Joseph P. Hupy
University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Joseph P. Hupy.
Journal of Geography | 2011
Joseph P. Hupy
Abstract This article describes the benefits of combining field-based learning within the context of a competitive setting in the geography curriculum. Findings and data are presented based on experiences gathered from teaching an upper-level university geography course that combined geographic techniques and theory into a game of capture-the-flag. Students analyzed a variety of geospatial data sources, using ArcMap Geographic Information System software, to prepare a series of maps for the game. Students reported a first-time understanding of many geographic skills that were previously ambiguous to them when the material was presented in a different format, such as lectures and labs.
Scottish Geographical Journal | 2006
Joseph P. Hupy
Abstract This paper aims to characterise the varying magnitudes of landscape disturbance across the WWI battlefield of Verdun, France. Five study sites were surveyed to best reflect the varying degrees of disturbance under common similar environmental characteristics, e.g. bedrock, soil type and topographic position. Disturbance magnitude was determined by counting and measuring the dimensional attributes of craters in two 0.25 hectare plots at each of the five study sites. Additionally, a survey of microtopography was performed at each of the five study sites to record changes in elevation of damaged sites. The spatial character and variation in the magnitude of disturbance at the five disturbance study sites was linked to four variables: (1) location of armies in relation to the front; (2) stagnation of front lines; (3) topographic location of armies; and (4) geologic characteristics of the site.
Environment and History | 2008
Joseph P. Hupy
Warfare and the physical environment have always shared a close and intercon nected relationship. Until recently, historical writings have mainly focused on the environmental factors influencing the outcome of battle and not the effects of war on the environment. While a growing body of literature has begun to address the effects of war on the environment, many aspects of the direct effects of battle on the environment still require attention. Warfare, a powerful agent of landscape change, is a unique form of landscape disturbance in that it is often larger in magnitude and size than other forms of anthropogenic disturbance, such as mining or logging. War is also unique as an anthropogenic agent of change because of its capability to render such widespread destruction over large areas in such short periods of time. Despite the magnitude of landscape disturbance associated with modern warfare, however, it is seldom recognised as a significant form of anthropogenic disturbance. The destruction associated with modern warfare is particularly catastrophic due to the extent, magnitude and duration of contemporary wars. These large magnitude disturbances radi cally alter the shape of the landscape, limiting the ability of the landscape to revert back to its original state. This article addresses the direct impacts of war on the physical landscape and why the magnitude of disturbance has increased significantly over the past century.
The Professional Geographer | 2005
Joseph P. Hupy; Stephen Aldrich; Randall J. Schaetzl; Pariwate Varnakovida; Eugenio Arima; Juliegh R. Bookout; Narumon Wiangwang; Annalie L. Campos; Kevin P. McKnight
Abstract Students in a graduate seminar at Michigan State University produced a series of detailed vegetation, soils, and landform maps of a 1.5-square-mile (3.9 km2) study area in southwest Lower Michigan. The learning outcomes (maps) and skill development objectives (sampling strategies and various GIS applications) of this field-intensive mapping experience were driven by the assumption that students learn and understand relationships among physical landscape variables better by mapping them than they would in a classroom-based experience. The group-based, problem-solving format was also intended to foster collaboration and camaraderie. The study area lies within a complex, interlobate moraine. Fieldwork involved mapping in groups of two or three, as well as soil and vegetation sampling. Spatial data products assembled and used in the project included topographic maps, a digital elevation model (DEM), aerial photographs, and NRCS (National Resource Conservation Service) soil maps. Most of the soils are dry and sandy, with the main differentiating characteristic being the amount of, and depth to, subsurface clay bands (lamellae) or gravelly zones. The presettlement (early 1830s) vegetation of the area was oak forest, oak savanna, and black oak “barrens.” Upland sites currently support closed forests of white, black, and red oak, with a red maple, dogwood, and sassafras understory. Ecological data suggest that these oak forests will, barring major disturbance, become increasingly dominated by red maple. This group-based, problem-solving approach to physical geography education has several advantages over traditional classroom-based teaching and could also be successfully applied in other, field-related disciplines. *This study would not have been possible without the generous support provided by the Field Trip Endowment Fund of the Department of Geography at Michigan State University. Special thanks are extended to Greg Thoen, of the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), for helping us identify the site and for many other forms of support and encouragement. Christina Hupy assisted in the field.
The Professional Geographer | 2010
Joseph P. Hupy
When discussing the cultural, political, and geographical perspectives of any region, an undergraduate textbook should accomplish two things. First, the material should strive to be accessible to a student without an extensive background in the subject (or region) and in some cases the discipline. Second, the author should communicate the importance of the regional boundaries chosen as a forum for discussion and the criteria used in making those selections. Stewart addresses both of these issues in an elegant prose that borders on conversational. Although the areal dimensions and rationale for the geographical boundaries are not discussed until chapter 2, chapter 1 serves as an effective introduction to the region. Utilizing linguistic patterns, religious similarity, ethnicity, and political views, Stewart provides a clear rationale for establishing the specific geographical boundaries of a region that delineates the scale and scope for the project. Likewise, she emphasizes the inherently subjective nature of the regional concept and how constructed boundaries inform the reader’s understanding of a collective landscape. Stewart also does a successful job of including ancillary data that are both clear and relevant to the material presented in the text. The ancillary material includes maps, figures, and text “boxes” that present ideas and concepts, as well as pose interesting questions for the reader to consider. These boxes are a highly effective means of adding emphasis to the text and communicating ideas for further discussion, as well as providing dialogue between the reader and the author. In addition, the boxes serve to introduce the undergraduate student to relevant authors published within the existing geography literature. In the process, the student is familiarized with the general field of regional geography, as well as contested concepts, perspectives, and interpretations of a region that facilitate classroom dialogue and serve to create an engaging learning environment. In chapter 3, Stewart segues into Part Two of the book, which examines the evolution and emergence of the contemporary region. Stewart presents the material historically and engages in a discussion of the origins and concepts that have influenced the development of the areas included in this region. The author navigates the controversial influences of Western imperialism, as well as more current Western influences, and how these experiences shape and threaten the stability of current social structures. She thoroughly examines how this, in turn, affects the identity and politics of the region’s religious and ethnic groups. Part Two also presents an overview of debates and conflicts within Islam and in doing so serves as an effective primer on the region. Part Three explores the contested political landscape of the region, including the Arab–Israeli conflict. The handling of this material clarifies common misconceptions via well-employed ancillary boxes. Ancillary materials include an explanation of Zionism and the politics of natural resource competition. This section, although addressing many of the region’s myths and conflicts, fails to be explicitly regional and focuses an inordinate amount of attention on specific issues and not general processes. The final portion of the book deals specifically with the future of the region and its challenges. Stewart considers how external perceptions of conflict influence the global positionality of the region and its nations. As the author demonstrates, the perception is not reality. In fact, most of the nations (with the notable exceptions of Iraq and Israel) of this region are stable and those conflicts that have arisen elsewhere have led to only limited political change. In summary, this effectively combines a general introduction to the region. In the process, the text challenges the reader’s understanding of the region and dispels popular myths. The myth-busting capacity of the text is due in large part to the author’s use of reliable data, as well as her ability to clearly articulate the importance of the region and regional concept to the discipline.
Journal of Arid Environments | 2004
Joseph P. Hupy
Soil Science | 2006
Joseph P. Hupy; Randall J. Schaetzl
Geoderma | 2008
Joseph P. Hupy; Randall J. Schaetzl
Geoderma | 2004
Christina M. Hupy; Randall J. Schaetzl; Joseph P. Messina; Joseph P. Hupy; Paul L. Delamater; Helen Enander; Brandi D. Hughey; Rebecca Boehm; Matthew J. Mitroka; Michael T. Fashoway
Geomorphology | 2012
Joseph P. Hupy; Thomas Koehler