2 results
3 - “At home” on a Mission Station and in a Female Factory
- from Part 1 - Australasia and Its Diaspora
-
- By Lucy Frost, University of Tasmania
- Edited by Ralph Crane, English Professor, University of Tasmania, Australia, Anna Johnston, ARC Queen Elizabeth II Fellow in English, University of Tasmania, C. Vijayasree, Was Professor of English, Osmania University
-
- Book:
- Empire Calling
- Published by:
- Foundation Books
- Published online:
- 05 May 2013
- Print publication:
- 01 January 2013, pp 38-67
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
In the early decades of the nineteenth century, the administrators of British colonial institutions were predominantly male. Architecturally, the institutions they ran occupied public space. As local manifestations of imperial power, the buildings which housed colonial institutions stood out from the vernacular architecture, and by design could be easily identified as belonging to the imported culture. The tenacity of a colonial presence was signalled by the number and scale of public buildings housing administrative offices. For the most part, male administrators also had access to other spaces where they could be “at home,” buildings in a distinctively domestic style which marked a separation between their public and private lives. If an administrator was married, the space available for his private life was managed by his wife, who had no daily role to play inside the public buildings where her husband worked. On the frontier and its outposts, however, where the footprint of empire was less visible, administrative officers often lived and worked in the same location, usually without their wives. Likewise, male missionaries setting up stations authorised within the imperial enterprise, if often at odds with its officials, began with space serving both public and private functions – and their wives went with them. “From an early date,” writes Clare Midgley in her study of women on the mission fields in the early nineteenthcentury British Empire, “missionary societies recognized the benefits of recruiting married men as missionaries, and thus, as early as there were foreign missionaries, there were missionaries' wives” (339).
Adaptive management: where are we now?
- LUCY RIST, BRUCE M. CAMPBELL, PETER FROST
-
- Journal:
- Environmental Conservation / Volume 40 / Issue 1 / March 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 August 2012, pp. 5-18
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Adaptive management (AM) emerged in the literature in the mid-1970s in response both to a realization of the extent of uncertainty involved in management, and a frustration with attempts to use modelling to integrate knowledge and make predictions. The term has since become increasingly widely used in scientific articles, policy documents and management plans, but both understanding and application of the concept is mixed. This paper reviews recent literature from conservation and natural resource management journals to assess diversity in how the term is used, highlight ambiguities and consider how the concept might be further assessed. AM is currently being used to describe many different management contexts, scales and locations. Few authors define the term explicitly or describe how it offers a means to improve management outcomes in their specific management context. Many do not adhere to the idea as it was originally conceived, despite citing seminal work. Significant confusion exists over the distinction between active and passive approaches. Over half of the studies reporting to implement AM claimed to have done so successfully, yet none quantified specific benefits, or costs, in relation to possible alternatives. Similarly those studies reporting to assess the approach did so only in relation to specific models and their parameterizations; none assessed the benefits or costs of AM in the field. AM is regarded by some as an effective and well-established framework to support the management of natural resources, yet by others as a concept difficult to realize and fraught with implementation challenges; neither of these observations is wholly accurate. From a scientific and technical perspective many practical questions remain; in particular real-world assessments of the value of experimentation within a management framework, as well as of identified challenges and pathologies, are needed. Further discussion and systematic assessment of the approach is required, together with greater attention to its definition and description, enabling the assessment of new approaches to managing uncertainty, and AM itself.