Digital technology and the conservation of nature

Author(s): Koen Arts, René van der Wal and William M. Adams
Source: Ambio , 2015, Vol. 44, Supplement 4. Special Issue: Digital conservation:
Understanding the impacts of digital technology on nature conservation (2015), pp.
S661-S673
Published by: Springer on behalf of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24670997

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

and Springer are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Ambio

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ÄKUNGL
Hf^s VETENSKAPS
VETENSKAPS- ,
tKUNGL.
Ambio 2015,44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673 AKADEMIEN
AKADEMIEN r n, v
DOI 10.1007/s 13280-015-0705-1 THE ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY OF OFSCIENCES
THE ROYAL SWEDISH ACADEMY SCIENCES TOSS âT

Digital technology and the conservation of nature

Koen Arts, René van der Wal, William M. Adams

Abstract Digital technology is changing nature computers, wireless communication) have created digital
conservation in increasingly profound ways. We describe networks through which flow large amounts of information
Unlike previous technological revolutions, information is
this impact and its significance through the concept of 'digital
conservation', which we found to comprise five pivotal
now the central component around which technologie
revolve (Castells 2010). This results in new modes of busi
dimensions: data on nature, data on people, data integration
and analysis, communication and experience, and ness, communication and governance in many societ
participatory governance. Examining digital innovation in domains, including the environmental (Mol 2008).
nature conservation and addressing how its development, The digital revolution (involving the use of computers
implementation and diffusion may be steered, we warnand binary numeric forms of information) is directly rele
against hypes, techno-fix thinking, good news narratives andvant to the social practices and organisations concerne
unverified assumptions. We identify a need for rigorous with the conservation of nature. Nature conservation is an
evaluation, more comprehensive consideration of socialumbrella term that refers to a plethora of ideas, practices
exclusion, frameworks for regulation and increased multi and values, differing for individuals and organisations alike
sector as well as multi-discipline awareness and cooperation. (Adams 2004; Sandbrook et al. 2010). Digital applications
Along the way, digital technology may best be have started to gain prominence in nature conservation, in
reconceptualised by conservationists from something thatboth
is number and diversity, and are progressively shaping
conservation discourses and practices. Digital technology
either good or bad, to a dual-faced force in need of guidance.
increasingly influences the ways members of the public
Keywords Digital conservation • perceive, think about and engage with nature (Kahn 2011;
Information and Communication Technology (ICT) • Verma et al. 2015). The technologies of the Information
The Information Age • Nature conservation • BiodiversityAge are often greeted with optimism by conservationists
Innovation because they promise more data, faster processing, better
information access and connectivity, new communication
routes, exciting visual representations and empowering
INTRODUCTION decision-making support systems. Such optimism may be
deceptive in light of the many practical challenges (Joppa
2015; Newey
The capacity of digital technology to change lives, econo et al. 2015), and the unintended conse
mies, cultures and societies is universally accepted. Com
quences that technology use may bring (Humle et al. 2014;
Maffey et Age'
mentators argue that we have entered the 'Information al. 2015).
(Castells 2010). The internet and associated information andthe term 'digital conservation' as shorthand
Here we use
communications technologies (ICTs, e.g. broadband,
for the broad range of developments at the interface of
digital technology and nature conservation (Van der Wal
and Arts 2015). We consider the impact and significance of
All online sources mentioned in the footnotes were last accessed on digital technology, understood as the collection of processes
16-08-2015. and materials related to the innovation, development,

©©
The The
Author(s) Author(s) 2015.
2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en Springer

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 S662 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673

implementation and exhaustive

diffusion set of sources (non-peer-reviewed
of digital online sourtec
approach draws on Feenberg's
ces are referred to in footnotes).(1999) 'criti
Although we discuss the
which technologyidentified
is dimensions
understood
separately, their boundariesas val
are fluid.
Kranzberg's (1986, As
p.such, 545) 'First
digital conservation Law
follows a pattern of
identified in
"Technology is other domains
neither good with nor
"growing convergence
bad; nor of specificis i
concur that technology can
technologies be
into a highly understood
integrated system, within which a
Castells 2010) that old, separate an
shows technological trajectories become literally
"ambivalent fac
and hindering at theindistinguishable"
same time" (Castells 2010, pp. 71-72). In the Dis
(Lanzara 20
accept that nature cussion, we address the challenge
conservation of how to increase lik
practice,
science, is 'mission-driven'
benefits associated (Meine etin al.
with digital technology 2006
nature con
Maffey et al. 2015). Therefore,
servation while reducing associated
we risks.view it a
servationists to understand how their mission
digital technology.
DATA ON NATURE

Study approach
Possibilities

In this paper, we seek to identify and an

cation of digital technology in and
Mass-produced, high-tech sensors nature
related technologyco
undertake this make it possible
analysis, it has for there been
to be more, better, faster and
necessary
search beyond peer-reviewed
cheaper capture of data on naturepublication
(Van Tamelen 2004; Koh
scholarly and Wich 2012;
works. Formal Will et al. 2014).2 These
academic technologies are
literature
lished following a long
implemented
delay,
in various ways,
thusfrom multi-sensor
making equipped
poor indicator of thesmart phones carried bystate
current humans and satellite tags carried
of affairs
commercial and other
by animals,
non-academic
to camera traps, drones (also called
develop
Unmanned
arising rapidly, are Aerial Vehicles or UAVs), described
commonly deep-sea submarines and space
in g
and online sources. satellites. It has enabled morereview
Systematic frequent monitoring of the
meth
to avoid these in their emphasis on data qua
and Stewart 2004). 2Our
Camera traps approach owes
emerge as key tool in wildlife research mo
(05-12-2011,
scanning exercises, which
Jeremy aim
Hance). Yale Environment to identif
360. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/
unknown camera_traps_emerge_as_key_toolJn_wildlife_research/2469/.
phenomena at the earliest p
Conservation Drones. Website: http://conservationdrones.org/.
(Sutherland et al. 2014).
From cell phones to drones: How technology is helping conserva
We conducted keyword searches
tion (28-04-2015, Enrique with
Gili). Deutsche Welle News. Go
http://www.
and Web of Science, dw.de/global-ideas-technology-conservation-drones-software-flsh-bio
using search terms rela
conservation' and diversity/a-18412882/. technology'.1
'digital In
How mobile technology is changing conservation (19-09-2014,
gathered material from participants at the firs
Kathleen Garrigan). Blog, African Wildlife Foundation. http://www.
Conference on Digital Conservation (21-
awf.org/blog/how-mobile-technology-changing-conservation/.
Aberdeen, UK) and through Twitter
How technology is taking conservation science toaccount
the next level
et al. 2012). Returns (02-04-2015,
were Karina Atkinson). The Guardian.
assessed http://www.theguar
(by title,
dian.com/envi ronment/2015/apr/02/how-technology-is-taking-conserva
abstract, images, and where needed, body te
tion-science-to-the-next-level?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.
recurrent themes, it/. which were subseque
(Strauss and Corbin More
1998). On
than 300 sharks in Australia the
are now on Twitter (01-01-2014, basis of
tified five key Alan Yu). NPR news, http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/
dimensions which have a subs
2013/12/31 /258670211 /more-than-300-sharks-in-australia-are-now-on
on nature conservation
twitter/.
(Fig. 1). Each dime
most important associated possibilities
O'Reilly Media Animals. Website, http://animals.oreilly.com/. an
discussed and supported
Rare dolphin sightings on the by an
rise since release illustra
of dolphin-spotting
app (20-02-2015, Olivia Wannan). Stuff news, http://www.stuff.co.
nz/technology/apps/66427434/rare-dolphin-sightings-on-the-rise-since
1 Nature conservation: nature, natural,
release-of-dolphinspotting-app/. conservatio
biodiversity, ecosystem, Sheep to warn of wolves via text
ecology, message (06-08-2012)
flora, BBC News.
fauna, wild
ness, natural area, national park, endangered spe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19147403/.
based. Technology for Nature. Website. http://www.technologyfornature.
Digital technology: digital, computer, smartphone, tablet, compu
org/.
tational, technology, innovation, internet, web, online, ICT, electronicThermal imaging may save Hauraki Gulf whales (13-04-2015, Jack
van Beynen). Stuff news, http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/
(e-), sensor, cyber, monitoring, database, network, software, hard
ware, support system, mobile, wireless. 67712222/thermal-imaging-may-save-hauraki-gulf-whales/.

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Ö Springer www.kva.se/en

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673 S663

Data on
nature

Participatory \ . j Data on
governance / / \ \ people
Digital
conservation

Communi- \ / Data
cation and J [ integration
experience j V and analysis

Fig. 1 Five key dimensions of digital conservation

natural environment, on a larger spatial scale, at a finer Integration

résolution in inaccessible or dangerous locations, and has heat, tempe
sometimes resulted in (near) real-time sensing (Blumstein and bette
et al. 2011; Van der Wal et al. 2015b). Such developments integration
can bring clear benefits to conservation science and man- turning d
agement (Pettorelli et al. 2014; August et al. 2015). Many 2015), fo
tools also allow automated capture of data: once activated Generati
they require no or minimal further human involvement based on d
(Waddle et al. 2003; Wagtendonk and De Jeu 2007). Van der W
Pioneering examples include biomimetic robots such as personal d
iTuna' or Cyro, the latter of which recreates the movement encourage b
of jellyfish while monitoring marine environments.4 A to biologica
different feature of 'data on nature' is that new kinds of science—
data can be generated. Ongoing miniaturisation of tech- enquiry—is
nology allows for the tracking of movement of very small nature conse
animals, right down to insects (Lihoreau et al. 2012).5

6 Arnia Remote Bee Hive Monitoring. Webp

3 Tuna Fish Robot. Webpage, Robotics and Cybernetics Research
co.uk/.

Group Universidad, Politécnica de Madrid. http://www.robcib.etsii.

7 Blogging birds: The lives of red kites, told by computers. Website.
upm.es/index.php/en/robots/. http://redkite.abdn.ac.uk/.
4 Cyro. Webvideo, Virginia Tech: Autonomous Robotic
8 5 ways regular people Jellyfish.
are tracking wildlife with personal tech (16
https://vimeo.com/62880818/. 01-2015, Karen de Seve). National Geographic. http://news.national
5 BeeNav. Webpage, Rothamsted Research. http://www.rothamsted.
geographic.com/news/2015/01/150114-crowdsourcing-science-animals
ac.uk/news/beenav-bumblebees-cleverly-calculate-efficient-routes/.
wildlife-conservation-technology-citizens/.

1 The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en lJ Springer

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 S664 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661—S673

digital devices and environmental problems (Maffey

applications, et al. 2015). The same
especially smartp
related apps (Dickinson et
technologies al. 2010;
that contribute Conrad
to nature conservation can be an
2011; Silvertown et al.used
2015).9 Computer-aided
for purposes that conflict with conservation aims. For t
and analysis can help instance, camera traps andunskilled
relatively drones could be used to enable
citizens
species and process data (Oswald
illegal hunting, et al.technologies
and in marine environments 2007; Wal
2012; Wilson and Flory
such 2012).10
as echo sounders and GPSsElectronic
facilitate intense fishing field
replace heavy books and resource
and may depletion (Roberts 2007). Technological
provide a user-fri
for species identification
developmentby
can also specialists and
be dysfunctional: advances in sensor non
alike (Stevenson et al. 2003;
hardware Famsworth
may outpace those in software (Campbell et al. et a
Bayesian computer 2013), and social
models are development
used processes
to of apps and web
determine
crowd sizes to achieve correct
sites are species
often non-inclusive (Teacher identif
et al. 2013). The latter
photographed specimens (Siddharthan
contributes to nature apps not reaching their fullet al.
potential 201
technology can ('waiting
unlock thefor the revolution'—Jepson
potential and Ladle
of 2015). alread
data, with citizen Access to digital devices,
scientists fortechnologies
exampleand supporting
helpin
digitisation of natural history
infrastructures collections
(e.g. electricity) and knowledge is globally (Ca
2004; Blagoderov et al. 2012).
highly uneven. The
In a similar way, Notes
with regard to digitising from
project uses crowdsourcing
natural history to transcribe
specimens, biologic
Vollmar et al. (2010, p. 93) found
By the beginning of September
an "uneven 2015,
digitisation landscape" with "a patchy accu 7994
contributed to 1 160 000 transcribed museum records. Such mulation of records at varying qualities, and based on dif
an example illustrates the potential of these kinds of digital ferent priorities". Finally, a perverse effect of the automated
projects to engage a citizen workforce. surveying and identification of species could be 'de-skilling'
of natural history, as machine-support compensates for a
Problems decline in people with taxonomic knowledge.

Sensors and related technologies hold much promise but

DATA ON PEOPLE
inherent technical barriers may hinder implementation. For
example, widespread use of lower-end camera traps in
Possibilities
conservation and wildlife management research proves
troublesome due to numerous deployment, operation and
With the increased flow of data and information (i.e.
data management issues (Meek et al. 2015; Newey et al.
2015). Technology may have negative implications forinterpreted data), a new level of monitoring has become
humans and nature. As Sandbrook (2015) shows, dronespossible, notably through the mining of social networks
could have severe social implications, and actually nega
and through 'web crawlers', software scripts that method
ologically browse the World Wide Web (cf. Galaz et al.
tively impact on humans, animals and conservation practices
2009; Stafford et al. 2010; Barve 2014). Search engine data
at large if used without appropriate legislative and ethical
frameworks (Ditmer et al. 2015; Vas et al. 2015). Anothercan now not only be used to forecast biological events such
as pollen release and mosquito outbreaks, but can also
negative impact may materialise through a greater resource
and energy consumption and the creation of additional ereveal signs of changes in environmental perceptions of
waste (Fuchs 2008). Many electronic devices are built with
internet-using communities (Proulx et al. 2013; Kim et al.
2014; but see also Ficetola 2013). Such techniques extend
planned obsolescence, and resulting e-waste is largely
exported to developing countries where it can create the field of 'culturomics' (the quantitative analysis of cul
tures—Michel et al. 2010) to nature conservation. These
and
9 BirdTrack. App. http://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/birdtrack/ other approaches make use of the capacity for auto
about/.
mated search and analysis of digital data, and allow for a
Conservation Hackathon—Tackling Conservation Challenges.
considerably greater geographical reach and sample size of
Website, http://conservationhackathon.org/.
Naturelocator. Website, http://naturelocator.org/. surveys. For instance, the Greendex 2014 survey on envi
Zooniverse. Website, https://www.zooniverse.org/. ronmentally sustainable consumption collected around one
thousand responses in each of the 18 focal countries in just
10 iBats: Indicator Bats Program. Website, http://www.ibats.org.uk/.
KeyToNature: A new e-way to discover biodiversity. Website.
over 40 days.12 To reach such a high and wide response
http://www.keytonature.eu/.
Leafsnap: An Electronic Field Guide. Website. http://leafsnap.
com/. Greendex 2014: Consumer Choice and the Environment—A
New Forest Cicada Project. App. http://newforestcicada.info/app/. worldwide Tracking Survey. http://environment.nationalgeographic.
11 Notes from Nature. Website, http://www.notesfromnature.org/. com/environment/greendex/.

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Ö Springer www.kva.se/en

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673 S665

rate through an analogue survey would have been a costlier than citizens; and (iii) revolved around physical qualities of
and more labour-intensive undertaking (and arguably less the environment rather than human actions. However, this
likely to have been done). Digital sensing and tracking is changing. Digital devices are outstripping institutional
devices open up the possibility of obtaining continuous, frameworks for their development, and for the storage and
direct data on human activities relevant to nature conser analysis of data collected. There are questions about who
vation. Methods such as 'experience sampling' employ should be permitted to deploy such devices (e.g. public or
embedded sensors (e.g. in smartphones) to track human private organisations), where they may be used (on public
movement. This can inform understanding of the ways in or private land), and whether people need to be informed
which people use natural environments (e.g. recreation in about, or consent to, data collection. There are questions
greenspaces) (Doherty et al. 2014). Data from devices such about how data may be stored or used, and by whom.15
as camera traps, embedded cameras, GPS tags, drones and Debates about these issues are current among human rights
satellites can be used to detect or study, for example, illegal organisations (e.g. about the implications for civil liberties
wood logging and poaching. 13Similar tracking technolo of surveillance by police or other state organisations) and
gies can also be employed to monitor value chains and of great relevance to nature conservation. Scholars note a
product lifecycles, and hence provide a foundation for lack of international regulation, legislation, frameworks
energy and waste reduction (Saar and Thomas 2002) or for and 'good practice' guidelines (Finn and Wright 2012;
Sandbrook 2015). The use of drones in the battle against
a more effective combatting of illegal timber trade.14 The
rise of the 'internet-of-things' (e.g. common household poaching may provide a case in point: will tourists be
appliances connected to the internet) might promote (in)directly affected as a result of wildlife authorities
reduced resource consumption, for example through the gathering data in a given national park?
remote control of central heating systems, and potentially
improve consumer insight into the connections between
nature and resource consumption (Miorandi et al. 2012). DATA INTEGRATION AND ANALYSIS

Problems Possibilities

One result of the rapid development of hardware is the rise

The potential of digital technology to enable intensified and
spatially distributed surveillance, and automated analysis of 'big data' (Kitchin 2014; Kelling et al. 2015). Data
of data, bring significant issues of human impacts and
volumes are rapidly increasing (terabytes and petabytes),
human rights (e.g. Humle et al. 2014; Sandbrook 2015).
they are nearer real-time, increasing in scope (capturing
Mol (2008, p. 116) points out that environmental moni
entire populations or ecosystems) and finer in resolution.
toring has traditionally escaped such criticism because itsThe opportunities offered by big data have been described
practices were: (i) too limited in size, capacity and inten
as "unprecedented (...) for advancing science and inform
sity; (ii) more focussed on institutional and market actors
ing resource management" (Hampton et al. 2013, p. 156).
Big data implies connection of datasets, and a number of
initiatives have emerged to promote standardisation and
13 Wildlife Crime Tech Challenge. Website: http://wildlifecrimetech.
inter-operability of heterogeneous data sources (Jones et al.
org/index/.
2006; Stein 2008). The Global Biodiversity Information
Drones join war on rhino poachers in South Africa (27-05-2013,
Aislinn Laing). The Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ Facility (GBIF) works as a network of nodes (of about
worldnews/africaandindianocean/southafrica/10082727/Drones-join 14 000 datasets) and—at the beginning of June 2015—
war-on-rhino-poachers-in-South-Africa.html/. provided a single point of access to more than 500 million
How killing elephants finances terror in Africa (12-08-2015,
records on almost 1.5 million species16 (see also the Na
Bryan Christy). National Geographic. http://www.nationalgeographic.
com/tracking-ivory/article.html/. tional Biodiversity Network Gateway17). Similarly, the
Kenya to microchip every rhino in anti-poaching drive (16—10— Darwin Core project aims to provide one body of standards
2013). BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24558136/.
Rhino hom camera 'could save rhinos from extinction' (20-07
2015). BBC News, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment
33590436/. 15 Forbidden Data: Wyoming just criminalised citizen science (11-05
Topher White: What can save the rainforest? Your used cell phone 2015, Justin Pidot). Slate News, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_
(03-03-2015, Topher White). TED presentation. https://www. and_science/science/2015/05/wyoming_law_against_data_collection_
youtube.com/watch?v=xPK2Ch90xWo/. protecting_ranchers_by_ignoring_the.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top/.

14 Brazilian police and scientists team up to crack down on illegal 16 Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF): Free and Open
timber trade (08-07-2015, Jonathan Mason). World Resources Insti Access to Biodiversity Data. Website, http://www.gbif.org/.
tute. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/07/brazilian-police-and-scientists 17 National
17 National Biodiversity
Biodi' Network (NBN) Gateway. Website, http://
team-crack-down-illegal-timber-trade/. www.nbn.org.uk/.

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en Cl Springe;

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
S666 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673

sharing had occurred in bioinformatics, and competing

for publishing and integrating biodiversity information,18
while the Speciesbank.com19 is a central platform and platforms had emerged resulting in practices "that have no
database for biodiversity market participants. Various connection to genuine insight and forward progress"
(Peterson et al. 2010, p. 159).
aspects related to big data and biodiversity information are
central to 'bioinformatics' (Soberon and Peterson 2004), a
relatively young field with the ultimate goal to develop a
commonly shared easy-to-access e-infrastructure, facilitat
COMMUNICATION AND EXPERIENCE
ing "the full integration of the biodiversity research com
munity" (Hardisty and Roberts 2013, p. 1). Big data
Possibilities
requires new forms of analysis. Aided by fast computer
processors and cloud computing, conservation practices
Internet-supported social media have offered lay people
may benefit from increasingly sophisticated analyses and
and experts new means to self-organise and exchange
modelling for scientific and managerial purposes (Wall
et al. 2014; Chapron 2015; Kelling et al. 2015).20 ideas, experience and footage (e.g. Ashlin and Ladle 2006;
Bombaci et al. 2015).21 Platforms like Open Air Labora
tories (OPAL),22 eBird,23 the iNaturalist App,24 the Atlas
Problems of Living Australia25 and WikiAves26 do not only provide
scientists with data, but also allow people to become part
Big data also presents challenges for nature conservationof a community through uploading observations of flora
relating to access, connectivity and analysis (Porter et al.and fauna, inspecting sightings by others, and fostering
discuss on and learning about the natural world. Digital
2012; Kelling et al. 2015). The reluctance of some to use
novel technology may be a barrier to uptake, sometimestechnology has also impacted on organisation-to-citizen
reinforced by over-complicated user interfaces (Hardistyrelationships. Conservation organisations and research
and Roberts 2013). Other recurrent issues are whether
institutes routinely employ social media, webcam imagery
and other tools for all kinds of public engagement-related
scholars and institutions are willing to share codes and data
aims, e.g. to provide information, consult, create interest
(Borgman et al. 2007; Peterson et al. 2010), and whether
databases are linked up to larger cyberinfrastructures inin specific topics, maintain or win public and political
support, or bring people into the conservation fold
systems of open access (Borgman et al. 2007; Campbell
(Lundmark 2003; Saito et al. 2015; Verma et al. 2015).27
et al. 2013). There are important questions of who will pay
for data collection and maintenance in shared meta-data Digital technologies can play an important role in
sets. Associated issues relate to the control of data. There knowledge transfer and e-learning, which is encouraging
are potential risks for nature conservation when datasets in times when taxonomic skill sets are in decline (Hopkins
are targeted by hackers (e.g. poachers using web-linked and Freckleton 2002). They can also play a vital role in
imaging devices to locate rare animals in real-time) or motivating and retaining volunteers and others involved
developers (e.g. using conservation datasets to support in, or engaged with, nature conservation (Van der Wal
natural resource extraction planning). Associated with et al. 2015c). Gaming may contribute to education and
those risks are questions about accountability of those who
are controlling such data. Moreover, more data and more
analysis do not necessarily aid decision-making. Canhos
et al. (2004, p. 1) noted that the budding discipline of 21 In some cases internet-supported social media and platforms help
bioinformatics was bringing new opportunities and novel to connect animals with animals (Apps for apes, Orangutan Outreach.
Website, http://redapes.org/multimedia/apps-for-apes/) or 'enable'
approaches to "ecological analysis, predictive modelling,humans to write to trees (When you give a tree an email address, 10
and synthesis and visualisation of biodiversity informa07-2015, Adrienne LaFrance—City lab. http://www.citylab.com/tech/
tion". Yet, a few years later, it was observed that little data2015/07/when-you-gi ve-a-tree-an-email-address/398219/).
22 Open Air Laboratories (OPAL). Website. http://www.opalex
plorenature.org/.

23 eBird. Website, http://ebird.org/.

24 iNaturalist. Website, http://www.inaturalist.org/.
18 Darwin Core Project. Website, http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/.
25 Atlas of Living Australia. Website, http://www.ala.org.au/.
19 Speciesbank.com. Website, http://www.speciesbanking.com/.
20 Can you use big data to track an elephant poacher? (12-06-2015, 26 WikiAves. Website, http://www.wikiaves.com/.
Kalev Leetaru). Foreign Policy—Voice, http://foreignpolicy.com/27 Push to revise conservation law as Indonesians post wildlife
2015/06/12/can-you-use-big-data-to-track-an-elephant-poacher/. crimes to Facebook (10-07-2015, Fidelis Satriastanti). Mongabay.
TrackLab for wildlife tracking. Software, http://www.noldus.com/http://news.mongabay.com/2015/07/push-to-revise-conservation-law
innovationworks/products/tracklab/wildlife. as-indonesians-post-wildlife-crimes-to-facebook/.

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Springer www.kva.se/en

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673 S667

behaviour change, fundraising and research (Sandbrook an increasingly complex digital web. White and Wilbert
et al. 2014).28 Technology-supported games can also (2009, p. 6) have used the term 'techno-natures' in this
encourage children and other players to go into nature regard: "knowledges of our world are, within such social
more. For example, in the Wildtime App29 technology is natures, ever more technologically mediated, produced,
used as a facilitator; children or parents indicate on their enacted, and contested". Indeed, nature conservation
mobile phone how much time they have, and on the basis organisations are not neutral agents in mediating nature
of that a list is returned for enjoyable activities in nearby through technology (Zmihorski et al. 2013); techno-visual
green space. Virtual representations (e.g. through virtual set-ups may stimulate emotional involvement, but tum
reality headsets) of nature may be employed for many wildlife into a 'tele-visual commodity' (Chambers 2007)
different or overlapping purposes including recreation, "packaged for the purposes of eliciting donations, mem
tourism, education and well-being, and could be all the bership monies, and repeat visits" (Verma et al. 2015).
more important in light of growing global urbanisation and Discussing the example of the internet search engine Eco
disconnect from nature (Turner et al. 2004; Saito et al. sia,31 Büscher (2013) reveals potential negative conse
2015).30 quences of social media and other interactive
communication modes used by conservation organisations,
Problems including the (further) commodification of nature and its
conservation. Nature 2.0, as he labels it, represents a new
Digital games may prevent gamers from going outside, or
reality in which the political economy of global conservation
have the potential to distract gamers from real-world prob
is increasingly underpinned by digital technology.
lems (Sandbrook et al. 2014). It is conceivable that digital
representations of the natural world may become a substitute
PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE
for physical nature: recordings of wild organisms (including
individuals now dead or species now extinct), or synthesised
quasi-natural environments, might substitute for directly Possibilities
experienced nature. Tests of 'technological nature windows'
(synthesised natural scenes, for example in offices and
A topical dimension of participatory governance is e-gov
hospitals) show that these are (as of yet) not as restorative ernance,
as i.e. the use of ICTs in state practices. According to
actual nature (Kahn 2011). Moreover, with the rise of ICTs,some, an evolution towards e-govemance 2.0 has been
taking place, involving a transformative, participatory
people's relationship with nature is further mediated through
model of online interaction between government and citi
zens (Mathur 2009; Chun et al. 2010; UN 2014). Partici
28 Eggcellent citizen science: evolution of camouflage in bird eggs
(27-08-2014, GrrlScientist). The Guardian, Science. http://www. patory governance may also involve a wider digital public
theguardian.com/science/grrlscientist/2014/aug/27/eggcellent-citizen
participation in natural resource management, decision
science-evolution-of-camouflage-in-bird-eggs/.
10 Environmental games that teach kids about earth, ecology, andand policy-making (Arts et al. 2015b). This can be sup
conservation (03-09-2010, Saikat Basu). Makeuseof. http://www.
ported with e.g. computer models and GIS mapping exer
makeuseof.com/tag/10-environmental-games-teach-kids-earth-ecology
cises,32 potentially leading to experiential learning cycles
conservation/.
(Haklay 2003; De Kraker et al. 2011; Buytaert et al. 2012).
Gamification in sustainable development (14-03-2014, Erik
Building on the advantages that cloud computing brings
Swan). Newsletter, BEAHRS, Environmental Leadership Program,
UC Berkeley, http://beahrselp.berkeley.edu/newsletter/gamification(such as faster processing opportunities and centralised
in-sustainable-development/.
update procedures), Chapron (2015) developed a web
We are the rangers. United for Wildlife. Game, http://
wearetherangers.com/.
based application for wildlife management driven by a
29 Wildtime. App. http://wildtime.projectwildthing.com/.
moose population matrix model that quickly provides a
hunting quota to users in line with the carrying capacity of
30 National Geographic—Interactive Experience: Son Doong in
selected areas. Digital support systems and e-governance
360°—Dive into 'infinity' with dizzying views of a colossal cave
also have a potential for démocratisation and social
(20-05-2015, Jane Lee and Martin Edström). Interactive website.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/05/150520-infinity-cave-son
empowerment, particularly with regards to under-repre
doong-vietnam-virtual-tour-photography-conservation/
Nautilus Live—Explore the ocean LIVE with Dr. Robert Ballard
sented communities and rural people. Graham et al. (2012)
and the Corps of Exploration. Website, http://www.nautiluslive.org/illustrate how a mobile phone-based decision support
Opti-hunting (25-10-2012, Paul Jepson). http://www.geog.ox.ac.
communication tool can reduce human-elephant conflict,
uk/staff/pjepson-opti-hunting%20proposal_25Octl2.pdf/
aid conservation more broadly, and empower local people.
Reality is too confining (24-10-2014, Amy Westervelt). Conser
vation Magazine, University of Washington. http://conservationmagazine.
org/2014/ 10/reality-is-too-confining/. 31 Ecosia. Internet search engine: https://www.ecosia.org/.
Tele Echo Tube. Website, http://hhkobayashi.com/tele-echo-tube/.
32 Map-Me. Webdocument. http://map-me.org/.

The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en id Springe:

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 S668 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673

The Extreme Citizen Science

management, Groupé
communication has
and other practices, a
ticipatory mapping technologies
likely they will continue to dowhich allo
so in the future. Man
hunter-gatherers inplatforms
the enforce
Congo
this enthusiasm
basin by presenting
to ma d
commercial technology
poachers (Lewisas a panacea to a suiteStevens
2012; of conservatio
Rahemtulla et al. 2008
lems. Such
and enthusiasm
Mappingmay be long-lived,
for i.e. when
Rig
technology becomes a structural component of an o
Problems sation's practices (e.g. an online submission system
volunteer-based initiative—Arts et al. 2013). But
also be short-lived: a particular technological app
Public authorities and organisations that seek to adopt
Governance 2.0 approaches will be faced with numerous
may be employed as a techno-fix that does not addre
root cause of a problem (Huesemann and Huesse
barriers to implementation and use. These may relate to, for
example, path-dependencies, siloed departments, lack 2011),
of or become a hype, which "usually ends su
when the realisation hits that it is not as important a
human and financial resources, conflicting types of knowl
thought to be or when the hype has become co
edge and framing, differing views of staff on the value of
practice" (Meijer et al. 2009, p. 3). Nature conservat
digital technology, and bureaucracy (Kamal 2006; Arts et al.
2015a). A problem in wider digital technology discoursesalways
is been susceptible to hypes and fads (Redford
2013a), and an emphasis on short-term promises res
that of digital exclusion. Traditional literatures on the digital
divide have focussed on the binary of who uses the Internet with the mission-driven character of nature conserva
and who does not. While large parts of the World indeed(Meine et al. 2006). This could sit at odds with the gr
remain unconnected to the Internet, more attention has paradigm of evidence-based conservation, in whic
recently been paid to second-order divides includingnology-related promises are not taken for grant
tested (Sutherland et al. 2004). We argue that natur
autonomy of Internet use, social support networks, use
servation as a whole would benefit from less empha
patterns and skill levels (Hargittai 2002; Warren 2007), but
the short-term promises of digital technology, and
as of yet it is ill-understood how these play out in nature
emphasis on their medium- and long-term impacts.
conservation communities. With regard to decision-making
support tools, their full potential is often not reached,
Bias towards good news narratives and new
notably because the intended end-users do not adopt the tool
approach to digital technology
(Tremblaya et al. 2004; De Kraker et al. 2011; Mcintosh
et al. 2011), a likelihood which is greatly enlarged when a
Nature conservation suffers from a tendency to em
support tool is made for a conservation community of users
rather than with them (Maffey et al. 2013). 'good news narratives'. This bias is not only pre
popular media stories, but also in scientific literature
interface of nature conservation and digital techno
DISCUSSION: CHALLENGES FOR which generally reports little on the challenges, set
CONSERVATIONISTS backlashes, or failures that many projects face (c
et al. 2013; Newey et al. 2015). Many digital tech
projects seem
Digital technology is impacting on nature conservation in to die a silent death or not move beyon
pilotasphase,
myriad ways, creating possibilities and problems, well for example due to lack of continued p
funding,
as winners and losers. Both sets often represent departure of staff, or the academic fo
different
research
sides of the same coin. This is not to say that questions (Joppa 2015). Sometimes, good
the possi
bilities and problems of any of the applicationnarratives may have less to do with the true possibil
areas are of
equal importance, or in balance. The challenge for con (such as more data or improved efficien
technology
better nature conservation), and more with an o
servationists, we argue, is to capitalise on the opportunities
while reducing the associated threats. tion's desire to use a digital application as a veh
impress, to attract attention through novelty, or t
Longevity of technology itself look modern and hence to help attract fundin
best, the dominance of stories about the promise of
technology
Nature conservationists increasingly seek to embrace dig currently paints a misleading image. At w
ital technology as a central element of their science,
sustains a simplistic and naïve logic that may negat
affect nature conservation in the long run by prema
closing
33 Extreme Citizen Science group, University College useful debates, thus impoverishing conse
London.
Website: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/excites/. thinking. We therefore suggest that approaches to
technology
34 Mapping for Rights. Website, http://www.mappingforrights.org/. in nature conservation need to change t

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Springer www.kva.se/en

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673 S669

treating technology as a magic wand to solve

problems at a stroke. A more constructive
digital technology would be to consider it
(Castells 2010). Such a force can perhaps be
steered for certain purposes, but not neces
controlled or employed. As of yet, the fo
conservation is little understood, and a key ch
ensure that it feeds less into techno-fix thinkin
and more into long-lasting and carefully i
applications.
Nature conservation has
Political economies and digital exclusion
ecologists, social scien
Questions of who controls, pays for, benefi
negatively affected by, or administrates digit
are questions of political economy that are
importance to nature conservation. In light
tion's mixed historical track record with r
exercise of power and social impacts (A
Brockington et al. 2008), critical examination
the application of digital technology, for ex
ing the acquisition, storage and use of data
the notion of neogeography (Haklay 2013)
here: a scholarly framework that promotes dé
of technology use through the integration in
design, development and use by ill-represe
groups. Such a framework could underpin s
government initiatives' aims at assisting the e
of marginalised social fractions. Digital conser
needs to develop frameworks for good pra
lation (Maffey et al. 2015; Sandbrook 2015
2015). The current absence of the latter ma
rapid growth of applications but potential
long-term sustainability of a budding
plinary digital innovatio
Co-operation in conservation tion. As Adams (2009, p. xxxi) points out: "A social
scientist on an interdisciplinary team in conservation
The promotion of'digital justice' and mitigation of skewed typically brought in late (...) has a low
power relations through inclusion of a broad range of asked (...)'what's the answer to this questi
experts and stakeholders is all the more important when training makes them want to ask 'why is tha
considering that in the non-profit sector, under which nat- you are asking?"'. The inclusion of researc
ure conservation practices tend to fall, innovation often on people and end-users from the outse
builds on core technology developed elsewhere (e.g. mili- enhance the rate of learning. In this se
tary, large consumer markets) and is subsequently tailored discipline such as human-computer int
to the needs of this 'niche market'. It is argued by Joppa have much to offer to digital conservation. I
(2015) that nature conservation, on the whole, is 'behind' simple solutions to interdisciplinary sci
other domains (e.g. healthcare, education) in terms of exist; it is essentially a social learning pro
digital innovation. While it could be asked whether this is 2011). But if successful, inter- and cr
the case on all fronts and whether it fundamentally matters partnerships can integrate methodologies
(it may even have some advantages), it seems undeniable possibly resulting in richer learning en
that "the current general approach is a patchwork of one- generation of deeper insight, more efficien
off projects and partnerships" (Joppa 2015). In a similar higher impact, be it initially at a slower

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en ^ Springe

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
S670 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673

CONCLUSION research and policy. The concerted thinking and agenda

setting that should flow from such interactions will help to
Nature conservation is changing under the influence of
ensure that digital technology underpins key aims of nature
conservation.
digital technology. We have used the concept of digital
conservation to describe this alteration and to consider its

significance. On the basis of websites, scientific and grey Acknowledgments We warmly thank the participants of the Digital
Conservation Conference 21-23 May 2014 in Aberdeen (UK) for
literatures and other sources, we analysed the emerging field
stimulating our thinking, as well as Bram Büscher, Guillaume Chapron,
and distinguished five areas of application: data on nature, Rosaleen Duffy, Gina Maffey, Chris Sandbrook, Audrey Verma and
data on people, data integration and analysis, communica Jeremy Wilson who have helped us directly in the development of this

tion, and participatory governance (Fig. 1). Possibilities and paper. Financial support was received through the award made by the
RCUK Digital Economy programme to the dot.rural Digital Economy
problems were identified for each area—some of which
Hub (EP/G066051/1), through a Digital Economy Sustainable Society
already exist and others that are likely to happen in the Network + small grant and through the 'Science without Borders
future. Bearing in mind the growth of digital conservation, Programme' funded by CNPq, Brazil (314033/2014-9).
we warn against hypes, techno-fix thinking and unverified
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the
assumptions related to promise and short-term benefits.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
There is a strong need for the evaluation of impact and creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted
countering of the current bias towards good news narratives. use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give
We believe that a re-conceptualisation is desirable of tech appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a
link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were
nology as a dual-faced force that can be guided but not made.
always controlled. Against a backdrop of increasingly con
verging technologies (Castells 2010), it may be more diffi
cult to distinguish the digital from the non-digital in the REFERENCES
future. This seems to hold true already for developments that
potentially have a strong impact on nature conservation, Adams, W.M. 2004. Against extinction: The story of conserva
London: Earthscan.
such as synthetic biology (Kumar 2012; Redford et al.
Adams, W.M. 2009. Overview to four volumes: Conservation. In
2013b), DNA analysis of species and environmental traces
Volume 1: The idea of conservation, ed. W.M. Adams, xiv-xvii.
(Larson 2007; Bohmann et al. 2014) and bio-robots (Wood London: Earthscan.
et al. 2013). Hence, it is important to conceptualise digital Amanatidou, E., M. Butter, V. Carabias, T. Könnölä, M. Leis, O.
conservation developments in a broad sense. Saritas, P. Schaper-Rinkel, and V. van Rij. 2012. On concepts
and methods in horizon scanning: Lessons from initiating policy
Nature conservation has a patchy record in terms of
dialogues on emerging issues. Science and Public Policy 39:
social impacts (e.g. the displacement of indigenous 208-221.
people from their land, fortress conservation, lack of Arts, K., G. Webster, N. Sharma, Y. Melero, C. Mellish, X. Lambin,
stakeholder involvement in decision-making). Attention and R. van der Wal. 2013. Capturing mink and data: Interacting

needs to be paid to who benefits (most) from digital with a small and dispersed environmental initiative over the
introduction of digital innovation. Framework for Responsible
conservation, and who does not (or who suffers from it);
Research and Innovation in ICT. Accessed August 16, 2015,
who is in control of information flows and processes; and from http://responsible-innovation.org.uk/resource-detail/1059/.
how démocratisation may be promoted. We note that Arts, K., A. loris, C. Macleod, X. Han, S. Sripada, J. Braga, and R.
van der Wal. 2015a. Supply of online environmental information
there are opportunities for multi-sector co-operation—
to unknown demand: The importance of interpretation and
both on macro and micro levels—while ethical, good liability related to a national network of river level data. Scottish
practice and assessment frameworks for (self-) regulation Geographical Journal. doi:10.1080/14702541.2014.978809.
will need to be developed. We also argue that broad Arts, K., A. loris, C. Macleod, X. Han, S. Sripada, J. Braga, and R.
van der Wal. 2015b. Environmental communication in the
interdisciplinary science and academia-practice partner
Information Age: Institutional barriers and opportunities in the
ships are central to a sustainable development of digital provision of river data to the general public. Environmental
conservation. Science & Policy. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.08.011.
Digital technology in nature conservation should be seen Ashlin, A., and R. Ladle. 2006. Environmental science adrift in the
blogosphere. Science 312: 201.
as something that is neither good nor bad. It is a force that
August, T., M. Harvey, P. Lightfoot, D. Kilbey, T. Papadopoulos, and P.
will transform the work of conservation scientists, pro Jepson. 2015. Emerging technologies for biological recording.
tected area managers and conservation organisations. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, doi: 10.1111/bij. 12534.
Change will be driven partly through peer pressure, and Barve, V. 2014. Discovering and developing primary biodiversity
data from social networking sites: A novel approach. Ecological
partly through the inherent possibilities and problems that
Informatics 24: 194—199.
digital technology brings. We hope that more multi-sector, Blagoderov, V., I. Kitching, L. Livermore, T. Simonsen, and V.
multi-discipline conferences and dialogues will follow to Smith. 2012. No specimen left behind: industrial scale digitiza
galvanise a digital conservation community of practice, tion of natural history collections. ZooKeys 209: 133-146.

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Ö Springer www.kva.se/en

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673 S671

Blumstein, D., D. Mennill, P. Clemins, L. Girod, K. Yao, G. Ficetola, G. 2013. Is interest toward the environment really declining?
Patricelli, J. Deppe, A. Krakauer, et al. 2011. Acoustic moni The complexity of analysing trends using internet search data.
toring in terrestrial environments using microphone arrays: Biodiversity Conservation 22: 2983-2988.
Applications, technological considerations and prospectus. Jour Finn, R.L., and D. Wright. 2012. Unmanned aircraft systems:
nal of Applied Ecology 48: 758-767. Surveillance, ethics and privacy in civil applications. Computer
Bohmann, K., A. Evans, M. Gilbert, G. Carvalho, S. Creer, M. Knapp, Law and Security Review 28: 184—194.
D. Yu, M. de Bruyn, et al. 2014. Environmental DNA for Fuchs, C. 2008. The implications of new information and commu
wildlife biology and biodiversity monitoring. Trends in Ecology nication technologies for sustainability. Environment, Develop
& Evolution 29: 358-367. ment and Sustainability 10: 291-309.
Bombaci, S.P., C.M. Farr, H.T. Gallo, A.M. Mangan, L.T. Stinson,Galân-Di'az,
M. C., P. Edwards, J.D. Nelson, and R. van der Wal. 2015.
Kaushik, and L. Pejchar. 2015. Using Twitter to communicate Digital innovation through partnership between nature conser
conservation science beyond professional conferences. Conser vation organisations and academia: A qualitative impact assess
vation Biology, doi: 10. Ill 1/cobi. 12570. ment. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). doi:10.1007/sl3280-015-0704-2.
Galaz, V., B. Crona, T. Daw, Ö. Bodin, M. Nyström, and P. Olsson.
Borgman, C., J. Wallis, and N. Enyedy. 2007. Little science confronts
the data deluge: Habitat ecology, embedded sensor networks, 2009. Can web crawlers revolutionize ecological monitoring?
and digital libraries. International Journal on Digital Libraries Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 99-104.
7: 17-30. Graham, M., W. Adams, and G. Kahiro. 2012. Mobile phone
communication in effective human elephant-conflict manage
Brockington, D., R. Duffy, and J. Igoe. 2008. Nature unbound:
Conservation, capitalism and the future of protected areas.
ment in Laikipia County, Kenya. Oryx 46: 137-144.
London: Earthscan. Haklay, M. 2003. Public access to environmental information: Past,
Büscher, B. 2013. Nature 2.0 (Editorial). Geoforum 44: 1-3. present and future. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
Buytaert, W., S. Baez, M. Bustamante, and A. Dewulf. 2012. Web27: 163-180.
based environmental simulation: Bridging the gap between Haklay, M. 2013. Neogeography and the delusion of démocratisation.
scientific modeling and decision-making. Environmental Science Environment and Planning A 45: 55-69.
and Technology 46: 1971-1976. Hampton, S., C. Strasser, J. Tewksbury, W. Gram, A. Budden, A.
Campbell, J., L. Rustad, J. Porter, J. Taylor, E. Dereszynski, J. Batcheller, C. Duke, and J. Porter. 2013. Big data and the future of
Shanley, C. Gries, D. Henshaw, et al. 2013. Quantity is nothing ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11: 156-162.
Hardisty, R., and D. Roberts. 2013. A decadal view of biodiversity
without quality: Automated QA/QC for streaming environmental
sensor data. Bioscience 63: 574—585. informatics: Challenges and priorities. BMC Ecology 13: 1-23.
Canhos, V., S. Souza, R. Giovanni, and D. Canhos. 2004. Global Hargittai, E. 2002. Second-level digital divide: differences in people's
biodiversity informatics: Setting the scene for a "new world" of online skills. First Monday 7. doi:10.5210/fm.v7i4.942.
ecological modeling. Biodiversity Informatics 1: 1-13. Hopkins, G., and R. Freckleton. 2002. Declines in the numbers of
Castells, M. 2010. The information age: Economy, society, and amateur and professional taxonomists: Implications for conser
culture. Vol. I: The rise of the network society, 1st ed., 1996. vation. Animal Conservation 5: 245-249.
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Huesemann, M., and J. Huessemann. 2011. Techno-fix: Why tech
Chambers, C. 2007. "Well its remote, I suppose, innit?" The nology won't save us or the environment. Gabriola Island: New
relational politics of bird-watching through the CCTV lens. Society Publishers.
Scottish Geographical Journal 123: 122-134. Humle, T., R. Duffy, D.L. Roberts, C. Sandbrook, F.A. St John, and
Chapron, G. 2015. Wildlife in the cloud: A new approach for R.J. Smith. 2014. Biology's drones: Undermined by fear.
engaging stakeholders in wildlife management. Ambio 44(Suppl. Science 344: 1351.
4). doi:10.1007/sl3280-015-0706-0. Jepson, P., and R.J. Ladle. 2015. Nature apps: Waiting for the
Chun, S., S. Shulman, R. Sandoval, and E. Hovy. 2010. Government revolution. Ambio. doi:10.1007/sl3280-015-0712-2.
2.0: making connections between citizens, data and government. Jones, M., M. Schildhauer, O. Reichman, and S. Bowers. 2006. The
Information Polity 15: 1-9. new bioinformatics: Integrating ecological data from the gene to
Conrad, C., and K. Hilchey. 2011. A review of citizen science and the biosphere. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and oppor Systematics 37: 519-544.
tunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 176: Joppa, L.N. 2015. Technology for nature conservation: An industry
273-291. perspective. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). doi: 10.1007/sl3280-015-0702-4.
De Kraker, J., C. Kroeze, and P. Kirschner. 2011. Computer models Kahn, P. 2011. Technological nature: Adaptation and the future of
as social learning tools in participatory integrated assessment. human life. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Kamal, M. 2006. IT innovation adoption in the government sector:
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9: 297-309.
Dickinson, J., B, Zuckerberg, and D. Bonter. 2010. Citizen science as Identifying the critical success factors. Journal of Enterprise
an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Information Management 19: 192-222.
Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 41: 149-172. Kelling, S., D. Fink. F.A. LaSorte, A. Johnston, N.E. Bruns, and
Ditmer, M.A., J.B. Vincent, L.K. Werden, J.C. Tanner, T.G. Laske, W.M. Hochachka. 2015. Taking a 'Big Data' approach to data
P.A. Iaizzo, et al. 2015. Bears show a physiological but limited quality in a citizen science project. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). doi: 10.
behavioral response to unmanned aerial vehicles. Current 1007/s 13280-015-0710-4.
Biology 25: 1-6. Kim, J., Y. Do, R. Im, G. Kim, and G. Joo. 2014. Use of large web
Doherty, S., C. Lemieux, and C. Canally. 2014. Tracking human based data to identify public interest and trends related to
activity and well-being in natural environments using wearable endangered species. Biodiversity and Conservation 23: 2961—
sensors and experience sampling. Social Science and Medicine 2984.
106: 83-92. Kitchin, R. 2014. Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts.
Farnsworth, E.J., C. Miyoko, J. Kress, A. Neill, J. Best, J. Pickering, Big Data and Society 1. doi: 10.1177/2053951714528481.
R. Stevenson, G. Courtney, et al. 2013. Next-generation fieldKoh, L., and S. Wich. 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: Low-cost
guides. Bioscience 63: 891-899. autonomous aerial vehicles for conservation. Tropical Conser
Feenberg, A. 1999. Questioning technology. New York: Routledge. vation Science 5: 121-132.

' The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en ^ Springer

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 S672 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673

Kranzberg, M. 1986. Technology

Peterson, A.T., S. Knapp, R.and
Guralnick, history: Kra
J. Soberon, and M. Holder.
Technology and Culture 2010. 27: 544-560.
The big questions for biodiversity informatics. Systematics
Kumar, S. 2012. ExtinctionandneedBiodiversitynot8: 159-168.be forever. Natu
Lanzara, G. 2009. Building digital
Pettorelli, N., K. Safi, andinstitutions: ICT an
W. Turner. 2014. Satellite remote sensing,
assemblages in government. In
biodiversity ICT
research and innovation
and conservation of the future. Philosoph i
sector, ed. F. Contini, ical and G.
Transactions of theLanzara, 9^-8. Ha
Royal Society B 369: 20130190.
Palgrave Macmillan. Porter, J., P. Hanson, and C. Lin. 2012. Staying afloat in the sensor
Larson, B. 2007. DNA barcoding:
data deluge. Trends in The
Ecology &social frontie
Evolution 27: 121-129.
Ecology and the Environment 5: and
Proulx, R., P. Massicotte, 437^142.
M. Pépino. 2013. Googling trends in
Lewis, J. 2012. Technological
conservation leap-frogging
biology. Conservation Biology 28: 44-51. in the
Pygmies and Global Positioning Systems
Pullin, A., and G. Stewart. 2004. in
Guidelines for Systematic Cent
review in
What has happened and where
conservation is it
and environmental going?
management. Afr
Conservation
Monographs 43: 15^14. Biology 20: 1647-1656.
Lihoreau, M„ N. Raine, A. Reynolds,
Rahemtulla, H., M. Haklay, andR. Stelzer,
P. Longley. K.
2008. A mobile spatial Lim
Osborne, Chittka. 2012.
messaging and L.
service forRadar tracking
a grassroots environmental network. an
Journal of Location
sensitive cameras on flowers reveal Based Services
the 2: 122-152.
developmen
tor multi-destination Redford,
routes over
K., W. Adams, and G. Mace.large spatial
2013a. Synthetic biology and s
Biology 10: el001392. conservation of nature: Wicked problems and wicked solutions.
PLoS Biology
Lundmark, C. 2003. BioBlitz: 11: el001530.
Getting into backyard
Bioscience 53: 329. Redford, K., C. Padoch, and T. Sunderland. 2013b. Fads, funding, and
Mace, G. 2014. Whose conservation? Science 345: 1558-1560. forgetting in three decades of conservation. Conservation
Maffey, G., H. Homans, K. Banks, and K. Arts. 2015. DigitalBiology 3: 437-438.
technology and human development: A charter for natureRoberts, C. 2007. The unnatural history of the sea. Washington:
conservation. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). doi: 10.1007/sl3280-015 Island Press.
0703-3. Robinson Willmott, J., G.M. Forcey, and L.A. Hooton. 2015.
Maffey, G., M. Reed, R.J. Irvine, and R. van der Wal. 2013. Habitat Developing an automated risk management tool to minimize
monitoring in the wider countryside: A case study on the pursuit bird and bat mortality at wind facilities. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4).
of innovation in red deer management. Journal of Environmental doi : 10.1007/s 13280-015-0707-z.
Management 128: 779-786. Saar, S., and V. Thomas. 2002. Toward trash that thinks: product tags
Mathur, P. 2009. Environmental communication in the information for environmental management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6:
society: The blueprint from Europe. The Information Society 25: 133-146.
119-138. Saito, K., K. Nakamura, M. Ueta, R. Kurosawa, A. Fujiwara, H.H.
Mcintosh, B., J. Ascough II, M. Twery, J. Chew, A. Elmahdi, D. Haase, Kobayashi, M. Nakayama, A. Toko, et al. 2015. Utilizing the
J. Harou, D. Hepting, et al. 2011. Environmental decision support Cyberforest live sound system with social media to remotely
systems (EDSS) development—Challenges and best practices. conduct woodland bird censuses in Central Japan. Ambio
Environmental Modelling and Software 26: 1389-1402. 44(Suppl. 4). doi: 10.1007/s 13280-015-0708-y.
Meek, P., G. Ballard, and P. Fleming. 2015. The pitfalls of wildlifeSandbrook, C. 2015. The social implications of using drones for
camera trapping as a survey tool in Australia. Australian biodiversity conservation. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). doi: 10.1007/
Mammalogy 37: 13-22. S13280-015-0714-0.
Meijer, A., K. Boersma, and P. Wagenaar. 2009. Hypes: Love them orSandbrook, C., I. Scales, B. Vira, and W. Adams. 2010. Value
plurality among conservation professionals. Conservation Biol
hate them. In ICTs, citizens and governance: After the hype!, ed.
A. Meijer, K. Boersma, and P. Wagenaar, 3-9. Amsterdam: IOS ogy 25: 285-294.
Press. Sandbrook, C., W. Adams, and B. Monteferri. 2014. Digital games
Meine, C., M. Soule, and R. Noss. 2006. "A mission-driven and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Letters, doi: 10.
discipline": The growth of conservation biology. ConservationIll 1/conl. 12113.
Biology 20: 631-651. Siddharthan, A., C. Lambin, A.-M. Robinson, N. Sharma, R. Comont,
Michel, J., Y. Shen, A. Aiden, A. Veres, M. Gray, The.Google.Books. E. O'Mahony, C. Mellish, and R. van der Wal. 2015. Crowd
Team, J. Pickett, D. Hoiberg, et al. 2010. Quantitative analysis ofsourcing without a crowd: Reliable online species identification
culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331: 176-182.using Bayesian models to minimize crowd size. ACM Transac
tions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, doi: 10.1145/
Miorandi, D., S. Sicari, F. De Pellegrini, and I. Chlamtac. 2012.
2776896.
Internet of things: Vision, applications and research challenges.
Ad Hoc Networks 10: 1497-1516. Silvertown, J., M. Harvey, R. Greenwood, M. Dodd, J. Rosewell, T.
Mol, A. 2008. Environment reform in the information age: The Rebelo, J. Ansine, and K. McConway. 2015. Crowd sourcing the
contours of information governance. Cambridge: University identification of organisms: A case-study of iSpot. Zookeys 480:
Press. 125-146.
Newey, S., P. Davidson, S. Nazir, G. Fairhurst, F. Verdicchio, R.J.
Soberon, J., and T. Peterson. 2004. Biodiversity informatics: Manag
Irvine, and R. van der Wal. 2015. Limitations of recreational ing and applying primary biodiversity data. Philosophical
camera traps for wildlife management and conservation Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B:
research: A practitioner's perspective. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). Biological Sciences 359: 689-698.
doi: 10.1007/s 13280-015-0713-1. Stafford, R., A. Hart, L. Collins, C. Kirkhope, R. Williams, S. Rees, J.
Oswald, J., R. Shannon, J. Barlow, and M. Lammers. 2007. A tool for Lloyd, and A. Goodenough. 2010. Eu-Social Science: The role
real-time acoustic species identification of delphinid whistles. of internet social networks in the collection of bee biodiversity
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 122: 587-595. data. PLoS ONE 5: el4381.

Pennington, D. 2011. Collaborative, cross-disciplinary learning and Stein, L. 2008. Towards a cyberinfrastructure for the biolog
co-emergent innovation in eScience teams. Earth Science sciences: Progress, visions and challenges. Nature Reviews
Informatics 4: 55-68. 678-688.

© The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
^ Springer www.kva.se/en

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S661-S673 S673

Stevens, M., M. Vitos, J.Wagtendonk,

Lewis, A., and R. de Jeu.
and M. 2007.Haklay.
Sensible field computing:
2013
monitoring of poaching Evaluating
inthethe use of mobile
Congo GIS methodsbasin.
in scientific In
Research UK conference.fieldwork. Liverpool:
Photogrammetric Engineering GISRUK
and Remote Sensing 2
73: 651-662.
accessed August 16, 2015, from http://www.geo
~ gisteac/proceedingsonline/GISRUK2013/gisruk201
Wall, J., G. Wittemyer, B. Klinkenberg, and I. Douglas-Hamilton.
sion_12.pdf. 2014. Novel opportunities for wildlife conservation and research
Stevenson, R., W. Haber, and
with A. Morris.
real-time 2003.
monitoring. Ecological Electroni
Applications 24: 593-601.
and user communities in the eco-informatics revolution. Con Walters, C., R. Freeman, A. Collen, C. Dietz, M. Brock Fenton, G.
servation Ecology 7: 3. Jones, M. Obrist, S. Puechmaille, et al. 2012. A continental-scale
Straus, A., and L. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: tool for acoustic identification of European bats. Journal of
Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Applied Ecology 49: 1064-1074.
London: Sage. Warren, M. 2007. The digital vicious cycle: Links between social
Sutherland, W., A. Pullin, P. Dolman, and T. Knight. 2004. The need disadvantage and digital exclusion in rural areas. Telecommuni
for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution cations Policy 31: 374-388.
19: 305-308. White, D., and C. Wilbert. 2009. Introduction: Inhabiting technonat
Sutherland, W., R. Aveling, T. Brooks, M. Clout, L. Dicks, L. ural time/spaces. In Technonatures: Environments, technologies,
Fellman, E. Fleishman, E. Gibbons, et al. 2014. A horizon scan spaces, and places in the twenty-first century, ed. D.F. White,
of global conservation issues for 2014. Trends in Ecology & and C. Wilbert, 1-32. Waterloo: Wilfried Laurier University
Evolution 29: 15-22. Press.
Will, D., K. Campbell, and N. Holmes. 2014. Using digital data
Teacher, A., D. Griffiths, D. Hodgson, and R. Inger. 2013. Smart
phones in ecology and evolution: A guide for the app-rehensive. collection tools to improve overall cost-efficiency and provide
Ecology and Evolution 3: 5268-5278. timely analysis for decision-making during invasive species
Tremblaya, J., A. Hester, J. Mcleod, and J. Huot. 2004. Choice and eradication campaigns. Wildlife Research 41: 499-509.
development of decision support tools for the sustainable Wilson, S., and L. Flory. 2012. FloraGator: A novel, interactive, and
management of deer-forest systems. Forest Ecology and Man online multiple entry key for identifying plant families.
agement 191: 1-16. HortTechnology 22: 410-412.
Turner, W., T. Nakamura, and M. Dinetti. 2004. Global urbanization
Wood, R., R. Nagpal, and G. Wei. 2013. Flight of the RoboBees.
and the separation of humans from nature. Bioscience 54: Scientific American 308: 60-65.
585-590. Zmihorski, M., J. Dziarska-Palac, T. Sparks, and P. Tryjanowski.
UN (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2013. Ecological correlates of the popularity of birds and
2014. United Nations E-Government Surveys: 2014 E-Govern butterflies in Internet information resources. Oikos 122:
ment for the future we want. Last accessed August 16, 2015, 183-190.
from http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Reports/UN-E-Government
Survey-2014. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Van der Wal, R., and K. Arts. 2015. Digital conservation: An
Koen Arts (0) is a Researcher at the Pantanal Research Cen
introduction. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). doi: 10.1007/sl3280-015
0701-5. Brazil, and lecturer at the Forest and Nature Conservation P
Van der Wal, R., H. Anderson, A. Robinson, N. Sharma, C. Mellish,
Group at Wageningen University in The Netherlands. He prev
worked as a research fellow at dot.rural's Natural Resource Conser
S. Roberts, B. Darvill, and A. Siddharthan. 2015a. Mapping
vation Group (University of Aberdeen, UK). He focusses on social,
species distributions: A comparison of skilled naturalist and lay
citizen science recording. Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). doi: 10.1007/ political, and conceptual dimensions of nature conservation.
S13280-015-0709-X. Address: Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen
Van der Wal, R., C. Zeng, D. Heptinstall, K. Ponnamperuma, C. University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6700 AA Wageningen, the
Mellish, S. Ben, and A. Siddharthan. 2015b. Automated data Netherlands.

Address: Centre de Pesquisa do Pantanal, Universidade Federal de

analysis to rapidly derive and communicate ecological insights
Mato Grosso, Cuiabâ CEP: 78.068-360, Brazil,
from satellite-tag data: A case study of reintroduced red kites.
Ambio 44(Suppl. 4). doi:10.1007/sl3280-015-0711-3. e-mail: koen.arts@wur.nl
Van der Wal R., N. Sharma, A. Robinson, C. Mellish, and A.
Siddharthan A. 2015c. The role of automated feedback in René van der Wal is Professor of Ecology at the University of
Aberdeen and heads dot.rural's Natural Resource Conservation
training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science.
Conservation Biology, (forthcoming). Group. He is an ecologist with a strong interest in nature conservation
Van Tamelen, P. 2004. A comparison of obtaining field dataand people's roles in the ecology of a place, and works frequently in
using
electronic and written methods. Fisheries Research 69: 123-130.
partnership with social scientists and computer scientists.
Address: Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability (ACES),
Vas, E., A. Lescroël, O. Duriez, G. Boguszewski, and D. Grémillet.
2015. Approaching birds with drones: First experiments School
and of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen
ethical guidelines. Biology Letters 11: 20140754. AB24 3UU, UK.
Verma, A., R. van der Wal, and A. Fischer. 2015. Microscope and
William M. Adams is Head of Department of Geography and Moran
spectacle: On the complexities of using new visual technologies
Professor of Conservation and Development at the University of
to communicate about wildlife conservation. Ambio 44(Suppl.
4). doi:10.1007/sl3280-015-0715-z. Cambridge. He works on the social drivers of the loss and protection
of nature.
Vollmar, A., J. Macklin, and L. Ford. 2010. Natural history specimen
Address: Department of Geography, University of Cambridge,
digitization: Challenges and concerns. Biodiversity Informatics
7: 93-112. Downing Place, Cambridge CB2 3EN, UK.
Waddle, H., K. Rice, and F. Percival. 2003. Using personal digital
assistants to collect wildlife field data. Wildlife Society Bulletin
31: 306-308.

1 The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
www.kva.se/en ® Springe

This content downloaded from

5.101.107.170 on Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:28:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms