Peter Turchin mentions that at Aarhus University in Denmark, productivity is not is not particularly high since “many begin leaving work starting at 3 pm”.
Fortunately, in the Shanghai Jiao Tong University Academic Ranking of World Universities there is a category, Per Capita Performance (PCP) that measures per capita academic performance of an institution. What do we find here?
Aarhus University scores 28.5, while Peter Turchin’s home institution, University of Connecticut at Storrs, scores 13.3.
Now this is not completely fair. While the the Shanghai ranking is pretty good since it is based on outputs, not inputs, it is not at all concerned with learning outcomes for students. It may be the case the University of Connecticut at Storrs adds more value to their students than Aarhus University does. Also, medical schools produce lots of papers, so any university with a large medical school will tend to do well in the rankings.
University of Copenhagen has a PCP score of 35, while University of Wisconsin scores 25.1. Why this comparison? Wisconsin is roughly the same size as Denmark and it is full of people of Scandinavian descent. However, in the overall Shanghai ranking, University of Wisconsin ranks 19th in the world , University of Copenhagen ranks 42nd and Aarhus ranks 81st. That is probably about right. The University of Connecticut – Storrs is ranked in the 201-300 group.
Let me add that Peter Turchin clearly outclasses his home university. They are lucky to have him. Of course, there are compensations for working in Storrs. I gave a talk there once, and the area is beautiful.
For a lot of very informative videos from CARTA: The Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny, see this list, http://carta.anthropogeny.org/symposia/past_list
I couldn’t get to see them in full screen mode on this site, but they are also available on YouTube.
Yale Conservation Finance Camp – June 6 – 10.
Economic Tools for Conservation – 2011 International Course at Stanford, August 15 – 26.
Before getting all excited about using REDD funds for conservation, read this recent letter in Conservation Letters,
Risky business: an uncertain future for biodiversity conservation finance through REDD+
Jacob Phelps, Edward L. Webb, & Lian P. Koh
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and through the conservation, sustainable management, and enhancement of carbon stocks (REDD+) offers unprecedented potential funding for forest conservation and associated biodiversity. However, as a growing number of biodiversity conservation projects link with carbon emissions mitigation efforts, they might also be exposed to significant financial risks. REDD+ projects currently face uncertainty over future demand for carbon credits, the potential for inconsistent donor support in the long-term, carbon market volatility, investor preference for low-cost emissions mitigation over cobenefits, and the possibility of a shortlived REDD+ mechanism. The private sector is aware of the associated financial risks, which remain largely unaddressed within the conservation literature. Biodiversity conservationists need to identify a balance between maximizing near-term REDD+ opportunities and insulating themselves from long-term financial risks. We describe some of the prospective financial risks for biodiversity conservation efforts linked with REDD+, and propose initial strategies for financial resilience.
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) was set up to reduce greenhouse gases, with biodiversity conservation as a “co-benefit”.
It is therefore encouraging to see this project in Kenya, the Kasigau Corridor REDD Project,
WWC’s first project at Rukinga, Kenya, has been operating since 2005 protecting local wildlife and forests. The aim of this project is to bring the benefits of direct carbon financing to surrounding communities, while simultaneously addressing alternative livelihoods. Human-wildlife conflict has been a problem in the past, as local agents are reliant on flora and fauna as a means for subsistence. The Rukinga project directly addresses such sources of conflict in a holistic, sustainable approach. An additional goal is to secure a contiguous wildlife migration corridor between Tsavo East and West National Parks.
The project is being carried out by Wildlife Works Carbon LLC.
Our first REDD project in Rukinga, Kenya builds on a successful decade long track record, of bringing much needed jobs to a community that was being forced to destroy their magnificent wilderness in order to survive. In the last ten years we have turned back time, and restored a huge piece of land to a healthy vibrant ecosystem, full of elephants, lions, and 50 other species of large mammal. At the same time, the community has received 18 new classrooms for their children, and the employees and their families have received full health care benefits in a community with incredibly high HIV incidence. Wildlife Works also founded an organic greenhouse to promote healthier farming practices, to provide local farmers with cash generating citrus trees and free agroforestry trees to use for building and fuel wood. Wildlife Works Carbon will provide the financial additionality to ensure long term sustainability of Wildlife Works efforts in Kenya and beyond.
What seems to be missing here is a clear description of the distribution mechanism to a local contracting party (village council, group ranch, or other organization) the revenue stream the local party can expect over the life of the project. And how was free, prior and informed consent obtained?
This video illustrates what Dan Brockington aptly called Fortress Conservation,