Abstract1. Introduction1. Exurban growth is uniquely characterized by aesthetic preferences and individual choice. One of those important preferences in privacy.Regions across the United States with scenic beauty and other natural amenities are experiencing rapid population growth and residential development. Exurban growth, or exurbanization, in particular in characterized by low-density residential settlement in rural areas valued for their aesthetic, recreational, and other consumption-oriented values (McCarthy 2008; Taylor 2011). A complex and varied picture of the drivers of exurbanization is emerging and the reasons that people move to scenic rural areas are as numerous as the communities that they form. -For many exurbanites, natural amenities, such as scenic beauty, expansive vistas (Vukomanovic and Orr 2014), wilderness, recreational opportunities, and climate play an important role in in the decision to migrate. [ADD: Gosnell and Abrams 2011, McCarthy 2008; McGranahan 2008]-Social and cultural connections to small-town rural life (Hines 2007) and a desire for a sense of community (Vogt 2011) can also be a draw for some exurbanites. Privacy and solitude, often described as being unaware of other people when at home (Kondo et al. 2012), are important to many exurbanites who seek a seclusion or a "frontier living" experience (Hines 2007; Hines 2011). As many as 46% of amenity migrants in Washington State described finding "privacy" or "peace-and-quiet" as a primary purchase goal. Exurban development represents a unique land use often characterized by aesthetics - whether strictly related to perceptions of beauty or more broadly as principles or worldview expressed through outward appearance and actions - and driven by individual choice. 2. [AND] It's a rapidly-growing land use with significant impacts to both communities and ecosystems. Impacts depend on the spatial distribution of development.a) area (and percentage) of land at exurban densities [and at other densities, for comparison] b) how rapidly exurban areas are growing (e.g. rate of growth) c) what are the land types that are converting to exurbanThe per capita land conversion in exurban areas is much greater than for urban areas and that growth is seldom guided by growth management plans (Kondo et al. 2012). The rapid growth and dispersed nature of exurban development raises numerous ecological concerns, including changes to water quality and quantity [REF], altered fuel loads and fire regimes [REF], habitat fragmentation, and the spread of invasive species [REF]. -There are also impacts on communities (e.g. conflict between long-term residents and newcomers) - examples [REFS]-Residential development drives the growth of other infrastructure and many of the ecological impacts of residential development depend on the spatial configuration of houses, associated infrastructure, in particular road networks (Vukomanovic et al. 2013; OTHER REFS). This spatial arrangement of houses depends on the drivers of exurbanization, where different preferences can lead to very different spatial arrangements 3. [BUT] Studies to date have been largely descriptive or done at scales where you lose that individual perspective. -While work has been done to identify the drivers of exurbanization, very little is known about the spatial distribution of these preferences or the relative importance of some drivers relative to others. -There have been limited attempts to integrate what has been learned directly from exurbanites about their reasons for moving to rural landscapes and the spatial pattern of development (Walker 2011). Interviews, survey, participant observation, focus groups, and other narratives provide valuable place-based information and context, however time and resource limitation make these approaches difficult to implement over landscape scales. Whether by norms of disciplinary practice or protocols designed to protect participant identity, reported results very seldom georeference narrative and survey data. Demographic and aggregated spatial analyses of the impacts and drivers of exurbanization have relied largely on country-level Census data (McGranahan 2008; Rudzitis et al. 2011), are valuable for understanding common drivers, such as climate (McGranahan 1999) or proximity to water (Mueser and Graves 1995), but miss individual perspectives. This earlier work is essential to identify what drivers to examine and questions to ask. However, these approaches limit our understanding of how preference are spatially distributed at finer scales, as well as the ability to ask questions about trade-offs.4. [THEREFORE] We turn to a viewscapes approach that is informed by social science, but relies on a spatial representation to understand the interactions and trade-offs between drivers.Analyses of demographic trends and 5. We a) mapped the historic distribution of suburban, exurban, and rural development prior to 2010 (great recession), b) analyzed size and privacy of exurban viewscapes relative to those in suburban and rural settings, c) we developed a predictive model of the probability of exurban settlements based on quantitative metrics of viewscape visual qualities. Application of the model is made possible by a new algorithm for computing spatially continuous, all-possible viewscape coverages for a region [highlight in abstract] c) proTo include in paragraph 5: The region is well-suited to studying drivers of exurban viewscape decisions as the rugged topography and low-height desert vegetation provide numerous scenic vistas AND local land-use policy does not restrict development of low-density housing and private roads.
Creative Commons Licensing by Mary Wasson The Creative Commons YouTube video is informational and easily explains the different copywriting licensing levels. You can watch the video following this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YkbeycRa2A The Creative Commons license allows anyone to download and share digital content legally. There are different levels of sharing and there are different free licensing tools to choose from. License elements, or rules, have their own symbol. The different elements are: + Atttribution + Non-Commercial + No Derivitives + Share Alike Depending on the level of copywriting the license elements can be mixed and matched for the intended amount of freedom. More information can be found at: https://creativecommons.org/
Rahim Jindani1, Shiara M. Ortiz-Pujols2, Carrie Nielsen2, Bruce A. Cairns2, Martin W. King*1, 31College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA2Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA3College of Textiles, Donghua University, Shanghai, China.ABSTRACT______________________________________________________________________________________________________Objective: Split thickness skin grafts area common reconstructive procedure for the management of deep burn injuries. The management of donor sites, created after harvesting autografts, presentshealthcare providers with a number of challenges, which need to be addressed. A survey was conducted to find consensus amongst the healthcare community regarding the management of donor site wounds.Method: A survey was conducted at the Southern Burn Regional Meeting in November 2012 to explore participants’ opinions about their perceptions and management practices of donor sites.Results: In total, 79 participants from 31 different burn institutions from 14 states took part. Based on the answers to the survey’s questions, an “ideal” donor site dressing should have the following properties: the ability to alleviate pain, be antibacterial, be non-adhesive, be hemostatic and be able to prevent wound desiccation. In addition, ease of removal, minimal care, and the dressing’s ability to drain exudate were considered additional requirements. The results of the survey revealed that the most commonly used donor site dressings were Aquacel Ag® and Mapilex Ag®.Conclusion: This survey provides insight into the desired properties for an ”ideal” donor site dressing, and the need to reduce and/or alleviate pain was clearly articulated as the number one priority. To date, no wound care product has been developed that is designed to reduce or eliminate donor site pain. Future developments in donor site wound dressings need to focus on meeting these requirements and the properties identified and prioritized by the above mentioned survey questionnaire.________________________________________________________________________________________________________IntroductionDebridement and split thickness skin grafts are routinely performed for the management of deep burns and other non-healing wounds. The management of donor sites created after harvesting an autograft, present healthcare providers with a number of challenges, especially with respect to controlling painand blood loss. To date, there is no standard procedure or gold standard with respect to the management of donor sites and current options do not appear to fully address these challenges.Donor sites are often the most painful component of burn surgery. They produce considerable amounts of exudate that necessitate daily dressing changes, which in turn can contribute to an additional level of pain. Failure to remove the exudate on a daily basis increases the risk of bacterial infection at the site. There are several topical agents that can be used to manage these sites; however all have associated adverse effects that can make them less than optimal. For example, Bacitracin/Neomycin ointments can cause contact dermatitis when exposed to light [1-3].Silver-based products have long been used for wound care because of their antibacterial and medicinal properties. Otheroptions for the management of donor sites include allografts and porcine-derived xenografts. Tissue engineered products,such as Epicel®, AlloDerm®, TransCyte™, and Dermagraft®, have been developed that rely on epidermal cells or dermal progenitor cells that have been cultured in a controlled environment [5, 6]. These products support the healing process by providing a matrix to promote the regeneration of dermal tissue.In order to better understand current clinical practices used in the treatment and management of donor site management, we conducted a survey at the Southern Regional BurnConference held in Norfolk, VA between November 16-18, 2012. The aim of the survey wasto identify the range of different approaches as well as the preferred therapies used among burn center personnel. It was also anticipated that key clinical problems and challenges in the management of donor sites would be identified, which would lead to the future development of new dressings that would better address these issues.MethodsIn order to design the survey, first an in-depth literature search was conducted to learn more about the reported issues and challenges surrounding the management of donor sites, in order to design the survey. The survey consisted of nine open-ended and closed questions and the types of dressings used, if any, in the management of donor sites. The Southern Regional Burn Conference was selected as the site for the distribution of the survey since it is the largest regional meeting of its kind in the USA, attracting participants from 31 burn centers in 14 states, ranging from Washington, DC to Florida and as far west as Texas. There were no incentives offered or rewards given for completion of the survey. Prior to administering the questionnaire it was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill.SurveyThe survey questions were developed taking into consideration some of the topics raised in a previous questionnaire that was developed to understand the characteristics of an ideal burn wound dressing and the problems associated with donor sites for various skin types . The questions aimed at exploring different aspects of donor site therapy and management, including what commercially available products are currently being used and what other aspects of clinical care are considered problematic. The questions were either multiple choice orinvolved ranking on a scale of 1 (“most important”) to 5 (“not important”), or they were open-ended questions that would provide more detailed information.A hard copy of the survey was distributed to each attendee at one of the sessions of the conference, and the participants were given as much time as they needed to provide independent answers to the questions before handing in their completed questionnaire.
This collaborative document has been created for the panel discussion on “Rotation in massive stars” (FOE 2015), held on Thursday 6/4/2015 in Raileigh. All conference participants have been added to the document and can edit / comment / add figures (just drag&drop) / references and even LaTeX equations if needed (check the help page for more info on how to edit the document). Hopefully this will capture the essential ideas and interactions that will stem during and after the discussion. The document can be forked at any time, so that particular discussions can be taken further and potentially lead to active collaborations.
_A 5-minute video demonstration of this paper is available at this YouTube link._ PREAMBLE A variety of research on human cognition demonstrates that humans learn and communicate best when more than one processing system (e.g. visual, auditory, touch) is used. And, related research also shows that, no matter how technical the material, most humans also retain and process information best when they can put a narrative "story" to it. So, when considering the future of scholarly communication, we should be careful not to do blithely away with the linear narrative format that articles and books have followed for centuries: instead, we should enrich it. Much more than text is used to communicate in Science. Figures, which include images, diagrams, graphs, charts, and more, have enriched scholarly articles since the time of Galileo, and ever-growing volumes of data underpin most scientific papers. When scientists communicate face-to-face, as in talks or small discussions, these figures are often the focus of the conversation. In the best discussions, scientists have the ability to manipulate the figures, and to access underlying data, in real-time, so as to test out various what-if scenarios, and to explain findings more clearly. THIS SHORT ARTICLE EXPLAINS—AND SHOWS WITH DEMONSTRATIONS—HOW SCHOLARLY "PAPERS" CAN MORPH INTO LONG-LASTING RICH RECORDS OF SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE, enriched with deep data and code linkages, interactive figures, audio, video, and commenting.
ORCID – an acronym short for Open Researcher and Contributor ID – is an international, interdisciplinary and community-driven effort to create and maintain a registry of persistent, unique identifiers for researchers and scholars. ORCID IDs are extremely important in the disambiguation of non-unique author names. They can also be embedded in key workflows, such as research profile maintenance, manuscript submissions and grant applications. Using several approaches to reach out to our users, we will report on ORCID ID uptake by the astronomical community.
We analyze data sharing practices of astronomers over the past fifteen years. An analysis of URL links embedded in papers published by the American Astronomical Society reveals that the total number of links included in the literature rose dramatically from 1997 until 2005, when it leveled off at around 1500 per year. This rise indicates an increased interest in data-sharing over the same time period that the web saw its most dramatic growth in usage in the developed world. The analysis also shows that the availability of linked material decays with time: in 2011, 44% of links published a decade earlier, in 2001, were broken. A rough analysis of link types reveals that links to data hosted on astronomers’ personal websites become unreachable much faster than links to datasets on curated institutional sites. To gauge astronomers’ current data sharing practices and preferences further, we performed in-depth interviews with 12 scientists and online surveys with 173 scientists, all at a large astrophysical research institute in the United States: the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Cambridge, MA. Both the in-depth interviews and the online survey indicate that, in principle, there is no philosophical objection to data-sharing among astronomers at this institution, and nearly all astronomers would share as much of their data as others wanted if it were practicable. Key reasons that more data are not presently shared more efficiently in astronomy include: the difficulty of sharing large data sets; over reliance on non-robust, non-reproducible mechanisms for sharing data (e.g. emailing it); unfamiliarity with options that make data-sharing easier (faster) and/or more robust; and, lastly, a sense that other researchers would not want the data to be shared. We conclude with a short discussion of a new effort to implement an easy-to-use, robust, system for data sharing in astronomy, at theastrodata.org, and we analyze the uptake of that system to-date.