Participatory monitoring

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
File:Glforwikijpg.jpg
Scanning the sea off Greenland for seabirds as part of Greenland's documentation and management system PISUNA, a participatory monitoring programme

Participatory monitoring (also known as collaborative monitoring, community-based monitoring, locally based monitoring or volunteer monitoring) is the regular collection of measurements or other kinds of data (monitoring), usually of natural resources and biodiversity, undertaken by local people who live in the area being monitored, who rely on local natural resources, and consequently have great local knowledge of those resources. The people involved usually live in communities with considerable social cohesion where they regularly work together on shared projects.

Participatory monitoring has emerged as an alternative or addition to professional scientist-executed monitoring.[1][2] Scientist-executed monitoring is often costly and hard to sustain, especially in those regions of the world where financial resources are limited.[3] Moreover, scientist-executed monitoring can be logistically and technically difficult and is often perceived to be irrelevant by resource managers and the local communities. Involving local people and their communities in monitoring is often part of the process of sharing the management of land and resources with the local communities. It is connected to the devolution of rights and power to the locals.[4] Aside from potentially providing high-quality information,[5][6][7] participatory monitoring can raise local awareness and build the community and local government expertise that is needed for addressing the management of natural resources.[4][8]

Participatory monitoring is sometimes included in terms such as citizen science,[9] crowd-sourcing, ‘public participation in scientific research’[10] and participatory action research.

Definition

The term ‘participatory monitoring’ embraces a broad range of approaches, from self-monitoring of harvests by local resource users themselves, to censuses by local rangers, and inventories by amateur naturalists. The term includes techniques labelled as ‘self-monitoring’,[11][12] ranger-based monitoring’,[13] ‘event-monitoring’,[14] ‘participatory assessment, monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity’,[15][16] ‘community-based observing’,[17] and ‘community-based monitoring and information systems’.[18]

Many of these approaches are directly linked to resource management, but the entities being monitored vary widely, from individual animals and plants,[5][12][19][20][21][22][23] through habitats,[24][25][26][27][28] to ecosystem goods and services.[29][30][31] However, all of the approaches have in common that the monitoring is carried out by individuals who live in the monitored places and rely on local natural resources, and that local people or local government staff are directly involved in formulation of research questions, data collection, and (in most instances) data analysis, and implementation of management solutions based on research findings.[3][32]

Participatory monitoring is included in the term ’participatory monitoring and management’ which has been defined as "approaches used by local and Indigenous communities, informed by traditional and local knowledge, and, increasingly, by contemporary science, to assess the status of resources and threats on their land and advance sustainable economic opportunities based on the use of natural resources".[32] term ’participatory monitoring and management’ is particularly used in tropical, Arctic and developing regions, where communities are most often the custodians of valuable biodiversity and extensive natural ecosystems.

Alternative definitions

Other definitions for participatory monitoring have also been proposed, including:

  1. "The systematic collection of information at regular intervals for initial assessment and for the monitoring of change. This collection is undertaken by locals in a community who do not have professional training".[33][34]

Likewise, the term ’community-based monitoring of natural resources’ has been defined as:

  1. "A process where concerned citizens, government agencies, industry, academia, community groups and local institutions collaborate to monitor, track, and respond to issues of common community concern".[35]
  3. "Monitoring of natural resources undertaken by local stakeholders using their own resources and in relation to aims and objectives that make sense to them".[36]
  5. "A process of routinely observing environmental or social phenomena, or both, that is led and undertaken by community members and can involve external collaboration and support of visiting researchers and government agencies".[37]

Limitations

It has been suggested that participatory monitoring is unlikely to provide quantitative data on large-scale changes in habitat area, or on populations of cryptic species that are hard to identify or census reliably.[3] It has also been suggested that participatory monitoring is not suitable for monitoring resources that are so valuable they attract powerful outsiders.[38] Likewise, in areas where changes, threats, or interventions operate in complex fashions, where rural people do not depend on the use of natural resources and there are no real benefits flowing to the local people from doing monitoring work (or the costs to local people of involvement exceed the benefits[39]), or where there is a poor relationship between the authorities and the local people,[40] participatory monitoring is probably less likely to yield useful data and management solutions than conventional scientific approaches.[41]

History

Whereas government censuses of human populations, which date perhaps to the 16th century B.C.,[42] were likely the first formal attempts at environmental monitoring,[43] farmers, fishers and forest users have informally monitored resource conditions for even longer, their observations influencing survival strategies and resource use.[1]

Participatory monitoring schemes are in operation on all the inhabited continents, and the approach is beginning to appear in textbooks.[44][45]

Conferences

An international symposium on participatory monitoring was hosted by the Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology and the Zoology Department at Cambridge University in Denmark in April 2004.[46] It led to a special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation October 2005.[47]

In the Arctic, a symposium on data management and local knowledge was hosted by ELOKA and held in Boulder, USA, in November 2011.[48] It led to a special issue of Polar Geography in 2014.

In the Arctic, three circumpolar meetings were held in 2013-2014:

The first global conference on Participatory Monitoring and Management was hosted by the Brazilian Ministry of Environment (MMA) and the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio) and held in Manaus, Brazil in September 2014.[50][51][52] The next global conference on Participatory Monitoring and Management, hosted by the Government of Indonesia, will be held in Indonesia in late 2015.

File:MeasuringTrees.jpg
Villagers from Batu Majang village, east Kalimantan, Indonesia, measuring trees for participatory carbon monitoring under the I-REDD+ project. Photo: Michael Køie Poulsen

Approaches

Thematically, participatory monitoring has considerable potential in several areas, including:

  1. For connecting knowledge systems: In efforts to bring Indigenous and local knowledge systems into the science–policy interface such as the Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.[53][54][55][56]
  2. For monitoring rapidly changing environments: To inform resource management in rapidly changing environments such as the Arctic,[57][58][59][60][61][62][63][49][64][65] where Indigenous and local communities have detailed knowledge of key components of their environment, such as sea-ice,[66] snow,[67] weather patterns,[68][69] caribou[62][70] and other natural resources.[17][63][71][72][73]
  3. In Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs: To connect environmental performance with payment schemes such as REDD+.[74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85]
  4. For reinforcing international agreements: In efforts to link international environmental agreements to decision-making in the ‘real world’.[36][41][86]<[56] [87]

Typology

A typology of monitoring schemes has been proposed, determined on the basis of relative contributions of local stakeholders and professional researchers,.[88] and supported by findings from statistical analysis of published schemes.[36] The typology identified 5 categories of monitoring schemes that between them span the full spectrum of natural resource monitoring protocols:

Category A. Autonomous Local Monitoring. In this category the whole monitoring process—from design, to data collection, to analysis, and finally to use of data for management decisions—is carried out autonomously by local stakeholders. There is no direct involvement of external agencies. For an example see.[70]

Category B. Collaborative Monitoring with Local Data Interpretation. In these schemes, the original initiative was taken by scientists but local stakeholders collect, process and interpret the data, although external scientists may provide advice and training. The original data collected by local people remain in the area being monitored, which helps create local ownership of the scheme and its results, but copies of the data may be sent to professional researchers for in-depth or larger-scale analysis. Examples are included in.[1][14][63]

Category C. Collaborative Monitoring with External Data Interpretation. The third most distinct group is monitoring scheme category C. These schemes were designed by scientists who also analyse the data, but the local stakeholders collect the data, take decisions on the basis of the findings and carry out the management interventions emanating from the monitoring scheme. Examples are provided in.[11][19][24]

Category D. Externally Driven Monitoring with Local Data Collectors. This category of monitoring scheme involves local stakeholders only in data collection. The design, analysis, and interpretation of the monitoring results are undertaken by professional researchers—generally far from the site. Monitoring schemes of category D are mostly long-running ‘citizen science’ projects from Europe and North America. See for example[89][90]

Category E. Externally Driven, Professionally Executed Monitoring. Monitoring schemes of category E do not involve local stakeholders. Design of the scheme, analysis of the results, and management decisions derived from these analyses are all undertaken by professional scientists funded by external agencies. An example is[91]

The use of technology for participatory monitoring

Traditional methods of data collection for participatory monitoring use paper and pen. This has advantages in terms of low cost of materials and training, simplicity, and reduced potential for technical hitches. However, all data must be transcribed for analysis, which takes time and can be subject to transcription errors.[92] Increasingly, participatory monitoring initiatives incorporate technology, from GPS recorders to georeference the data collected on paper,[93] to drones to survey remote areas,[94] phones to send simple reports via SMS,[95] or smartphones to collect and store data.[96] Various apps exist to create and manage data collection forms on smartphones (e.g. Open Data Kit, Sapelli[97] and others[98]).

Some initiatives find that the use of smartphones for data collection has advantages over paper-based systems.[99] The advantages include that very little equipment need be carried on a survey, a large amount and variety of data can be stored (geographical locations, photos and audio, as well as data entered onto monitoring forms) and data can be shared rapidly for analysis without transcription errors.[100] The use of smartphones can incentivise young people to get involved in monitoring, sparking an interest in conservation.[101] Some apps are especially designed to be usable by illiterate monitors.[102][103][104] If local people risk threats or violence by monitoring illegal activities, the true purpose of the phones can be denied, and the monitoring data locked away.[105] However, phones are expensive; are vulnerable to damage and technical issues; necessitate additional training - not least due to rapid technological change; phone charging can be a challenge (especially under thick forest canopies); and uploading data for analysis is difficult in areas without network connections.[106][107]

Data sharing in participatory monitoring

A key challenge for participatory monitoring is to develop ways to store, manage and share data[108] and to do this in ways that respect the rights of the communities that supplied the data. A ‘rights-based approach to data sharing’ can be based on principles of free, prior and informed consent, and prioritise the protection of the rights of those who generated the data, and/or those potentially affected by data-sharing.[109] Local people can do much more than simply collect data: they can also define the ways that this data is used, and who has access to it.

Clear agreements on data sharing are especially important for initiatives where diverse data is collected, of variable relevance to different stakeholders.[110] For example, monitoring could on the one hand, investigate sensitive social problems within a community, or contested resources at the centre of local conflicts or illegal exploitation - data that community leaders might want to keep confidential and address locally; on the other hand, the same initiative could generate data on forest biomass, of greater interest to external stakeholders.[111]

One way to establish the rules around data sharing is to set up a data sharing protocol. This can define:[112]

  1. The infrastructure for data storage and management (computer programmes, hard drives and cloud storage). Local capacity should be strong enough to access, manage and retain control of the data.
  2. Data classification: discussions in the communities can set out how different types of data can be used – for example a traffic light system can define ‘red’ data that is confidential to the community, ‘amber’ data which should be discussed prior to any use, and ‘green’ data that is approved for release.
  3. Processes for data sharing: this defines the roles and responsibilities of different people, and the processes to be followed for requests to access data, dependent on how that data is classified.
  4. Reporting: the protocol can set out how data should be reported, for example specifying the manner and frequency with which findings are reported to the local community, and ensuring that technical data is presented in a way that is compatible with external systems (e.g. government databanks or processes to respond to findings).

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Danielsen, F., Balete, D.S., Poulsen, M.K., Enghoff, M., Nozawa, C.M. and Jensen, A.E. 2000. A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country. Biodiversity and Conservation 9: 1671–1705.
  2. ↑ ETFRN 2002. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity: Internet Workshop and Policy Seminar. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D. and Balmford, A. 2005a. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2507–2542.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Funder, M., Danielsen, F., Ngaga, Y., Nielsen, M.R. and Poulsen, M.K. 2013. Reshaping conservation: The social dynamics of participatory monitoring in Tanzania’s community-managed forests. Conservation and Society 11: 218–232.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 JJones, J.P.G., Andriamarovolona, M.M., Hockley, N., Gibbons, J.M. and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2008. Testing the use of interviews as a tool for monitoring trends in the harvesting of wild species. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 1205–1212.
  6. ↑ Luzar, J.B., Silvius, K.M., Overman, H., Giery, S.T., Read, J.M. and Fragoso, J.M.V. 2011. Large-scale environmental monitoring by indigenous people. BioScience 61: 771–781.
  7. ↑ Danielsen, F., Jensen, P.M., Burgess, N.D., Altamirano, R., Alviola, P.A., Andrianandrasana, H., Brashares, J.S., Burton, A.C., Coronado, I., Corpuz, N., Enghoff, M., Fjeldså, J., Funder, M., Holt, S., Hübertz, H., Jensen, A.E., Lewis, R., Massao, J., Mendoza, M.M., Ngaga, Y., Pipper, C.B., Poulsen, M.K., Rueda, R.M., Sam, M., Skielboe, T., Sørensen, M. and Young, R. 2014a. A multi-country assessment of tropical resource monitoring by local communities. BioScience 64: 236–251.
  8. ↑ Constantino, P.A.L., Carlos, H.S.A., Ramalho, E.E., Rostant, L., Marinelli, C., Teles, D., Fonseca-Junior, S.F. et al. 2012. Empowering local people through community-based resource monitoring: a comparison of Brazil and Namibia. Ecology and Society 17(4): 22.
  9. ↑ Bonney, R., Shirk, J.L., Phillips, T.B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H.L., Miller-Rushing, A.J. and Parrish, J.K. 2014. Next steps for citizen science. Science 343: 1436 –1437.
  10. ↑ Shirk, J.L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E. et al. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17(2): 29.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Noss A.J., Oetting I. and CueÅL llar R.L. 2005. Hunter self-monitoring by the Isoseno-Guarani in the Bolivian Chaco. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2679–2693.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Constantino, P. A. L., R. A. Tavares, J. L. Kaxinawa, F. M. Macário, E. Kaxinawa e A. S. Kaxinawa. 2012. Mapeamento e monitoramento participativo da caça na Kaxinawá da Praia do Carapanã Indigenous Land, Acre, Amazônia Brasileira. In: Sistema de informações geográficas e a conservação da biodiversidade. Paese, A., Uezu, A., Lorini, M. L., Cunha, A. (eds.). Oficina do Texto, São Paulo, Brasil.
  13. ↑ Gray M. and Kalpers J. 2005. Ranger based monitoring in the Virunga-Bwindi Region of East-Central Africa: a simple data collection tool for park management. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2723–2741.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Stuart-Hill G., Diggle R., Munali B., Tagg J. and Ward D. 2005. The event book system: a community based natural resource monitoring system from Namibia. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2611–2631.
  15. ↑ Sheil, D. and Lawrence, A. 2004. Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaboration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 634–638.
  16. ↑ Lawrence, A. (Ed.). 2010. Taking Stock of Nature. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Alessa, L. et al. 2015. The role of Indigenous science and local knowledge in integrated observing systems: moving toward adaptive capacity indices and early warning systems. Sustainability Science. DOI 10.1007/s11625-015-0295-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0295-7
  18. ↑ Tebtebba 2013. Developing and Implementing Community‐Based Monitoring and Information Systems: The Global Workshop and the Philippine Workshop Reports. http://tebtebba.org/index.php/all‐resources/category/8‐ books?download=890:developing‐and‐implementing‐cbmis‐the‐global‐workshop‐and‐ the‐philippine‐workshop‐reports.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Bennun L., Matiku P., Mulwa R., Mwangi S. and Buckley P. 2005. Monitoring Important Bird Areas in Africa: towards a sustainable and scalable system. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2575–2590.
  20. ↑ Townsend W.R., Borman A.R., Yiyoguaje E. and Mendua L. 2005. Cofán Indians’ monitoring of freshwater turtles in Zábalo, Ecuador. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2743–2755.
  21. ↑ Rist J, Milner-Gulland EJ, Cowlishaw G, Rowcliffe M. 2010. Hunter reporting of catch per unit effort as a monitoring tool in a bushmeat harvesting system. Conservation Biology 24: 489–499.
  22. ↑ Oldekop JA, Bebbington AJ, Berdel F, Truelove NK, Wiersberg T, et al. 2011. Testing the accuracy of non-experts in biodiversity monitoring exercises using fern species richness in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Biodivers Conserv. 20:2615-26.
  23. ↑ Burton 2012
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Andrianandrasana H.T., Randriamahefasoa J., Durbin J., Lewis R.E. and Ratsimbazafy J.H. 2005. Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetland in Madagascar. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2757–2774.
  25. ↑ Poulsen M.K. and Luanglath K. 2005. Projects come, projects go: lessons from participatory monitoring in southern Laos. Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2591–2610
  26. ↑ Uychiaoco AJ, Arceo HO, Green SJ, de la Cruz MT, Gaite PA, Alino PM. 2005. Monitoring and evaluation of reef protected areas by local fishers in the Philippines: Tightening the adaptive management cycle. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2775–2794
  27. ↑ Nagendra H, Ostrom E. 2011. The challenge of forest diagnostics. Ecology and Society 16 (art. 20). (7 November 2013; http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art20)
  28. ↑ NAILSMA (North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd.). 2014. Looking After Country: The NAILSMA I-Tracker story. NAILSMA, Darwin, NT. goo.gl/Ng29co
  29. ↑ Becker, C.D., Agreda, A., Astudillo, E., Constantino, M. and Torres, P. 2005. Community-based surveys of fog capture and biodiversity monitoring at Loma Alta, Ecuador enhance social capital and institutional cooperation. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2695–2707
  30. ↑ Hockley N.J., Jones J.P.G., Andriahajaina F.B., Manica A., Ranambitsoa E.H. and Randriamboahary J.A. 2005. When should communities and conservationists monitor exploited resources? Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2795–2806
  31. ↑ Topp-Jørgensen, E., Poulsen, M.K., Lund, J.F. and Massao, J.F. 2005. Community-based monitoring of natural resource use and forest quality in montane forests and miombo woodlands of Tanzania. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2653–2677.
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 Kennett, R., Danielsen, F. and Silvius, K.M. 2015. Conservation management: Citizen science is not enough on its own. Nature 521:261
  33. ↑ Guijt, I. (ed.) 2007. Negotiated learning: Collaborative monitoring in forest resources management. Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C., USA.
  34. ↑ Evans, K. and Guariguata, M.R. 2008. Participatory monitoring in tropical forest management: a review of tools, concepts and lessons learned. Center for International Forestry Research. Bogor, Indonesia.
  35. ↑ EMAN (The Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network). 2003. Improving local decision making through community based monitoring: Toward a Canadian Community Monitoring Network. Ottawa: Environment Canada. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/ec/En40-883-2003-eng.pdf
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Danielsen, F., Pirhofer-Walzl, K., Adrian, T., Kapijimpanga, D., Burgess, N.D., Jensen, P.M., Bonney, R., Funder, M., Landa, A., Levermann, N. and Madsen, J. 2014c. Linking public participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of international environmental agreements. Conservation Letters 7: 12–24.
  37. ↑ Johnson, N., Alessa, L., Behe, C., Danielsen, F., Gearheard, S., Gofman-Wallingford, V., Kliskey, A. et al. 2015a. The contributions of community-based monitoring and traditional knowledge to Arctic observing networks: Reflections on the state of the field. Arctic 68:5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4447
  38. ↑ Danielsen, F., Mendoza, M.M., Alviola, P., Balete, D.S., Enghoff, M., Poulsen, M.K. and Jensen, A.E. 2003. Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve? Oryx 37: 407–409.
  39. ↑ Hockley N.J., Jones J.P.G., Andriahajaina F.B., Manica A., Ranambitsoa E.H. and Randriamboahary J.A. 2005. When should communities and conservationists monitor exploited resources? Biodivers. Conserv. 14: 2795–2806.
  40. ↑ Danielsen, F., Jensen, A.E., Alviola, P.A., Balete, D.S., Mendoza, M.M., Tagtag, A., Custodio, C. and Enghoff, M. 2005c. Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locallybased monitoring of protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2633–2652.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 Danielsen F, Mendoza MM, Tagtag A, Alviola PA, Balete DS, Jensen AE, et al. 2007. Increasing conservation action by involving local people in natural resource monitoring. Ambio. 2007;36:566-70.
  42. ↑ Missiakoulis, S., 2010. Cecrops, King of Athens: the first (?) recorded population census in history. International Statistical Review 78, 413–418.
  43. ↑ Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M.C., Danielsen, F., Geldmann, J., Naidoo, R., Pullin, A. and Burgess, N.D. 2014. Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. Biological Conservation 169: 258–267.
  44. ↑ Sodhi, N.S. and Ehrlich, P.R. (Eds.). 2010. Conservation Biology for All. Oxford Univ. Press.
  45. ↑ Jones, J.P.G., Asner, G., Butchart, S.M. and Karanth, U. 2013. The ‘why’, ‘what’ and ‘how’ of monitoring for conservation. Pp. 329-343 in Macdonald, D.W. and Willis, K.J. (Eds.) Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford.
  46. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  47. ↑ Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A, editors. 2005b. Special issue: Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiv and Cons.14:2507-2820.
  48. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 Nordic Council of Ministers 2015. Local knowledge and resource management. On the use of indigenous and local knowledge to document and manage natural resources in the Arctic. TemaNord 2015-506. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2015-506
  50. ↑ Constantino, P.A.L. et al. in press. Monitoramento Participativo Da Biodiversidade E Dos Recursos Naturais: Seminário Internacional E Formação Da Rede Internacional De Monitoramento E Manejo Participativo. Biodiversidade Brasileira.
  51. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  52. ↑ https://uclexcites.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/community-monitoring-great-debates-and-local-actions/)
  53. ↑ Turnhout, E., Bloomfield, B., Hulme, M., Vogel, J. and Wynne, B. 2012. Listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488: 454–455.
  54. ↑ Danielsen, F., Jensen, P.M., Burgess, N.D., Coronado, I., Holt, S., Poulsen, M.K., Rueda, R.M., Skielboe, T., Enghoff, M., Hemmingsen, L.H., Sørensen, M. and Pirhofer-Walzl, K. 2014b. Testing focus groups as a tool for connecting indigenous and local knowledge on abundance of natural resources with science-based land management systems. Conservation Letters 7: 380–389.
  55. ↑ Ecological Society of America 2014. Dispatches. Locals beat scientists in biodiversity surveys. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12: 428–432
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 Tengö, M., Brondizio, E., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P. and Spierenburg, M. 2014. Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance – the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43: 579–591.
  57. ↑ Huntington, H.P., Callaghan, T., Fox, S. and Krupnik, I. 2004. Matching traditional and scientific observations to detect environmental change: a discussion on Arctic terrestrial ecosystems. Ambio 33: 18–23.
  58. ↑ Gofman, V. 2010. Community based monitoring handbook: lessons from the Arctic. CAFF CBMP Report No. 21. CAFF, Akureyri, Iceland.
  59. ↑ Merkel, F.R. 2010. Evidence of recent population recovery in common eiders breeding in Western Greenland. Journal of Wildlife Management 74: 1869–1874
  60. ↑ Huntington, H.P. 2011. The local perspective. Nature 478: 182–183.
  61. ↑ Pulsifer, P.L., Laidler, G.J., Taylor, D.R.F. and Hayes, A. 2011. Towards an indigenist data management program: Reflections on experiences developing an atlas of sea ice knowledge and use. The Canadian Geographer 55: 108–124.
  62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 Russell, D.E. et al. 2013. Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Cooperative: can local knowledge inform caribou management? Rangifer 33(21):71-78.
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 Danielsen, F., Topp-Jørgensen, E., Levermann, N., Løvstrøm, P., Schiøtz, M., Enghoff, M. and Jakobsen, P. 2014d. Counting what counts: using local knowledge to improve Arctic resource management. Polar Geography 37: 69–91.
  64. ↑ Johnson, N., Alessa, L., Behe, C., Danielsen, F., Gearheard, S., Gofman-Wallingford, V., Kliskey, A. et al. 2015. The contributions of community-based monitoring and traditional knowledge to Arctic observing networks: Reflections on the state of the field. Arctic 68:5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4447
  65. ↑ Johnson, N. et al. 2015. Community-Based Monitoring in a Changing Arctic: A Review for the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network. Final report of Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks Task #9. Ottawa, ON: Inuit Circumpolar Council.
  66. ↑ Laidler, G.J. 2006. Inuit and scientific perspectives on the relationship between sea ice and climate change: the ideal complement? Climatic Change 78: 407–444.
  67. ↑ Eira, I.M.G., Jaedicke, C., Magga, O.H., Maynard, N.G., Vikhamar-Schuler, D. and Mathiesen, S.D. 2013. Traditional Sámi snow terminology and physical snow classification – two ways of knowing. Cold Regions Science and Technology 85: 117–130.
  68. ↑ Weatherhead, E., Gearheard, S. and Barry, R.G. 2010. Changes in weather persistence: Insight from Inuit knowledge. Global Environmental Change 20: 523–528.
  69. ↑ Nakashima, D. et al. 2012. Weathering Uncertainty – Traditional knowledge for climate change assessment and adaptation. United Nations University. Available at: http://unu.edu/publications/policy-briefs/weathering-uncertainty-traditional-knowledge-for-climate-change-assessment-and-adaptation.html
  70. ↑ 70.0 70.1 Ferguson, M.A.D. et al. 1998. Inuit knowledge of long-term changes in a population of Arctic tundra caribou. Arctic 51: 201-219.
  71. ↑ Mustonen, T. And Mustonen, K. 2011. Eastern Sámi Atlas. SnowChange Cooperative, Vaasa, Finland.
  72. ↑ Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology (3rd ed.) Routledge.
  73. ↑ Constantino, P.A.L. 2015. Dynamics of hunting territories and prey distribution in Amazonian Indigenous Lands. Applied Geography, 56: 222-231.
  74. ↑ Danielsen, F., Skutsch, M., Burgess, N.D., Jensen, P.M., Andrianandrasana, H., Karky, B., Lewis, R., Lovett, J.C., Massao, J., Ngaga, Y., Phartiyal, P., Poulsen, M.K., Singh, S.P., Solis, S., Sørensen, M., Tewari, A., Young, R. and Zahabu, E. 2011. At the heart of REDD+: a role for local people in monitoring forests? Conservation Letters 4: 158–167 (with cover page).
  75. ↑ Skutsch, M. (Ed.). 2011. Community Forest Monitoring for the Carbon Market. Earthscan, London.
  76. ↑ Gardner, T.A., Burgess, N.D., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Barlow, J., Berenguer, E., Clements, T., Danielsen, F., Ferreira, J., Foden, W., Kapos, V., Khan, S.M., Lees, A.C., Parry, L., Roman-Cuesta, R.M., Schmitt, C.B., Strange, N., Theilade, I. and Vieira, I.C.G. 2012. A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biological Conservation 154: 61–71.
  77. ↑ Danielsen, F., Adrian, T., Brofeldt, S., Noordwijk, M. van, Poulsen, M.K, Rahayu, S., Rutishauser, E., Theilade, I., Widayati, A., An, N.T., Bang, T.N., Budiman, A., Enghoff, M., Jensen, A.E., Kurniawan, Y., Li, Q., Mingxu, Z., Schmidt-Vogt, D., Prixa, S., Thoumtone, V., Warta, Z. and Burgess, N. 2013. Community monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities. Ecology and Society 18(3): 41.
  78. ↑ Boissière M, Beaudoin G, Hofstee C, Rafanoharana S. 2014. Participating in REDD+ Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (PMRV): Opportunities for Local People? Forests 5(8):1855-78.
  79. ↑ Brofeldt, S., Theilade, I., Burgess, N.D., Danielsen, F., Poulsen, M.K., Adrian, T., Bang, T.N. et al. 2014. Community monitoring of carbon stocks for REDD+: Does accuracy and cost change over time? Forests 5(8): 1834–1854.
  80. ↑ Larrazábal A, McCall MK, Mwampamba TH, Skutsch M. The role of community carbon monitoring for REDD+: a review of experiences. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2012;4:707-16.
  81. ↑ Lund, J.F. 2014. Towards a more balanced view on the potentials of locally-based monitoring. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 237–239.
  82. ↑ Pratihast AK, DeVries B, Avitabile V, de Bruin S, Kooistra L, Tekle M, et al. 2014. Combining Satellite Data and Community-Based Observations for Forest Monitoring. Forests 5(10):2464-89.
  83. ↑ Butt, N., Epps, K., Overman, H., Iwamura, T. and Fragoso, J.M.V. 2015. Assessing carbon stocks using indigenous peoples’ field measurements in Amazonian Guyana. Forest Ecology and Management 338: 191-199.
  84. ↑ Forest Compass 2015. Community monitoring in the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve in Acre, Brazil http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/community-monitoring-chico-mendes-extractive-reserve-acre-brazil
  85. ↑ Forest Compass 2015. Community-based forest monitoring in North Rupununi, Guyana http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/community-based-forest-monitoring-north-rupununi-guyana
  86. ↑ Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Jensen, P.M. and Pirhofer-Walzl, K. 2010. Environmental monitoring: the scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of people’s involvement. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 1166–1168 (podcast: http://bdown.astream.com/jpe/danielsen.mp3).
  87. ↑ Forest Compass 2015. International Agendas. http://forestcompass.org/why/international-forest-agendas
  88. ↑ Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Balmford, A., Donald, P.F., Funder, M., Jones, J.P.G., Alviola, P., Balete, D.S., Blomley, T., Brashares, J., Child, B., Enghoff, M., Fjeldså, J., Holt, S., Hübertz, H., Jensen, A.E., Jensen, P.M., Massao, J., Mendoza, M.M., Ngaga, Y., Poulsen, M.K., Rueda, R., Sam, M., Skielboe, T., Stuart-Hill, G., Topp-Jørgensen, E. and Yonten, D. 2009. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology 23: 31–42.
  89. ↑ Dickinson, J.L and Bonney, R. Eds. 2012. Citizen Science. Cornell Press, Ithaca, New York.
  90. ↑ Sullivan, B.L., Aycrigg, J.L., Barry, J.H., Bonney, R.E., Bruns, N., Cooper, C.B., Damoulas, T. et al. 2014. The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation 169: 31–40.
  91. ↑ http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/
  92. ↑ Forest Compass. 2015. What are the advantages of mobile technology in data collection http://forestcompass.org/what-are-advantages-mobile-technology-data-collection
  93. ↑ Forest Compass. 2014. IGES-FPCD Community-Based Forest Monitoring Project in Papua New Guinea. http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/iges-fpcd-community-based-forest-monitoring-project-papua-new-guinea
  94. ↑ AIDESEP and Alianza Mesoamericana de Pueblos e Bosques, with Handcrafted Films. 2014. Detecting disasters using drone technology http://ifnotusthenwho.me/story/detectando-desastres-2/
  95. ↑ Forest Compass. 2015. RuaiSMS: an initiative that links text messaging and local media to report forest incursions in Borneo. http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/ruaisms-initiative-links-text-messaging-and-local-media-report-forest-incursions-borneo
  96. ↑ Rainforest Foundation UK. 2015. Forest Link Community-based real time monitoring. http://monitor.mappingforrights.org/
  97. ↑ https://www.ucl.ac.uk/excites/software/sapelli
  98. ↑ M J Pacha. 2015. Community-based monitoring, reporting and verification know-how: sharing knowledge from practice. WWF, SilvaCarbon, Global Canopy Programme
  99. ↑ Pratihast A K, DeVries B, Avitabile V, de Bruin S, Kooistra L, Tekle M, et al. 2014. Combining Satellite Data and Community-Based Observations for Forest Monitoring. Forests 5(10):2464-89
  100. ↑ Forest Compass. 2015. What are the advantages of mobile technology in data collection http://forestcompass.org/what-are-advantages-mobile-technology-data-collection
  101. ↑ Forest Compass. 2015. Community-based forest monitoring in North Rupununi, Guyana http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/community-based-forest-monitoring-north-rupununi-guyana
  102. ↑ Lewis, J. 2012. Technological Leap-Frogging in the Congo Basin, Pygmies and Global Positioning Systems in Central Africa: What has happened and where is it going? African Study Monographs, Suppl. 43: 15−44, March 2012
  103. ↑ Forest Compass. 2015. Ashaninka Land Monitoring Initiative http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/ashaninka-land-monitoring-initiative
  104. ↑ Lewis, J & Nkuintchu, T. 2012. Accessible technologies and FPIC: independent monitoring with forest communities in Cameroon. In IIED Biodiversity and culture: exploring community protocols, rights and consent. Participatory Learning and Action No. 65
  105. ↑ Vitos, M et al. 2013. Making Local Content Matter - Supporting non-literate people to monitor poaching in Congo. DEV ’13, January 11-12, 2013, Bangalore, India
  106. ↑ Forest Compass. 2015. What are the disadvantages of mobile technology in data collection? http://forestcompass.org/what-are-disadvantages-mobile-technology-data-collection
  107. ↑ M J Pacha. 2015. Community-based monitoring, reporting and verification know-how: sharing knowledge from practice. WWF, SilvaCarbon, Global Canopy Programme. http://wwf.panda.org/?239457/Community-based-Monitoring-Reporting-and-Verification-Know-how#
  108. ↑ ELOKA (Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of the Arctic).2010. Exchanging and Sharing Knowledge: Toward an International Network Supporting Community-Based Monitoring and Local/Traditional Knowledge of the Arctic. A briefing paper for the State of the Arctic Conference, Miami, March 2010. https://eloka-arctic.org/sites/eloka-arctic.org/files/documents/eloka_soa_saon_white_paper_march2010.pdf
  109. ↑ D Sabogal. 2015. Data sharing in community-based forest monitoring: lessons from Guyana. Global Canopy Programme. http://forestcompass.org/how/resources/data-sharing-community-based-forest-monitoring-lessons-guyana
  110. ↑ Torres, A. B., Acuña, L. A. S., & Vergara, J. M. C. 2014. Integrating CBM into Land-Use Based Mitigation Actions Implemented by Local Communities. Forests. 5(12). p. 3295-3326.
  111. ↑ Bellfield, H, D Sabogal , L Goodman and M Leggett.2015. Case Report Case Study Report: Community-Based Monitoring Systems for REDD+ in Guyana. Forests 2015, 6(1), 133-156.
  112. ↑ D Sabogal. 2015. Data sharing in community-based forest monitoring: lessons from Guyana. Global Canopy Programme. http://forestcompass.org/how/resources/data-sharing-community-based-forest-monitoring-lessons-guyana

Further reading

  • Gardner, T.A. 2010. Monitoring Forest Biodiversity: Improving Conservation through Ecologically Responsible Management. Earthscan, London.
  • Johnson, N. et al. 2015. Community-Based Monitoring in a Changing Arctic: A Review for the Sustaining Arctic Observing Network. Final report of Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks Task #9. Ottawa, ON: Inuit Circumpolar Council.
  • Lawrence, A. (Ed.). 2010. Taking Stock of Nature. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Nordic Council of Ministers 2015. Local knowledge and resource management. On the use of indigenous and local knowledge to document and manage natural resources in the Arctic. TemaNord 2015-506. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark. Available at
  • http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2015-506.
  • Special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation on the potential of locally based approaches to monitoring of biodiversity and resource use, available at www.monitoringmatters.org (Danielsen et al. 2005b).
  • Special issue of Polar Geography on local and traditional knowledge and data management in the Arctic http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tpog20/37/1#.VTd0oTrtU3Q
  • Tebtebba 2013. Developing and Implementing Community‐Based Monitoring and Information Systems: The Global Workshop and the Philippine Workshop Reports. http://tebtebba.org/index.php/all‐resources/category/8‐ books?download=890:developing‐and‐implementing‐cbmis‐the‐global‐workshop‐and‐ the‐Philippine‐workshop‐reports

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Participatory_monitoring&oldid=719965241"