Charleston, South Carolina: From Holy City to Static City-Historic Preservation, and the Cruise Ship Controversy

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 121-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Terry ◽  
Christa A. Smith
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Marsh

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the introduction of cruise ship tourism into historic urban centers, and the mitigation policies that can be implemented to encourage sustainable development of this relationship.Design/methodology/approachThe paper focuses on the unique aspects of cruise tourism that differentiate it from other forms of mass tourism. Using the specific example of Charleston, South Carolina, it explores the difficulties that cruise tourism present to local residents and policymakers. It looks at different mitigation policies that have previously been implemented in cruise destinations around the world, and analyzes which have been the most effective.FindingsCruise ship tourism is the fastest growing segment of the tourism industry, and it is an issue that many coastal heritage destinations will soon face. Uncontrolled tourism from cruise ships is unsustainable, and strong government intervention is needed to maintain heritage cities.Originality/valueThis paper provides compelling evidence that cruise ship tourism presents an immediate threat to sustainable tourism in urban heritage centers, and provides policy recommendations for lawmakers.


Author(s):  
J. T. Ellzey ◽  
D. Borunda ◽  
B. P. Stewart

Genetically alcohol deficient deer mice (ADHN/ADHN) (obtained from the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center, Univ. of South Carolina) lack hepatic cytosolic alcohol dehydrogenase. In order to determine if these deer mice would provide a model system for an ultrastructural study of the effects of ethanol on hepatocyte organelles, 75 micrographs of ADH+ adult male deer mice (n=5) were compared with 75 micrographs of ADH− adult male deer mice (n=5). A morphometric analysis of mitochondrial and peroxisomal parameters was undertaken.The livers were perfused with 0.1M HEPES buffer followed by 0.25% glutaraldehyde and 2% sucrose in 0.1M HEPES buffer (4C), removed, weighed and fixed by immersion in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M HEPES buffer, pH 7.4, followed by a 3,3’ diaminobenzidine (DAB) incubation, postfixation with 2% OsO4, en bloc staining with 1% uranyl acetate in 0.025M maleate-NaOH buffer, dehydrated, embedded in Poly/Bed 812-BDMA epon resin, sectioned and poststained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate. Photographs were taken on a Zeiss EM-10 transmission electron microscope, scanned with a Howtek personal color scanner, analyzed with OPTIMAS 4.02 software on a Gateway2000 4DX2-66V personal computer and stored in Excel 4.0.


2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document