Citizen science as a bottom‐up approach to address human–wildlife conflicts: From theories and methods to practical implications

Abstract

Although biodiversity conservation is a prioritized topic globally, agreements and regulations at multiple levels often fail to meet the desired effects due to insufficient knowledge transmission about and tolerance toward environmental protection measures among the public. To find effective measures to solve human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) and promote a sustainable coexistence, it is essential to gain the public's understanding of the importance of preserving biodiversity. To spur progress in solution‐oriented conservation science, we examine how citizen science (CS) can complement research in the HWC field and coexistence/mitigation strategies. We find that CS (1) is an effective tool for gathering wildlife data and (2) empowers citizens to participate in or drive (in a bottom‐up manner) wildlife research and management. Each HWC has a unique social, economic, and geographical context, which makes it challenging to find appropriate mitigation measures. We developed a Global and Local Geographic (GLG) model that provides practical guidelines for implementing CS in HWC research. We argue that the inclusion of youth is fundamental to achieving coexistence between people and wildlife; thus integrating CS into formal education or including an educational component in CS projects can support the sustainable conservation of wildlife species and foster environmentally aware future generations.

Current Trends and Issues in Research on Biodiversity Conservation and Tourism Sustainability

“…The main requirement for such data is to be collected in a standardized way along with information validation and cross-checking, using social research methods such as the Delphi technique and focus groups, questionnaires, and socio-economic surveys. However, without rigid data collection and sampling guidelines, the validity of information on the endangered species and habitats delivered by PA managers, rangers, and other local stakeholders will have limited value [39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. With the aid of KH Coder, we have elicited seven different co-occurrence networks of nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs.…”

Trust in large carnivore science in Norway

“…To reduce the risk of local communities feeling neglected, citizen science, e.g., involving citizens in data collection such as monitoring, and encourage participation in management strategy development, may help to develop a trustful relationship with science (Anhalt-Depies et al 2019;Ostermann-Miyashita et al 2021). In groups with low levels of trust in carnivore science, e.g., hunters, citizen science could aid to make results more likely accepted as unbiased and reliable as basis for management decisions.…”

Open Hardware in Science: The Benefits of Open Electronics

“…At the same time, the public increasingly demands to actively engage in the scientific process, to an extent that citizens partner or even co-author with professional scientists ( Breen et al 2015 ; Mazumdar et al 2017 ). However, access to scientific instruments has partly hampered such engagements and bottom-up initiatives by non-scientists to develop scientific questions themselves ( Mazumdar et al 2017 ; Ostermann‐Miyashita et al 2021 ). Open electronics can overcome this barrier by providing cost-effective and interactive tools that can be easily rebuilt by non-experts while having the capacity to generate high-quality scientific data ( Weeser et al 2018 ).…”