NARA Discovery
Article Details
← Back to Search Results
Journal Article

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

Helen C. Wheeler; Dominique Berteaux; Chris Furgal; Kevin Cazelles; Nigel G. Yoccoz; David Grémillet
Conservation Biology · Vol. 33, Issue 4 · pp. 861-872 · 2019

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 nongovernmental organizations. 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 primarily information driven or more derived (e.g., detect change, make decisions, conserve, or secure food) and outcomes that were primarily process driven or more derived (e.g., cooperate, learn, educate). The outcomes expand monitoring community and disseminate created connections between these modules. Key desired outcomes 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 development of integrated monitoring goals for biodiversity conservation and human needs. Our results demonstrated the disconnect between information‐ and process‐driven goals and how expansion of the monitoring community and improved integration of monitoring stakeholders will help connect information‐ and process‐derived outcomes for effective ecosystem stewardship.

Bibliographic Information

JournalConservation Biology
PublisherWiley
Publication Date2019-08-01
Publication Year2019
Volume33
Issue4
Pages861-872
Document TypeJournal Article
Print ISSN0888-8892
eISSN1523-1739
DOI10.1111/cobi.13257
SubjectConservation Science

Access Information

NARA Access Coverage1997-01-01~Current
Journal Homepagehttps://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/loi/15231739
Publisher PageOpen Publisher Page
Full-text access depends on NARA's subscribed coverage and institutional access.