Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic
Monitoring activities provide a core contribution to wildlife conservation in the Arctic. Effective monitoring which allows changes in population status to be detected early, provides opportunities to mitigate pressures driving declines. Monitoring triage involves decisions about how and where to pr...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2016-11-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fevo.2016.00128/full |
| _version_ | 1818502300231008256 |
|---|---|
| author | Helen C Wheeler Helen C Wheeler Helen C Wheeler Dominique Berteaux Chris Furgal Brenda Parlee Nigels G Yoccoz David Grémillet David Grémillet |
| author_facet | Helen C Wheeler Helen C Wheeler Helen C Wheeler Dominique Berteaux Chris Furgal Brenda Parlee Nigels G Yoccoz David Grémillet David Grémillet |
| author_sort | Helen C Wheeler |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Monitoring activities provide a core contribution to wildlife conservation in the Arctic. Effective monitoring which allows changes in population status to be detected early, provides opportunities to mitigate pressures driving declines. Monitoring triage involves decisions about how and where to prioritise activities in species and ecosystem based monitoring. In particular, monitoring triage examines whether to divert resources away from species where there is high likelihood of extinction in the near-future in favour of species where monitoring activities may produce greater conservation benefits. As a place facing both rapid change with a high likelihood of population extinctions, and serious logistic and financial challenges for field data acquisition, the Arctic provides a good context in which to examine attitudes toward triage in monitoring.For effective decision-making to emerge from monitoring, multiple stakeholders must be involved in defining aims and priorities. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in arctic wildlife monitoring (either contributing to observation and recording of wildlife, using information from wildlife observation and recording, or using wildlife as a resource) to elicit their perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in the Arctic.The majority (56%) of our 23 participants were predominantly in opposition to triage, 26% were in support of triage and 17% were undecided. Representatives of Indigenous organisations were more likely to be opposed to triage than scientists and those involved in decision-making showed greatest support for triage amongst the scientist participants. Responses to the concept of triage included that: 1) The species-focussed approach associated with triage did not match their more systems-based view (5 participants), 2) Important information is generated through monitoring threatened species which advances understanding of the drivers of change, responses and ecosystem consequences (5 participants), 3) There is an obligation to try to monitor and conserve threatened species (4 participants), and 4) Monitoring needs to address local people’s needs which may be overlooked under triage (3 participants). The complexity of decision-making to create monitoring programmes that maximise benefits to biodiversity and people makes prioritisation with simple models difficult. Using scenarios to identify desirable trajectories of Arctic stewardship may be an effective means of identifying monitoring needs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T21:08:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-9fb918204e00401db324957c7c8b77a7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2296-701X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T21:08:24Z |
| publishDate | 2016-11-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj.art-9fb918204e00401db324957c7c8b77a72022-12-22T01:33:33ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution2296-701X2016-11-01410.3389/fevo.2016.00128206007Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing ArcticHelen C Wheeler0Helen C Wheeler1Helen C Wheeler2Dominique Berteaux3Chris Furgal4Brenda Parlee5Nigels G Yoccoz6David Grémillet7David Grémillet8Department of Arctic and Marine Biology, UiT the Arctic UniversityCentre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175, CNRS - Université de Montpellier - Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier - EPHECentre for Northern Studies, Université du Quebec à RimouskiCentre for Northern Studies, Université du Quebec à RimouskiIndigenous Environmental Studies, Trent UniversityDepartment of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology, University of AlbertaDepartment of Arctic and Marine Biology, UiT the Arctic UniversityCentre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, UMR 5175, CNRS - Université de Montpellier - Université Paul-Valéry Montpellier - EPHEPercy FitzPatrick Institute, DST-NRF Centre of Excellence, University of Cape TownMonitoring activities provide a core contribution to wildlife conservation in the Arctic. Effective monitoring which allows changes in population status to be detected early, provides opportunities to mitigate pressures driving declines. Monitoring triage involves decisions about how and where to prioritise activities in species and ecosystem based monitoring. In particular, monitoring triage examines whether to divert resources away from species where there is high likelihood of extinction in the near-future in favour of species where monitoring activities may produce greater conservation benefits. As a place facing both rapid change with a high likelihood of population extinctions, and serious logistic and financial challenges for field data acquisition, the Arctic provides a good context in which to examine attitudes toward triage in monitoring.For effective decision-making to emerge from monitoring, multiple stakeholders must be involved in defining aims and priorities. We conducted semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in arctic wildlife monitoring (either contributing to observation and recording of wildlife, using information from wildlife observation and recording, or using wildlife as a resource) to elicit their perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in the Arctic.The majority (56%) of our 23 participants were predominantly in opposition to triage, 26% were in support of triage and 17% were undecided. Representatives of Indigenous organisations were more likely to be opposed to triage than scientists and those involved in decision-making showed greatest support for triage amongst the scientist participants. Responses to the concept of triage included that: 1) The species-focussed approach associated with triage did not match their more systems-based view (5 participants), 2) Important information is generated through monitoring threatened species which advances understanding of the drivers of change, responses and ecosystem consequences (5 participants), 3) There is an obligation to try to monitor and conserve threatened species (4 participants), and 4) Monitoring needs to address local people’s needs which may be overlooked under triage (3 participants). The complexity of decision-making to create monitoring programmes that maximise benefits to biodiversity and people makes prioritisation with simple models difficult. Using scenarios to identify desirable trajectories of Arctic stewardship may be an effective means of identifying monitoring needs.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fevo.2016.00128/fulldecision-makingrecordingwildlife conservationPolar observationPriorizationArctic monitoring |
| spellingShingle | Helen C Wheeler Helen C Wheeler Helen C Wheeler Dominique Berteaux Chris Furgal Brenda Parlee Nigels G Yoccoz David Grémillet David Grémillet Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution decision-making recording wildlife conservation Polar observation Priorization Arctic monitoring |
| title | Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic |
| title_full | Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic |
| title_fullStr | Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic |
| title_full_unstemmed | Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic |
| title_short | Stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing Arctic |
| title_sort | stakeholder perspectives on triage in wildlife monitoring in a rapidly changing arctic |
| topic | decision-making recording wildlife conservation Polar observation Priorization Arctic monitoring |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fevo.2016.00128/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT helencwheeler stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic AT helencwheeler stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic AT helencwheeler stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic AT dominiqueberteaux stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic AT chrisfurgal stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic AT brendaparlee stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic AT nigelsgyoccoz stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic AT davidgremillet stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic AT davidgremillet stakeholderperspectivesontriageinwildlifemonitoringinarapidlychangingarctic |