the idea that larger populations have a stronger “pull” on people in nearby communities. The model assumes that, for a place, the number of people who want to migrate to nearby cities depends on the population size of those cities. Larger cities tend to attract more people.����

If the distance is too far, then it costs too much to travel, so the model will predict fewer migrants. But if the city is closer, or even far away but has a very large population, it becomes a more attractive destination, leading to greater migration flow.����

The radiation model builds on these principles and adds another layer. It considers competitors along the way. In other words, migration flow may also be influenced by other cities or opportunities that lie between the starting point and the destination.��

At first glance, it seems obvious that greater migration would lead to higher fatalities in a given area, just because there are more people present when disaster strikes. Is that the primary driver, or are there other factors at play?����

TKC: Logically, if there are more people, and the percentage of fatalities is equal, then there should be more people dying from a specific event. But we found it’s not just about population numbers. There are two additional factors: When migrant workers are from areas with lower incomes, or when they are from tribal areas, those factors significantly contribute to higher fatalities in the places they migrate to.��

Our hypothesis is that it’s about housing safety. Migrant workers tend to move to cities, and when cities are more expensive, affluent workers might be able to secure housing that offers better protection against disasters. However, workers from tribal or low-income areas tend to settle in urban fringe zones where affordable housing options might not meet safety standards, making them more vulnerable to earthquakes.

Why did you choose to study this earthquake from 1999 in particular?����

TKC: The research team that invited me to work on this project was interested in the Chi-Chi earthquake, partly because it was one of the most disastrous in Taiwan’s history. And even 20 years later, there’s still a conference focused on the Chi-Chi earthquake that brings domestic and international researchers to talk about it.

How widely applicable are your findings? Could they help us better understand hazards in other earthquake-prone areas of the world, like, say, the Pacific Northwest?����

TKC: It’s important to consider this risk assessment as a tool for preparedness for future hazards. When the next earthquake occurs, migrant communities will likely face elevated impacts if housing safety policies do not improve.

I believe the migration component is universally important, even outside Taiwan. There has always been a paradox, a structural dilemma of disaster governance: Because migrants are often invisible, they suffer from little support. But making them visible can sometimes lead to exclusion and discrimination. This model represents migrants in a geographic sense rather than identifying every person individually through government surveillance, which could address this challenge. By protecting anonymity while still accounting for migrant populations, the model might help ensure their needs are considered in housing safety and resource allocation.

Co-authors on this study include Diana Ceballos of the UW Department of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences; Kuan-Hui Elaine Lin of National Taiwan Normal University, Thung-Hong Lin of Academia Sinica in Taiwan; and Gee-Yu Liu and Chin-Hsun Yeh of the National Center for Research on Earthquake Engineering in Taiwan.

For more information, contact Chen at kthchen@uw.edu.

Source

The students combed the perimeter of the Nanoengineering & Sciences Building on a recent fall morning, as a pair of volunteers does every morning, looking for signs that a bird has met its end.

On this day, the students found only feathers – not remains – a sign that crows may have already scavenged the carcass.

With its facade of windows, NanoES is one of the buildings along a route – the route itself one of three campus loops – that volunteers trek as part of , a project led by College of Built Environments Ph.D. researcher . The goals: Count the number of bird-building collisions on campus, provide recommendations about bird-safe design to UW architects, and educate the community about the harm that transparent and reflective glass presents to wildlife.

“We can find a balance in design that benefits humans and birds,” said Bowes, who discovered a love for birds while growing up in Pennsylvania. “Birds cannot detect glass. This is a design problem, not a bird problem. We can use less invasive designs and protect wildlife in ways that benefit all of us.”

For the past year, Bowes has been training and leading volunteers to walk through campus, using a student-created app to log where they’ve been and what they’ve found, along with photos. The volunteers wear gloves and carry with them a kit for collecting dead birds to bring them to the Burke Museum. Teams have found 20 different species of birds, Bowes said, most commonly the varied thrush. And perhaps not surprisingly, numbers of dead birds increase during the local winter migration season.

Volunteers find only about 10% of the more than 10,000 birds that collide with campus buildings each year, estimates based on Bird Friendly Campus’ collision data from last year and formulas that predict yearly loss that have been developed by other researchers in the field. .

Just in the past month, of the McCormick Place Lakeside Center in Chicago in just one evening. The remains were found the next morning by a volunteer monitor. recently featured a Manhattan condominium building, dubbed by some in the city as a bird “death trap,” and the efforts to retrofit the glass there so that it is more visible to birds.

Bird-safe glass is a key solution, Bowes explains, often in the form of tiny opaque dots, or a grid pattern made of weather-resistant vinyl that can be affixed to windows, allowing natural light to still enter the space. Apparent up close but not obstructive to the view of those inside a building, these tools can turn what is see-through or reflective into a barrier visible to birds, reducing collisions by as much as 80 to 90%. A few structures on campus, such as the Gallagher Law Library at William H. Gates Hall and the Life Sciences Building, use glass that incorporates bird-safe patterns.

Also helpful: leaving space between buildings and vegetation and limiting the use of artificial lighting at night.

“It’s a big eye-opener for most people, particularly architects,” Bowes said. “I believe that we can just treat hot spots on buildings. We don’t have to treat every square foot of glass surface area. It’s our responsibility, I believe, to protect living things and to prevent collisions.”

Bowes and her team will submit data from their study to campus architects for inclusion in the UW’s Green Building Standards. An informational presentation is planned for the campus community this winter.

For more information, contact Bowes at jbowes2@uw.edu.

Source

Emily M. Bender, Yejin Choi named to TIME100 AI list

TIME included two UW professors on its first TIME100 AI list, which highlights 100 individuals who are advancing major conversations about how artificial intelligence is reshaping the world.

The list features��leaders, policymakers, artists and entrepreneurs across a variety of fields and countries. , professor of linguistics, and , professor��in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, were honored as top thinkers.

Bender has consistently raised ethical concerns regarding large language models and has resisted the notion that AI systems are truly intelligent. “a machine-learning myth buster,” who is working to dispel “overblown promises about what AI can do.”

Among other topics, Bender studies the societal impacts of language technology, the implications for research and design and how to integrate it into the natural language processing curriculum. She was named an AAAS fellow in 2022.

Choi, a MacArthur Fellow, focuses on discerning the various distinctions between human intelligence and AI. She researches whether AI can develop common sense and a sense of humor. Choi is now working to develop AI systems that can comprehend social and moral norms.

“A calculator can calculate better and faster than I do,” Choi , “but it doesn’t mean that a calculator is superior to any of us in other dimensions of intelligence.”

The full TIME100 AI list is available on .

President Ana Mari Cauce receives Decrees Award for ‘contribution to society’

������˾�� President Ana Mari Cauce received a , which recognizes people and institutions that add value to and promote the economic and social improvement of León, Spain.

The awards were given for the first time in 2022. They are granted annually by the Association of Friends of the Decrees, which organizes the public reading of the Decrees of León of 1188 before the Royal Abbey of San Isidoro de León.��These documents contain the oldest known written information about the European parliamentary system.

President Cauce was honored for overseeing the launch of the in 2010. About 1,200 students have participated in 70 programs at the center, and the faculty includes representatives from 20 departments on all three UW campuses.

College of Built Environments’ Jeff Hou elected to American Society of Landscape Architects’ Council of Fellows

, UW professor of landscape architecture, has been named a Fellow of the American Society of Landscape Architects.

Election to the ASLA Council of Fellows is based on members’ .

“Landscape architects help build a better world for all of us, and ASLA Fellows represent the most respected and accomplished professionals in the entire field,” said ASLA President Emily O’Mahoney.

Hou is one of 48 newly elected Fellows, recognized specifically for his knowledge in “democratic design in the global built environment,” elevating “grassroots activism for environmental equity and justice into the public, professional, and academic spheres.”��A member of the UW Department of Landscape Architecture since 2001, Hou has worked in communities around the world, on projects from wildlife habitat conservation to urban open space design. In addition to his work with community members, Hou has edited, co-edited and co-authored 12 books, and he has written dozens of book chapters and journal articles. He also won the 2023 Outstanding Educator Award from the Council of Educators in Landscape Architecture.

An investiture ceremony for the ASLA Fellows is planned for the 2023 Conference on Landscape Architecture in October.

Source

Picture a bench. Maybe you imagine the wooden seat of a picnic table, the metal of a bus shelter, the plastic of a school cafeteria.

Different materials, different locations, same basic purpose: to welcome more than one person.

This spring quarter, in Architecture 231: Making and Meaning, that was the essential mission of the culminating project: Build a bench, create a social opportunity.

“Architecture is taking an idea and turning it into a reality that someone can experience,” said co-instructor .

And so, this month, there were some two dozen benches, scattered around both Gould Hall and Architecture Hall in a pop-up demonstration of student work. There were benches with backs, with ramps, with steps and shelves and swings. Benches in the shape of an L, or a C, or an ocean wave. Nicholls encouraged students to find places that were underused, or even overused, and “help them out with a bench.”

The class started with small, individual projects, made of reclaimed and found materials, such as cardboard and sticks, to teach scale and structure. Then came the bench project, a team endeavor that involved planning and sketching, trial and error, and use of the College of Built Environments’ Fabrication Lab to cut and assemble the lumber.

Sophomore Jasmine Madrigal was part of a group that constructed a bench with squared-off, V-shaped legs and a corner shelf.

“I’ve learned about the materials, that not everything will stay the same as you first conceptualize it, and we sometimes had to compromise our ideas in order to develop it further,” Madrigal said.

That’s the point of the class, co-instructor and Architecture alum said – to learn process, collaboration and attention to detail.

“Students come into the class having an idea and think it’s built automatically,” Leanos said with a smile.

While a few benches may find a permanent home at Gould or Architecture Hall, most will be taken apart, so the materials can be used again, in a future class.

Source

New York City Mayor Eric Adams and the Trust for Governors Island on April 24 that a consortium led by Stony Brook University will found and develop a world-leading climate solutions center on Governors Island in the city’s harbor. The will be a first-of-its kind international center for developing and deploying dynamic solutions to our global climate crisis.��

The ������˾�� is among the core partners of the consortium, along with Georgia Institute of Technology, Pace University, the Pratt Institute, the Good Old Lower East Side community group, Boston Consulting Group and IBM. Other academic partners include Duke University, Rochester Institute of Technology and the University of Oxford.��

“We are very proud to bring our University’s deep and diverse strengths in climate and clean energy research and innovation to the New York Climate Exchange,” said UW President Ana Mari Cauce. “As the only core partner on the West Coast, we are excited to leverage our regional and global relationships to accelerate efforts to address and adapt to the impacts of climate change. This work is vital and urgent for the health and survival of our people and our world.”��

In addition to convening the world’s leaders and climate experts, the exchange will host green job training and skills-building programs and partner with local institutions on addressing the social and practical challenges created by climate change.��

“The UW serves as a global hub for innovative research into climate change action and adaptation, and the resources and relationships provided by the Climate Exchange will help us grow our impact even further,” said Maya Tolstoy, Maggie Walker Dean of the UW College of the Environment. “This is a truly exciting partnership, and it presents a fantastic opportunity for us to collaborate with a diverse group of peers across academia, business and community organizations.”��

Tolstoy will serve as the UW’s representative on the New York Climate Exchange board. The initiative will bring together universities, governments and businesses to address climate change action and adaptation.��

The New York Climate Exchange with 400,000 square feet of green-designed building space, including research labs, classroom space, exhibits, greenhouses, mitigation technologies and housing facilities. The facility will feature:��

• An all-electric-powered campus with onsite solar electricity generation and battery storage with capability to serve the local grid��
• All non-potable water demand met with rainwater or treated wastewater collection��
• 95% of its waste diverted from landfills��
• Climate-resilient design of new buildings, all raised to the design flood elevation of 18 feet above sea level��

“We are honored, excited, and proud to partner with the City of New York to build this historic center that will cement New York City as the world leader on climate change, the most pressing issue of our time,” said Stony Brook University President Maurie McInnis.��

The Exchange’s activities will include:��

• A Research and Technology Accelerator that will source and nurture ideas, projects and new ventures dedicated to solving the climate crisis��
• Workforce development opportunities for communities disproportionately affected by climate change����

• Partnerships and collaborative grant opportunities with community-based organizations already working to mitigate the impacts of climate change��
• Academic and community programs that prepare students at every level for careers focused on climate change solutions and environmental justice, encompassing hands-on learning, a semester “abroad” on Governors Island, fellowship and internship programs and continuing education��

“The UW Clean Energy Institute is proud to bring our expertise in advancing clean energy research, training and stakeholder engagement to the New York Climate Exchange,” said Daniel Schwartz, director of the UW Clean Energy Institute and Boeing-Sutter Professor of Chemical Engineering. “Working as part of this global team, we see great opportunities to accelerate the energy transition through equitable deployment strategies.”��

UW faculty members who worked with UW leadership in the initial planning efforts include Shuyi Chen, UW professor of atmospheric sciences; Dargan Frierson, UW associate professor of atmospheric sciences; Jessica Kaminsky, UW associate professor of civil and environmental engineering; Jonathan Bakker, UW professor of environmental and forest sciences; and Himanshu Grover, UW assistant professor of urban design and planning.

“Although built environments are intensely place-based, the systems that they influence are not bound by geography,” said Renée Cheng, dean of the UW College of Built Environments. “Linking our college’s research and teaching on carbon, water and socio-environmental factors with the New York Climate Exchange will facilitate positive impact at a national and global scale.”��

Source

March 7, 7:30 PM | Meany Hall

Cristina Valdés leads the UW Modern Music Ensemble in performances of works from the mid-20th century and beyond. Program includes pieces by Patricia Alessandrini, Kaija Saariaho, Christian Wolff, Huck Hodge, Sarah Hennies, and Huang Ruo.

$10 tickets |

March 7, 7:30 PM | Brechemin Auditorium

Seattle-based percussionist Jeff Busch presents a concert of Brazilian music, featuring students from his Winter 2023 percussion ensemble, and spanning genres from samba to maracatú to forró. With guest appearances by pianist Jovino Santos Neto, singer Adriana Giordano, and other luminaries of the local Brazilian music scene, as well as UW faculty Marc Seales, Steve Rodby, and Shannon Dudley.

Free|

March 8, 5 – 7 PM |Communications Building

Southeast Asian writers experience diaspora, and its losses, both within the region and without, both psychologically and socially. How do they contend with the multiple manifestations of diaspora in their writing? Jee Leong Koh (Snow at 5 PM), Jim Pascual Agustin (Waking Up to the Pattern Left by a Snail Overnight), Lawrence Lacambra Ypil (The Experiment of the Tropics), and Thirii Myo Kyaw Myint (Names of Light) read from their work and converse with Reuven Pinnata (������˾��, English) on mapping the unmappable.

Free|

March 9, 6 – 7:30 PM | Architecture Hall

Understand how planners, civic leaders and activists are organizing around the idea of reparations for the damage caused by driving urban freeways through urban communities. Lauren Hood, Chair of the Detroit Planning Commission and a nationally known urban planner, Rosa Lopez, Reconnect South Park Organizer, and Madeleine Spencer, a leader of Placemaking US, will describe the project to restore Seattle’s South Park community, which was divided by State Highway 99.

Highway 99 in Seattle cuts through the heart of South Park. When Highway 99 was constructed, South Park was home to an immigrant population largely of Mexican heritage. It is now the home of numerous immigrant and refugee communities. Highway 99 through South Park is underutilized, and its path is another example of environmental racism. The Washington Legislature has appropriated $600,000 to explore possible actions to repair this rift. The City of Seattle is supporting this initiative and investing in community consultation around alternatives.

Creating great urban neighborhoods and taking action for environmental justice go hand in hand. This panel will make that crucial connection and show how we can envision and attain just and sustainable future cities.

Free |

March 9, 7:30 PM | ��Meany Hall

The UW Wind Ensemble director, Timothy Salzman, performs music by Chang Su Koh and Jennifer Higdon. The Symphonic Band director, Shaun Day, performs music by Darius Milhaud, Philip Sparke and Valerie Coleman. With Scott Farkas, percussion soloist on Jennifer Higdon’s Concerto for Solo Percussion and Band.

$10 tickets |

March 9, 5:30 – 7:30 PM | Solo Bar & Eatery

Seattle has become an exciting center of literary translation over the past few years. Visitors to the 2023 Association of Writers & Writing Programs (AWP) conference and local fans of translation are invited to help celebrate Seattle’s translation community at a party hosted by the Northwest Literary Translators, the UW Translation Studies Hub at the Simpson Center for the Humanities, and Seattle City of Literature. This event features select readings by local translators, delicious food, and a cash bar.

Free |

March 10, 7:30 PM | Meany Hall

The UW Symphony director, David Alexander Rahbee, performs music by Sibelius, Glière and Tchaikovsky in this end-of-quarter concert. With faculty artist John Turman, horn soloist on Glière: Horn Concerto, Op. 91 in B flat Major; and Seattle Symphony assistant conductor Sunny Xia, guest conductor for Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 4, Op. 36, in F minor.

$10 tickets |

Have an event that you would like to see featured in the ArtSci Roundup? Connect with Lauren Zondag (zondagld@uw.edu).

Source