Reading responses should be no more than two pages. the reading response should be in a short essay format (including an introduction and a conclusion paragraph). It has to be single-spaced and the title page and/or references do not count against the page limit. Here is what needs to be answered.
a) Identify and discuss the main thesis of the author(s): what they are arguing and what they found. (3 points)
b) Why did the author(s) write this material? (1 points)
c) What competing perspectives might exist to this reading response? Have others found similar results and/or arrived at similar conclusions? In particular, how does this reading compare to other assigned readings? (4 points)
d) Did the reading lead you to have broader questions (e.g. about transportation policy)? (2 points)
Readings:
(Required) Northey, Rodney. “The Integration of Environmental and Planning Law: the New Era of Ontario Infrastructure.” Journal of Environmental Law and Practice, Vol. 21, pp. 305-349 (just read pp. 1-28).
(Required) Ma, Zhao, Dennis R. Becker, and Michael A. Kilgore. Barriers to and opportunities for effective cumulative impact assessment within state-level environmental review frameworks in the United States.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol 55, No. 7, pp. 961-978.
(Required) Sciara, Gian-Claudia, Jacquelyn Bjorkman, Elizabeth Stryjewski, and James H. Thorne. 2017. “Mitigating environmental impacts in advance: Evidence of cost and time savings for transportation projects.” Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 50, pp. 316-326.
The post Reading responses should be no more than two pages. the reading response should appeared first on Scholars Hub Blog.
