The role of digital data entry in participatory environmental monitoring |
| |
Authors: | Jeremy R Brammer Nicolas D Brunet A Cole Burton Alain Cuerrier Finn Danielsen Kanwaljeet Dewan Thora Martina Herrmann Micha V Jackson Rod Kennett Guillaume Larocque Monica Mulrennan Arun Kumar Pratihast Marie Saint‐Arnaud Colin Scott Murray M Humphries |
| |
Institution: | 1. Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, Québec, Canada;2. Department of Geography and Planning, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada;3. Biology Department, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada;4. Jardin botanique de Montréal, Institut de recherche en biologie végétale, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada;5. NORDECO, Copenhagen, Denmark;6. Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montréal, Canada;7. Département de Géographie, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada;8. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia;9. Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra City, ACT, Australia;10. Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada;11. Laboratory of Geo‐Information Science and Remote Sensing, Wageningen University, PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands;12. Institut des sciences de l'environnement, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada;13. Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montréal, Quebec |
| |
Abstract: | Many argue that monitoring conducted exclusively by scientists is insufficient to address ongoing environmental challenges. One solution entails the use of mobile digital devices in participatory monitoring (PM) programs. But how digital data entry affects programs with varying levels of stakeholder participation, from nonscientists collecting field data to nonscientists administering every step of a monitoring program, remains unclear. We reviewed the successes, in terms of management interventions and sustainability, of 107 monitoring programs described in the literature (hereafter programs) and compared these with case studies from our PM experiences in Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greenland, and Vietnam (hereafter cases). Our literature review showed that participatory programs were less likely to use digital devices, and 2 of our 3 more participatory cases were also slow to adopt digital data entry. Programs that were participatory and used digital devices were more likely to report management actions, which was consistent with cases in Ethiopia, Greenland, and Australia. Programs engaging volunteers were more frequently reported as ongoing, but those involving digital data entry were less often sustained when data collectors were volunteers. For the Vietnamese and Canadian cases, sustainability was undermined by a mismatch in stakeholder objectives. In the Ghanaian case, complex field protocols diminished monitoring sustainability. Innovative technologies attract interest, but the foundation of effective participatory adaptive monitoring depends more on collaboratively defined questions, objectives, conceptual models, and monitoring approaches. When this foundation is built through effective partnerships, digital data entry can enable the collection of more data of higher quality. Without this foundation, or when implemented ineffectively or unnecessarily, digital data entry can be an additional expense that distracts from core monitoring objectives and undermines project sustainability. The appropriate role of digital data entry in PM likely depends more on the context in which it is used and less on the technology itself. |
| |
Keywords: | citizen science community‐based monitoring participatory monitoring and management public participation in scientific research traditional ecological knowledge ciencia ciudadana conocimiento ecoló gico tradicional monitoreo basado en comunidades monitoreo y manejo participativo participació n de pú blico en la investigació n cientí fica |
|
|