14 research outputs found
The functional and symbolic roles of hair and headgear among Afro-American women : a cultural perspective
This study examined the significance of the functional and symbolic roles of hair and headgear among Afro-American women. The presence of these aspects of adornment was traced in African and Afro-American settings from pre-colonial Africa to contemporary New World societies. The investigation included the analyses of comparative sources, including descriptive accounts, visual documentation, and contemporary data. The• focused interview technique was used to collect data from a non-random sample of Afro-American women, aged twenty to ninety. Beliefs, attitudes, perceptions, and motivations relating to hair management and adornment were studied. The conclusions drawn from comparative sources presented the idea that hair and headgear are two characteristics chosen by Afro-American women for aesthetic expression, maintenance of non-verbal communication, reinterpretation of traditional African forms, and dramatization of ethnic identity. A union of function and symbol was found in the adornment of the hair and head among Afro-American women in both historical and contemporary contexts
Recommended from our members
Pharmaceutical Information: A 30-Year Perspective on the Literature
Recommended from our members
Rates of tree cover loss in key biodiversity areas within Indigenous Peoples' lands.
Indigenous Peoples' lands (IPL) cover at least 38 million km2 (28.1%) of the global terrestrial surface. These lands can be important for biodiversity conservation. Around 20.7% of IPL intersect areas protected by government (PAs). Many sites of importance for biodiversity within IPL could make a substantial but hitherto unquantified contribution to Global site-based conservation targets. Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) represent the largest global network of systematically identified sites of high importance for biodiversity. We assessed the effectiveness of IPL in slowing biodiversity loss, both within and outside PAs, by quantifying tree cover loss in KBAs at international and national levels and comparing it with losses at equivalent sites outside mapped IPL. Based on a matched sample of 1-km2 cells in KBAs inside and outside of mapped IPL, tree cover loss in KBAs outside of PAs was lower inside IPLs when compared to outside mapped IPLs. By contrast, tree cover loss in KBAs inside of PAs was lower outside mapped IPLs than inside IPLs (although the difference was far smaller). However, national rates of tree cover loss in KBAs varied greatly in relation to their IPL and PA status. In half of the 44 countries we examined individually, there was no significant difference in the rate of tree cover loss in KBAs inside and outside mapped IPL. The reasons for this inter country variation could help understand the importance of IPL in meeting the CBD's ambition of conserving 30% of land by 2030. Critical to this will be coordinated action by governments to strengthen and enforce Indigenous Peoples' rights, secure their collective systems of tenure and governance, and recognize their aspirations for their lands and futures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Rates of tree cover loss in key biodiversity areas within Indigenous Peoples' lands
Indigenous Peoples' lands (IPL) cover at least 38 million km2 (28.1%) of the global terrestrial surface. These lands can be important for biodiversity conservation. Around 20.7% of IPL intersect areas protected by government (PAs). Many sites of importance for biodiversity within IPL could make a substantial but hitherto unquantified contribution to Global site-based conservation targets. Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) represent the largest global network of systematically identified sites of high importance for biodiversity. We assessed the effectiveness of IPL in slowing biodiversity loss, both within and outside PAs, by quantifying tree cover loss in KBAs at international and national levels and comparing it with losses at equivalent sites outside mapped IPL. Based on a matched sample of 1-km2 cells in KBAs inside and outside of mapped IPL, tree cover loss in KBAs outside of PAs was lower inside IPLs when compared to outside mapped IPLs. By contrast, tree cover loss in KBAs inside of PAs was lower outside mapped IPLs than inside IPLs (although the difference was far smaller). However, national rates of tree cover loss in KBAs varied greatly in relation to their IPL and PA status. In half of the 44 countries we examined individually, there was no significant difference in the rate of tree cover loss in KBAs inside and outside mapped IPL. The reasons for this inter country variation could help understand the importance of IPL in meeting the CBD's ambition of conserving 30% of land by 2030. Critical to this will be coordinated action by governments to strengthen and enforce Indigenous Peoples' rights, secure their collective systems of tenure and governance, and recognize their aspirations for their lands and futures. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Evidence for a “Little Ice Age” Glacial Advance within the Antarctic Peninsula - Examples from Glacially-Overrun Raised Beaches
Recommended from our members
Funding and delivering the routine testing of management interventions to improve conservation effectiveness
Evidence-based approaches are key for underpinning effective conservation practice, but major gaps in the evidence of the effectiveness of interventions limit their use. Conservation practitioners could make major contributions to filling these gaps but often lack the time, funding, or capacity to do so properly. Many funders target the delivery of conservation and can be reluctant to fund primary research. We analysed the literature testing the effectiveness of interventions. Of a sample of 1,265 publications published in 2019 that tested conservation interventions, 96% included academics. Only 21% included conservation practitioners, of which just under half were first or last author. A community of conservation funders and practitioners undertook a series of workshops to explore means of improving the quality and quantity of intervention testing. A survey of the suggested proportion of conservation grants that should be allocated to testing intervention effectiveness showed practitioners tended to prefer larger percentages (median 3-6%) than funders (median 1-3%), but the overlap was considerable. Funders can facilitate the testing of interventions through a range of measures, including welcoming applications that incorporate testing, allocating funds to testing, and providing training and support to deliver testing. The funders represented by the authors of this paper have committed to these actions. Practitioners can contribute by committing to routine testing, benefiting from funding allocated specifically to testing, and establishing processes for testing interventions. The organisations of the practitioner authors have committed to test at least one intervention per year and share findings, regardless of outcome. Currently, practitioners rarely lead the testing of conservation actions. We suggest processes by which both funders and practitioners can make this routine. This will not only improve the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of practice, but also make conservation more attractive to funders.This paper arose from a series of workshops attended by funders and practitioners, focused on how to integrate evidence in conservation. We thank all participants. The first workshop was hosted by Lord Mountevans at the House of Lords, UK, with funding from Arcadia. Subsequent workshops were held online. We thank Kate Willott for providing the 2019 references from the Conservation Evidence database. We are also grateful to two anonymous reviewers whose feedback provided helpful suggestions for improving this manuscript