The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain? Not when I'm there it doesn't, then it follows me about. In this case all the way up to Santa Maria de la Alameda in the Sierra de Guadarrama.
Quite a gloomy picture. We were up there interviewing the president of a local cattle farming organisation for some work related to my PhD. Earlier in the week we had been talking about bullfighting, and Raul had pointed out the large stones found in each corner of town squares, one on either side of the road, with large holes cut through them. The purpose of these holes is to hold wooden poles across the road, closing the square for the corrida de toros. As we waited for el presidente to arrive we sheltered from the rain in the porch of the ayuntamiento. Looking at the bullring's cornerstones and the balconies that would allow spectators to overlook the confrontation, the town square reminded me of a story retold in Hemingway's For Whom the Bell Tolls. On that occasion it wasn't a bullfight, it was a civil war a massacre.
Hemingway's leading characters display stoic bravery becoming, in Lawrence Broer's view, "manifestations of the Spanish matador";
The bull was on him as he jumped back and as he tripped on a cushion he felt the horn go into him, into his side. He grabbed the horn with his two hands and rode backward, holding tight onto the place. The bull tossed him and he was clear. He lay still. It was all right. The bull was gone.
He got up coughing and feeling broken and gone. The dirty bastards!
"Give me the sword", he shouted. "Give me the stuff."
Fuentes came up with the muleta and the sword.
Hernandez put his arm around him.
"Go on to the infirmary, man", he said. "Don't be a damn fool."
"Get away from me", Manuel said. "Get to hell away from me."
He twisted free. Hernandez shrugged his shoulders. Manuel ran toward the bull.
There was the bull standing, heavy, firmly planted.
All right, you bastard! Manuel drew his sword out of the muleta, sighted with the same movement, and flung himself onto the bull. He felt the sword go in all the way. Right up to the guard. Four fingers and his thumb into the bull. The blood was hot on his knuckles, and he was on top of the bull.
The bull lurched with him as he lay on, and seemed to sink; then he was standing clear. He looked at the bull going down slowly over on his side, then suddenly four feet in the air.
Then he gestured at the crowd, his hand warm from the bull blood.
[from Ernest Hemingway, The Undefeated]
Down on the plains of Madrid below Santa Maria, the rain has stopped and the attitude seems more 'spirited optimism' than 'stoic bravery'. The Spanish economy is booming, with GDP steadily rising year on year.
The environs of Madrid feel positive, the attitude is 'go-ahead'. Cranes are everywhere, more than in London probably. Apartments being thrown up rapidly. New roads and motorways being constructed apace. It's been like that the last few years I've been visiting.
Further out, within range of the commuters (going into Madrid) and the day-trippers (coming out), economic change is modifying the landscape. The agricultural sector is in decline and as the younger generation seeks out employment in manufacturing, construction and service sectors. Talking to people in my study area it seems such employment is desired as it brings more stable working hours, more benefits, greater leisure time and a more 'modern' lifestyle. The environmental consequences of these shifts are still playing themselves out however. For example, such a lifestyle is likely to require more water, a precious resource in the Mediterranean. Environmentalists still campaign against large dam projects and the environmental impacts of tourism along the Costa del Sol and the Balearic Isles are well known. Maybe James 'The Bringer of Rain' Millington should spend more time in those places...
My particular interest is the impact of agricultural change on wildfire regimes; will the spirited optimism have to be tempered by some stoic bravery in the face of increasing wildfire risk? I'm nearing the end of my PhD research now so I hope to be able to comment on that with more authority in the near future.
This last week I have been undertaking the final piece of fieldwork for my PhD thesis in my study area, EU Special Protection Area number 56, 'Encinares del rio Alberche y Cofio' (SPA56). The aim of this fieldwork is what I have been terming 'Stakeholder Model Assessment' and involved interviews with several actors and stakeholders within the study area to assess the credibility and potential utility of my integrated socio-ecological simulation model of land use and cover change (LUCC).
Specifically, two questions guiding these meetings were;
from a technical/modelling standpoint, how can we utilise local stakeholder knowledge and understandings of LUCC better in our simulation models?
if we understand that often science does not move fast enough to deal with pressing environmental and political problems, how can we use socio-ecological models (incorporating local knowledge) to speed the process of decision-making and consensus building in the face of incomplete knowledge about a system?
The simulation model I have developed is a tangible manifestation of my ‘mental model’ (i.e. understanding) of processes of change in SPA56. This research aimed to develop an understanding of how well this manifestation corresponds with a (hypothetical) simulation model that would be produced using the 'mental model' of the stakeholder.
I embarked on this fieldtrip with a certain amount of trepidation as I was laying myself and my model open to a degree of criticism from a source of knowledge not often tapped. That is, whilst LUCC models developed in an academic setting are routinely exposed to academic peer review they are infrequently reviewed by those actors which they attempt to represent. I was quite prepared to be told that the results and model structure I had developed were not realistic or largely irrelevant.
I was pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong as much of the feedback received was positive, both about model results (maps of land cover for 25 years hence - i.e. 2026) and model structure (i.e. model rules and assumptions). I'm just about to start writing this all up for my thesis but the findings can be outlined as follows;
1. Interviewees were very accepting of the results but focused on the results of individual scenarios that fitted most closely with their projections of future change. They did not seem to have any problems with model output for the scenario that matched their perception of future change, suggesting that the model accurately reflects the expected change for that scenario. (Spatial) criticism of results was rather weak however and their analysis was rather broad.
2. Interviewees confirmed model rules and assumptions, with some caveats;
Distance between fields and farmstead were not deemed important for farmer decision-making
Some interviewees suggested land tenure was not important, others that size of land parcels would dictate what land was changed to
Agent types (i.e. 'Traditional' vs. 'Commercial' farmers) were deemed sensible. Greater variation is present in SPA56 farmer behaviour but generally this dichotomy is accurate
3. All interviewees commented that the model was lacking consideration of urban development and change (i.e. expansion)
4. Individual agricultural actors (i.e. farmers) were generally apathetic towards model (linked I suggest with their generally pessimistic view of future state of agriculture in the study area). Higher-level, institutional stakeholders (i.e. local development officials and planners) were much more interested in potential uses of the model for planning.
5. Interviews suggest the model is realistic/credible enough to act as a focus around which discussion about future change can proceed ('model as mediator' or 'model as discussant'). Interview discussion followed the presentation of model assumptions and allowed the stakeholder to reflect on the processes causing change.
6. Interviewees' 'mental models' were little influenced by the process of model assessment and discussion for two main reasons;
they are apathetic towards the model and sceptical about what it can do for them
presentation of model structure (and the model structure itself) is not as detailed or nuanced as their understanding of processes and change.
7. Related to point six, some interviewees were positive about the model because it confirmed their understanding of future change. That is, they envisaged opportunities to use the model as a rhetorical tool to further their interests. [More thoughts on this important point to follow soon...]
All-in-all a useful and interesting trip. These are my initial thoughts, more in-depth analysis and reflection is ongoing - I'll post something more permanent on a page on my main website in the near future.
This week I´ve been in Madrid doing the final fieldwork for my PhD. On our Quixotic travels to interview local stakeholders about the credibility of the output from my model (more on that another time), we came across el Toros de Guisando. These guys have been here for over 2,500 years (though moved from their original scattered locations by the Romans) and have been characters in many a contested story...
CHAPTER XIV
WHEREIN IS CONTINUED THE ADVENTURE OF THE KNIGHT OF THE GROVE
Among the things that passed between Don Quixote and the Knight of the Wood, the history tells us he of the Grove said to Don Quixote, "In fine, sir knight, I would have you know that my destiny, or, more properly speaking, my choice led me to fall in love with the peerless Casildea de Vandalia. I call her peerless because she has no peer, whether it be in bodily stature or in the supremacy of rank and beauty.
...
Another time I was ordered to lift those ancient stones, the mighty bulls of Guisando, an enterprise that might more fitly be entrusted to porters than to knights. Again, she bade me fling myself into the cavern of Cabra - an unparalleled and awful peril - and bring her a minute account of all that is concealed in those gloomy depths. I stopped the motion of the Giralda, I lifted the bulls of Guisando, I flung myself into the cavern and brought to light the secrets of its abyss; and my hopes are as dead as dead can be, and her scorn and her commands as lively as ever.
To be brief, last of all she has commanded me to go through all the provinces of Spain and compel all the knights-errant wandering therein to confess that she surpasses all women alive to-day in beauty, and that I am the most valiant and the most deeply enamoured knight on earth; in support of which claim I have already travelled over the greater part of Spain, and have there vanquished several knights who have dared to contradict me; but what I most plume and pride myself upon is having vanquished in single combat that so famous knight Don Quixote of La Mancha, and made him confess that my Casildea is more beautiful than his Dulcinea
...
Don Quixote was amazed when he heard the Knight of the Grove, and was a thousand times on the point of telling him he lied, and had the lie direct already on the tip of his tongue; but he restrained himself as well as he could, in order to force him to confess the lie with his own lips; so he said to him quietly, "As to what you say, sir knight, about having vanquished most of the knights of Spain, or even of the whole world, I say nothing; but that you have vanquished Don Quixote of La Mancha I consider doubtful; it may have been some other that resembled him, although there are few like him."
I've finally got round to tidying up and completing the photos page of my website. Click on the map markers and photos taken at those locations will appear below the map. Use the links above the map to navigate. It may take a while to load first time (so be patient) and you will need JavaScript enabled in your browser.
It took a little while to get to grips with the Google Maps API, but by viewing and 'borrowing' code from other websites (London Satellite Photo Map was particularly helpful) I got there in the end! Go check it out! Comments? - leave them here by clicking below.
Some guys at the University of Granada, Spain, have developed software for managing wildfire-fighting efforts. SIADEX is designed to speed decision-making for resource allocation, as an article in New Scientist describes:
"Computerised maps are already used by people in charge of managing the fire-fighting effort. These maps are used to plan which areas to focus on and which resources to deploy, such as fire engines, planes and helicopters.
But working out the details of such a plan involves coordinating thousands of people, hundreds of vehicles and many other resources. SIADEX is able to help by rapidly weighing up different variables. Shift patterns
For example, it calculates which fire engines could reach an area first, where aircraft could be used, and even how to organise the shift patterns of individual fire fighters. It then very quickly produces several different detailed plans. ... One plan might be the cheapest, another the fastest, and a third the least complicated."
I wonder how Normal Maclean would have felt about this approach to fire-fighting. I imagine like me he'd be interested in how this new tool can be used to aid and protect wildland fire-fighters, but the given the unpredictability of fire behaviour (in the light of current understanding) would still maintain that human experience, gained over many years dealing with unique situations, will be invaluable in managing fire-fighters and their resources. As with much computer software, this should remain as a tool to aid human decision-making, not replace it.
For reasons I won't go into, I've had a little hassle with my laptop recently. The upshot is that I have a new machine and have been re-installing all my previous software. The one I wasn't looking forward to was GRASS, the open-source GIS package. As I'm running windows, last time this involved installing cygwin, the Linux emulator, and installing and running it from there. A pain in the backside but I found some help online.
However, I've discovered that the boys and girls at GRASS have now developed a Windows native binary installation package which is A LOT easier. Follow Huidae Cho's instructions to the letter and you'll be just fine... What took several hours last time, took less than one this.
Other open source GIS software to check out include QGIS (using, as GRASS does, PostGIS and the PostgreSQL object-relational database) and uDig (integrable with Compendium as the guys at Econsensus have).
I finally made it to my first Bristol Rugby game of the season last night. It was pretty old-school affair against Sale - the rain persisted down all game making handling tricky, confining the ball to the forwards which worked to Bris' benefit in the end. Plenty of catching and driving from lineouts. Not a try in sight - though Bris' should have scored during a period of extended possession and territory soon after half-time. In the end it was a battle of the kickers, and our new Kiwi man (after a dodgy start) kicked us to victory!
So then it was off to the pub to dry off with a couple of pints of Badger and Fursty Ferret in the excellent Upton Inn... Quality.
England's loss to the All Blacks on Saturday reminded me of an email I sent over a year ago from New Zealand, detailing my adventures on the day after the Lions first crushing defeat of their tour. I've posted it here for posterity...
Sunday 26th June 2005
Hi Guys! Only me. I know what you're thinking; "Oh No, it's that boring bloke on the other side of the world with another email the length of my arm rambling and ranting about rubbish...". Don't worry this one's shorter (maybe) but definitely has more pictures.
The Skytower: Auckland's newest landmark and the tallest human-made structure in the Southern Hemisphere (does that make it the shortest in the Northern Hemisphere?). The Skytower is your point of reference for navigating this city, you can see it from pretty much everywhere and it always seems to be lurking in the background somewhere. Look at the first pic of the University of Auckland Clock Tower.
Quite nice eh? But there's the Skytower loitering in the background trying to steal some of the limelight. And then here's me, an honest Geographer trying to improve my botanical knowledge of the local flora and there's the lanky thing looming in the wings again.
So nursing my Sunday hangover (I had a lot of sorrows to drown on Saturday evening - but let's not talk about the Rugby, I've heard enough already) and seeing from under the covers that it was a nice day I thought I'd go and see what the view was like. As with all really-tall-landmarks-in-big-cities-that-you-have-to-go-up-to-see-what-the-view-is-like, and because you're always noting it from afar, when you get to the bottom you HAVE to look UP. Case in point;
As you've paid your money and climbed all the way to the top (well actually you took the lift didn't you?) you may as well check out the view. A prime here, as Auckland's Harbour bridge basks in the evening sun and a flotilla of sailing boats bob in the foreground (Auckland is the "city of sails" doncha know?). Very pretty.
Then you think, "Doesn't Auckland sprawl an awful lot" (sorry to go on about it). The harbour's nice, you can see for miles 'cos its a nice day and you can see a couple of old volcanoes hanging out in the background. Then you start daydreaming 'cos you really can't think straight after last night and you try to take some fancy reflexive-type photos to reflect how really spaced out everything feels. But there's something missing...
No matter, lets mess aroung taking some night shots. You're no Hannes Opelz; but who'd want to be? you chuckle to yourself.
Jeez this is a bad hangover. Not as bad as we played last night though. What are those people doing in that window?
So in the lift on way back down I got chatting to the girl who clearly saw my photographic prowes when she asked me to take her photo with Auckland as backdrop ("OK, where's the loser wandering aimlessly around in a daze and won't mind taking my photo" she was more likely to be thinking to herself; she knew she'd struck gold when she saw me). She asked me what I thought of the view; the sound of cogs grinding echoed around the lift as I struggled to string a sentence together (we really did play badly didn't we? But those sorrows didn't have an chance even in the "city of sails" and its many life-bouys). And then it dawned. It's a good view from the top. Auckland looks nice in the sunset on a nice day. And the city-scape at night is cool.
But the thing that is missing is the thing you're stood in. The Skytower is nowhere to be seen and you're free of that feeling that there's someone looking over your shoulder. At least that's what I thought. I'm not sure what the noises coming out of my mouth sounded like...
A good story is one that grips you; it's hard to guess what is coming next but once it has been told, the outcome seemed inevitable. The same could be said for theories about how the world is -- sometimes you read something that just makes sense. You knew that's how the world was before you read about it, but couldn't put it into words quite so eloquently. That's how I felt when I was reading Giddens' 'Risk and Responsibility'.
The story goes that we have reached the End of Nature and the End of Tradition, and we are no longer in a time of External Risk but now live in a time of Manufactured Risk. Essentially Giddens' piece is a discussion of the about how the threats to contemporary society are a product of science and technology, and in this sense is based within the notion of the Risk Society.
To be more specific, the advances of science and technology and the 'domination' over nature it allows us, means that our environmental worries are no longer about what nature might do to us, but what we are doing to nature. This may be true in the majority of developed societies, but there are still plenty of developing areas in the world for which this does not apply (and natural hazards still pose a major threat to some areas of the developed world). But let's leave that point aside and remember the problems of anthropogenically caused climate change, pollution of the worlds water-ways, deforestation of tropical rainforest, the problem of radioactive waste, and all the other protection-of-the-global-commons-type issues. In many ways, we humans have more of an influence over our environment than it has over us. This is the End of Nature.
The End of Tradition, in Gidden's own words, "is essentially to be in a world where life is no longer lived as fate." Previously in industrial society, the man went out to work and the woman stayed at home with the kids. But all this has changed; we are more socially mobile and we live in a world where information (via the internet), freedom (via democracy) and opportunities (via strong economies) abound. We can do what we want to do and take control of our own lives. Again, there is a limit to this and it applies mainly to developed areas of the world, but it sounds about right doesn't it?
Risk as a concept only originated as humans began to think they might be able to take control of their environment. Whilst nature and tradition had not yet ended their demise was on the horizon. Prior to this dangers were 'taken as given', as 'acts of god' that humans could not control. Humans had little control over external risk, but they could take steps to reduce their losses in the face of frequent hazards. External Risk originated in early industrial societies with the advent of public and private insurance -- we couldn't do much about the risk (because it was external) but we could at least mitigate against our losses.
And now, finally, we have Manufactured Risk, a symptom of the risk society. Manufactured risk is the very risk caused by our own human progress and development, primarily because of the fantastic recent advances of scientific knowledge and technological innovation. Although manufactured risk is caused by human activity, because it is new and we have little experience of it we cannot calculate any probabilities associated with it. Although created by science and technology, science and technology cannot solve the problems they've caused -- they produce uncertainty as fast as they destruct it. And besides, problem-solving is not the goal of science, science is for generating knowledge (via puzzle-solving).
Thus, whilst science and technology have reduced the problems of external risk, they have also brought the end of nature and manufactured risk with it. The threats and risks produced in our risk society are dispersed in nature and origin. Beck suggests that from this situation emerges 'organised irresponsibility'; whilst anthropic in nature, no individual actor(s) can be held responsible. This also seems to resonate with the idea of The Tyranny of Small Decisions that I was describing just a few days ago. Scientific knowledge and technological innovation developed in an accumulative fashion, and are used by everyone that has access to it. Who can you blame?
So this is all very gloomy isn't it? The End of Tradition. The End of Nature. The End of the Story? What can we do about this?
Seemingly the tools we used to get us to this point won't work to help us move on and deal with the pressing environmental problems facing contemporary society; global warming, pollution, radiation, deforestation, carcinogens... To continue the story and solve these problems it's been suggested we need a new kind of science. Not a 'normal', universal, value-free, distant science, but a situated, value-laden, engaged science. It's time science stopped sticking it's head in the sand saying "we just produce the knowledge, it's up to society to decide what to do with it". This 'new' science been named post-normal science and will be the subject (maybe hero?) as the the story continues another time. Gripping eh?
