Search results

Purpose — The Regional Household Travel Survey (RHTS) was a large-scale regional household travel survey that covered 28 counties in the New York, North New Jersey, and Connecticut regions (i.e., the New York City “megaregion”). Data collection for the survey began in October 2010 and concluded in November 2011.

The chapter discusses the multiple modes and methodologies used in the RHTS, and presents the participation rates and trip rates obtained using this multimodal approach.

Methodology/approach — This survey used a combination of web, telephone, and mail-out/mail-back methods to collect household and travel information from approximately 18,800 households. Ten percent of the sampled households participated in the survey by using wearable global positioning system (GPS) devices that collected detailed travel data which, in turn, were processed and presented back to the households in a GPS-based prompted recall interview administered by web or telephone. The GPS component was used to generate trip rate correction factors for the other 90% diary-based households.

Findings — This large regional survey was the first to use this specific combination of methods and technologies, and provides many insights into the success of targeted survey modes and methods for different population groups.

The paper aims to present a literary itinerary inspired in Julio Dinis’ novel An English Family (Uma Família Inglesa) through a comparative analysis of the places identified in the novel and the touristic attraction proposed by Visit Porto website. This novel is representative of the cultural identity and society of Porto city in the 19th century. Developing an itinerary based on this novel can facilitate the reading and understanding of the historical and cultural development of Porto.

This case study is based on the reading of the Julio Dinis’ novel An English Family (Uma Família Inglesa), whose storyline takes place in Porto city, Portugal in the 19th century. It used QGIS v. 3.12 software, a geographical information system to identify the places, to produce the maps and to create the itinerary.

The comparison between the places identified in the novel and the tourist attraction in Visit Porto website revealed that only 6 points in the novel are referenced on Visit Porto website. These points correspond to the ones in the historical city centre of Porto. However, the creation of an itinerary that brings together all the points mentioned by Julio Dinis in his novel, will allow the development of a new touristic itinerary, alternative to existing itineraries in the city and that can be seen as a distinguish offer that allows a different view of the urban space of Porto.

There are some limitations to this study that can be highlighted. First, it was difficult to find the correct location of some points identified in the novel, due to difficulty of finding historical maps with quality of the data. At the same time, as tourist information is dispersed by several sources, and most of those data is not georeferenced, it was time consuming the integration of all the information in the same geodatabase. The choice of the shortest path can also be considered as a limitation, rather than the route followed by the author in the novel, but geographic information systems operates on spatial and temporal scale, which can present a limitation in tourism analysis. In the case of this project, we have chosen the shortest path, assuming that tourist would prefer that.

This research allowed to address two areas of knowledge that are emerging in the study of urban centres as tourist areas: the use of GIS and literary tourism. Despite the fact that there are already articles on this subject, the originality focuses on the approach made around one of the greatest writers of Portugal in the 19th century, allowing to present a tourist itinerary about one of his literary works, and the comparison made between the places identified in the novel and the tourist points identified on the Visit Porto website.

This chapter gives one version of the recent history of evaluation case study. It looks back over the emergence of case study as a sociological method, developed in the early years of the 20th Century and celebrated and elaborated by the Chicago School of urban sociology at Chicago University, starting throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Some of the basic methods, including constant comparison, were generated at that time. Only partly influenced by this methodological movement, an alliance between an Illinois-based team in the United States and a team at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom recast the case method as a key tool for the evaluation of social and educational programmes.

This paper highlights an assignment in a combination upper-division undergraduate and graduate civic leadership class at a Midwestern state comprehensive university. The three-part assignment challenges students’ critical thinking skills and research capabilities while simultaneously necessitating the exploration of contrasting viewpoints on contentious issues.

Intentionally exposing students to diverse perspectives in a controlled environment.

We posit that the severity and frequency of these issues can be mitigated through focused efforts.

Students are better prepared to engage in civil debate on controversial topics, which continuously divide our communities, after completing a class using this pedagogical strategy.

There is no argument among serious researchers that a mongoloid stock first colonized the New World from Asia. Nor is there controversy about the fact that these continental pioneers used the Bering Land Bridge that then connected the Asian Far East with Alaska.– Gerald F. Shields, et al.American Journal of Genetics (1992)

Beginning in narrative re-evaluated daily from classrooms inside prison walls, this article further explores cultural, ethical, and social values of teaching college courses inside the wall. Interrogating public discourse over what Eric Schlosser terms the “prison–industrial complex” arrogates subsequent considerations. Prison-building became a growth industry, even as prevailing political response to prisoners themselves became increasingly censorious and unforgiving. Traditional American culture preaches redemption but relishes abasement, promises forgiveness but refuses forgetting. Carefully examining further questions about humanistic discourse as a possible locus for radicalization, we finally confront how the prisoners’ situation reflects rather than deflects traditional expectations.