Identifying key needs for the integration of social‐ecological outcomes in arctic wildlife monitoring

Wheeler, Helen C. and Berteaux, Dominique and Furgal, Chris and Cazelles, Kevin and Yoccoz, Nigel G. and Grémillet, David (2018) Identifying key needs for the integration of social‐ecological outcomes in arctic wildlife monitoring. Conservation Biology. ISSN 1523-1739

[img] Text
Accepted Version
Restricted to Repository staff only until 24 November 2019.
Available under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (1MB)
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13257

Abstract

For effective monitoring in social‐ecological systems to meet needs for biodiversity, science, and humans, desired outcomes must be clearly defined and routes from direct to derived outcomes understood. The Arctic is undergoing rapid climatic, ecological, social, and economic changes and requires effective wildlife monitoring to meet diverse stakeholder needs. To identify stakeholder priorities concerning desired outcomes of arctic wildlife monitoring, we conducted in‐depth interviews with 29 arctic scientists, policy and decision makers, and representatives of Indigenous organizations and NGOs. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified and defined desired outcomes and documented links between outcomes. Using network analysis, we investigated the structure of perceived links between desired outcomes. We identified 18 desired outcomes from monitoring and classified them as either driven by monitoring information, monitoring process, or a combination of both. Highly cited outcomes were make decisions, conserve, detect change, disseminate, and secure food. These reflect key foci of arctic monitoring. Infrequently cited outcomes (e.g., govern) were emerging themes. Three modules comprised our outcome network. The modularity highlighted the low strength of perceived links between outcomes that were information driven or primarily information driven (e.g., detect change, make decisions, conserve or secure food) and process driven and derived outcomes (e.g., cooperate, learn, educate). The outcomes expand monitoring community and disseminate created connections between these modules. We identified key desired outcomes from monitoring that are widely applicable to social‐ecological systems within and outside the Arctic, particularly those with wildlife subsistence economies. Attributes and motivations associated with outcomes can guide future development of integrated monitoring goals for biodiversity conservation and human needs. Our results demonstrate the disconnect between information and process driven goals and how expanding the monitoring community and better integrating monitoring stakeholders will help connect information derived and process derived outcomes for effective ecosystem stewardship.

Item Type: Journal Article
Additional Information: contact address helen.wheeler@anglia.ac.uk
Keywords: adaptive management, climate change, network analysis, scientific monitoring, stakeholders, traditional knowledge
Faculty: Faculty of Science & Technology
Depositing User: Helen Wheeler
Date Deposited: 04 Dec 2018 09:13
Last Modified: 19 Dec 2018 12:14
URI: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/703897

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item