fbpx
Wikipedia

Participatory monitoring

May 04, 2023

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 residents of the monitored area, who rely on local natural resources and thus have more local knowledge of those resources. Those involved usually live in communities with considerable social cohesion, where they regularly cooperate on shared projects.

Scanning the sea off Greenland for seabirds as part of Greenland's documentation and management system PISUNA, a participatory monitoring programme

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[30]), or where there is a poor relationship between the authorities and the local people,[39] participatory monitoring is probably less likely to yield useful data and management solutions than conventional scientific approaches.[40]

History

Whereas government censuses of human populations, which date perhaps to the 16th century B.C.,[41] were likely the first formal attempts at environmental monitoring,[42] 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.[43][44]

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.[45] It led to a special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation October 2005.[46]

In the Arctic, a symposium on data management and local knowledge was hosted by ELOKA and held in Boulder, USA, in November 2011.[47] It led to a special issue of Polar Geography in 2014.

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

  • In November 2013 in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut, hosted by Oceans North Canada,
  • In December 2013 in Copenhagen, Denmark, hosted by Greenland Department of Fisheries, Hunting and Agriculture, ELOKA, and Nordic Foundation for Development and Ecology,[48]
  • In March 2014 in Kautokeino, Norway, hosted by International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry, UNESCO and other partners.

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.[49][50][51]

 
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.[52][53][54][55]
  2. For monitoring rapidly changing environments: to inform resource management in rapidly changing environments such as the Arctic,[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][48][63][64] where Indigenous and local communities have detailed knowledge of key components of their environment, such as sea-ice,[65] snow,[66] weather patterns,[67][68] caribou[61][69] and other natural resources.[17][62][70][71][72]
  3. In Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs: to connect environmental performance with payment schemes such as REDD+.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84]
  4. For reinforcing international agreements: in efforts to link international environmental agreements to decision-making in the ‘real world’.[36][40][85]<[55][86]

Typology

A typology of monitoring schemes has been proposed, determined on the basis of relative contributions of local stakeholders and professional researchers,.[87] 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.[69]

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][62]

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[88][89]

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[90]

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.[91] Increasingly, participatory monitoring initiatives incorporate technology, from GPS recorders to georeference the data collected on paper,[92] to drones to survey remote areas,[93] phones to send simple reports via SMS,[94] or smartphones to collect and store data.[95] Various apps exist to create and manage data collection forms on smartphones (e.g. ODK, Sapelli[96] and others[97]).

Some initiatives find that the use of smartphones for data collection has advantages over paper-based systems.[98] 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.[91] The use of smartphones can incentivise young people to get involved in monitoring, sparking an interest in conservation.[99] Some apps are especially designed to be usable by illiterate monitors.[100][101][102] 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.[103] 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.[104][105]

Data sharing in participatory monitoring

A key challenge for participatory monitoring is to develop ways to store, manage and share data[106] 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.[107] 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.[108] 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.[109]

One way to establish the rules around data sharing is to set up a data sharing protocol. This can define:[107]

  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. ^ a b c Danielsen, F.; Balete, D.S.; Poulsen, M.K.; Enghoff, M.; Nozawa, C.M.; Jensen, A.E. (2000). "A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country". Biodiversity and Conservation. 9 (12): 1671–1705. doi:10.1023/A:1026505324342. S2CID 23374588.
  2. ^ ETFRN 2002. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity: Internet Workshop and Policy Seminar. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  3. ^ a b c Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A. (2005a). "Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches". Biodiversity and Conservation. 14 (11): 2507–2542. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8375-0. S2CID 18110139.
  4. ^ a b Funder, M.; Danielsen, F.; Ngaga, Y.; Nielsen, M.R.; Poulsen, M.K. (2013). "Reshaping conservation: The social dynamics of participatory monitoring in Tanzania's community-managed forests". Conservation and Society. 11 (3): 218–232. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.121011.
  5. ^ a b JJones, J.P.G.; Andriamarovolona, M.M.; Hockley, N.; Gibbons, J.M.; 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 (4): 1205–1212. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01487.x. S2CID 67803458.
  6. ^ Luzar, J.B.; Silvius, K.M.; Overman, H.; Giery, S.T.; Read, J.M.; Fragoso, J.M.V. (2011). "Large-scale environmental monitoring by indigenous people". BioScience. 61 (10): 771–781. doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.10.7.
  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.; Young, R. (2014a). "A multi-country assessment of tropical resource monitoring by local communities". BioScience. 64 (3): 236–251. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu001.
  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. doi:10.5751/es-05164-170422.
  9. ^ Bonney, R.; Shirk, J.L.; Phillips, T.B.; Wiggins, A.; Ballard, H.L.; Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Parrish, J.K. (2014). "Next steps for citizen science". Science. 343 (6178): 1436–1437. Bibcode:2014Sci...343.1436B. doi:10.1126/science.1251554. PMID 24675940. S2CID 206555629.
  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. doi:10.5751/es-04705-170229.
  11. ^ a b Noss, A.J.; Oetting, I.; Cuellar, R.L. (2005). "Hunter self-monitoring by the Isoseno-Guarani in the Bolivian Chaco". Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (11): 2679–2693. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8401-2. S2CID 8776915.
  12. ^ a b 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.; 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 (11): 2723–2741. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.509.5137. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8406-x. S2CID 23378700.
  14. ^ a b Stuart-Hill, G.; Diggle, R.; Munali, B.; Tagg, J.; Ward, D. (2005). "The event book system: a community based natural resource monitoring system from Namibia". Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (11): 2611–2631. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.475.8317. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8391-0. S2CID 36704147.
  15. ^ Sheil, D.; Lawrence, A. (2004). "Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaboration". Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 19 (12): 634–638. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.09.019. PMID 16701325.
  16. ^ Lawrence, A. (Ed.). 2010. Taking Stock of Nature. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK.
  17. ^ a b 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. 11: 91–102. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0295-7. S2CID 130746905.
  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. ^ a b Bennun, L.; Matiku, P.; Mulwa, R.; Mwangi, S.; Buckley, P. (2005). "Monitoring Important Bird Areas in Africa: towards a sustainable and scalable system". Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (11): 2575–2590. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.336.452. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8389-7. S2CID 14679464.
  20. ^ Townsend, W.R.; Borman, A.R.; Yiyoguaje, E.; Mendua, L. (2005). "Cofán Indians' monitoring of freshwater turtles in Zábalo, Ecuador". Biodiversity and Conservation. 14 (11): 2743–2755. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.517.8179. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8410-1. S2CID 630675.
  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 (2): 489–499. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01470.x. PMID 20491849. S2CID 13720586.
  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 (12): 2615–26. doi:10.1007/s10531-011-0094-0. S2CID 3238591.
  23. ^ Burton 2012
  24. ^ a b Andrianandrasana, H.T.; Randriamahefasoa, J.; Durbin, J.; Lewis, R.E.; Ratsimbazafy, J.H. (2005). "Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetland in Madagascar". Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (11): 2757–2774. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.613.9156. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8413-y. S2CID 1063617.
  25. ^ Poulsen, M.K.; Luanglath, K. (2005). "Projects come, projects go: lessons from participatory monitoring in southern Laos". Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (11): 2591–2610. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8390-1. S2CID 2862045.
  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 (11): 2775–2794. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8414-x. S2CID 19989789.
  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.; 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 (11): 2695–2707. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8402-1. S2CID 24263291.
  30. ^ a b Hockley, N.J.; Jones, J.P.G.; Andriahajaina, F.B.; Manica, A.; Ranambitsoa, E.H.; Randriamboahary, J.A. (2005). "When should communities and conservationists monitor exploited resources?". Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (11): 2795–2806. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.490.6306. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8416-8. S2CID 22710709.
  31. ^ Topp-Jørgensen, E.; Poulsen, M.K.; Lund, J.F.; 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 (11): 2653–2677. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8399-5. S2CID 24146400.
  32. ^ a b Kennett, R.; Danielsen, F.; Silvius, K.M. (2015). "Conservation management: Citizen science is not enough on its own". Nature. 521 (7551): 261. Bibcode:2015Natur.521..161K. doi:10.1038/521161d. PMID 25971501.
  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. ^ a b c Danielsen, F.; Pirhofer-Walzl, K.; Adrian, T.; Kapijimpanga, D.; Burgess, N.D.; Jensen, P.M.; Bonney, R.; Funder, M.; Landa, A.; Levermann, N.; Madsen, J. (2014c). "Linking public participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of international environmental agreements". Conservation Letters. 7: 12–24. doi:10.1111/conl.12024. S2CID 29741921.
  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): 28. doi:10.14430/arctic4447. S2CID 56317966.
  38. ^ Danielsen, F.; Mendoza, M.M.; Alviola, P.; Balete, D.S.; Enghoff, M.; Poulsen, M.K.; Jensen, A.E. (2003). "Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve?". Oryx. 37 (4): 407–409. doi:10.1017/s0030605303000735.
  39. ^ Danielsen, F.; Jensen, A.E.; Alviola, P.A.; Balete, D.S.; Mendoza, M.M.; Tagtag, A.; Custodio, C.; Enghoff, M. (2005c). "Does monitoring matter? A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locallybased monitoring of protected areas". Biodiversity and Conservation. 14 (11): 2633–2652. doi:10.1007/s10531-005-8392-z. S2CID 20010036.
  40. ^ a b 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. 36 (7): 566–70. doi:10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[566:icmabi]2.0.co;2. PMID 18074893. S2CID 24659006.
  41. ^ Missiakoulis, S (2010). "Cecrops, King of Athens: the first (?) recorded population census in history". International Statistical Review. 78 (3): 413–418. doi:10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00124.x. S2CID 120868478.
  42. ^ Mascia, M.B.; Pailler, S.; Thieme, M.; Rowe, A.; Bottrill, M.C.; Danielsen, F.; Geldmann, J.; Naidoo, R.; Pullin, A.; Burgess, N.D. (2014). "Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation". Biological Conservation. 169: 258–267. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.017.
  43. ^ Sodhi, N.S. and Ehrlich, P.R. (Eds.). 2010. Conservation Biology for All. Oxford Univ. Press.
  44. ^ 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.
  45. ^ "Natural Resources Monitoring Network". monitoringmatters.org.
  46. ^ 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.
  47. ^ "ELOKA Workshop". eloka-arctic.org.
  48. ^ a b 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. doi:10.6027/TN2015-506
  49. ^ 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.
  50. ^ "Participatory Monitoring and Management Partnership".
  51. ^ "Community Monitoring: Great debates and local actions". 2014-10-08.
  52. ^ Turnhout, E.; Bloomfield, B.; Hulme, M.; Vogel, J.; Wynne, B. (2012). "Listen to the voices of experience". Nature. 488 (7412): 454–455. doi:10.1038/488454a. PMID 22914151.
  53. ^ 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.; 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 (4): 380–389. doi:10.1111/conl.12100. S2CID 21054325.
  54. ^ Esa (2014). "Dispatches. Locals beat scientists in biodiversity surveys". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 12 (8): 428–432. doi:10.1890/1540-9295-12.8.428.
  55. ^ a b Tengö, M.; Brondizio, E.; Elmqvist, T.; Malmer, P.; Spierenburg, M. (2014). "Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance – the multiple evidence base approach". Ambio. 43 (5): 579–591. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3. PMC 4132468. PMID 24659474.
  56. ^ Huntington, H.P.; Callaghan, T.; Fox, S.; Krupnik, I. (2004). "Matching traditional and scientific observations to detect environmental change: a discussion on Arctic terrestrial ecosystems". Ambio. 33: 18–23. doi:10.1007/0044-7447-33.sp13.18. PMID 15575178. S2CID 14467976.
  57. ^ Gofman, V. 2010. Community based monitoring handbook: lessons from the Arctic. CAFF CBMP Report No. 21. CAFF, Akureyri, Iceland.
  58. ^ Merkel, F.R. (2010). "Evidence of recent population recovery in common eiders breeding in Western Greenland". Journal of Wildlife Management. 74 (8): 1869–1874. doi:10.2193/2009-189. S2CID 86183797.
  59. ^ Huntington, H.P. (2011). "The local perspective". Nature. 478 (7368): 182–183. doi:10.1038/478182a. PMID 21993743. S2CID 205067758.
  60. ^ Pulsifer, P.L.; Laidler, G.J.; Taylor, D.R.F.; 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. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2010.00348.x.
  61. ^ a b Russell, D.E.; et al. (2013). "Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Cooperative: can local knowledge inform caribou management?". Rangifer. 33 (21): 71–78. doi:10.7557/2.33.2.2530.
  62. ^ a b c Danielsen, F.; Topp-Jørgensen, E.; Levermann, N.; Løvstrøm, P.; Schiøtz, M.; Enghoff, M.; Jakobsen, P. (2014d). "Counting what counts: using local knowledge to improve Arctic resource management". Polar Geography. 37: 69–91. doi:10.1080/1088937x.2014.890960. S2CID 55155745.
  63. ^ 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): 28. doi:10.14430/arctic4447. S2CID 56317966.
  64. ^ 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.
  65. ^ Laidler, G.J. (2006). "Inuit and scientific perspectives on the relationship between sea ice and climate change: the ideal complement?". Climatic Change. 78 (2–4): 407–444. Bibcode:2006ClCh...78..407L. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9064-z. S2CID 153827833.
  66. ^ Eira, I.M.G.; Jaedicke, C.; Magga, O.H.; Maynard, N.G.; Vikhamar-Schuler, D.; Mathiesen, S.D. (2013). "Traditional Sámi snow terminology and physical snow classification – two ways of knowing". Cold Regions Science and Technology. 85: 117–130. doi:10.1016/j.coldregions.2012.09.004.
  67. ^ Weatherhead, E.; Gearheard, S.; Barry, R.G. (2010). "Changes in weather persistence: Insight from Inuit knowledge". Global Environmental Change. 20 (3): 523–528. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.02.002.
  68. ^ 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
  69. ^ a b Ferguson, M.A.D.; et al. (1998). "Inuit knowledge of long-term changes in a population of Arctic tundra caribou". Arctic. 51 (3): 201–219. doi:10.14430/arctic1062.
  70. ^ Mustonen, T. And Mustonen, K. 2011. Eastern Sámi Atlas. SnowChange Cooperative, Vaasa, Finland.
  71. ^ Berkes, F. (2012). Sacred Ecology (3rd ed.) Routledge.
  72. ^ Constantino, P.A.L. (2015). "Dynamics of hunting territories and prey distribution in Amazonian Indigenous Lands". Applied Geography. 56: 222–231. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.11.015.
  73. ^ 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.; Zahabu, E. (2011). "At the heart of REDD+: a role for local people in monitoring forests?". Conservation Letters. 4 (2): 158–167. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00159.x. S2CID 55570944.
  74. ^ Skutsch, M. (Ed.). 2011. Community Forest Monitoring for the Carbon Market. Earthscan, London.
  75. ^ 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.; Vieira, I.C.G. (2012). "A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes". Biological Conservation. 154: 61–71. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.018.
  76. ^ 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.; Burgess, N. (2013). "Community monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities". Ecology and Society. 18 (3): 41. doi:10.5751/es-05464-180341.
  77. ^ 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. doi:10.3390/f5081855.
  78. ^ 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. doi:10.3390/f5081834.
  79. ^ Larrazábal, A; McCall, MK; Mwampamba, TH; Skutsch, M (2012). "The role of community carbon monitoring for REDD+: a review of experiences". Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 4 (6): 707–16. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.10.008.
  80. ^ Lund, J.F. (2014). "Towards a more balanced view on the potentials of locally-based monitoring". Biodiversity and Conservation. 23: 237–239. doi:10.1007/s10531-013-0596-z. S2CID 15041272.
  81. ^ 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. doi:10.3390/f5102464.
  82. ^ Butt, N.; Epps, K.; Overman, H.; Iwamura, T.; Fragoso, J.M.V. (2015). "Assessing carbon stocks using indigenous peoples' field measurements in Amazonian Guyana" (PDF). Forest Ecology and Management. 338: 191–199. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2014.11.014.
  83. ^ 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
  84. ^ Forest Compass 2015. Community-based forest monitoring in North Rupununi, Guyana http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/community-based-forest-monitoring-north-rupununi-guyana
  85. ^ 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).
  86. ^ Forest Compass 2015. International Agendas. http://forestcompass.org/why/international-forest-agendas
  87. ^ 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.; Yonten, D. (2009). "Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches". Conservation Biology. 23 (1): 31–42. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01063.x. PMID 18798859. S2CID 15143054.
  88. ^ Dickinson, J.L and Bonney, R. Eds. 2012. Citizen Science. Cornell Press, Ithaca, New York.
  89. ^ 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. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003.
  90. ^ . www.unep-wcmc.org. Archived from the original on 2001-01-24.
  91. ^ a b Forest Compass. 2015. What are the advantages of mobile technology in data collection http://forestcompass.org/what-are-advantages-mobile-technology-data-collection
  92. ^ 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
  93. ^ AIDESEP and Alianza Mesoamericana de Pueblos e Bosques, with Handcrafted Films. 2014. Detecting disasters using drone technology http://ifnotusthenwho.me/story/detectando-desastres-2/
  94. ^ 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
  95. ^ Rainforest Foundation UK. 2015. Forest Link Community-based real time monitoring. http://monitor.mappingforrights.org/
  96. ^ . Archived from the original on 2016-08-17. Retrieved 2016-08-05.
  97. ^ M J Pacha. 2015. Community-based monitoring, reporting and verification know-how: sharing knowledge from practice. WWF, SilvaCarbon, Global Canopy Programme
  98. ^ 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. doi:10.3390/f5102464.
  99. ^ Forest Compass. 2015. Community-based forest monitoring in North Rupununi, Guyana http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/community-based-forest-monitoring-north-rupununi-guyana
  100. ^ 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
  101. ^ Forest Compass. 2015. Ashaninka Land Monitoring Initiative http://forestcompass.org/case-studies/ashaninka-land-monitoring-initiative
  102. ^ 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
  103. ^ 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
  104. ^ Forest Compass. 2015. What are the disadvantages of mobile technology in data collection? http://forestcompass.org/what-are-disadvantages-mobile-technology-data-collection
  105. ^ 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#
  106. ^ 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
  107. ^ a b 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
  108. ^ 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): 3295–3326. doi:10.3390/f5123295.
  109. ^ Bellfield, H; Sabogal, D; Goodman, L; Leggett, M (2015). "Case Report Case Study Report: Community-Based Monitoring Systems for REDD+ in Guyana". Forests. 6 (1): 133–156. doi:10.3390/f6010133.

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. doi: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

May 04, 2023
participatory, monitoring, also, known, collaborative, monitoring, community, based, monitoring, locally, based, monitoring, volunteer, monitoring, regular, collection, measurements, other, kinds, data, monitoring, usually, natural, resources, biodiversity, un. 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 residents of the monitored area who rely on local natural resources and thus have more local knowledge of those resources Those involved usually live in communities with considerable social cohesion where they regularly cooperate on shared projects Scanning the sea off Greenland for seabirds as part of Greenland s documentation and management system PISUNA a participatory monitoring programme 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 Contents 1 Definition 1 1 Alternative definitions 1 2 Limitations 2 History 2 1 Conferences 3 Approaches 3 1 Typology 4 The use of technology for participatory monitoring 5 Data sharing in participatory monitoring 6 See also 7 References 8 Further readingDefinition EditThe 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 Edit Other definitions for participatory monitoring have also been proposed including 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 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 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 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 Edit 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 30 or where there is a poor relationship between the authorities and the local people 39 participatory monitoring is probably less likely to yield useful data and management solutions than conventional scientific approaches 40 History EditWhereas government censuses of human populations which date perhaps to the 16th century B C 41 were likely the first formal attempts at environmental monitoring 42 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 43 44 Conferences Edit 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 45 It led to a special issue of Biodiversity and Conservation October 2005 46 In the Arctic a symposium on data management and local knowledge was hosted by ELOKA and held in Boulder USA in November 2011 47 It led to a special issue of Polar Geography in 2014 In the Arctic three circumpolar meetings were held in 2013 2014 In November 2013 in Cambridge Bay Nunavut hosted by Oceans North Canada In December 2013 in Copenhagen Denmark hosted by Greenland Department of Fisheries Hunting and Agriculture ELOKA and Nordic Foundation for Development and Ecology 48 In March 2014 in Kautokeino Norway hosted by International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry UNESCO and other partners 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 49 50 51 Villagers from Batu Majang village east Kalimantan Indonesia measuring trees for participatory carbon monitoring under the I REDD project Photo Michael Koie PoulsenApproaches EditThematically participatory monitoring has considerable potential in several areas including 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 52 53 54 55 For monitoring rapidly changing environments to inform resource management in rapidly changing environments such as the Arctic 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 48 63 64 where Indigenous and local communities have detailed knowledge of key components of their environment such as sea ice 65 snow 66 weather patterns 67 68 caribou 61 69 and other natural resources 17 62 70 71 72 In Payment for Ecosystem Services PES programs to connect environmental performance with payment schemes such as REDD 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 For reinforcing international agreements in efforts to link international environmental agreements to decision making in the real world 36 40 85 lt 55 86 Typology Edit A typology of monitoring schemes has been proposed determined on the basis of relative contributions of local stakeholders and professional researchers 87 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 69 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 62 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 88 89 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 90 The use of technology for participatory monitoring EditTraditional 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 91 Increasingly participatory monitoring initiatives incorporate technology from GPS recorders to georeference the data collected on paper 92 to drones to survey remote areas 93 phones to send simple reports via SMS 94 or smartphones to collect and store data 95 Various apps exist to create and manage data collection forms on smartphones e g ODK Sapelli 96 and others 97 Some initiatives find that the use of smartphones for data collection has advantages over paper based systems 98 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 91 The use of smartphones can incentivise young people to get involved in monitoring sparking an interest in conservation 99 Some apps are especially designed to be usable by illiterate monitors 100 101 102 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 103 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 104 105 Data sharing in participatory monitoring EditA key challenge for participatory monitoring is to develop ways to store manage and share data 106 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 107 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 108 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 109 One way to establish the rules around data sharing is to set up a data sharing protocol This can define 107 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 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 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 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 EditAdaptive management Biodiversity Bioregion Conservation biology Conservation ethic Conservation movement Conservation reliant species Crowdmapping Crowdsourcing Ecology Ecosystem Environmental movement Environmental organizations Environmental protection Environmental resources management Environmental sociology Forestry Global warming Habitat conservation Holistic management Integrated landscape management Natural environment Natural resource Natural resource management Participatory action research Participation decision making Renewable energy Renewable resource Rural sociology Stewardship Sustainable agriculture Sustainable managementReferences Edit a b c Danielsen F Balete D S Poulsen M K Enghoff M Nozawa C M Jensen A E 2000 A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country Biodiversity and Conservation 9 12 1671 1705 doi 10 1023 A 1026505324342 S2CID 23374588 ETFRN 2002 Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Biodiversity Internet Workshop and Policy Seminar Environmental Change Institute University of Oxford Oxford UK a b c Danielsen F Burgess N D Balmford A 2005a Monitoring matters examining the potential of locally based approaches Biodiversity and Conservation 14 11 2507 2542 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8375 0 S2CID 18110139 a b Funder M Danielsen F Ngaga Y Nielsen M R Poulsen M K 2013 Reshaping conservation The social dynamics of participatory monitoring in Tanzania s community managed forests Conservation and Society 11 3 218 232 doi 10 4103 0972 4923 121011 a b JJones J P G Andriamarovolona M M Hockley N Gibbons J M 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 4 1205 1212 doi 10 1111 j 1365 2664 2008 01487 x S2CID 67803458 Luzar J B Silvius K M Overman H Giery S T Read J M Fragoso J M V 2011 Large scale environmental monitoring by indigenous people BioScience 61 10 771 781 doi 10 1525 bio 2011 61 10 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 Fjeldsa J Funder M Holt S Hubertz 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 Sorensen M Young R 2014a A multi country assessment of tropical resource monitoring by local communities BioScience 64 3 236 251 doi 10 1093 biosci biu001 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 doi 10 5751 es 05164 170422 Bonney R Shirk J L Phillips T B Wiggins A Ballard H L Miller Rushing A J Parrish J K 2014 Next steps for citizen science Science 343 6178 1436 1437 Bibcode 2014Sci 343 1436B doi 10 1126 science 1251554 PMID 24675940 S2CID 206555629 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 doi 10 5751 es 04705 170229 a b Noss A J Oetting I Cuellar R L 2005 Hunter self monitoring by the Isoseno Guarani in the Bolivian Chaco Biodivers Conserv 14 11 2679 2693 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8401 2 S2CID 8776915 a b Constantino P A L R A Tavares J L Kaxinawa F M Macario E Kaxinawa e A S Kaxinawa 2012 Mapeamento e monitoramento participativo da caca na Kaxinawa da Praia do Carapana Indigenous Land Acre Amazonia Brasileira In Sistema de informacoes geograficas e a conservacao da biodiversidade Paese A Uezu A Lorini M L Cunha A eds Oficina do Texto Sao Paulo Brasil Gray M 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 11 2723 2741 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 509 5137 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8406 x S2CID 23378700 a b Stuart Hill G Diggle R Munali B Tagg J Ward D 2005 The event book system a community based natural resource monitoring system from Namibia Biodivers Conserv 14 11 2611 2631 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 475 8317 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8391 0 S2CID 36704147 Sheil D Lawrence A 2004 Tropical biologists local people and conservation new opportunities for collaboration Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19 12 634 638 doi 10 1016 j tree 2004 09 019 PMID 16701325 Lawrence A Ed 2010 Taking Stock of Nature Cambridge Univ Press Cambridge UK a b 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 11 91 102 doi 10 1007 s11625 015 0295 7 S2CID 130746905 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 a b Bennun L Matiku P Mulwa R Mwangi S Buckley P 2005 Monitoring Important Bird Areas in Africa towards a sustainable and scalable system Biodivers Conserv 14 11 2575 2590 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 336 452 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8389 7 S2CID 14679464 Townsend W R Borman A R Yiyoguaje E Mendua L 2005 Cofan Indians monitoring of freshwater turtles in Zabalo Ecuador Biodiversity and Conservation 14 11 2743 2755 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 517 8179 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8410 1 S2CID 630675 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 2 489 499 doi 10 1111 j 1523 1739 2010 01470 x PMID 20491849 S2CID 13720586 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 12 2615 26 doi 10 1007 s10531 011 0094 0 S2CID 3238591 Burton 2012 a b Andrianandrasana H T Randriamahefasoa J Durbin J Lewis R E Ratsimbazafy J H 2005 Participatory ecological monitoring of the Alaotra wetland in Madagascar Biodivers Conserv 14 11 2757 2774 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 613 9156 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8413 y S2CID 1063617 Poulsen M K Luanglath K 2005 Projects come projects go lessons from participatory monitoring in southern Laos Biodivers Conserv 14 11 2591 2610 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8390 1 S2CID 2862045 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 11 2775 2794 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8414 x S2CID 19989789 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 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 Becker C D Agreda A Astudillo E Constantino M 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 11 2695 2707 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8402 1 S2CID 24263291 a b Hockley N J Jones J P G Andriahajaina F B Manica A Ranambitsoa E H Randriamboahary J A 2005 When should communities and conservationists monitor exploited resources Biodivers Conserv 14 11 2795 2806 CiteSeerX 10 1 1 490 6306 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8416 8 S2CID 22710709 Topp Jorgensen E Poulsen M K Lund J F 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 11 2653 2677 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8399 5 S2CID 24146400 a b Kennett R Danielsen F Silvius K M 2015 Conservation management Citizen science is not enough on its own Nature 521 7551 261 Bibcode 2015Natur 521 161K doi 10 1038 521161d PMID 25971501 Guijt I ed 2007 Negotiated learning Collaborative monitoring in forest resources management Resources for the Future Washington D C USA 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 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 a b c Danielsen F Pirhofer Walzl K Adrian T Kapijimpanga D Burgess N D Jensen P M Bonney R Funder M Landa A Levermann N Madsen J 2014c Linking public participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of international environmental agreements Conservation Letters 7 12 24 doi 10 1111 conl 12024 S2CID 29741921 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 28 doi 10 14430 arctic4447 S2CID 56317966 Danielsen F Mendoza M M Alviola P Balete D S Enghoff M Poulsen M K Jensen A E 2003 Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries what are we trying to achieve Oryx 37 4 407 409 doi 10 1017 s0030605303000735 Danielsen F Jensen A E Alviola P A Balete D S Mendoza M M Tagtag A Custodio C Enghoff M 2005c Does monitoring matter A quantitative assessment of management decisions from locallybased monitoring of protected areas Biodiversity and Conservation 14 11 2633 2652 doi 10 1007 s10531 005 8392 z S2CID 20010036 a b 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 36 7 566 70 doi 10 1579 0044 7447 2007 36 566 icmabi 2 0 co 2 PMID 18074893 S2CID 24659006 Missiakoulis S 2010 Cecrops King of Athens the first recorded population census in history International Statistical Review 78 3 413 418 doi 10 1111 j 1751 5823 2010 00124 x S2CID 120868478 Mascia M B Pailler S Thieme M Rowe A Bottrill M C Danielsen F Geldmann J Naidoo R Pullin A Burgess N D 2014 Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation Biological Conservation 169 258 267 doi 10 1016 j biocon 2013 11 017 Sodhi N S and Ehrlich P R Eds 2010 Conservation Biology for All Oxford Univ Press 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 Natural Resources Monitoring Network monitoringmatters org 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 ELOKA Workshop eloka arctic org a b 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 doi 10 6027 TN2015 506 Constantino P A L et al in press Monitoramento Participativo Da Biodiversidade E Dos Recursos Naturais Seminario Internacional E Formacao Da Rede Internacional De Monitoramento E Manejo Participativo Biodiversidade Brasileira Participatory Monitoring and Management Partnership Community Monitoring Great debates and local actions 2014 10 08 Turnhout E Bloomfield B Hulme M Vogel J Wynne B 2012 Listen to the voices of experience Nature 488 7412 454 455 doi 10 1038 488454a PMID 22914151 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 Sorensen M 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 4 380 389 doi 10 1111 conl 12100 S2CID 21054325 Esa 2014 Dispatches Locals beat scientists in biodiversity surveys Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12 8 428 432 doi 10 1890 1540 9295 12 8 428 a b Tengo M Brondizio E Elmqvist T Malmer P Spierenburg M 2014 Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance the multiple evidence base approach Ambio 43 5 579 591 doi 10 1007 s13280 014 0501 3 PMC 4132468 PMID 24659474 Huntington H P Callaghan T Fox S Krupnik I 2004 Matching traditional and scientific observations to detect environmental change a discussion on Arctic terrestrial ecosystems Ambio 33 18 23 doi 10 1007 0044 7447 33 sp13 18 PMID 15575178 S2CID 14467976 Gofman V 2010 Community based monitoring handbook lessons from the Arctic CAFF CBMP Report No 21 CAFF Akureyri Iceland Merkel F R 2010 Evidence of recent population recovery in common eiders breeding in Western Greenland Journal of Wildlife Management 74 8 1869 1874 doi 10 2193 2009 189 S2CID 86183797 Huntington H P 2011 The local perspective Nature 478 7368 182 183 doi 10 1038 478182a PMID 21993743 S2CID 205067758 Pulsifer P L Laidler G J Taylor D R F 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 doi 10 1111 j 1541 0064 2010 00348 x a b Russell D E et al 2013 Arctic Borderlands Ecological Knowledge Cooperative can local knowledge inform caribou management Rangifer 33 21 71 78 doi 10 7557 2 33 2 2530 a b c Danielsen F Topp Jorgensen E Levermann N Lovstrom P Schiotz M Enghoff M Jakobsen P 2014d Counting what counts using local knowledge to improve Arctic resource management Polar Geography 37 69 91 doi 10 1080 1088937x 2014 890960 S2CID 55155745 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 28 doi 10 14430 arctic4447 S2CID 56317966 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 Laidler G J 2006 Inuit and scientific perspectives on the relationship between sea ice and climate change the ideal complement Climatic Change 78 2 4 407 444 Bibcode 2006ClCh 78 407L doi 10 1007 s10584 006 9064 z S2CID 153827833 Eira I M G Jaedicke C Magga O H Maynard N G Vikhamar Schuler D Mathiesen S D 2013 Traditional Sami snow terminology and physical snow classification two ways of knowing Cold Regions Science and Technology 85 117 130 doi 10 1016 j coldregions 2012 09 004 Weatherhead E Gearheard S Barry R G 2010 Changes in weather persistence Insight from Inuit knowledge Global Environmental Change 20 3 523 528 doi 10 1016 j gloenvcha 2010 02 002 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 a b Ferguson M A D et al 1998 Inuit knowledge of long term changes in a population of Arctic tundra caribou Arctic 51 3 201 219 doi 10 14430 arctic1062 Mustonen T And Mustonen K 2011 Eastern Sami Atlas SnowChange Cooperative Vaasa Finland Berkes F 2012 Sacred Ecology 3rd ed Routledge Constantino P A L 2015 Dynamics of hunting territories and prey distribution in Amazonian Indigenous Lands Applied Geography 56 222 231 doi 10 1016 j apgeog 2014 11 015 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 Sorensen M Tewari A Young R Zahabu E 2011 At the heart of REDD a role for local people in monitoring forests Conservation Letters 4 2 158 167 doi 10 1111 j 1755 263x 2010 00159 x S2CID 55570944 Skutsch M Ed 2011 Community Forest Monitoring for the Carbon Market Earthscan London 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 Vieira I C G 2012 A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD programmes Biological Conservation 154 61 71 doi 10 1016 j biocon 2011 11 018 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 Burgess N 2013 Community monitoring for REDD international promises and field realities Ecology and Society 18 3 41 doi 10 5751 es 05464 180341 Boissiere 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 doi 10 3390 f5081855 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 doi 10 3390 f5081834 Larrazabal A McCall MK Mwampamba TH Skutsch M 2012 The role of community carbon monitoring for REDD a review of experiences Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 4 6 707 16 doi 10 1016 j cosust 2012 10 008 Lund J F 2014 Towards a more balanced view on the potentials of locally based monitoring Biodiversity and Conservation 23 237 239 doi 10 1007 s10531 013 0596 z S2CID 15041272 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 doi 10 3390 f5102464 Butt N Epps K Overman H Iwamura T Fragoso J M V 2015 Assessing carbon stocks using indigenous peoples field measurements in Amazonian Guyana PDF Forest Ecology and Management 338 191 199 doi 10 1016 j foreco 2014 11 014 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 Forest Compass 2015 Community based forest monitoring in North Rupununi Guyana http forestcompass org case studies community based forest monitoring north rupununi guyana 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 Forest Compass 2015 International Agendas http forestcompass org why international forest agendas 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 Fjeldsa J Holt S Hubertz 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 Jorgensen E Yonten D 2009 Local participation in natural resource monitoring a characterization of approaches Conservation Biology 23 1 31 42 doi 10 1111 j 1523 1739 2008 01063 x PMID 18798859 S2CID 15143054 Dickinson J L and Bonney R Eds 2012 Citizen Science Cornell Press Ithaca New York 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 doi 10 1016 j biocon 2013 11 003 Protected Areas Programme www unep wcmc org Archived from the original on 2001 01 24 a b Forest Compass 2015 What are the advantages of mobile technology in data collection http forestcompass org what are advantages mobile technology data collection 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 AIDESEP and Alianza Mesoamericana de Pueblos e Bosques with Handcrafted Films 2014 Detecting disasters using drone technology http ifnotusthenwho me story detectando desastres 2 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 Rainforest Foundation UK 2015 Forest Link Community based real time monitoring http monitor mappingforrights org Sapelli Archived from the original on 2016 08 17 Retrieved 2016 08 05 M J Pacha 2015 Community based monitoring reporting and verification know how sharing knowledge from practice WWF SilvaCarbon Global Canopy Programme 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 doi 10 3390 f5102464 Forest Compass 2015 Community based forest monitoring in North Rupununi Guyana http forestcompass org case studies community based forest monitoring north rupununi guyana 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 Forest Compass 2015 Ashaninka Land Monitoring Initiative http forestcompass org case studies ashaninka land monitoring initiative Lewis J amp 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 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 Forest Compass 2015 What are the disadvantages of mobile technology in data collection http forestcompass org what are disadvantages mobile technology data collection 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 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 a b 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 Torres A B Acuna L A S Vergara J M C 2014 Integrating CBM into Land Use Based Mitigation Actions Implemented by Local Communities Forests 5 12 3295 3326 doi 10 3390 f5123295 Bellfield H Sabogal D Goodman L Leggett M 2015 Case Report Case Study Report Community Based Monitoring Systems for REDD in Guyana Forests 6 1 133 156 doi 10 3390 f6010133 Further reading EditGardner 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 doi 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 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Participatory monitoring amp oldid 1136138757, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.