Heterogeneity in Residential Yard Care: Evidence from Boston, Miami, and Phoenix

The management of residential landscapes occurs within a complex socio-ecological system linking household decision-making with ecological properties, multi-scalar human drivers, and the legacy effects of past management. Conventional wisdom suggests that resource-intensive turf grass yards are the most common landscaping outcome, resulting in a presumed homogeneous set of residential landscaping practices throughout North America. We examine this homogenization thesis through an interview-based, cross-site study of residential landscape management in Boston, Phoenix, and Miami. Counter to the homogeneity thesis, we find that yard management practices often exhibit heterogeneity, for example, in groundcover choice or use of chemical inputs. The degree of heterogeneity in management practices varies according to the scale of analysis, and is the outcome of a range of constraints and opportunities to which households respond differently depending on their existing yard and landscaping preferences. This study highlights the importance of multi-scalar and cross-site analyses of decision-making in socio-ecological systems, and presents opportunities for longitudinal and cross-site research to examine the extent to which homogeneity is actually present in the management of residential landscapes over time and in diverse places.

Profile of planning: A study of a three-year project on the implementation of collaborative library media programs

The implementation of collaborative planning and teaching models in ten flexibly scheduled elementary and middle school library media centers was studied to determine which factors facilitated the collaborative planning process and to learn what occurs when library media specialists (LMSs) and classroom teachers (CTs) plan together. In this qualitative study, 61 principals, CTs, and LMSs were interviewed on a range of topics including the principal's role, school climate, the value of team planning, the importance of information literacy instruction, and the ideal learning environment. Other data sources were observations, videotapes of planning sessions, and documents. This three-year school reform effort was funded by the Library Power Project to improve library programs, to encourage collaborative planning, and to increase curricular integration of information literacy skills instruction. ^ The findings included a description of typical planning sessions and the identification of several major factors which impacted the success of collaborative planning: the individuals involved, school climate, time for planning, the organization of the school, the facility and collection, and training. Of these factors, the characteristics and actions of the people involved were most critical to the implementation of the innovation. The LMS was the pivotal player and, in the views of CTs, principals, and LMSs themselves, must be knowledgeable about curriculum, the library collection, and instructional design and delivery; must be open and welcoming to CTs and use good interpersonal skills; and must be committed to information literacy instruction and willing to act as a change agent. The support of the principal was vital; in schools with successful programs, the principal served as an advocate for collaborative planning and information literacy instruction, provided financial support for the library program including clerical staff, and arranged for LMSs and CTs to have time during the school day to plan together. ^ CTs involved in positive planning partnerships with LMSs were flexible, were open to change, used a variety of instructional materials, expected students to be actively involved in their own learning, and were willing to team teach with LMSs. Most CTs planning with LMSs made lesson plans in advance and preferred to plan with others. Also, most CTs in this study planned with grade level or departmental groups, which expedited the delivery of information literacy instruction and the effective use of planning time. ^ Implications of the findings of this research project were discussed for individual schools, for school districts, and for colleges and universities training LMSs, CTs, and administrators. Suggestions for additional research were also included. ^

"Unfair'' Restaurant Reviews:To Sue Or Not To Sue

In their discussion entitled - “Unfair” Restaurant Reviews: To Sue Or Not To Sue - by John Schroeder and Bruce Lazarus, Assistant Professors, Department of Restaurant, Hotel and Institutional Management at Purdue University, the authors initially state: “Both advantages and disadvantages exist on bringing lawsuits against restaurant critics who write “unfair” reviews. The authors, both of whom have experience with restaurant criticism, offer practical advice on what realistically can be done by the restaurateur outside of the courtroom to combat unfair criticism.” Well, this is going to be a sticky wicket no matter how you try to defend it, reviews being what they are; very subjective pieces of opinionated journalism, especially in the food industry. And, of course, unless you can prove malicious intent there really is no a basis for a libel suit. So, a restaurateur is at the mercy of written opinion and the press. “Libel is the written or published form of slander which is the statement of false remarks that may damage the reputation of others. It also includes any false and malicious publication which may damage a person's business, trade, or employment,” is the defined form of the law provided by the authors. Anecdotally, Schroeder and Lazarus offer a few of the more scathing pieces reviewers have written about particular eating establishments. And, yes, they can be a bit comical, unless you are the owner of an establishment that appears in the crosshairs of such a reviewer. A bad review can kneecap even a popular eatery. “Because of the large readership of restaurant reviews in the publication (consumer dining out habits indicate that nearly 50 percent of consumers read a review before visiting a new restaurant) your business begins a very dangerous downward tailspin,” the authors reveal, with attribution. “Many restaurant operators contend that a bad review can cost them an immediate trade loss of upward of 50 percent,” Schroeder and Lazarus warn. “The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a restaurant owner can collect damages only if he proves that the statement or statements were made with “actual malice,” even if the statements were untrue,” the authors say by way of citation. And that last portion of the statement cannot be over-emphasized. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution does wield a heavy hammer, indeed, and it should. So, what recourse does a restaurateur have? The authors cautiously give a guarded thumbs-up to a lawsuit, but you better be prepared to prove a misstatement of fact, as opposed to the distinguishable press protected right of opinion. For the restaurateur the pitfalls are many, the rewards few and far between, Schroeder and Lazarus will have you know. “…after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a lawsuit against a critic...the disadvantages are overwhelming,” the authors say. “Chicago restaurant critic James Ward said that someone dumped a load of manure on his yard accompanied by a note that read - Stop writing that s--t! - after he wrote a review of a local restaurant.” Such is a novel if not legally measurable tack against an un-mutual review.