Manuel Colunga Garcia

[Manuel Colunga Garcia]

I think Richard has a valid point (his first post). I may add that we need to consider the impact that the group name has on stakeholders and sponsor agencies. For a long time I did not like to consider myself as a someone who makes maps but I learned it was a helpful distinction when I realized my stakeholders wanted map products. I agree that the proposed name is leaner and cleaner “International Pest Risk Research Group” but I am afraid it obscures a major strength of this group: spatial modeling. A researcher does not have to be a spatial modeler to be part of the group but his/her research should contribute to spatial modeling. Of course within the research community, emphasize spatial analysis may seem something redundant (like emphasizing we conduct statistical analysis in our research) but from a stakeholder perspective I don’t think this is the case yet.

This may lead then to what… “International Pest Risk Spatial Modeling Group” (i-pers-meg) or “International Spatial Risk Pest Modeling Group” (is-rep-meg) or something like that…

[Author]

Posts