To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A basic tenet of ecotourism is to enhance conservation. However, few studies have assessed its effectiveness in meeting conservation goals and whether the type of tourism activity affects outcomes. This study examines whether working in ecotourism changes the perceptions of and attitudes and behaviours of local people towards the focal species and its habitat and, if so, if tourism type affects those outcomes. We interviewed 114 respondents at four whale shark Rhincodon typus tourism sites in the Philippines to compare changes in perceptions of and attitudes and behaviours towards whale sharks and the wider marine environment. We found that the smaller scale tourism sites had greater social conservation outcomes than the mass or failed tourism sites, including changes in conservation ethics and perceptions of and attitudes and behaviours towards whale sharks and the ocean. Furthermore, of the three active tourism sites, the smallest site, with the lowest economic returns and the highest negative impacts on whale sharks prior to tourism activities, had the largest proportion of respondents who reported a positive change in perceptions of and attitudes and behaviours towards whale sharks and the ocean. Our results suggest that tourism type, and the associated incentives, can have a significant effect on conservation outcomes and ultimately on the ecological status of an Endangered species and its habitat.
Answer Set Programming (ASP) is a popular logic programming paradigm that has been applied for solving a variety of complex problems. Among the most challenging real-world applications of ASP are two industrial problems defined by Siemens: the Partner Units Problem (PUP) and the Combined Configuration Problem (CCP). The hardest instances of PUP and CCP are out of reach for state-of-the-art ASP solvers. Experiments show that the performance of ASP solvers could be significantly improved by embedding domain-specific heuristics, but a proper effective integration of such criteria in off-the-shelf ASP implementations is not obvious. In this paper the combination of ASP and domain-specific heuristics is studied with the goal of effectively solving real-world problem instances of PUP and CCP. As a byproduct of this activity, the ASP solver wasp was extended with an interface that eases embedding new external heuristics in the solver. The evaluation shows that our domain-heuristic-driven ASP solver finds solutions for all the real-world instances of PUP and CCP ever provided by Siemens.
This study investigates the expression of past temporal reference in a highly conservative variety of Acadian French spoken in the Baie Sainte-Marie region of Nova Scotia, Canada. Variationist analysis of data from a sociolinguistic corpus for the village of Grosses Coques reveals a split between narrative and conversational discourse, with variation mainly between use of the passé simple and the imparfait in the former and between the passé composé and the imparfait in the latter. The passé simple remains in robust use in this variety and is constrained in a manner similar to that found in 17th-century representations of colloquial speech involving narration.
This article is concerned with the role of media representations of language use in the promotion of language ideologies and in identity construction. It focuses on media representations of Chiac, a traditionally low-status variety of Acadian French. We consider performances of this variety in the adventures of an animated superhero, Acadieman, presented in a cable TV show running on Rogers TV from 2005 to 2009. We first contextualize Acadieman in terms of the linguistic and cultural contexts in which Chiac is spoken. We then consider how particular social meanings are created through contrasts between Chiac-speaking characters and speakers of other varieties. While the juxtaposition of varieties is at one level quite humorous, on another level it draws on complex indexicalities and valorizes the local variety and, by extension, its speakers. Finally, we argue that the Acadieman phenomenon provides a discursive space within which present-day Acadian identities can be negotiated.
This chapter presents the clinical history, examination, and the results of the procedures performed on a patient who was a 14-year-old young woman who, according to her parents, has had problems sleeping for several years. The results of the studies showed that the patient had a total of 144 sleep-related respiratory events, with an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) of 22.47 per hour. There were 140 central apneas and four hypopneas, with 126 events occurring in NREM sleep. The diagnosis was Chiari 1 malformation with associated central sleep apnea. The patient also had a syrinx from C3 through the thoracic cord. Treatment of Chiari 1 malformation involves suboccipital decompression (posterior fossa craniectomy), with or without upper cervical laminectomy. In this case too, the patient underwent suboccipital decompression, and remained in the hospital for 4 days, with some immediate post-operative sleep-related apneas but subsequent significant improvement of sleep.
Although this will be a simple and short chapter it will break new ground. Our aim is to answer some fundamental and often asked questions about public rudeness in a systematic way. How often do people encounter it? What is it? Where does it happen? Who does it? Is it deliberate or accidental? Who experiences victimization? Using some basic statistics we will be able to draw up a portrait of the kinds of events and people that are to be found in the world of everyday incivility. We can start with the most basic issue of all. What is logically needed for an incivil encounter with a rude stranger to take place in public? The answer is simple. There are three components: first, there must be an action interpreted as incivil that occurs in a public setting; second, this is committed by a stranger, either by accident or deliberately; third, it is experienced by a self-described victim. Here we look at each of these in turn. In effect, we will describe what happened and where, who did it and to whom.
The rude event
First, how prevalent are encounters with rude strangers? The ELIAS data show that about a third of respondents reported a rude event during the past month (508 of 1,621 respondents, or 31 per cent). As one might expect, the likelihood of encountering this type of incivility is substantially higher than more invasive interpersonal events such as crime victimizations.
In traditional societies most people lived in bands or in villages, their geographic horizons usually defined by how far one could walk in a day. Such familiar environments were largely without strangers. Passing migrants, gypsies, tinkers, charlatans and traders were noteworthy interruptions in biographies filled with known others, mostly family and neighbours. Even in courtly society unknown outsiders were something of a novelty. One thinks of the stir caused by the arrival of a company of travelling players in Shakespeare's Hamlet. By contrast, much of lived experience in modern societies takes place in the close physical presence of strangers. Urbanization and the evolution of affordable technologies for daily travel have led to the increased social densities and circulations that see strangers thrown against each other. Of course, at home and at work the stranger is relatively absent. Yet out in public the situation is very different.
Remarkably little objective information is known about our social connectedness with, beliefs about, or quality of interactions among those anonymous people with whom we must share public space. Still, respondents to surveys seem to be confident in claiming that things have gone to the dogs and are getting worse. The Public Agenda (2002) survey of 2001 found 79 per cent of American respondents saying that ‘lack of respect and courtesy is a serious problem for our society’, and 73 per cent believing that there was more respect around in the past. These impressions are generally supported rather than critiqued in the academic literature.
So far we have mapped out some basic issues. We know about the identities of perpetrators and victims. We also know what the commonplace forms of incivility look like. We have found out where and when and even why many encounters with rude strangers take place. In this chapter things become a little more complex. As we explained at the outset, this book is a study of encounters between two people. Here we look at how these meetings unfold over time. We focus on two important questions: just how do people feel when they encounter the rude stranger? What, if anything, do they do to remedy the situation?
Emotions and incivility
The existing literature suggests that we already know the answer to both these questions. Writing back in the early 1970s the famous symbolic interactionist Erving Goffman (1971) established the template with his work Relations in Public. Here the life of city dwellers is described as one revolving around suspicion and mistrust. As they navigate urban spaces they scan for dangers, constantly on guard and feeling unease. The emotions of fear and anxiety are barely suppressed and the encounter with the incivil other is traumatizing. Individuals develop action strategies of retreat and avoidance. This vision has been amplified more recently in the critical sociology of Zygmunt Bauman (2003), who identifies ‘mixophobic’ sentiments in the metropolis and suggests that social life is organized such that individuals avoid encounters with difference and risk as they move between secure bubbles dotted around the city: the home in a gated community, the mall, the country club, the office.
Our major finding in our previous chapter was the very ordinary quality of incivility. It took place in everyday locations like the supermarket and car park. Rude people were generally not thugs, lurkers or even troublesome teens. They were as diverse in terms of age, gender and appearance as their victims. We also showed that rudeness could be found in a variety of low-level impolite acts. These were not threatening, malicious or crime-related deeds. Finally, a substantial proportion of events involved movement. Put together these clues suggest that rudeness should be studied as a commonplace rather than exceptional act. It is somehow structured into the opportunity spaces of daily life. It is a product of our mundane trajectories through public environments where there are strangers.
Routine activity and predictable incivility
One way to think about this finding is with routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson 1979). Developed in the field of criminology, this shifts our attention away from the study of deviants and offenders towards the analysis of situations and opportunities. The argument is that we can understand certain forms of crime without having to inquire into motivations, or without looking to faulty values and failed socialization for our explanatory context. Arguing that any given crime has to take place at a certain time and at a certain place, routine activity theory asks questions such as: when do victims and offenders come together? At what time of day are guardians away from attractive property? How do people keep safe?
This book is the product of several years of collaborative activity by the three authors in various combinations. Describing this division of labour is somewhat complex, but might be helpful to readers should they wish to direct questions to the team. The original grant proposals, focus group pilot work, survey instrument design and administration, conceptual thinking about the new area and the book proposal were the work of Timothy Phillips and Philip Smith. The former was particularly responsible for figuring out how to capture something commonplace yet elusive using survey methods. Smith is the chief author of Chapters 1, 8 and 9, although contributions from the other two team members were also made. Chapters 2, 3 and 4 were initially written by Smith and Phillips, then revised by Ryan King as the book developed. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 were equally authored by King and Smith. Some material from Phillips appears at the start of the last of these.
Along the way this book has had the benefit of support from the many institutions that sheltered its authors at one point or another in the research or writing process. In Australia we thank the University of Tasmania, the University of Queensland and the Australian National University. In the United States we express gratitude to Yale University and the University at Albany. In Europe we were hosted by Trinity College Dublin and the Kulturwissenschaftsliches Kolleg, Universität Konstanz. We thank the professional research teams who took the project to the field.
We have tried to be as clear as possible in this book and to write scholarly material in a way that will appeal to a general audience. Still, books like this one can be wordy. Also the complex statistical tables can result in an overload of information, especially for general readers. Although we have included summary bullets at the end of each chapter, we would like to conclude with a more crisp and conversational outline of what we have discovered and what remains to be found out.
The following series of questions and answers replicates what we are often asked during both academic seminars and public talks. It offers a shortcut to the entire book. Scholars who require higher academic standards and a more serious tone, or those looking for extra information after reading an answer here must return to the book itself.
Why research the rude stranger?
Rudeness is a commonplace feature of everyday life. It impacts upon pretty much everyone. We should know about it. In the mass media and on the Internet we find a lot of chatter about this. Politicians often crusade for civility. Academic researchers looking at social capital, crime and everyday life have important things to say on these topics. Their ideas have substantially influenced policy and political agendas (Chapter 1).