Microscope and spectacle : on the complexities of using new visual technologies to communicate about wildlife conservation

Acknowledgments We thank our interviewees for granting us access to data and permission to use images; dot.rural Digital Economy Hub, the University of Aberdeen, and the James Hutton Institute for funding and support; Gina Maffey, Tony James, Katrina Myrvang Brown, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on earlier versions of the manuscript; and JP Vargheese for technical assistance.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Digital conservation : an introduction

We thank all participants of the Digital Conservation Conference (May 2014, Aberdeen, UK) for laying the foundations of this Special Issue, Annie Robinson and Gina Maffey for their crucial input into the conference, all authors for contributing their work to the issue, and Bo Söderström, Ambio’s Editor-in-Chief, for the large amount of skill, energy and time invested. All papers have been rigorously peer-reviewed. We are very grateful to the 36 referees listed below: Steve Albon, the James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, UK; Arjun Amar, University of Cape Town, South Africa; Karen Anderson, University of Exeter, UK; Debora Arlt, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden; Bob Askins, Connecticut College, New London, USA; Tom August, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK; Iain Bainbridge, Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, UK; Elizabeth Boakes, University College London, UK; Bram Büscher, University of Wageningen, the Netherlands; Guillaume Chapron, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Riddarhyttan, Sweden; Heather Doran, University of Aberdeen, UK; Rosaleen Duffy, University of London, UK; Gorry Fairhurst, University of Aberdeen, UK; Ioan Fazey, University of Dundee, UK; Rachel Finn, Trilateral Research and Consulting, London, UK; John Fryxell, University of Guelph, Canada; John Hallam, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Sandra Hamel, University of Tromsø, Norway; Maarten Jacobs, University of Wageningen, the Netherlands; Lucas Joppa, Microsoft Research, Redmond, USA; Steve Kelling, Cornell University, Ithaca, USA; Kerry Kilshaw, University of Oxford, UK; Christiane Lellig, Stratageme, Agentur für Social Change, Aldershot, UK; Nick Littlewood, the James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, UK; Gina Maffey, University of Aberdeen, UK; Mariella Marzano, Forest Research, Roslin, UK; Fran Michelmoore Root, Northern Rangelands Trust, Isiolo, Kenya; Steve Redpath, University of Aberdeen, UK; Mark Reed, Birmingham City University, UK; Chris Sandbrook, UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK; Lisa Sargood, Digital Strategy & Innovation, Bristol, UK; Bill Sutherland, University of Cambridge, UK; Chris Thaxter, British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, UK; Jean-Pierre Tremblay, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada; Audrey Verma, University of Aberdeen, UK; Jerry Wilson, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Edinburgh, UK.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Rich local knowledge despite high transience in an Arctic community experiencing rapid environmental change

Environmental monitoring and long-term research produce detailed understanding, but its collective effort does not add up to ‘the environment’ and therefore may be difficult to relate to. Local knowledge, by contrast, is multifaceted and relational and therefore can help ground and complement scientific knowledge to reach a more complete and holistic understanding of the environment and changes therein. Today’s societies, however, are increasingly fleeting, with mobility potentially undermining the opportunity to generate rich community knowledge. Here we perform a case study of High Arctic Svalbard, a climate change and environmental science hotspot, using a range of community science methods, including a Maptionnaire survey, focus groups, interviews and cognitive mapping. We show that rich local knowledge on Svalbard could indeed be gathered through community science methods, despite a high level of transience of the local population. These insights complement environmental monitoring and enhance its local relevance. Complex understanding of Svalbard’s ecosystems by the transient local community arose because of strong place attachment, enabling environmental knowledge generation during work and play. We conclude that transience does not necessarily prevent the generation of valuable local knowledge that can enrich and provide connection to scientific understanding of the environment

Farmland biodiversity monitoring through citizen science: A review of existing approaches and future opportunities

Biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes is important for assessing the effects of both land use change and activities that influence farmland biodiversity. Despite a considerable increase in citizen science approaches to biodiversity monitoring in recent decades, their potential in farmland-specific contexts has not been systematically examined. This paper therefore provides a comprehensive review of existing citizen science approaches involving biodiversity monitoring on farmland. Using three complementary methods, we identify a range of programmes at least partially covering farmland. From these, we develop a typology of eight programme types, reflecting distinctions in types of data collected and nature of volunteer involvement, and highlight their respective strengths and limitations. While all eight types can make substantial contributions to farmland biodiversity monitoring, there is considerable scope for their further development-particularly through increased engagement of farmers, for whom receiving feedback on the effects of their own practices could help facilitate adaptive management

Bringing Together Species Observations: A Case Story of Sweden's Biodiversity Informatics Infrastructures

Biodiversity informatics produces global biodiversity knowledge through the collection and analysis of biodiversity data using informatics techniques. To do so, biodiversity informatics relies upon data accrual, standardization, transferability, openness, and "invisible" infrastructure. What biodiversity informatics mean to society, however, cannot be adequately understood without recognizing what organizes biodiversity data. Using insights from science and technology studies, we story the organizing "visions" behind the growth of biodiversity informatics infrastructures in Sweden-an early adopter of digital technologies and significant contributor to global biodiversity data-through interviews, scientific literature, governmental reports and popular publications. This case story discloses the organizational formation of Swedish biodiversity informatics infrastructures from the 1970s to the present day, illustrating how situated perspectives or "visions" shaped the philosophies, directions and infrastructures of its biodiversity informatics communities. Specifically, visions related to scientific progress and species loss, their institutionalization, and the need to negotiate external interests from governmental organizations led to unequal development across multiple infrastructures that contribute differently to biodiversity knowledge. We argue that such difference highlights that the social and organizational hurdles for combining biodiversity data are just as significant as the technological challenges and that the seemingly inconsequential organizational aspects of its infrastructure shape what biodiversity data can be brought together, modelled and visualised

Digital technology and the conservation of nature.

Digital technology is changing nature conservation in increasingly profound ways. We describe this impact and its significance through the concept of 'digital conservation', which we found to comprise five pivotal dimensions: data on nature, data on people, data integration and analysis, communication and experience, and participatory governance. Examining digital innovation in nature conservation and addressing how its development, implementation and diffusion may be steered, we warn against hypes, techno-fix thinking, good news narratives and unverified assumptions. We identify a need for rigorous evaluation, more comprehensive consideration of social exclusion, frameworks for regulation and increased multi-sector as well as multi-discipline awareness and cooperation. Along the way, digital technology may best be reconceptualised by conservationists from something that is either good or bad, to a dual-faced force in need of guidance.RCUKThis is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0705-

Empowered communities or "cheap labour"? : Engaging volunteers in the rationalised management of invasive alien species in Great Britain

The authors would like to thank all the organisations and volunteers who participated in this study, as well as Anja Byg, Kerry Waylen, Michelle Pinard, Norman Dandy and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper. We acknowledge funding by the Natural Environment Research Council and the Rivers and Fisheries Trusts of Scotland (NERC-CASE PhD scholarship 12994499) and support by the Rural & Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government.Peer reviewedPostprin

The Instagrammable outdoors – Investigating the sharing of nature experiences through visual social media

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors thank all participants in this study for sharing their views and experiences with them, and thank two anonymous reviewers as well as the associated editor who provided helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. They also thank John-Paul Shirreffs for the artwork in the Graphical Abstract. This work was supported by the University of Aberdeen and the James Hutton Institute.Peer reviewedPublisher PD