In the Fall 1998 Population and Environment course many common themes appeared throughout the student papers. The three themes that relate specifically to my paper are: urbanization, environmental impacts on communities and regional planning.

Urbanization patterns were one of the common threads in some of the papers, particularly Seema Iyer and Ken Lo’s works. Both students examined the patterns of urbanization in two very different places. Seema Iyer investigated the urban fabric of Moscow. In this country communist control overpowered land development. Private ownership of land and market driven development were non-existent. While the government controlled where people lived, they also provided low rents for citizens. As buildings became rundown, the government merely moved people into new developments instead of fixing the old. Thus, Moscow has been left with poor-quality, run-down residential units.

Ken Lo’s paper examined the urbanization patterns in Brazil. This work provided an interesting juxtaposition to the Iyer paper. Unlike Russia, Brazil does not exist under communist rule and therefore does not purport equalization of the citizens. This is clearly seen in areas such as Sao Paulo where wealthy, gated communities coexist with slum areas. This country, driven by capitalism and a market economy, has seen massive development for its million plus citizens. Mega cities like Sao Paulo have sprung up in the past decade and can not support the needs of the people.

These two papers represent two extremes and fit rather nicely with my work. East Germany became a communist country under Russian rule after WWII. Urbanization patterns like those in Moscow are also apparent in East German cities. The main difference is that East Germany had a declining population throughout the Cold War period. This coupled with the fact that the country had a relatively small population meant that East German cities were not as large and densely populated as Moscow. On the other hand, post WWII West German development was driven by demand and a market economy. One differences I see between West Germany and Brazil is that land development in the FRG has been very controlled. Solid planning mechanisms have been used to help protect the environment and control growth. Yet, my research shows that a declining to stable population in Germany is, nonetheless, using more land than necessary. Although I do not expect the country to look like Sao Paulo any time soon, I suggest Germany examine closely their land use planning policies.

The second theme which I found interesting was that of environmental justice. John Callewaert wrote about this topic as it is occurring in Michigan. His findings concluded that minorities, no matter what their income level, were more likely to live near hazardous waste sites than any non-minority community. I am interested in how this topic relates to my work, particularly the idea that communist governments promoted environmental injustice through their polices. While suppressing information and controlling growth patterns, the government was able to place intensely hazardous sites near communities. This coupled with a lack of environmental regulations produced extremely polluted areas in East Germany. Statistics show that East Germans suffered from the poorest water quality in the eastern block. The idea of how governments or systems get away with placing or allowing people to live near contaminated sites relates very well with my paper.

Regional planning also became a theme in the presentations. Thammasack Manokham spoke specifically about regional controls in Southeast Asia that could help curb deforestation. Her paper and mine come to the same conclusions, namely if we are going to help the environment we need to do it on a regional basis. While work must be done on a small scale in communities and countries, it is equally important to examine the depth of our actions on a regional inter-country and global scale.