I believe the answer is primary.
not sure if this helps but I hope it does
sorry its so long
To date erosion scientists have failed to address — or have addressed inadequately — some of the ‘big questions’ of our discipline. For example, where is erosion occurring? Why is it happening, and who is to blame? How serious is it? Who does it affect? What should be the response? Can we prevent it? What are the costs of erosion? Our inability or reluctance to answer such questions damages our credibility and is based on weaknesses in commonly-used approaches and the spatial and temporal scales at which much research is carried out. We have difficulty in the recognition, description and quantification of erosion, and limited information on the magnitude and frequency of events that cause erosion. In particular there has been a neglect of extreme events which are known to contribute substantially to total erosion. The inadequacy and frequent misuse of existing data leaves us open to the charge of exaggeration of the erosion problem (a la Lomborg).
Models need to be developed for many purposes and at many scales. Existing models have proved to be of limited value, in the real as opposed to the academic world, both because of problems with the reliability of their results, and difficulties (with associated costs) of acquiring suitable data. However, there are some positive signs: models are now being developed for purposes including addressing questions of off-site impacts and land-use policy. Cheap, reliable and technically simple methods of erosion assessment at the field scale are needed. At the global scale, an up-date of GLASOD based on a scientific approach is urgent so that we are at least able to identify erosion ‘hotspots’.
In terms of explanation of erosion, the greatest need is for a full recognition of the importance of socio-economic drivers. The accession of new countries to the EU with different economic and land-use histories emphasises this need. Too often we have left people, especially the farmers, out of the picture. Our approach could be characterised as ‘data-rich and people-poor’.
Dutch researcher Geert Hofstede identified four cultural dimensions by studying data on IBM employees from dozens of countries.
The original theory has four dimensions along which cultural values identified as:
- individualism-collectivism
- uncertainty avoidance
- power distance in social hierarchy
- masculinity-femininity
Hofstede's theory is used to understand the differences in cultures round the globe. He started this model on the basis of dissimilarities in values and beliefs relating work goals. The aim of this model was to determine the dimensions in which cultures vary from each other . It is important because it gives useful information regarding variances between countries' culture, values and beliefs and how to manage such cultural differences".
To learn more about Hofstede's Theory,
brainly.com/question/14453085
#SPJ4
Answer:
Colonizing countries were pioneer to acquire Industrial revolution, master in sea navigation and technological development. Colonized countries were deficient in above features.
Explanation:
European countries were colonizing countries such as Britian, Spain, Portugal and so on. Asian, African and American countries were colonized countries under European powers. Many European countries were witnessed the Industrial revolition in mid 18th century but colonized countries were exporters of raw materials and consumer of finished goods till their decolonisation. There is no technological and infrastructural development in colonised countries whereas colonial powers were superior in science, arts, literatures and so on.
I belive the answer is: Voters
Lobbyist consist of a group of people that aimed to support a certain representatives in order to legally influence the outcome of the legislation.
These lobbyist tend to represent actual segment of registered voters for a specific cause that deemed as important for them.
