Category Archives: Peer Reviewed Article Review

John Philip Grime

Leave a reply

Trends in Ecology and Evolution has an obituary on John Philip Grime, a giant in plant ecology. Not being well educated in plant ecology, I had not heard of him, but I like to learn.

Two seminal publications of the early 1970s would come to define Phil’s approach to finding universal patterns in the structure of vegetation. ‘Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation’ [1.] introduced the ‘hump-backed’ model, which predicted that plant species richness peaks in communities that produce an aboveground biomass of about 600 g m–2 year–1. The model was one of the first to make specific recommendations about the management of local biodiversity. ‘Vegetation classification by reference to strategies’ [2.] introduced ‘competition-stress-disturbance’ (CSR) theory. CSR would become synonymous with Phil’s approach to studying vegetation; because he chose to present the concept as a triangle of three opposing selection pressures, many would come to refer to CSR theory as Grime’s triangle. Although not obvious from these papers, each was based on extensive vegetation datasets of the Sheffield region compiled by the UCPE team (particularly longtime associate John Hodgson). Although many would come to know Phil as a theorist and provocateur (a role he would assume often in the 1980s and 1990s), Phil would always argue that his insights were born of detailed field observations and a UCPE research team with expertise in both field botany and physiology.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

what is green infrastructure

Leave a reply

Here’s a paper that goes into the many definitions of green infrastructure across different disciplines, along with related concepts. I’ve certainly seen narrow definitions used in my own discipline of water resources engineering. Defining clearly what you mean by a term and sticking to that definition is actually a good thing, because it takes the power out of the words in the definition itself, and you are now defining the actual structure and/or function of something, and you can now have a conversation with someone else once they understand the definition you are using. Using words without a clear definition, or not being aware of alternate definitions or broader perspectives that are out there, is a problem, and unfortunately not an uncommon one.

causes of death during the Covid-19 crisis

Leave a reply

CDC has a data table on excess deaths during the March-August 2020 period. Obviously, people died of Covid-19 itself, but they also died of other things indirectly caused by Covid-19.

  • 257,000 excess deaths compared to long-term average (I’m rounding numbers to the nearest thousand and nearest percent or so, although when I do math I will round after I do the math)
  • 174,000 due to Covid-19 disease itself – this is around 70% of the total, so 30% of the excess deaths were indirect (and/or random bad luck)
  • Drug overdoses were 13% higher than normal, but suicides were 6% lower than normal. These two things usually go together so there is a bit of a mystery here.
  • Homicides were 6% higher than normal. They don’t break down how much is domestic violence related versus street violence. I would imagine bar fights were down significantly.
  • “Unintentional injuries” were higher than normal. I imagine this is things like falls and drowning, but not motor vehicle crashes because those are separate. Maybe people hurt themselves doing things around the house. Unfortunately, we tend to take more risks doing similar activities around the house than if we were doing them at work.
  • Motor vehicle crashes were down slightly, but the drop was not statistically significant. Given the very significant drop in traffic last year, this suggests to me that deaths per mile traveled were high. I know pedestrian and bike deaths were disproportionately high last year. I would attribute a lot this to people driving faster and more recklessly on (perceived to be) empty streets and highways. This is unfortunate, but mostly human nature and needs to be solved by better street design. Solutions exist, we just need to reach out and grab them my fellow Americans!

So I think these data support the idea that street designs and a health care system that are at least average compared to modern developed countries would have saved U.S. lives during the pandemic, and would continue to save lives in the future. So can we have nice things or not?

Mandevillian Intelligence

Leave a reply

Mandevillian Intelligence is an idea where the (wise?) people in charge subtly manipulate incentives so that peoples’ individual dumb choices add up to the collective good.

Mandevillian intelligence is a specific form of collective intelligence in which individual cognitive vices (i.e., shortcomings, limitations, constraints and biases) are seen to play a positive functional role in yielding collective forms of cognitive success. The present paper introduces the concept of mandevillian intelligence and reviews a number of strands of empirical research that help to shed light on the phenomenon. The paper also attempts to highlight the value of the concept of mandevillian intelligence from a philosophical, scientific and engineering perspective. Inasmuch as we accept the notion of mandevillian intelligence, then it seems that the cognitive and epistemic value of a specific social or technological intervention will vary according to whether our attention is focused at the individual or collective level of analysis. This has a number of important implications for how we think about the design and evaluation of collective cognitive systems. For example, the notion of mandevillian intelligence forces us to take seriously the idea that the exploitation (or even the accentuation) of individual cognitive shortcomings could, in some situations, provide a productive route to collective forms of cognitive and epistemic success.

Synthese

I don’t have much faith in the wisdom of the average individual. But if there is one thing we should have learned in the last 20-odd years, we can’t have automatic faith in the wisdom of our leaders either. I’m probably naive, but I like to think system thinking education could help address this. It could make the average person much more wise in their conclusions and decisions about the world around them, and it could help them select wise leaders through a democratic process. I won’t go to that worn out Churchill quote, but I can’t think of any other system of identifying and choosing wise leaders that would reliably work better. The one that sometimes seems to work better is when existing wise leaders choose their successors and put rules in place making it hard for outsiders to break in. But the problem, of course, is that the wise rulers are self-proclaimed, and even if they are in fact wise, if unwise people manage to break in at some point they will be able to manipulate and abuse that same set of rules to keep themselves and their unwise cronies in power.

U.S. topsoil

Leave a reply

A study published in Nature says the U.S. “corn belt” has lost something like 35% of its topsoil. Sounds concerning, and I have heard dramatic claims like “the world only has 50 years of topsoil left. I also just find it sad to think that the topsoil was built up by the prairies over the millennia, and we have mined much of it into oblivion in a few short industrial generations. But this article also puts the loss in terms of crop yields at around 6%, which doesn’t sound so dramatic. This makes me think we are relying largely on agricultural chemicals rather than nutrients in the soil itself. Maybe it would actually make more sense to intensify industrial agricultural in some areas or even indoors, contain the impacts, and restore some of those prairies.

about 80% protection against Covid-19 reinfection in a Danish study

Leave a reply

When scientists are saying “we are not 100% sure” people who have had Covid-19 will have some immunity to reinfection, many smart people I know are hearing “people who have had Covid-19 have no immunity to infection”. Similarly, when scientists say they are not absolutely sure vaccinated people will not spread the virus (although they are quickly changing their tune on this one as they look at the evidence), people are hearing that vaccinated people are spreading the virus. Here is at least one study showing that when people who had a confirmed infection were tested again three months later, protection against reinfection was pretty good but not perfect at about 80%. It appears to have been lower in people over 65 at about 50%.

The CDC and others have also thrown out 3 months as a minimum amount of time they are confident people are protected against reinfection or protected by a vaccine. I think this is just a conservative estimate in the face of limited information, but again the public is hearing “no protection after 3 months”. In this study, they tested again after 6 months and found no decrease in the level of protection (still about 80%).

So my view is that logic suggests being infected would provide at least some protection against reinfection and being able to spread the virus, and the same for vaccination. I say this because this is how other diseases work. And now the data are backing that up. The science and public health policy communication are still pretty bad, and like a toxic spill, bad communication that takes a few hours can take years to clean up on the surface and there will still be puddles of toxic mess for decades whenever you turn over a rock.

Our planetary ecological support system is dying. Why aren’t we doing anything?

Leave a reply

That’s my summary (in my own words, not theirs) of this paper from Frontiers in Conservation Science.

Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts. Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action. Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends. The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals.

This is not a paper about solutions. One thing they suggest is “for the scientific community to be more vocal”. I’m not sure. We need well-trained, well-funded scientists to do good science while talking amongst themselves, and then I think we need good science and risk communicators (some of whom might be scientists, but especially journalists and teachers and other types of people who write and speak in public, I think), along with engineers and technologists and economists and many other specialists (and generalists!) to help get through to our political and bureaucratic decision makers on the best courses of action. Facts and evidence don’t just speak for themselves, unfortunately. I certainly agree with the authors of this paper that we are failing to get through.

I’m always looking for that elevator pitch about why Uncle Lou (a fictional hard-headed relative, I don’t actually have an Uncle Lou) should care about biodiversity. Here is their attempt:

With such a rapid, catastrophic loss of biodiversity, the ecosystem services it provides have also declined. These include inter alia reduced carbon sequestration (Heath et al., 2005; Lal, 2008), reduced pollination (Potts et al., 2016), soil degradation (Lal, 2015), poorer water and air quality (Smith et al., 2013), more frequent and intense flooding (Bradshaw et al., 2007; Hinkel et al., 2014) and fires (Boer et al., 2020; Bowman et al., 2020), and compromised human health (Díaz et al., 2006; Bradshaw et al., 2019). As telling indicators of how much biomass humanity has transferred from natural ecosystems to our own use, of the estimated 0.17 Gt of living biomass of terrestrial vertebrates on Earth today, most is represented by livestock (59%) and human beings (36%)—only ~5% of this total biomass is made up by wild mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Bar-On et al., 2018). As of 2020, the overall material output of human endeavor exceeds the sum of all living biomass on Earth (Elhacham et al., 2020).

Frontiers in Conservation Science

I don’t think this paragraph will convince Uncle Lou. I think the message for the public is one where floods and fires threaten the value of their homes, and the future of the food supply we have taken for granted over the last century or so comes into doubt. The loss of natural ecosystems and animals is an epic tragedy to some, me included, but not to Uncle Lou down at the racetrack betting on the ponies (I’m not sure exactly who this character is I’ve just created, maybe we can interview him sometime and find out).

New Urbanism: Past, Present, and Future

Leave a reply

I basically agree with the principles of new urbanism (which were based on old urbanism). Communities where people can take most work, school, shopping, and entertainment trips by walking or biking are better for the planet and better for our physical and mental health. With good planning and design, there is plenty of room in the spaces we have already developed to accommodate whatever population growth we are expecting, without continuing to chew up land that could be left wild or used as farmland. The trick is to establish a virtuous cycle where gradually more people buy into the idea of life without private cars taking up half the space. And then some of that space saved has to be invested in good public infrastructure, access to recreation and nature to offset some of the negative effects of density. I think New Urban ideas have blunted suburban sprawl and car-dependency a little in the United States, but only a little unfortunately. There just aren’t that many walkable neighborhoods to choose from, and so people either aren’t familiar with them, and can’t imagine a non-car-dependent lifestyle, or else they assume people of average means can’t afford them, which is true in general of desirable things in short supply.

New Urbanism: Past, Present, and Future

The New Urbanism, initially conceived as an anti-sprawl reform movement, evolved into a new paradigm in urban design. Recently, however, some researchers have argued that the popular appeal of New Urbanism has eroded, the movement has lost its significance, and critical research on the broader theme has tapered off. In response, this article investigates whether the movement has lost its currency and explores the future of New Urbanism in the context of contemporary circumstances of development. The article begins with a brief description of the conceptualization of New Urbanism as an exception to the development trends of the time. Collaborative efforts of its protagonists that have contributed to the integration of New Urbanist concepts into other programs, policies, and development regulations are presented in the next section to describe its expansion, to clarify its mainstreaming, and to call attention to its broader impact. The concluding section presents contemporary circumstances of development and changes that are intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, including those related to the nation’s demographics, climate change, technological advances, rapid growth of the digital economy, and acceleration of e-commerce to explore the significance of New Urbanism for future development.

Urban Planning open access journal

why we’re numb to mass death

Leave a reply

I’ve always found close up pictures of Hiroshima victims to be some of the most affecting images I’ve ever seen, and yet knowing that 100,000* people were vaporized in a fraction of a second has less emotional effect. We also get numb to hearing about steady numbers of deaths that add up to a lot over time, like car accidents. I’m not a monster – this is a bug in human psychology. This article in Axios gives other examples of the phenomenon, from the Holocaust to the Rwanda genocide to the U.S. coronavirus meltdown. The article links to an academic paper by Paul Slovic at the University of Oregon, who studies this “psychic numbing” effect.

A defining element of catastrophes is the magnitude of their harmful consequences. To help society prevent or mitigate damage from catastrophes, immense effort and technological sophistication are often employed to assess and communicate the size and scope of potential or actual losses. This effort assumes that people can understand the resulting numbers and act on them appropriately. However, recent behavioral research casts doubt on this fundamental assumption. Many people do not understand large numbers. Indeed, large numbers have been found to lack meaning and to be underweighted in decisions unless they convey affect (feeling). As a result, there is a paradox that rational models of decision making fail to represent. On the one hand, we respond strongly to aid a single individual in need. On the other hand, we often fail to prevent mass tragedies – such as genocide – or take appropriate measures to reduce potential losses from natural disasters. We believe this occurs, in part, because as numbers get larger and larger, we become insensitive; numbers fail to trigger the emotion or feeling necessary to motivate action. We shall address this problem of insensitivity to mass tragedy by identifying certain circumstances in which it compromises the rationality of our actions and by pointing briefly to strategies that might lessen or overcome this problem.

The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Psychic Numbing and Genocide

I’ve often thought about a class that would teach the history of a war or tragedy by the numbers, by focusing on the number of deaths, who the people were, where they occurred and when they occurred. I think that would be educational (if depressing). But to put it in perspective you might need some visuals. One idea would be a stadium with people vanishing from seats. (This would work for, say, up to 100,000 deaths.) For even larger numbers, maybe you could start with a point in the center of the town where the class is being held or where students live, and then expand the dot outward as though all the people who live inside it were to vanish. You could even make this an app based on census data, and let the user pick the center of the bubble. Then finally, you probably should tie some of the deaths to individual stories, or interviews with survivors, friends and family. For me personally though, the numbers are important to put the emotional stories in context, and I am wary of news stories that don’t have numbers. Morbid stuff!

* Okay, I admit the “100,000 people in a fraction of a second” is just a number I picked somewhat for shock value. According to Wikipedia, 70,000-80,000 people were either vaporized instantly or burned to death shortly after the blast. Then a bunch more died of radiation poisoning of course. Does this make it any better? No, when it’s my turn please just vaporize me.

What’s new with emergy?

Leave a reply

Okay, I basically understand what emergy (embodied energy) is – the amount of energy incorporated (as opposed to lost to heat) in something useful, like an organism or a whole ecosystem. I am partial to the concept just from secondhand exposure to Howard T. Odum at the University of Florida. I never studied with him, but I knew some of his students and absorbed a little bit of his ideas through osmosis, and then I went back and did some reading later when I realized what I had missed. This paper is co-authored by Mark T. Brown, Odum’s long time collaborator who is still at UF pumping out studies on the subject.

The paper is interesting just for its literature review of other studies of ecosystem services and ecosystem function. The methods section has a nice run down of available spatial layers on energy, biomass, and ecosystems. The conclusion is that ecosystem functions are valuable, we have destroyed a lot of them, we are continuing to destroy them, and we may not be able to survive without them.