Suchergebnisse

Biodiversity monitoring is criticized for being insufficiently relevant to the needs of managers and ineffective in integrating information into decision-making. We examined conservation management interventions resulting from 21/2 years of monitoring by 97 rangers and 350 community volunteers over 1 million hectares of Philippine protected areas. Before this monitoring scheme was established, there was little collaboration between local people and park authorities, and park monitoring was restricted to assessments of the quantity of extracted timber. As a result of the scheme, 156 interventions were undertaken in terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystems. In total 98% of these interventions were meaningful and justified, 47% targeted the three most serious threats to biodiversity at the site, and 90% were implemented without external support, suggesting that the interventions were relevant and could be sustained over time at the local level. The mean time from sampling to decision-making was only 97 days, probably because 82% of the interventions were initiated by the same people and institutions that had compiled the underlying data, bypassing potential government bureaucracy. Many of the interventions were jointly undertaken by community members and the management authorities or consisted of local bylaws in support of park management. As a result of the monitoring, indigenous resource use regulation schemes were re-established with government recognition in several parks. The monitoring led to more diversified and realistic management responses on the part of the authorities, including a more socially acceptable and effective approach to enforcement. Of the four field monitoring techniques used, the most participatory one generated more interventions aimed at ensuring a continued resource supply for local communities (χ23 = 69.1, p <0.01). Although this suggests that the interest of community members is associated with their possibilities to influence the flow of ecosystem goods and services, the 156 interventions targeted, directly or indirectly, all known globally threatened species of mammals, birds and butterflies in the parks. © Springer 2005.

Ecosystem research focuses on goods and services, thereby ascribing beneficial values to the ecosystems. Depending on the context, however, outputs from ecosystems can be both positive and negative. We examined how provisioning services of wild animals and plants can switch between being services and disservices. We studied agricultural communities in Laos to illustrate when and why these switches take place. Government restrictions on land use combined with economic and cultural changes have created perceptions of rodents and plants as problem species in some communities. In other communities that are maintaining shifting cultivation practices, the very same taxa were perceived as beneficial. We propose conversion factors that in a given context can determine where an individual taxon is located along a spectrum from ecosystem service to disservice, when, and for whom. We argue that the omission of disservices in ecosystem service accounts may lead governments to direct investments at inappropriate targets.

Ecosystem research focuses on goods and services, thereby ascribing beneficial values to the ecosystems. Depending on the context, however, outputs from ecosystems can be both positive and negative. We examined how provisioning services of wild animals and plants can switch between being services and disservices. We studied agricultural communities in Laos to illustrate when and why these switches take place. Government restrictions on land use combined with economic and cultural changes have created perceptions of rodents and plants as problem species in some communities. In other communities that are maintaining shifting cultivation practices, the very same taxa were perceived as beneficial. We propose conversion factors that in a given context can determine where an individual taxon is located along a spectrum from ecosystem service to disservice, when, and for whom. We argue that the omission of disservices in ecosystem service accounts may lead governments to direct investments at inappropriate targets.

There is a need for a better understanding of the status of the environment. At the same time, concerns have been raised regarding alienation of the local populace from environmental decisions. One proposed solution is participatory environmental monitoring. When evaluating the usefulness of environmental monitoring, the focus may be on accuracy, as is usually done by scientists, or on efficiency in terms of conservation impact. To test whether investment in participatory biodiversity monitoring makes economic sense for obtaining data for management decisions, we compared the cost efficiency of participatory and conventional biodiversity monitoring methods in Philippine parks. We found that, from a government perspective, investment in monitoring that combines scientific with participatory methods is strikingly more effective than a similar level of investment in conventional scientific methods alone in generating conservation management interventions. Moreover, the local populace seemed to benefit from more secure de facto user rights over land and other resources. Participatory biodiversity monitoring not only represents a cost-effective alternative when conventional monitoring is impossible, but it is also an unexpectedly powerful complementary approach, capable of generating a much higher level of conservation management intervention, where conventional monitoring already takes place. © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2007.

Community-based monitoring (CBM) in the Arctic is gaining increasing support from a wide range of interested parties, including community members, scientists, government agencies, and funders. Through CBM initiatives, Arctic residents conduct or are involved in ongoing observing and monitoring activities. Arctic Indigenous peoples have been observing the environment for millennia, and CBM often incorporates traditional knowledge, which may be used independently from or in partnership with conventional scientific monitoring methods. Drawing on insights from the first Arctic Observing Summit, we provide an overview of the state of CBM in the Arctic. The CBM approach to monitoring is centered on community needs and interests. It offers fine-grained, local-scale data that are readily accessible to community and municipal decision makers. In spite of these advantages, CBM initiatives remain little documented and are often unconnected to wider networks, with the result that many practitioners lack a clear sense of the field and how best to support its growth and development. CBM initiatives are implemented within legal and governance frameworks that vary significantly both within and among different national contexts. Further documentation of differences and similarities among Arctic communities in relation to observing needs, interests, and legal and institutional capacities will help assess how CBM can contribute to Arctic observing networks. While CBM holds significant potential to meet observing needs of communities, more investment and experimentation are needed to determine how observations and data generated through CBM approaches might effectively inform decision making beyond the community level. ; Dans l'Arctique, la surveillance communautaire (SC) reçoit un appui de plus en plus grand de la part de nombreuses parties intéressées, dont les membres de la communauté, les scientifiques, les organismes gouvernementaux et les bailleurs de fonds. Dans le cadre des initiatives de SC, des habitants de l'Arctique effectuent des tâches permanentes d'observation et de surveillance ou participent à de telles tâches. Les peuples indigènes de l'Arctique observent l'environnement depuis des millénaires. Souvent, la SC fait appel aux connaissances traditionnelles, connaissances qui peuvent être employées seules ou conjointement avec les méthodes classiques de surveillance scientifique. Nous nous sommes appuyés sur les connaissances dérivées du premier sommet d'observation de l'Arctique pour donner un aperçu de l'état de la SC dans l'Arctique. La méthode de SC est centrée sur les besoins et les intérêts de la communauté. Elle permet d'obtenir des données à grain fin à l'échelle locale, données qui sont facilement accessibles par la communauté et les preneurs de décisions municipaux. Malgré ces avantages, il existe peu de documentation au sujet des initiatives de SC et souvent, ces initiatives ne sont pas rattachées aux grands réseaux, ce qui fait que bien des intervenants ne comprennent pas clairement ce qui se passe sur le terrain et ne savent pas vraiment comment appuyer la croissance et le développement de la surveillance communautaire. Les initiatives de SC respectent les cadres de référence nécessaires en matière de droit et de gouvernance, et ceux-ci varient considérablement au sein des contextes nationaux. L'enrichissement de la documentation en ce qui a trait aux différences et aux similitudes qui existent entre les communautés de l'Arctique en matière de besoins d'observation, d'intérêts et de capacités juridiques et institutionnelles aidera à déterminer en quoi la SC pourra jouer un rôle au sein des réseaux d'observation de l'Arctique. Bien que la SC ait la possibilité de jouer un rôle important dans les besoins d'observation des communautés, il y a lieu de faire plus d'investissements et d'expériences pour déterminer comment les observations et les données découlant des méthodes de SC pourront favoriser la prise de décisions au-delà des communautés.

Citizen science is an important vehicle for democratizing science and promoting the goal of universal and equitable access to scientific data and information. Data generated by citizen science groups have become an increasingly important source for scientists, applied users and those pursuing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Citizen science data are used extensively in studies of biodiversity and pollution; crowdsourced data are being used by UN operational agencies for humanitarian activities; and citizen scientists are providing data relevant to monitoring the sustainable development goals (SDGs). This article provides an International Science Council (ISC) perspective on citizen science data generating activities in support of the 2030 Agenda and on needed improvements to the citizen science community's data stewardship practices for the benefit of science and society by presenting results of research undertaken by an ISC-sponsored Task Group. ; ISSN:2624-9553

Citizen science is an important vehicle for democratizing science and promoting the goal of universal and equitable access to scientific data and information. Data generated by citizen science groups have become an increasingly important source for scientists, applied users and those pursuing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Citizen science data are used extensively in studies of biodiversity and pollution; crowdsourced data are being used by UN operational agencies for humanitarian activities; and citizen scientists are providing data relevant to monitoring the sustainable development goals (SDGs). This article provides an International Science Council (ISC) perspective on citizen science data generating activities in support of the 2030 Agenda and on needed improvements to the citizen science community's data stewardship practices for the benefit of science and society by presenting results of research undertaken by an ISC-sponsored Task Group.

Recent attention to the role of Indigenous knowledge (IK) in environmental monitoring, research and decision‐making is likely to attract new people to this field of work. Advancing the bringing together of IK and science in a way that is desirable to IK holders can lead to successful and inclusive research and decision‐making. We used the Delphi technique with 18 expert participants who were IK holders or working closely with IK from across the Arctic to examine the drivers of progress and limitations to the use of IK along with science to inform decision‐making related to wildlife, reindeer herding and the environment. We also used this technique to identify participants' experiences of scientists' misconceptions concerning IK. Participants had a strong focus on transformative change relating to the structure of institutions, politics, rights, involvement, power and agency over technical issues advancing or limiting progress (e.g. new technologies and language barriers). Participants identified two modes of desirable research: coproducing knowledge with scientists and autonomous Indigenous‐led research. They highlighted the need for more collaborative and coproduction projects to allow further refinement of approaches and more funding to support autonomous, Indigenous‐led research. Most misconceptions held by scientists concerning IK that were identified by participants related to the spatial, temporal and conceptual scope of IK, and the perceived need to validate IK using Western science. Our research highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed by all participants in research and decision‐making involving IK and science. While exact approaches will need to be tailored to specific social‐ecological contexts, consideration of these broader concerns revealed by our analysis are likely to be central to effective partnerships.

Recent attention to the role of Indigenous knowledge (IK) in environmental monitoring, research and decision‐making is likely to attract new people to this field of work. Advancing the bringing together of IK and science in a way that is desirable to IK holders can lead to successful and inclusive research and decision‐making. We used the Delphi technique with 18 expert participants who were IK holders or working closely with IK from across the Arctic to examine the drivers of progress and limitations to the use of IK along with science to inform decision‐making related to wildlife, reindeer herding and the environment. We also used this technique to identify participants' experiences of scientists' misconceptions concerning IK. Participants had a strong focus on transformative change relating to the structure of institutions, politics, rights, involvement, power and agency over technical issues advancing or limiting progress (e.g. new technologies and language barriers). Participants identified two modes of desirable research: coproducing knowledge with scientists and autonomous Indigenous‐led research. They highlighted the need for more collaborative and coproduction projects to allow further refinement of approaches and more funding to support autonomous, Indigenous‐led research. Most misconceptions held by scientists concerning IK that were identified by participants related to the spatial, temporal and conceptual scope of IK, and the perceived need to validate IK using Western science. Our research highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed by all participants in research and decision‐making involving IK and science. While exact approaches will need to be tailored to specific social‐ecological contexts, consideration of these broader concerns revealed by our analysis are likely to be central to effective partnerships.