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

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.

Climate change could overturn bird migration: Transarctic flights and high-latitude residency in a sea ice free Arctic

“…The Arctic is subjected to drastic environmental changes and, at the request of arctic peoples, there is much research on the fate of species emblematic to this vast region, including birds (see 86 ). Understanding current and future arctic bird distribution and migration has therefore been identified as a key objective by the Arctic Council and its working groups (in particular through the AMBI project https://www.caff.is/arctic-migratory-birds-initiative-ambi) and are the aim of recent studies 45,62,87,88 .…”

Informing decision‐making with Indigenous and local knowledge and science

“…However, some argue that all scientists are effectively advocates in their role as citizens, and the more important consideration is to address values or biases in a more transparent and justified way (Nelson & Vucetich, 2009; Wilhere, 2012). Even though partiality is not actively pursued by scientists, it may be inherent in their choices concerning of how, where and why they conduct their studies (Wheeler et al., 2019). In any mode of linking knowledge and information gathering to decision‐making, knowledge holders including scientists might adopt a range of roles and should ensure this is transparent and matched to the needs of the context and those of the knowledge holder (Crouzat et al., 2018).…”

A DNA Barcoding Survey of an Arctic Arthropod Community: Implications for Future Monitoring

“…CBM is a key element of information exchange networks, such as the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna circumpolar monitoring program (CAFF), the Exchange for Local Observations and Knowledge of Arctic (ELOKA), and the Sustainable Arctic Observing Network (SAON) [40]. In particular, there is considerable interest among researchers and local communities in using wildlife monitoring to detect change and to inform decisions [41]. Despite these developments, integration of CBM with scientific enquiry has been limited.…”