Chart: Educational Mobility Around the World

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international group of 34 mostly-rich countries, has published its most recent Education at a Glance report for 2014, which ranks countries according to the proportion of adults (those age 25 to 64) who are better educated than their parents. This helps to determine how well member countries are doing at improving educational opportunity.

The full study can be found in the hyperlink above, while The Economist has put together the results in the following chart (note that for the sake of fair comparison, developing countries like Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico are not listed).

The New York Times also reported on this study, providing an even more telling chart:

As the article noted, the U.S. is doing far poorly than a nation of its size and wealth should:

Barely 30 percent of American adults have achieved a higher level of education than their parents did. Only Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic do worse. In Finland more than 50 percent of adults are more educated than their parents.

And matters are getting worse, not better. Among 25- to 34-year olds, only 20 percent of men and 27 percent of women, both out of school, have achieved a higher level of education than their parents.

It’s even bleaker at the bottom: Only one in 20 Americans aged 25 to 34 whose parents didn’t finish high school has a college degree. The average across 20 rich countries in the O.E.C.D. analysis is almost one in four.

Moreover, as usual, it is the poorest and most vulnerable members of society that are hit the hardest: there is a wide and ever-growing income gap in the graduation rate of teenagers from lower-income backgrounds versus higher-income ones; one study found a sharp increase in the impact of family income on the likelihood of graduation.

Basically, you need an education more than ever to make decent money, but need more money than ever to get a decent education. In such a competitive, globalized economy, that catch-22 is not sustainable. This is all the more tragic given that the U.S. once lead the way in providing free or affordable education at all levels (the Times piece notes how decades ago, America was already educating far more of its citizens before European countries did).

Given that the OECD’s report runs over 500 pages long, I have not had the chance to read the complete findings. However, one highlight that did catch my attention was the following:

In Brazil, Turkey and the United States, adults without upper secondary education are the most penalised in their wages, earning, at best, 35% less than people with that qualification. In Chile, Brazil and Hungary, those with tertiary education are, comparatively, the most highly rewarded, earning more than double the income of a person with upper secondary education.

This is just a small snippet, but it suggests that education is not as vital for economic success across the board. Some countries, such as Austria and Germany, still manage to have largely prosperous middle-class societies despite low educational mobility, thanks to a relative abundance of vocational schools, job training opportunities, and well-paying low-skill work.

However, the overall trend is clear:

In all OECD countries, adults with tertiary education earn considerably more than adults with below upper secondary education. Between 2005 and 2012, in countries with available data for both years, the relative earnings of adults without upper secondary education either remained stable or fell, to some degree, when compared with earnings of adults with upper secondary education.

In addition, in most of these countries, earnings of tertiary-educated adults relative to earnings of adults with upper secondary education increased or remained stable during the same period; the only exceptions are Hungary and the United States.

These differences suggest that the demand for higher-level and updated skills have grown, and that individuals with lower levels of skills are even more vulnerable today

In much of the rich world — and increasingly in the developing world as well — an education remains more vital than ever for individual and societal prosperity. But is the solution to make education on all levels more accessible and affordable, or to instead develop economies in which even those without a formal education can succeed? Perhaps a bit of both? What are your thoughts?

 

The World’s Most Livable Cities

Which cities are the best places to live? The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has set out to answer this question with its livability survey, which asses 140 cities based on such factors as overall stability (25% of total score), health care (20%), education (10%), infrastructure (20%) and culture and environment (25%) — the sorts of things most people agree are fundamental to individual and collective quality of life.

Here are the results for 2014, courtesy of Mic.com:

For the fourth year in a row, Melbourne took the top spot with a total score of 97.5 out of 100. The impressive score can be partially attributed to their perfect scores in the health care, infrastructure and education classifications. Several of Melbourne’s fellow Australian cities filled out much of the top 10, along with a handful from the Great White North. Combined, Australia and Canada scored big, claiming 7 out of the top 10 cities.

The remaining three cities were Vienna, Austria (2nd place), Helsinki, Finland (8th), and Auckland, New Zealand (10th).

As the article notes, while these top ten performed well in all the indicators measured, health care had a particularly strong impact:

A common factor of these livable cities was a high score in the health care category. The top nine spots all garnered scores of 100 in that category. To determine health care, the EIU looked at the availability and quality of private health care, availability and quality of public health care, availability of over-the-counter drugs, and general health care indicators.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand offer a variety of very livable cities, thanks in large part to their great health care, education, culture and environment, affording the countries general stability. Plus, as all English-speaking countries, they’re especially attractive destinations for any Americans considering a move.

Not only does being healthy have the obvious benefit of improving an individual’s mood, comfort, and longevity — all vital to life satisfaction — but in the aggregate, it improves entire communities. Healthy individuals are likelier to be more economically and socially productive, helping businesses and societies at large. They will be less burdensome to more expensive emergency services, and will have more disposable income on hand, since pooling the costs of health care through socialized insurance is less costly then spending a lot per person on expensive treatments.

But this study also highlight that there is more to quality of life than the bare necessities. Each of these cities offer an abundance of recreational and leisure options — well-kept green spaces, cultural centers, community events and facilities — that enliven individual lives and cultivate a sense of shared community. Good infrastructure provides access to these areas and events while helping to create more cohesion and interaction between various neighborhoods and enclaves. It is also telling that all the top cities are medium-sized, which suggests that being too big could present challenges to accommodating residents optimally.

All of this should be pretty obvious. But unfortunately, not enough municipal governments in the world, including in the U.S., have the vision and/or finances to make it happen, and too many city residents are apathetic, disenfranchised, or lack the community spirit to come together. Sub-national and national governments could be doing more to help local communities as well, especially as most countries, and the world at large, are either highly urbanized or becoming rapidly so. As cities begin to house more of the world’s population, and become the main drivers of economic, social, and cultural life, we need to work on making them as ideal for the human condition as possible. We have much to learn from the like of Melbourne, Vancouver, and other successful polities.

Melbourne, Australia — by some accounts, the best city in the world to live. Source: Getty Images / Mic.com

Nine Maps That Help Put Geography in Perspective

I cannot seem to embed the original video for some reason, so pay a visit to Business Insider to check out this neat minute-long video that shows how much large certain countries and landmasses are compared to their map projections. While the world is getting smaller in some respects, geographically it is still much larger than we realize .

Another Study Finds U.S. Healthcare System Among Worst

I know reports like these are a dime a dozen, especially in post-recession America, but it bears reaffirmation, if only because a fair number of Americans still seem to think that our system is vastly superior to any existing or hypothetical alternative — even though the social and economic costs are vast and growing.

Let us start with this chart, courtesy of i09, which comes from a new report by the Commonwealth Fund, a private U.S-based foundation that promotes a more efficient healthcare. It compares the results of an extensive survey of patients and physicians across ten developed countries, looking at several relevant metrics.

Notice that by all measures, the United States is either middle-of-the-road or dead last , despite spending the most per person by far — $8,508 compared runner up Norway at $5,669 (incidentally the latter also does not perform all that well). Canada, while comparatively more efficient at nearly half the cost, does not perform all that impressively either.

By contrast, the highest ranked country on average, the United Kingdom, spends just $3,405 per person on health care. Taken as a whole, it appears that per capita spending has little bearing on the overall quality and effectiveness of the healthcare system (something that has been noted in similar international studies). Another chart from the report confirms this:

Despite such astronomical spending, in both proportional and absolute terms, the report sums up the America’s performance thusly: “[the country] fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last or near last on dimensions of access, efficiency, and equity.”

The culprit for such inefficiency? The very fact that many Americans lack access to reliable health care (including those who are technically insured).

Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

However, as i09 notes, the study’s conclusion points to more than just broadening access:

The authors believe that the problems inherent in the U.S. healthcare system are so pervasive that it will take more than better access and equity to solve them. According to Karen Davis, lead author of the study, overall improvement “is a matter of accountability, having information on your performance relative to your peers and being held accountable to achieving a kind of care that patients should expect to get.”

But it’s not an intractable problem. The U.K.’s excellent result can be attributed to a number of reforms, including the hiring of more specialists, allocating bonuses to family physicians who meet quality targets, and adopting health system information that allows physicians to easily share information about their patients. Moreover, every citizen (apparently) has a doctor.

If there is any silver-lining, it is that the U.S. is moving in the right direction, if ever so slowly. In addition to the flawed but still impactful Affordable Care Act:

The U.S. has significantly accelerated the adoption of health information technology following the enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is beginning to close the gap with other countries that have led on adoption of health information technology. Significant incentives now encourage U.S. providers to utilize integrated medical records and information systems that are accessible to providers and patients. Those efforts will likely help clinicians deliver more effective and efficient care.

Indeed, all of this attention towards the inefficiency of our healthcare system is leading to changes in both the political and private spheres. However, it will take a lot more than this piecemeal and hodgepodge approach to rectify what is very clearly a failing system. The solutions, while often difficult to implement, are clear, and both the necessary capital and public will is available. When will that be enough to spur necessary change?

Happy Birthday Red Cross

On this day in 1864, twelve European nations signed the seminal First Geneva Convention, which established “the basis…for the protection of the victims of armed conflicts” and with it what is now called the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), conceived and founded by Swiss businessman and social activist Henry Dunant and Swiss jurist Gustave Moynie. 

The organization served as both the catalyst and enforcer of the convention’s articles, which were history’s first legally-binding rules guaranteeing neutrality and protection for wounded soldiers, field medical personnel, and specific humanitarian institutions in an armed conflict.

The first of several such conventions, this watershed moment for both international law and humanitarianism launched the wider Red Cross Movement (now known as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement), which is comprised of several distinct humanitarian organizations geared towards protecting human life and health, ensuring respect for all human beings, and preventing and alleviating human suffering.

The ICRC is one of several institutions in this broad movement, along with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), and 189 National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. Together these groups number around 97 million volunteers, members, and staff across the world, making it by far the largest movement of its kind in history. The Red Cross and Red Crescent remains the most enduring and universally recognized symbol of humanitarianism and compassion. 

The World’s Friendliest Cities

According to the annual Readers’ Choice Survey conducted by luxury travel and lifestyle magazine Condé Nast Traveler, the following are the world’s friendliest cities:

11 (tie). Salzburg, Austria

11 (tie). Budapest, Hungary

9 (tie). Seville, Spain

9 (tie). Savannah, Georgia, U.S.

8. Cape Town, South Africa

7. Siem Reap, Cambodia

5 (tie). Sydney, Australia

5 (tie). Dublin, Ireland

4. Charleston, South Carolina, U.S.

3. Victoria, BC, Canada

1 (tie). Melbourne, Australia

1 (tie). Auckland, New Zealand

You can read the consensus review for each selection in the first hyperlink of this post (although the site was acting a bit wonky for me, hence why I could not reproduce the details here). Respondents allegedly based their choices on a range of factors, although CN notes that the survey is ultimately subjective. It appears most of the top cities tended to share a valuable combination of hospitality, beauty, great amenities, and overall character (unique, historically rich, etc).

Additionally, the majority of friendly cities are medium-sized, temperate in climate, and fairly wealthy (which is reflected by good infrastructure, low crime, lots of public attractions and spaces, etc). This is especially true of Australia and New Zealand, whose cities were dual winners for being warm and welcoming places (they also tend to rank high in indexes of livability, although interestingly, there is little correlation between quality of life and friendliness to outsiders, perhaps because the priorities and focuses of residents and visitors differ).

Siem Reap, hardly as well known as the other contenders, also stands out for being a relatively poor place in a poor country; however, it is apparently a well-established and popular resort-town that recently ranked as the world’s fourth-best city for tourists, so it is clearly a hidden gem of sorts. Budapest did a good job of giving lie to the stereotype of dour and unfriendly eastern Europeans, while Savannah and Charleston seem to confirm the endurance and appeal of southern hospitality.

Anyway, aside from the most pleasant places to visit,  respondents also selected the least friendliest ones:

10. Nassau, Bahamas

9. Monte Carlo, Monaco

8. Milan, Italy

7. Frankfurt, Germany

6. Beijing, China

5. Marseilles, France

4. Paris, France

3. Moscow, Russia

2. Cannes, France

1. Johannesburg, South Africa

An interesting mix of cities across the world, although France stands out with a plurality of three spots, including two among the top five. As with the previous list, this is all based on an aggregate of factors beside the hospitality of residents: for example, Beijing was given bad marks for its “terrible pollution” and “dirty streets and hideous traffic”, while Johannesburg made the list (despite being “one of the most beautiful” cities in the world) for its crime and staggering inequality.

Overall, however, it seems that most of the cities that ranked as unfriendly did have an attitude problem:  Marseilles was described as “threatening”, Monaco as “overcrowded and ostentatious”,  Frankfurt as “rude”, and Paris as “cold and aloof” (which in fairness can be said of many cities its size).

You can read the original summaries and judge the fairness of these assessments yourself, although those of you who are familiar with these locations in any way are more than welcomed to share your two cents. My own traveling experience is sadly limited, and none of the places I have been too (such as Orlando, Florida or Prague, Czech Republic) made either cut.

I do feel there are three big caveats to take into account when going over this list: one mentioned earlier is subjectivity — what is rude or cold behavior to some people may seem perfectly normal or even polite to others, depending both on one’s own personality and the sociocultural norms in which they were raised.

This leads to the next issue: the backgrounds of these respondents plays a role in how they interact with, and are perceived by, the cities they visit. Given the target demographic of this high-end, American-based magazine, I imagine most respondents represent a rather limited socioeconomic and cultural group that may have differing experiences in certain areas than people of other groups (would speakers of French or another Romance language feel the same coldness from Paris as those who do not know the language? Would someone who is used to living in big, polluted cities find Beijing so objectionable?)

Finally, a lot of these assessments are based on ultimately limited sample sizes. I do not just mean the number of respondents — although that, too, applies — but how much they experienced, how long they were there, and how often they have gone. Perhaps I missed this factor in looking through the criteria of those participating in the survey, but who is to say they got a good picture of the city they are visiting? Where you go within the city, when you visit, and even how you travel through it all influence one’s experience and overall impression.

As a resident of Miami, I can tell you that sticking to Miami Beach is very different from visiting the duller suburban areas or experiencing the grinding poverty of peripheral areas).

Still, this is nonetheless an interesting pair of lists to look at or consider, although I would much prefer to see these cities and judge them each for myself!

Source: CNN

Parenting Habits From Around The World

Globalization has allowed us to discover and learn more about all sorts of previously unknown ideas and concepts, and parenting is certainly no exception. Cultures across the planet have wildly different approaches to raising or education children, some of which may shock Americans — although the feeling is often mutual.

NPR has gathered an interesting collection of general parenting trends from around the world, some of which may catch on here, while others would be unthinkable. It is interesting to consider how and why certain societies adopt the parenting norms that they do. How each generation is raised has a tremendous impact on overall values and attitudes, and those parenting methods are in turn influenced by all sorts of other external factors (climate, geographic, prevailing economic conditions, etc).

Ponder this while taking a look at the following.

1. In Norway, kids nap outside even in subzero temperatures

In Norway, childhood is very institutionalized. When a kid turns one year old, he or she starts going to Barnehage (Norwegian for “children’s garden”), which is basically state-subsidized day care.

Parents pay a few hundred dollars a month and their kids are taken care of from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Toddlers spend a ton of time outside at Barnehage, even in extremely cold temperatures. It’s not uncommon to see kids bundled up outside during a Scandinavian winter, taking a nap in their strollers.

Even with the obvious benefits provided by the government in Norway, some parents complain about the lack of creativity in people’s approaches to parenting.

One American mother adjusting to raising kids in Norway wrote:

“There’s a sense that there’s just one right way to do things. And everyone does it that way. In America there are different parenting styles — co-sleeping, attachment parenting, etc. Here there is just one way, more or less: all kids go to bed at 7, all attend the same style of preschool, all wear boots, all eat the same lunch … that’s the Norwegian way.”

2. Vietnamese moms train their babies to pee on command

Here’s a good one. In Vietnam, parents train their babies to pee on command. Kind of like Pavlov with his salivating dogs. Except this is moms with peeing babies. The Chinese do it too, apparently. Parents start by noticing when their baby starts peeing and making a little whistle sound. Soon enough, the baby starts to associate the whistle with peeing and voila!

Think this sounds a little odd? Or a little like someone is conflating a kid with a pet schnauzer? Well, researchers say Vietnamese babies are usually out of diapers by 9 months. What do you think now?

3. Traditionally, Kisii people in Kenya avoid looking their babies in the eye

Kisii, or Gussii, moms in Kenya carry their babies everywhere, but they don’t indulge a baby’s cooing. Rather, when their babies start babbling, moms avert their eyes.

It’s likely to sound harsh to a Western sensibility, but within the context of Kisii culture, it makes more sense. Eye contact is an act bestowed with a lot of power. It’s like saying, “You’re in charge,” which isn’t the message parents want to send their kids. Researchers say Kisii kids are less attention-seeking as a result.

4. Danish parents leave their kids on the curb while they go shopping

In Denmark, writes Mei-Ling Hopgood in How Eskimos Keep Their Babies Warm, “children are frequently left outside to get frisk luft, or fresh air — something parents think is essential for health and hearty development — while caregivers dine and shop.”

As you might imagine, this idea sends shivers down the spines of many parents in the United States. In New York, a couple (one of whom was Danish) was arrested for leaving their child outside a BBQ restaurant while they went inside to eat.

“I was just in Denmark and that’s exactly what they do,” Mariom Adler, a New Yorker out walking with her 2-year-old son, told the New York Times. “We would see babies all over unattended. We were stunned, frankly. But Denmark also struck us as exceptionally civilized.”

5. In the Polynesian Islands, children take care of children

We’re not talking any old big brother baby-sitting little sister here. We’re talking organized kid collective.

Hopgood writes in her book that adults take the lead in caring for babies in Polynesia, but as soon as a child can walk, he or she is turned over to the care of other children.

“Preschool-aged children learned to calm babies,” she wrote, “and toddlers became self-reliant because they were taught that that was the only way they could hang out with the big kids.”

Jane and James Ritchie, a husband-and-wife anthropology team, observed a similar phenomenon over decades in New Zealand and the Polynesian Islands. But they don’t think it would fly in the United States.

“Indeed in Western societies, the degree of child caretaking that seems to apply in most of Polynesia would probably be regarded as child neglect and viewed with some horror,” they wrote in Growing Up in Polynesia.

6. Japanese parents let their kids go out by themselves

Parents in Japan allow their kids a lot of independence after a certain age. It isn’t uncommon for 7-year-olds and even 4-year-olds to ride the subway by themselves.

Christine Gross-Loh, author of Parenting Without Borders, lives in Japan for part of each year, and when she’s there she lets her kids run errands without her, taking the subway and wandering around town as they may. But she wouldn’t dare do the same back in the United States.

“If I let them out on their own like that in the U.S., I wouldn’t just get strange looks,” she told TED. “Somebody would call Child Protective Services.”

7. Spanish kids stay up late!

Spanish families are focused on the social and interpersonal aspects of child development, according to Sara Harkness, a professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the University of Connecticut.

The idea of a child going to bed at 6:30 p.m. is totally alien to Spanish parents, Harkness told TED.

“They were horrified at the concept,” she said. “Their kids were going to bed at 10 p.m.” so they could participate in family life in the evenings. The same is true in Argentina, according to Hopgood.

8. Aka pygmy fathers win the award

For the Aka people in central Africa, the male and female roles are virtually interchangeable. While the women hunt, the men mind the children. And vice versa.

Therein lies the rub, according to professor Barry Hewlett, an American anthropologist. “There’s a level of flexibility that’s virtually unknown in our society,” Hewlett told The Guardian. “Aka fathers will slip into roles usually occupied by mothers without a second thought and without, more importantly, any loss of status — there’s no stigma involved in the different jobs.”

This flexibility, apparently, extends to men suckling their children. Ever wonder why men have nipples? That’s why.

9. French kids eat everything

Set mealtimes; no snacking whatsoever; the expectation that if you try something enough times, you’ll like it. These are among the “food rules” in France that are taken as given. The result is French kids who eat what adults eat, from foie gras to stinky cheese. Tell that to my nephew.

Of course, it goes without saying that most of these are just generalizations: not every Argentinian parent lets their kids stay up very late, nor do all French parents have such a liberal attitude towards what their children eat. Individual and subcultural nuances doubtless exist.

But perhaps like many other globalizing trends, we may start to see the development of trans-cultural approaches and standards. Just as cuisines, art styles, and consumer trends have emerged across the planet, so too will certain parenting ideas.

Then again, as I noted earlier, child rearing is a fundamental characteristic of a given society, and thus not something that can be transcribed nor altered so easily. Granted, the pace of globalization continues to accelerate, challenging all sorts of established cultural norms and concepts. Only time will tell, but in the meantime it is interesting to learn about — and learn from — how our fellow humans practice this vital social institution.

Liquor Consumption By Country

I’m a sucker for charts, graphs, and maps, especially those that explore global trends and attitudes — no matter how seemingly trivial or mundane. Often times you learn some pretty surprising things about other cultures and societies. For example, take a look at who the world’s heaviest liquor drinkers are, courtesy of a chart from Quartz (a great source for such infographics).

Note that the chart is also measuring the change in average consumption over the span of a decade, beginning in 2000. Some countries remain largely flat in their liquor consumption (such as Austria, Belgium, and Muslim-majority countries like Egypt and Indonesia) while others have grown (the U.S. and especially the Philippines) and still others have declined (Brazil, Ukraine, and Greece).

So I know what many of you must be thinking: how are South Koreans, not exactly well-known for their hard-drinking, ranking so incredibly high? We’re talking 13.7 shots of liquor per week on average, followed by Russians and Filipinos at less than half that amount (6.3 and 5.4 shots per week, respectively). Well, the Quartz piece offers a simple explanation:

South Korea’s unparalleled liquor consumption is almost entirely due to the country’s love for a certain fermented rice spirit called Soju. The South Korean liquor accounts for 97 percent of the country’s spirits market.

Like most countries where alcohol consumption is high, South Korea is combating the subsequent social and public health consequences, an approach that accounts for the decline or stagnation of liquor consumption in famously hard-drinking countries like Russia, Ukraine, and the U.K. Of course, when the particular spirit of choice is so culturally and historically ingrained, it can be a pretty difficult battle.

 

A Hidden Gem of the Mediterranean — Valletta, Malta

 

Valletta is the capital of Malta, an island nation of around 400,000 people located in the middle of the Mediterranean Sea, about 50 miles south of Sicily. One of the world’s smallest and most-densely populated countries, Malta has been inhabited since 5,200 BCE and is brimming with history and culture — some of the world’s oldest free-standing structures can be found here. The country’s strategic location has led to its changing hands numerous times throughout history, being ruled and influenced by dozens of distinct cultures and nations.

This is one reason why Valletta is such a jewel. Built during the rule of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, also known as Knights Hospitaller, the city contains a rich collection of architectural styles from the 16th century onward, mostly Baroque followed by elements of Mannerist, Neo-Classical and Modern architecture. The City of Valletta is so beautiful and well preserved that is was officially recognized as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1980.

The official name given by the Order of Saint John was “Humilissima Civitas Valletta” — The Most Humble City of Valletta, or Città Umilissima in Italian. The beauty of the city’s churches, gardens, and palaces earned it the nickname among European elites as “Superbissima” — Most Proud. I certainly agree with that sentiment.

 

The Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras

This is going to be the first of many posts that highlight UNESCO World Heritage Sites, cultural and natural landmarks that are identified for their incredible value for humanity. 

The Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras — which span five sites — was the first property to be included in the cultural landscape category of the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1995.

Built 2,000 years ago and passed on from generation to generation, the Ifugao Rice Terraces are a marvel of engineering, built on steeper slopes and reaching a higher altitude than most other terraces. The terrace pond fields were created using stone or mud walls, and were carved carefully to follow the natural contours of the hills and mountains. They’re irrigated through an intricate system that harvests water from the forests of the mountain tops. The rice terraces are incorporated almost seamlessly into nature.The maintenance of these living rice terraces require a cooperative approach among the entire community. They rely on detailed knowledge of the rich diversity of biological resources existing in the Ifugao ecosystem, a finely tuned annual system respecting lunar cycles, meticulous zoning and planning, extensive soil conservation, and mastery of a complex pest control based on the careful processing of a variety of herbs, all accompanied by religious rituals.

Archaeological evidence reveals that these techniques have been used in the region virtually unchanged for 2,000 years. Because they illustrate the persistence of cultural traditions and remarkable continuity and endurance, they were included in a list reserved for sites of profound global importance to humanity — rightfully so, in my opinion.