Mathematical patterns developed by Alan Turing help researchers understand bird behavior

by University of Sheffield

Credit: Unsplash/CC0 Public Domain

Scientists from the University of Sheffield have used mathematical modelling to understand why flocks of long-tailed tits segregate themselves into different parts of the landscape.

The team tracked the birds around Sheffield's Rivelin Valley which eventually produced a pattern across the landscape, using maths helped the team to reveal the behaviors causing these patterns.

The findings, published in the Journal of Animal Ecology, show that flocks of long-tailed tits are less likely to avoid places where they have interacted with relatives and more likely to avoid larger flocks, whilst preferring the center of woodland.

It was previously unknown why flocks of long-tailed tits live in separate parts of the same area, despite there being plenty of food to sustain multiple flocks and the birds not showing territorial behavior.

The equations used to understand the birds are similar to those developed by Alan Turing to describe how animals get their spotted and striped patterns. Turing's famous mathematics indicates if patterns will appear as an animal grows in the womb, here it's used to find out which behaviors lead to the patterns across the landscape.

Territorial animals often live in segregated areas that they aggressively defend and stay close to their den. Before this study, these mathematical ideas had been used to understand the patterns made by territorial animals such as coyotes, meerkats and even human gangs. However, this study was the first to use the ideas on non-territorial animals with no den pinning them in place.

Natasha Ellison, Ph.D. student at the University of Sheffield who led the study, said: "Mathematical models help us understand nature in an extraordinary amount of ways and our study is a fantastic example of this."

"Long-tailed tits are too small to be fitted with GPS trackers like larger animals, so researchers follow these tiny birds on foot, listening for bird calls and identifying birds with binoculars. The field work is extremely time consuming and without the help of these mathematical models these behaviors wouldn't have been discovered."


Explore further  Long-tailed tits avoid incest by recognising the calls of relatives

AUSTRALIA
Why most Aboriginal & INDIGENOUS people have little say over clean energy projects planned for their land

by Lily O'neill, Brad Riley, Ganur Maynard, Janet Hunt, The Conversation

Wind turbines will be built across 6,500 square kilometres in the Pilbara. Credit: Shutterstock

Huge clean energy projects, such as the Asian Renewable Energy Hub in the Pilbara, Western Australia, are set to produce gigawatts of electricity over vast expanses of land in the near future.


The Asian Renewable Energy Hub is planning to erect wind turbines and solar arrays across 6,500 square kilometers of land. But, like with other renewable energy mega projects, this land is subject to Aboriginal rights and interests—known as the Indigenous Estate.

While renewable energy projects are essential for transitioning Australia to a zero-carbon economy, they come with a caveat: most traditional owners in Australia have little legal say over them.

Projects on the Indigenous Estate

How much say Aboriginal people have over mining and renewable energy projects depends on the legal regime their land is under.

In the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Cth) (ALRA) allows traditional owners to say no to developments proposed for their land. While the commonwealth can override this veto, they never have as far as we know.

In comparison, the dominant Aboriginal land tenure in Western Australia (and nationwide) is native title.

Native title—as recognized in the 1992 Mabo decision and later codified in the Native Title Act 1993—recognizes that Aboriginal peoples' rights to land and waters still exist under certain circumstances despite British colonization.

But unlike the ALRA, the Native Title Act does not allow traditional owners to veto developments proposed for their land.

Both the Native Title Act and the the ALRA are federal laws, but the ALRA only applies in the NT. The Native Title Act applies nationwide, including in some parts of the NT.

Shortcomings in the Native Title Act

Native title holders can enter into a voluntary agreement with a company, known as an Indigenous Land Use Agreement, when a development is proposed for their land. This allows both parties to negotiate how the land and waters would be used, among other things.


If this is not negotiated, then native title holders have only certain, limited safeguards.

The strongest of these safeguards is known as the "right to negotiate." This says resource companies must negotiate in good faith for at least six months with native title holders, and aim to reach an agreement.

But it is not a veto right. The company can fail to get the agreement of native title holders and still be granted access to the land by government.

For example, Fortescue Metals Group controversially built their Solomon iron ore mine in the Pilbara, despite not getting the agreement of the Yindjibarndi people who hold native title to the area.

In fact, the National Native Title Tribunal—which rules on disputes between native title holders and companies—has sided with native title holders only three times, and with companies 126 times (of which 55 had conditions attached).

There are also lesser safeguards in the act, which stipulate that native title holders should be consulted, or notified, about proposed developments, and may have certain objection rights.

Negotiating fair agreements

So how does the Native Title Act treat large-scale renewable energy developments?

The answer is complicated because a renewable energy development likely contains different aspects (for example: wind turbines, roads and HVDC cables), and the act may treat each differently.

Broadly speaking, these huge developments don't fall under the right to negotiate, but under lesser safeguards.

Does this matter? Yes, it does. We know from experience in the mining industry that while some companies negotiate fair agreements with Aboriginal landowners, some do not.

For example, two very similar LNG projects—one in Western Australia and the other in Queensland—resulted in land access and benefit sharing agreements that were poles apart. The WA project's agreements with traditional owners were worth A$1.5 billion, while the Queensland project's agreements were worth just A$10 million.

Likewise, Rio Tinto's agreement for the area including Juukan Gorge reportedly "gagged" traditional owners from objecting to any activities by the company, which then destroyed the 46,000-year-old rock shelters.

A matter of leverage

We also know the likelihood of a new development having positive impacts for Aboriginal communities depends in part on the leverage they have to negotiate a strong agreement.

And the best leverage is political power. This comes from the ability to wage community campaigns against companies to force politicians to listen, or galvanize nation-wide protests that prevent work on a development continuing.

Legal rights are also very effective: the stronger your legal rights are, the better your negotiation position. And the strongest legal position to be in is if you can say no to the development.

For land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, this ability to say no means traditional owners are in a good position to negotiate strong environmental, cultural heritage and economic benefits.

For land under the Native Title Act, traditional owners are in a weaker legal position. It is not a level playing field.

A just transition

To remedy this imbalance, the federal government must give native title holders the same rights for renewable energy projects as traditional owners have under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act in the NT.

Or, at the very least, extend the right to negotiate to cover the types of large-scale renewable energy projects likely to be proposed for native title land in coming decades.

We must ensure the transition to a zero-carbon economy is a just transition for First Nations.


Explore further 1 in 10 children affected by bushfires is Indigenous. We've been ignoring them for too long

Reforming 'dad leave' is a baby step towards greater gender equality

THE STRUGGLE FOR DAYCARE AND OTHER CHILDCARE IS CLASS STRUGGLE

AND NEEDS TO BE SEEN AS THAT  

by Owain Emslie, Danielle Wood, Kate Griffiths, The Conversation

Credit: Shutterstock

Grattan Institute research published today shows the average 25-year-old woman who goes on to have a child can expect to earn A$2 million less by the time she is 70 than the average 25-year-old man who becomes a father. For childless women and men, the lifetime gap is about A$300,000.

This earnings gap leaves mothers particularly vulnerable if their relationship breaks down.

Unpaid work still falls largely on women

The income gap between mothers and fathers is typically due to women reducing their paid work to take on most of the caring and household work.

Even before COVID-19, Australian women were doing 2.2 fewer hours of paid work on average but 2.3 more hours of unpaid work than men every day.

The following chart shows how women's and men's time use diverges after the birth of their first child. Mothers typically reduce their paid work to take on the lion's share of caring and household work. The change for fathers is less dramatic. They continue their paid work and take on some extra caring.

But habits stick. Even a decade after the birth of the first child, the average mother does more caring and twice as much household work as the average father.

When one parent does most of the caring, they become more confident in looking after the child. They know how to change the nappies, what food the child likes, and when nap time is. This knowledge tends to compound, leaving one parent with most of the parenting load.

Dad leave can help

Policy change can help different habits to form. Evidence from around the world—including North America, Iceland, Germany, Britain and Australia – shows fathers who take a significant period of parental leave when their baby is born are more likely to be more involved in caring and other housework years later.

Credit: Grattan Institute, CC BY-ND

But the Australian government's paid parental leave scheme encourages a single "primary carer" model. The primary carer is eligible for 18 weeks of Parental Leave Pay at minimum wage (as well as any employer entitlements).


In 99.5% of cases that leave is taken by mothers. Secondary carer leave, called "Dad and Partner Pay," is two weeks at minimum wage.

Many other countries provide much longer periods of parental leave for fathers and partners, sometimes referred to as "daddy leave," as the following table shows.

Iceland, for example, provides three months' paid leave to each parent and a further three months for them to divide as they wish. Sweden's scheme entitles each parent to three months of parental leave, plus ten months parents can divide as they wish.

The schemes with the highest take-up typically pay 70% or more of the recipient's normal earnings, as opposed to the minimum wage Australia's scheme pays.

But a generous scheme is still no guarantee of success.

Social expectations about different roles for men and women at work and home can still be a barrier. This appears evident in Japan and South Korea. Despite generous schemes offering 52 weeks of leave for fathers, paid at more than two-thirds of normal earnings, just 6% of Japanese fathers and 13% of Korean fathers take parental leave.

A modest policy proposal

For a "daddy leave" scheme to have the best chance of success in Australia, the government would need to spend a lot of money and political capital.

Emulating a best-practice parental leave scheme like Iceland's would cost at least A$7 billion a year.

Credit: Grattan Institute, CC BY-ND

A scheme where government payments are linked to an individual's normal salary would encourage take-up. But the cost would dwarf the A$2.3 billion the federal government currently spends on parental leave, and the biggest benefits would go to wealthy families. Almost all Australian government payments are strictly means-tested, so payments proportional to salary would be a radical policy departure.

One option is a paid parental leave scheme that gives parents more flexibility to share leave. Six weeks reserved for each parent plus 12 weeks to share between them would allow mothers to still choose to take the 18 weeks now provided to primary carers. But families could also make other choices, and fathers would get more time early on to bond with their child and develop their parenting skills.

This would be a relatively cheap reform. If paid at minimum wage like the existing scheme, it would cost at most an extra A$600 million a year.

Baby steps to equality

Reforming Australia's paid parental leave is not the first and best option to increase women's workforce participation. Our research shows changes such as making child care more affordable are likely to deliver more bang for buck.

But there is still a case for modest reforms to parental leave. Though it might not be a game-changer for women's workforce participation, if constructed properly it will have some effect.

This is supported by evidence from Quebec's parental leave scheme. Introduced in 2006, it included five non-transferable weeks for fathers, paid at about 70% of their usual salary. A 2014 study found it led to mothers, on average, doing an extra hour of paid work a day, earning an extra US$5,000 a year.

More fathers taking parental leave is also worthwhile in its own right, promoting greater sharing of the unpaid workload within families and giving fathers more time with their kids.

Think of it as a baby step towards greater time and earnings equality between women and men in Australia.


Explore furtherIncreasing the 'daddy quota' in parental leave makes everyone happier
Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
8 shares

BABEL23
When English becomes the global language of education we risk losing other, often better, ways of learning

by Stephen Dobson, Muhammad Zuhdi, The Conversation
Schoolgirls in Sulawesi, Indonesia: is the language divide also a class divide? Credit: Shutterstock

The English language in education today is all-pervasive. "Hear more English, speak more English and become more successful" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Some say it's already a universal language, ahead of other mother tongues such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, Spanish or French. In reality, of course, this has been centuries in the making. Colonial conquest and global trade routes won the hearts and minds of foreign education systems.

These days, the power of English (or the versions of English spoken in different countries) has become accepted wisdom, used to justify the globalization of education at the cost of existing systems in non-English-speaking countries.

The British Council exemplifies this, with its global presence and approving references to the "English effect" on educational and employment prospects.

English as a passport to success

In non-English countries the packaging of English and its promise of success takes many forms. Instead of being integrated into (or added to) national teaching curricula, English language learning institutes, language courses and international education standards can dominate whole systems.

Among the most visible examples are Cambridge Assessment International Education and the International Baccalaureate (which is truly international and, to be fair, also offered in French and Spanish).

Schools in non-English-speaking countries attract globally ambitious parents and their children with a mix of national and international curricula, such as the courses offered by the Singapore Intercultural School across South-East Asia.

Language and the class divide

The love of all things English begins at a young age in non-English-speaking countries, promoted by pop culture, Hollywood movies, fast-food brands, sports events and TV shows.

Later, with English skills and international education qualifications from high school, the path is laid to prestigious international universities in the English-speaking world and employment opportunities at home and abroad.


But those opportunities aren't distributed equally across socioeconomic groups. Global education in English is largely reserved for middle-class students.

This is creating a divide between those inside the global English proficiency ecosystem and those relegated to parts of the education system where such opportunities don't exist.

For the latter there is only the national education curriculum and the lesson that social mobility is a largely unattainable goal.

The Indonesian experience

Indonesia presents a good case study. With a population of 268 million, access to English language curricula has mostly been limited to urban areas and middle-class parents who can afford to pay for private schools.

At the turn of this century, all Indonesian districts were mandated to have at least one public school offering a globally recognized curriculum in English to an international standard. But in 2013 this was deemed unconstitutional because equal educational opportunity should exist across all public schools.

Nevertheless, today there are 219 private schools offering at least some part of the curriculum through Cambridge International, and 38 that identify as Muslim private schools. Western international curricula remain influential in setting the standard for what constitutes quality education.

In Muslim schools that have adopted globally recognized curricula in English, there is a tendency to over-focus on academic performance. Consequently, the important Muslim value of تَرْبِيَة (Tarbiya) is downplayed.

Encompassing the flourishing of the whole child and the realization of their potential, Tarbiya is a central pillar in Muslim education. Viewed like this, schooling that concentrates solely on academic performance fails in terms of both culture and faith.

Learning is about more than academic performance

Academic performance measured by knowledge and skill is, of course, still important and a source of personal fulfillment. But without that cultural balance and the nurturing of positive character traits, we argue it lacks deeper meaning.

A regulation issued by the Indonesian minister of education in 2018 underlined this. It listed a set of values and virtues that school education should foster: faith, honesty, tolerance, discipline, hard work, creativity, independence, democracy, curiosity, nationalism, patriotism, appreciation, communication, peace, a love of reading, environmental awareness, social awareness and responsibility.

These have been simplified to five basic elements of character education: religion, nationalism, Gotong Royong (collective voluntary work), independence and integrity.

These are not necessarily measurable by conventional, Western, English-speaking and empirical means. Is it time, then, to reconsider the internationalizing of education (and not just in South-East Asia)? Has it gone too far, at least in its English form?

Isn't it time to look closely at other forms of education in societies where English is not the mother tongue? These education systems are based on different values and they understand success in different ways.

It's unfortunate so many schools view an English-speaking model as the gold standard and overlook their own local or regional wisdoms. We need to remember that encouraging young people to join a privileged English-speaking élite educated in foreign universities is only one of many possible educational options.


Explore further

NYU scholar makes recommendations to end disparities in stem for English learners

Provided by The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Crickets disperse seeds of early-diverging orchid Apostasia nipponica, suggesting an ancient association

by Kobe University

Schematic diagram of internal seed dispersal mutualism: In return for these seed dispersal services, many plants provide nutritional rewards to their seed dispersers in the form of fleshy fruits. Credit: Kenji Suetsugu

Associate Professor Suetsugu Kenji (Kobe University Graduate School of Science) has found unusual seed dispersal systems by crickets and camel crickets in Apostasia nipponica (Apostasioideae), acknowledged as an early-diverging lineage of Orchidaceae. These findings were published on August 11 in the online edition of Evolution Letters.
Seed dispersal is a key evolutionary process and a central theme in terrestrial plant ecology. Animal-mediated seed dispersal, most frequently by birds and mammals, benefits seed plants by ensuring efficient and directional transfer of seeds without relying on random abiotic factors such as wind and water. Seed dispersal by animals is generally a coevolved mutualistic relationship in which a plant surrounds its seeds with an edible, nutritious fruit as a good food for animals that consume it (Figure 1). Birds and mammals are the most important seed dispersers, but a wide variety of other animals, including turtles and fish, can transport viable seeds. However, the importance of seed dispersal by invertebrates has received comparatively little attention. Therefore, discoveries of uncommon mechanisms of seed dispersal by invertebrates such as wetas, beetles and slugs usually evoke public curiosity toward animal-plant mutualisms.

Unlike most plants, all of the >25,000 species of orchids are heterotrophic in their early life history stages, obtaining resources from fungi before the production of photosynthetic leaves. Orchid seeds, therefore, contain minimal energy reserves and are numerous and dust-like, which maximizes the chance of a successful encounter with fungi in the substrate. Despite considerable interest in the ways by which orchid flowers are pollinated, little attention has been paid to how their seeds are dispersed, owing to the dogma that wind dispersal is their predominant strategy. Orchid seeds are very small and extremely light, and are produced in large numbers. These seeds do not possess an endosperm but instead usually have large internal air spaces that allow them to float in the air column. In addition, orchid seeds are usually winged or filiform, evolved to be potentially carried by air currents. Furthermore, most orchid seeds have thin papery coats formed by a single layer of non-lignified dead cells. It has been thought that these fragile thin seed coats cannot withstand the digestive fluids of animals, in contrast to the thick seed coats in indehiscent fruits, which are considered an adaptation for endozoochory.
Sequential photographs of the cricket Eulandrevus ivani consuming an Apostasia nipponica fruit (indicated by arrows). An entire fruit was consumed during a single visit by the cricket. Credit: Kenji Suetsugu

However, it is noteworthy that the subfamily Apostasioideae commonly has indehiscent fruits with hard, crustose black seed coats. Apostasioids are the earliest-diverging subfamily of orchids and consist of only two genera (Apostasia and Neuwiedia), with only ~20 species distributed in southeastern Asia, Japan, and northern Australia. All Apostasia and most Neuwiedia species investigated to date are known to possess berries with hard seed coats. Apostasioids are also well known for several unique traits, such as a non-resupinate flower with an actinomorphic perianth and pollen grains that do not form pollinia (Figure 2). These have been considered ancestral characteristics in orchids, given that they are similar to those found in the members of Hypoxidaceae (which is closely related to Orchidaceae) family. Similarly, the presence of an indehiscent fruit with a thick seed coat, found in most Apostasia and Neuwiedia species can be an ancestral trait in orchids.

An Apostasia nipponica plant flowering in the wild on Yakushima Island, Japan. Although most orchids have specialized labellum, stamens and pistil fused into a gynostemium and pollen rains unified into pollinia, Apostasia has solanum-type flower with a relatively simple gynostemium with anthers that contain powdery pollen grains. Credit: Kenji Suetsugu

Here, Suetsugu has studied the Apostasia nipponica (Apostasioideae) seed dispersal system in the forest understory of the warm-temperate forests on Yakushima Island, Kagoshima Prefecture, Japan. Consequently, Suetsugu presents the evidence for seed dispersal by crickets and camel crickets in A. nipponica. Similar results were obtained in different years, indicating that this interaction is likely stable, at least in the investigated site. It probably constitutes a mutualism, wherein both partners benefit from the association—orthopteran visitors obtain nutrients from the pulp and A. nipponica achieves dispersal of seeds from the parent plants (Figure 3). The seeds of A. nipponica are coated with lignified tissue that likely protects the seeds as they pass through the digestive tract of crickets and camel crickets.


Although neither the cricket nor camel cricket can fly, they potentially transport the seeds long distances owing to their remarkable jumping abilities. Despite the traditional view that the minute, dust-like, and wind-dispersed orchid seeds can travel long distances, both genetic and experimental research has indicated that orchids have limited dispersal ability; orchid seeds often fall close to the maternal plant (within a few meters), particularly in understory species. Given that A. nipponica fruits are produced close to the ground in dark understory environments where the wind speed is low, seed dispersal by crickets is probably a successful strategy for this orchid.

Orchid seeds lack a definitive fossil record due to their extremely minute size. Therefore, the interaction described here provides some important clues as to the animals that may have participated in the seed dispersal of the ancestors of orchids. Given that the origin of crickets and camel crickets precedes the evolution of orchids, they are among the candidates for seed dispersers of the ancestors of extant orchids. Owing to many plesiomorphic characteristics and the earliest-diverging phylogenetic position, members of Apostasioideae have been extensively studied to understand their floral structure, taxonomy, biogeography, and genome.

However, there is still a lack of information regarding seed dispersal in the subfamily. Therefore, Suetsugu has documented the animal-mediated seed dispersal of Apostasioideae members for the first time. Whether seed dispersal by animals (and particularly by orthopteran fruit feeders) is common in these orchids warrants further investigation. It is possible that this method of dispersal is an ancestral trait in Apostasioideae, given that indehiscent fruits with a hard seed coat are common within the clade. Further research, such as an ancestral character-state reconstruction analysis of more data on the seed dispersal systems of other apostasioids, can provide deeper insights into the early evolution of the seed dispersal system in Orchidaceae.

Explore furtherParasitic plants rely on unusual method to spread their seeds

More information: Kenji Suetsugu, A novel seed dispersal mode of Apostasia nipponica could provide some clues to the early evolution of the seed dispersal system in Orchidaceae, Evolution Letters (2020). DOI: 10.1002/evl3.188

Provided by Kobe University 

THIS WILL NEED REVISING 

Landmarks facing climate threats could 'transform,' expert says

by Laura Oleniacz, North Carolina State University

Cropped image of flooding in Venice. Credit: Chris, Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/cr01/. Shared through Creative Commons CC BY-SA 2.0 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/.

How much effort should be spent trying to keep Venice looking like Venice—even as it faces rising sea levels that threaten the city with more frequent extreme flooding?

As climate change threatens cultural sites, preservationists and researchers are asking whether these iconic locations should be meticulously restored or should be allowed to adapt and "transform."

"The traditional preservationist paradigm is the idea of static preservation—materials stay in a constant state, and we protect the values identified at the time they were designated," said Erin Seekamp, first author of a paper that raises these questions and a professor of parks, recreation and tourism management at North Carolina State University.

"However, it's really infeasible to manage all heritage sites and property through persistent adaptation due to the extent of projected climate impacts," Seekamp said. "We are arguing for preservationists to shift toward transformation in some cases."

The paper was co-authored by Eugene Jo, World Heritage Leadership Programme Coordinator at the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM).

Seekamp and Jo presented two ideas for how transformation could take place: adaptively in response to climate change impacts, or in advance of anticipated or projected impacts.

Seekamp and Jo argue that some cultural icons "severely impacted" by climate change-related events could remain damaged to serve as a "memory" of that event, and to help communities better understand and learn about the climate-related vulnerabilities of places.

In other cases, they argued that some landmarks at risk of climate change should be allowed to "transform" when the cost of preserving a landmark is too high. Decisions about how these important landmarks can and should change need to be guided by the values of descendants of people and cultures that those sites were originally intended to highlight and preserve, they said.

"Individuals whose heritage is at stake, and who receive benefits from those places as tourist sites, should be part of the discussions about change, and about what preserving values connected with sites should look like," Seekamp said.


Their ideas about transformation were inspired by the concept of resilience in ecology, Seekamp said, in which a landscape can absorb change in response to a disturbance, and populations shift toward a "new state" or reorganize.

"What we're arguing is that the heritage field adopt an ecological framework of resilience to expand the current paradigm of preservation toward transformation to allow for autonomous and anticipatory adaptation to occur," Seekamp said.

They focused their recommendations on cultural landmarks designated as World Heritage Sites, which are landmarks or areas with important cultural, natural or scientific significance that have legal protections through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO.

They argued that preservation leaders create a new category for sites facing climate threats called "World Heritage Sites in Climatic Transformation." That list could help gather information and better document sites that face threats from climate change, as well as help channel resources toward them.

"We are argue that policy reform is needed to create the flexibility that would allow for both the continuity of heritage values, and the evolution of place meaning and societal benefits in face of climate change," Seekamp said.

Seekamp also indicated that the new designation could aid a natural landmark like Florida's Everglades National Park. While the park isn't a site recognized for its cultural heritage, which was the focus of Seekamp's viewpoint—it was designated as a World Heritage Site because of its outstanding geologic and natural features—there are material remains of heritage present that are also at risk to rising seas and increasing temperatures.

The park is the traditional lands of the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe, as well as the Calusa. The designation of the park as a "World Heritage Site in Climatic Transformation" could allow managers to think about alternatives that better integrate culture and cultural values in changing environments, Seekamp said.

"We're not saying that this should open the door for development or tourism," Seekamp added. "We're saying, 'Let's create a new categorization, and enable those places to not just think about persistent adaptation, but about transformative adaptation.' It allows us to think about alternatives."


Explore further 

Study finds knowledge gaps on protecting cultural sites from climate change

More information: Erin Seekamp et al, Resilience and transformation of heritage sites to accommodate for loss and learning in a changing climate, Climatic Change (2020). DOI: 10.1007/s10584-020-02812-4

Journal information: Climatic Change

Provided by North Carolina State University

Restaurant customers frown on automatic gratuities, particularly after good service

YOU CAN ALWAYS LEAVE A TIP IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE GRATUITY ON THE BILL THE CUSTOMER BEING A WORKER IS BEING CHEAP WITH THEIR MONEY, NOT SO; ACTUALLY ITS DOCTORS, LAWYERS, TEACHERS, ETC. AND OTHER PROFESSIONALS by Becky Kramer, Washington State University
North American customers spend about $66 billion annually on tips at restaurants and other establishments. Credit: Washington State University

Automatic gratuities leave restaurant patrons with a bad taste, even when the meal and the service were excellent, new research from Washington State University indicates.

"We thought if service quality was high, people wouldn't care if an automatic service charge was added to their bill," said Jeff Joireman, the study's coauthor and professor and chair of the Department of Marketing and International Business at the Carson College of Business.

But whether customers had a good experience or bad one, they reacted negatively when their bill came with a mandatory tip, preventing them from leaving the gratuity themselves. Surprisingly, customers with the best dining experiences expressed the most dissatisfaction with automatic gratuities. The research was published in Journal of Services Marketing and was based on four separate studies."People think non-voluntary tipping systems are unpopular because customers can't punish servers for poor quality service," Joireman said. But when the service was high, "we found that customers were equally frustrated by non-voluntary tipping—this time because they couldn't reward their servers."

In both service scenarios, customers said they were unlikely to patronize the restaurant in the future.

Non-voluntary tipping systems take control away from the customer, said Ismail Karabas, assistant professor of marketing at Murray State University and lead author of the research, which was part of his doctoral dissertation at WSU.

"Being able to reward the server makes customers feel good," Karabas said. "That's part of the restaurant experience."

When customers lose control of the tip, "their ability to show their gratitude has been blocked," he said. "They have fewer positive feelings about the restaurant experience, and they're less likely to eat there again."

Automatic gratuities growing in restaurant industry

North American customers spend about $66 billion annually on tips at restaurants and other establishments. Although voluntary tipping is still standard practice, a growing number of restaurants are moving toward automatic gratuities, Karabas said.

For restaurant owners, the switch to automatic gratuities is often about fairness, he said. They want to divide tips between servers and the kitchen staff, rewarding the entire team and equalizing pay.

"The person who cooks your meal may be working harder than the server, but servers end up making quite a bit more money when you add in the tips," Karabas said. "That's led to turnover of kitchen staff, which is a concern in the restaurant industry."

While the intent of using automatic gratuities to equalize pay and retain employees is laudable, restaurant owners and managers should be aware of the drawbacks, he said.

"High-quality service does not compensate for the negative customer response to a non-voluntary tipping system," Karabas said. "Managers may think 'We're fine as long as we provide good service,' but we found that's just not true."

Exploring other ways to reward good service
 PAY THEM MORE 
GIVE THEM REGULAR HOURS
AND BENEFITS 

Restaurants that switch to automatic tipping could explore other ways to help customers keep their sense of control, the researchers said.

"Based on what we know about blocked gratitude, I would look for ways to give customers the feeling they are still the ones leaving the tip, even though it's added automatically," Karabas said. "It could be as simple as saying, 'You tipped your server 18% today. Thank you.'"

Restaurants could also encourage customers to reward their servers through other means, such as providing feedback on comment cards, voting for a server of the month, or even adding a separate line on the bill for an extra tip, the researchers said.

But restaurants should be careful about perceptions, according to Karabas, who said additional research is needed on alternate ways to reward servers. Some customers might react cynically to an extra line on their bill for an enhanced tip.

"You don't want customers to think you're being sneaky and trying to trick them into tipping twice," he said.

Explore further Servers perceive well-dressed diners as better tippers, study finds

More information: Ismail Karabas et al, The role of blocked gratitude in non-voluntary tipping, Journal of Services Marketing (2020). DOI: 10.1108/JSM-03-2020-0082
Provided by Washington State University

AND HERE IS A SOLUTION

How to boost tips and donations with the dueling preference approach

by Matt Weingarden, American Marketing Association


Researchers from University of Missouri-Kansas City, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and University of Pennsylvania published a new paper in the Journal of Marketing that examines the effectiveness of what they call "the dueling preferences approach" on prosocial giving.

The study, forthcoming in the Journal of Marketing, is titled "Penny for Your Preferences: Leveraging Self-Expression to Encourage Small Prosocial Gifts" and is authored by Jacqueline Rifkin, Katherine Du, and Jonah Berger.

BallotBin, a UK-based company, designs custom bins for the disposal of cigarette butts. These "ballot bins" have a fascinating feature: They pose a question and provide two bin compartments, each labeled with a possible answer to the question. Smokers can then answer the question through the disposal of a cigarette butt into either compartment. For example, one recent "ballot bin" in London asked smokers whether flying or invisibility is the better superpower, allowing them to express their preference by depositing their cigarette butts in one of two labeled compartments. This set-up can be found in a variety of other settings designed to increase prosocial acts. Cafés have started to position two tip jars rather than one, asking patrons whether they prefer Star Trek or Star Wars. Similarly, the ASPCA asked people to donate money by expressing their preference for cats or dogs ("Vote for your Paw-sident").

This set-up, in which the act of giving is framed as a choice between two options, is called the "dueling preferences" approach. But the question remains: Is the dueling preference approach really more effective at increasing prosocial giving than traditional approaches? And if so, why?

The research team set out to answer these questions. They conducted initial experiments in real cafés and with real charities using several different "duels" (summer vs. winter, mountains vs. beach, chocolate vs. vanilla ice cream) and discovered that the dueling preferences approach can indeed be more effective than traditional approaches at increasing small prosocial gifts. In particular, the dueling preferences approach increased people's likelihood to tip/donate and how much money they gave.

Next, the researchers sought to understand why this approach works. Several follow-up studies indicate this approach works because it provides people with the opportunity to say something about who they are. Du explains, "People love to talk about themselves and share their opinions. In fact, the parts of the brain that light up when we get to share our opinions also light up in response to finding $10 or getting a sweet treat. This fact about human psychology ultimately makes the dueling preferences approach an inherently attractive and motivating opportunity. People are willing to give money to share what they believe in."

Of course, the dueling preferences approach must be implemented tactfully. People may be willing to give money to share what they believe in, but what if a duel captures an issue people don't believe in? As Rifkin described, "When we tested a duel that asked people's preferences for the letter "A" vs. "B"—a relatively uninspiring issue—we were not able to increase prosocial giving. Similarly, when we tested a duel that was interesting to some, but not to all—one's preference for pets—we found that the duel only increased giving among those who found the issue to be important to them. Also, people do not always want or even need to express themselves." While the inherent need to say something about who we are is critical for harnessing the power of dueling preferences, people differ in what and when they want to share. As a result, it takes some thought to figure out exactly what options to choose, when, and among whom to deploy this approach.

Overall, those interested in increasing prosocial giving can benefit by leveraging the flexibility and ease of implementation of the dueling preferences approach. Ultimately, if managers can effectively harness people's desire to express themselves, this approach can be a powerful tool for increasing prosocial giving. The magic of dueling preferences lies in its ability to leverage any valued identity—whether a Star Trek fan, chocaholic, or lefty—to increase prosocial giving.


Explore further

Cooperation can be contagious particularly when people see the benefit for others
More information: Jacqueline R. Rifkin et al, Penny for Your Preferences: Leveraging Self-Expression to Encourage Small Prosocial Gifts, Journal of Marketing (2020). DOI: 10.1177/0022242920928064

Journal information: Journal of Marketing


Provided by American Marketing Association

Successful school instruction is digital—but not exclusively
by Technical University Munich

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Secondary school students perform better in natural sciences and mathematics and are more motivated when digital tools are used in instruction. However, success depends on the design of the tools used. Success levels are higher when children and young adults do not study alone and when digital instruction is accompanied by paper-based teaching materials, according to the conclusion reached by one of the largest investigations on the topic, evaluating approximately 90 individual studies.


Digitalization of school instruction has been hotly debated for years. What programs should teachers use on the computer, when and how often? The debate is characterized by a challenging abundance of research projects. The Center for International Student Assessment (ZIB) at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) has now evaluated a total of 92 studies published worldwide since the year 2000.

The meta-study shows that secondary school students in classes which work with digital teaching tools perform better than children and young adults in classes that are taught solely on a traditional basis. Furthermore these students are more motivated by the respective subject. This applies for all grades in secondary schools and for all the subjects investigated, i.e. mathematics, biology, chemistry and physics.

However, digital tools alone are no guarantee of success. Their impact on performance depends on how they are used in instruction:
Children and young adults benefit more from digital teaching tools when they work together in pairs instead of alone. The researchers assume that computer programs play a special role in stimulating discussions between the students which can positively impact the learning process.
Secondary school students perform better when accompanied by teachers while working with digital tools. When they work with computer programs entirely alone, the positive effect is minor.
The positive effect of digital tools is greater when the tools do not completely replace classic classroom materials. A promising approach is to use them in supplement to analog methods.
Digital tools increase performance more particularly when teachers have been professionally trained how to integrate them into the lessons.

Not even well-made programs can replace teachers

"Digital tools should be worked into instruction in moderation," says Prof. Kristina Reiss, head of the ZIB and dean of the TUM School of Education. "Getting rid of tried and proven analog formats would be going a step too far. In addition, we see that even very well-made learning programs cannot replace the teacher."

In well-planned application, the advantages of digital tools could be completely leveraged, in particular for complex and abstract content in natural sciences and mathematics, for example the visualization of chemical compounds and geometric shapes.

"If the new teaching methods can additionally increase the motivation of secondary school students, this will be a great opportunity for the STEM subjects," Reiss points out.

Some digital tools are more useful than others

The meta-study also indicates which types of digital tools are most promising. The greatest positive effect comes from what are referred to as intelligent tutor systems, programs which convey content in small units and also enable individual exercises. The decisive factor is that these programs adapt the speed, level of difficulty and amount of assistance to the user's skills. On the other hand, hypermedia systems configured for free exploration with video, audio and text materials that fail to define a learning objective are comparatively less effective.


Explore furtherRemote learning tough for teachers working from home with many clocking extra hours, survey finds
More information: Delia Hillmayr et al, The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis, Computers & Education (2020). DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103897
Provided by Technical University Munich

New study warns: We have underestimated the pace at which the Arctic is melting

'SPEED UP' SOMETHING CAPITALISM UNDERSTANDS
by Niels Bohr Institute

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Arctic sea ice is melting more quickly than once assumed. Today's climate models have yet to incorporate the steep rise in temperatures that have occurred over the past 40 years. This, according to a new study by researchers at the University of Copenhagen and other institutions.

Temperatures in the Arctic Ocean between Canada, Russia and Europe are warming faster than researchers' climate models have been able to predict.

Over the past 40 years, temperatures have risen by one degree every decade, and even more so over the Barents Sea and around Norway's Svalbard archipelago, where they have increased by 1.5 degrees per decade throughout the period.

This is the conclusion of a new study published in Nature Climate Change.

"Our analyses of Arctic Ocean conditions demonstrate that we have been clearly underestimating the rate of temperature increases in the atmosphere nearest to the sea level, which has ultimately caused sea ice to disappear faster than we had anticipated," explains Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen's Niels Bohr Institutet (NBI) and one of the study's researchers.

Together with his NBI colleagues and researchers from the Universities of Bergen and Oslo, the Danish Metrological Institute and Australian National University, he compared current temperature changes in the Arctic with climate fluctuations that we know from, for example, Greenland during the ice age between 120,000–11,000 years ago.

"The abrupt rise in temperature now being experienced in the Arctic has only been observed during the last ice age. During that time, analyses of ice cores revealed that temperatures over the Greenland Ice Sheet increased several times, between 10 to 12 degrees, over a 40 to 100-year period," explains Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen.

He emphasizes that the significance of the steep rise in temperature is yet to be fully appreciated. And, that an increased focus on the Arctic and reduced global warming, more generally, are musts.

Climate models ought to take abrupt changes into account

Until now, climate models predicted that Arctic temperatures would increase slowly and in a stable manner. However, the researchers' analysis demonstrates that these changes are moving along at a much faster pace than expected.

"We have looked at the climate models analyzed and assessed by the UN Climate Panel. Only those models based on the worst-case scenario, with the highest carbon dioxide emissions, come close to what our temperature measurements show over the past 40 years, from 1979 to today," says Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen.

In the future, there ought to be more of a focus on being able to simulate the impact of abrupt climate change on the Arctic. Doing so will allow us to create better models that can accurately predict temperature increases:

"Changes are occurring so rapidly during the summer months that sea ice is likely to disappear faster than most climate models have ever predicted. We must continue to closely monitor temperature changes and incorporate the right climate processes into these models," says Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen. He concludes:

"Thus, successfully implementing the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Paris Agreement is essential in order to ensure a sea-ice packed Arctic year-round."

Explore further  Highest-ever temperature recorded in Norwegian Arctic archipelago

More information: Eystein Jansen et al. Past perspectives on the present era of abrupt Arctic climate change, Nature Climate Change (2020). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-020-0860-7
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Provided by Niels Bohr Institute

Study finds Americans prize party loyalty over democratic principles

by Yale University

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

It is conventional wisdom that Americans cherish democracy—but a new study by Yale political scientists reports that only a small fraction of U.S. voters are willing to sacrifice their partisan and policy interests to defend democratic principles.


The study, published in the American Political Science Review, found that only 3.5% of U.S. voters would cast ballots against their preferred candidates as punishment for undemocratic behavior, such as supporting gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, or press restrictions.

"Our findings show that U.S. voters, regardless of their party affiliation, are willing to forgive undemocratic behavior to achieve their partisan ends and policy goals," said Milan Svolik, professor of political science in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and co-author of the study. "We find that polarization raises the stakes of elections and, in turn, the price of prioritizing democratic principles over partisan interests. Voters' willingness to sacrifice democratic principles may not be desirable in terms of protecting democracy, but it has an intuitive political logic: They are trading off one political interest against another."

Svolik and co-author Matthew Graham, a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science, conducted two experiments. One was an original, nationally representative survey experiment that asked respondents to choose among candidates, some of whom took positions violating key democratic principles. The other was a natural experiment the researchers conducted based on Montana's 2017 special election for the U.S. House of Representatives, in which Republican candidate Greg Gianforte physically assaulted a journalist who had repeatedly asked him a question about health policy on the night before the election.

In the survey experiment, respondents were presented with a series of choices between hypothetical candidates for a state legislature. Candidates were randomly assigned attributes, including race, gender, party affiliation, and positions on economic and social issues. In four of the scenarios, both candidates adopted democratically neutral positions. In seven others, one of the candidates was randomly assigned an undemocratic position, such as support for gerrymandering or ignoring unfavorable court decisions.

Overall, candidates who embraced an undemocratic position lost about 11.7% of their vote share. This may have been exacerbated by the randomized nature of the experiment, which assigned some hypothetical candidates highly unlikely attributes, such as a Democrat who supports tax cuts for the wealthy. When the researchers focused on choices respondents were more likely to encounter in the real world because candidates' adopted conventional positions for their respective parties, they found that just 3.5% of respondents would vote against their partisan interests to protect democratic principles. This reflects the consequences of political polarization, said the researchers: When party and policy are closely aligned, opposing candidates become increasingly ideologically distinct from each other, raising the price that voters must pay to punish their preferred candidate for undemocratic behavior by voting for the other candidate.

In 2016, only about 5% of U.S. House district candidates won their seats by a margin of less than 7%—making the potential loss of 3.5% in vote share unlikely to deter candidates from engaging in undemocratic behavior, the researchers said.

"Our findings suggest that in the overwhelming majority of House districts, a majority-party candidate could get away with openly violating a democratic principle," said Graham. "Voters make tradeoffs. For the most part, people support candidates who share their partisan, ideological, or policy goals, even if that means condoning undemocratic behavior."

When Gianforte body-slammed a reporter in his campaign office the night before Montana's 2017 congressional election, more than half of voters had already cast absentee ballots. This allowed the researchers to compare votes cast for the same pair of candidates before and after the election-eve assault. In politically moderate precincts, voters who cast ballots on Election Day punished Gianforte for the assault on the journalist by voting across party lines. In hardline Republican precincts, significantly fewer voters punished Gianforte for his undemocratic behavior on Election Day, according to the study.

The researchers assert that their findings expose a blind spot in conventional methods of measuring support for democracy, which often involve asking people questions like: "Democracy may have problems, but it is better than any other form of government. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?"

"Conventional measures don't capture people's willingness to act on their commitment to democratic values when doing so is politically costly," Svolik said. "If, as we found, only a small percentage of voters are willing to punish undemocratic behavior by their favored candidates in one of the world's oldest democracies, then we shouldn't be surprised by voters' failure to stop aspiring autocrats in younger democracies like Turkey, Hungary, or Venezuela."

Explore further  Would you vote for a Democrat who behaves like a Republican?

More information: Matthew H. Graham et al, Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States, American Political Science Review (2020). DOI: 10.1017/S0003055420000052

Journal information: American Political Science Review


Provided by Yale University