In this paper, I outline the drawbacks with the two main behavioral approaches to animal behavior problems and argue that each alone is insufficient to underpin a field of clinical animal behavior. Applied ethology offers an interest in an animal’s spontaneous behavior in natural contexts, understood within an ecological and evolutionary context, but lacks an awareness of mechanisms that can be manipulated to modify the behavior of individual animals. Behaviorism in the form of Applied Behavior Analysis offers a toolkit of techniques for modifying the behavior of individual animals, but has seldom been applied to non-human species, and often overlooks phylogenetic aspects of behavior. Notwithstanding the historical animosities between the two fields of animal behavior they are philosophically highly compatible – both being empiricist schools stemming ultimately from Darwin’s insights. Though each individually is incomplete, I argue that an integrated approach that synthesizes the strengths of each holds great promise in helping the many animals who need our assistance to survive and thrive in human-dominated environments.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more people die in the U.S. from heat than from all other natural disasters combined. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 1,300 deaths per year in the United States are due to extreme heat. Arizona, California and Texas are the three states with the highest burden, accounting for 43% of all heat-related deaths according to the CDC.

Although only 5% of housing in Maricopa County, Arizona, is mobile homes, approximately 30% of indoor heat-related deaths occur in these homes. Thus, the residents of mobile homes in Maricopa County are disproportionately affected by heat. Mobile home residents are extremely exposed to heat due to the high density of mobile home parks, poor construction of dwellings, lack of vegetation, socio-demographic features and not being eligible to get utility and financial assistance.

We researched numerous solutions across different domains that could help build the heat resilience of mobile home residents. As a result we found 50 different solutions for diverse stakeholders, budgets and available resources. The goal of this toolbox is to present these solutions and to explain how to apply them in order to get the most optimal result and build About this Solutions Guide People who live in mobile homes are 6 to 8 times more likely to die of heat-associated deaths. heat resilience for mobile home residents. These solutions were designed as a coordinated set of actions for everyone — individual households, mobile home residents, mobile home park owners, cities and counties, private businesses and nonprofits serving mobile home parks, and other stakeholders — to be able to contribute to heat mitigation for mobile home residents.

When we invest in a collective, coordinated suite of solutions that are designed specifically to address the heat vulnerability of mobile homes residents, we can realize a resilience dividend in maintaining affordable, feasible, liveable housing for the 20 million Americans who choose mobile homes and manufactured housing as their place to live and thrive.

Arizona State University (ASU) is known for both enormous size and scale, as well as excellence in research and innovation. These attributes are embodied in the ideal of the “New American University.” ASU Library, as a partner in the New American University, has reorganized itself, completed a large-scale renovation of its main library building, and created interdisciplinary divisions of librarians and other professionals, backed up by subject “knowledge teams” that address specific research needs of faculty and students. As a result, the library has become involved in nontraditional projects across the university. This article is useful for libraries seeking to remain relevant and align themselves with institutional priorities.

In the face of profound shock and change, individuals, organizations, and communities are seeking new ways to prepare for an uncertain future, their only certainty being that the present trajectory of change will intensify. Pandemics, wildfires, heat waves, hurricanes, flooding, social unrest, economic strife, and a rapidly changing climate system comprise a resounding wake up call: we must reinvent our institutions to think about and act with a resilient mindset. The purpose of the playbook is to support these efforts and build stronger, adaptive, and resilient communities.

Innovation studies provide a framework to reflect on potential solutions to reduce vulnerabilities to shock and stress. Solutions identified in the literature, empirical and theoretical, suggest a critical role is played by different types of innovation in the transition to more resilient and innovative communities. This paper examines the role of innovation for building community resilience.

As Durham’s economy collapsed in the mid-1990s, Duke established a plan to intervene. Its actions aligned with anchor institution models at many universities; its approach, however, was unique: In a city where Duke was a fixture, university leadership understood a top-down approach was not viable. Instead, administrators launched a community-led model intended to change the “story [from] look at what Duke did,” to “can you imagine what’s happened in Durham?”. I use a longitudinal case study to examine Duke’s anchor institution model in 12 Durham neighborhoods. The research considers Duke’s approach from the mid-1990s to present, drawing from: interviews with Duke administrators, community organizations, and neighborhood representatives; newspaper articles and reports; and a descriptive analysis of neighborhood change. This case explores an anchor model that engages non-profit partners and community development strategies. Findings show the potential for a multi-partner anchor model that cultivates neighborhood improvement and minimizes (to an extent) gentrification pressures that can arise from anchor investment. Duke’s anchor model offers a unique perspective on university-community engagement, partnerships and neighborhood investment.

Duke’s case offers insights for how major institutions—from university anchors to local government—can recast their roles in communities; it also offers a roadmap for how institutions can engage (and benefit) neighborhoods in meaningful ways. Informed by a collaborative anchor model, Duke empowered residents to identify their own neighborhood priorities and partnered with local community organizations to meet those aims. This anchor model reveals a powerful role for intermediaries, including planners and community organizers, to connect institutional resources with neighborhood priorities. Supported by a participatory planning process, there are opportunities to realign anchor institution strategies and tools with neighborhood priorities to move towards mutually beneficial outcomes.