Tackling the motivation to monitor: success and sustainability of a participatory monitoring program

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Monitoring of species and their ecosystem attributes is a fundamental requirement in applied ecology and conservation. However, landscape scale monitoring requires an immense effort and commitment, especially when species have a wide distribution or are migratory in nature. Participatory monitoring, whereby local communities are engaged, is increasingly being proposed to address landscape scale monitoring. Its implementation is met with many challenges related to finances, motivation of the local people, lack of trained manpower, and nondirect legal use of the species in question. It is of interest to determine what makes a participatory monitoring program interesting for locals to ensure their long term engagement. Using the unique 26-year program of hunters' observations of moose (Alces alces) in Sweden as a case study, we present the evolution of this highly successful participatory monitoring program and show that tackling the motivation to monitor, early involvement of local NGOs, social activities revolving around use of the resource, the biology and economic value of the species, and technical and practical aspects related to the monitoring, together create a successful participatory monitoring program. When users benefit directly from the resource, participate in conservation/ management decision making, socialize with other participants, and get rewards for their commitment and effective monitoring, participatory monitoring schemes can then become rewarding and sustainable.

Recruiting and Retaining Participants in Citizen Science: What Can Be Learned from the Volunteering Literature?

“…Providing feedback on how citizen science-collected data is being used is likely to be an important motivator for many participants (Singh et al 2014). Volunteers want to feel that their time is well spent (Bruyere and Rappe 2007), therefore the impacts of participants' work should be monitored and communicated back to them (Van Den Berg et al 2009, Unell andCastle 2012).…”

Evaluating the use of local ecological knowledge to monitor hunted tropical-forest wildlife over large spatial scales

“…A community using this method over several years would be alerted to overhunting and be able to develop and audit management interventions (Jones et al 2013), Ecology and Society 20(3): 15 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss3/art15/ such as no-take areas or species-specific restrictions (Puertas and Bodmer 2004). Sustainable hunting is an important issue for rural livelihoods and food security so perhaps local motivation for this kind of monitoring would be significant (Singh et al 2014). However, monitoring is only genuinely participatory if local stakeholders are active and equal participants in decision-making processes, rather than just agents of data collection (Brook andMcLachlan 2008, Jones et al 2013).…”

Who Wants to Save the Forest? Characterizing Community-Led Monitoring in Prey Lang, Cambodia

“…In spite of this, evidence exists that locally developed monitoring is a valuable complement to expert-based approaches (Moller et al 2004;Danielsen et al 2005). For example, hunters can provide observations of animal populations and help improve the regulations (Rist et al 2009;Singh et al 2014). Thus, local people may help achieve long-term nature conservation goals, as regular monitoring and sanctioning may lead to successful natural-resource management and protection (Ostrom 1990;Gibson et al 2005;Takahashi and Todo 2012;Sheil et al 2015).…”