Close
today i learned (til)

Atlanta’s growth is Hurting the Environment

December 14, 2019

The city of Atlanta is constantly growing. With new apartment complexes, new buildings and more companies coming to the city, the metropolitan of Atlanta is currently the “fourth fastest growing area in the country” (Carnes, 2019). These changes that are occurring within the city are having dramatic changes to the demographics and economy of the city, but these changes are causing detrimental environmental effects as well. 

             Atlanta has become one of the fastest growing cities in the Southeast of the United States. The demographic of Atlanta has been evolving over this time of constant growth. With the constant growth, the average age of the population of Atlanta has decreased and is lower than the average age of the population of the state of Georgia. In 2019, the median age of Georgia is 36.2, while in Atlanta, the median age is 33.5 (“Atlanta Georgia Population 2019”). The city has a lower median age compared to the entire state due to reasons that younger individuals are moving to the city. According to the NFIB, young people are moving to the city “because of the low cost of living, the growth of the job market, and diversified economy” (“Atlanta is top 20…”). These age differences can have adverse effects on the population that could be good or bad. Within Atlanta, the lower median age can “impact the economy significantly” with negative repercussions.  (Majaski, 2019).

             The economy of Atlanta is growing as well with the influx of people. The construction industry has a huge influence in the city. In order to accommodate these needs, various construction projects are constantly being started. As of June 2019, the job growth of construction is greater than any other industry in Atlanta (US Dept. of Labor, 2019). These construction projects include housing as well as corporate buildings as well. According to RealPage, the “demand for apartments outstripped new supply in Atlanta by nearly two-to-one with more than 4,200 units being rented while 2,700 new units delivered into the market” (Shchenke, 2019). This signifies that the general young population of Atlanta, constantly needs housing and in order to accommodate this, many constructions occur to provide housing for such. Although there is a huge number of construction projects occurring and benefits the city and people, these construction projects are having negative environmental effects. 

Despite the construction and growth of the city being a good thing for the city, it can negative effects on the city as well. The city of Atlanta is a major city that is being affected by urban sprawl. According to Britannica, urban sprawl is the “rapid expansion of the geographic extent of cities and towns” (Rafferty, 2019). With this rapid expansion of Atlanta, it is having adverse effects on the environment and has led to drastic deforestation within the city. In order to clear space for new construction, “sprawl-fueled deforestation occurs at the rate of 50 acres per day” (Bullard). This leads to less tree cover for the area which can lead to effects such as more pollution, flooding and soil erosion (“Urban Sprawl”). Along with the effects of general pollution, flooding and soil erosion, a huge impact of urban sprawl within Atlanta is that the overall quality of air in the city will drop. 

             Air pollution is one of the biggest problems that is caused by urban sprawl. With urban sprawl, many individuals have an “increased dependence on automobiles and other vehicles, and high energy and water use” (“Urban Sprawl: Your Health…”). In this case, the number of cars on the highways or streets essentially increases because people are spread out and do not have sufficient public transport to get to their destination. According to the Atlanta Regional Commision, “Atlantans drive a total of more than 100 million miles per day” (“Facing the facts…”) This means that people spend a long time in their cars due to traffic and general commutes. Along with the general increase in the number of vehicles on the road, the general idea of deforestation caused by urban sprawl would be a huge effect on air pollution. Trees are a huge factor in helping in releasing water vapor and taking in carbon dioxide and other pollutants(“Urban Spawl”). WIth deforestation, there are less factors in helping in decreasing the pollutants and essentially ruin the general air quality. Over the past 15 years, Atlanta has averaged 40 ‘code orange’ days over the past Summers. These ‘code orange’ days can cause specific lung and heart disease and people are advised to stay inside. Along with the ‘code orange’ days, metro Atlanta area fails to meet national health standards for both soot and smog, and likely won’t meet these standards for at least 10 years (“Facing the facts…”). This level of air quality for Atlanta is very bad for the inhabitants and with such expansion, the city of Atlanta needs to look at the effects and find ways to help fix such environmental issues. 

With the growth of the city, the city of Atlanta needs to implement solutions that allow the city to accommodate the growth, but also be able to solve specific environmental problems. Being able to connect the overall city through different means of transportation, will be a huge factor in helping the air quality of city and prevent further expansion of the city. 

(2019, August 5). Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/regions/southeast/news-release/2019/pdf/areaemployment_atlanta_20190805.pdf

Atlanta, Georgia Population 2019. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/atlanta-population/.

Atlanta Is Top 20 City for Young Professionals. (2016, April 20). Retrieved from https://www.nfib.com/content/news/economy/atlanta-is-top-20-city-for-young-professionals-73695/.

Bullard, R. (n.d.). Atlanta Megasprawl. Retrieved from http://forum.ra.utk.edu/1999fall/atlanta.htm.

Carnes, J. (2019, April 24). Why is the city of Atlanta’s population growing? Retrieved from https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/outreach/why-guy/why-is-the-city-of-atlantas-population-growing/85-389f3547-202b-4ad4-a22f-ccfb1e7f1702.

Facing the Facts about Atlanta’s Air Quality. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/fact-sheets/facing-the-facts-about-atlantas-air-quality.

Majaski, C. (2019, October 26). What Is the Working-Age Population? Retrieved from https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/working-age-population.asp.

Schenke, J. (2019, July 16). Atlanta’s Apartment Rent Growth Ranks 3rd In The U.S. Retrieved from https://www.bisnow.com/atlanta/news/multifamily/demographic-tailwinds-help-push-atlanta-apartment-rents-up-to-third-strongest-in-nation-99894.

Rafferty, J. P. (2019, February 7). Urban sprawl. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/urban-sprawl.

Urban Sprawl. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/arts-culture/urban-sprawl.

Urban Sprawl: Your Environment, Your Health | National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/sources-of-exposure/urban-sprawl.

Tags:
0Likes
Hamza Hamid
About Author

Hamza is a third year Computer Science major with threads in media and people. Hamza is involved with the Muslims Student Association at Georgia Tech. His passions include photography and videography.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Forged in Fire: The Discovery of Bronze
today i learned (til)
Cognitive Offloading
today i learned (til)
The Rise to Prominence of SIR Models in Infectious Diseases: The Case of Influenza and Covid-19
today i learned (til)
AI and VR: A New Reality

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.