The Smart Forest Conundrum: Contextualizing Pitfalls of Sensors and AI in Conservation Science for Tropical Forests

Abstract

The term ‘smart forest’ is not yet common, but the proliferation of sensors, algorithms, and technocentric thinking in conservation, as in most other aspects of our lives, suggests we are at the brink of this evolution. While there has been some critical discussion about the value of using smart technology in conservation, a holistic discussion about the broader technological, social, and economic interactions involved with using big data, sensors, artificial intelligence, and global corporations is largely missing. Here, we explore the pitfalls that are useful to consider as forests are gradually converted to technological sites of data production for optimized biodiversity conservation and are consequently incorporated in the digital economy. We consider who are the enablers of the technologically enhanced forests and how the gradual operationalization of smart forests will impact the traditional stakeholders of conservation. We also look at the implications of carpeting forests with sensors and the type of questions that will be encouraged. To contextualize our arguments, we provide examples from our work in Kibale National Park, Uganda which hosts the one of the longest continuously running research field station in Africa.

Exploring multiple dimensions of conservation success: Long‐term wildlife trends, anti‐poaching efforts and revenue sharing in Kibale National Park, Uganda

“…Such large scale efforts will require the investment of significant amounts of resources, but new technologies may also help in the collection, integration and analysis of such data. However, care must be taken to avoid over‐automation of conservation activities as people are an integral part of the solution and over reliance on technology can undo years of progress in reconciling biodiversity conservation goals with the requirements of the community (Sarkar & Chapman,2021a, 2021b).…”

Reworking the political in digital forests: The cosmopolitics of socio-technical worlds

“…However, it is necessary to analyze how specific practices of observation change the social and political dynamics within forests. While the social and political implications of drones and other tools of observation have been well documented in conservation research (Sandbrook 2015;Shreshta and Lapeyre 2018), rapid advancements in observational technologies often outpace institutional frameworks for their regulation (Adams 2019;Sarkar and Chapman 2021). Developments in observational technologies often correspond with the militarization of conservation, which can have severe consequences for local communities while impacting the long-term viability of conservation actions (Duffy et al 2019;Simlai and Sandbrook 2021).…”

“…Such an approach works toward observation practices that accommodate multiple and cosmopolitical experiences of inhabitation, rather than a more singular register of control and territorialization (cf. Scott 1998). It also considers how observational practices of forest dwellers that often do not register as legitimate within forest science and governance can contribute to different ways of seeing and knowing forests, whether through grounded or remote experience.…”

Academic Incentives Should Not Promote the “Extinction of Nature Experience”

“…For example, it has become possible to estimate habitat productivity in near-real time using satellite images (Pettorelli et al, 2005); to attach sensors to animals to determine location, direction of travel, body temperature, and much more (Hebblewhite & Haydon, 2010); and to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) approach to identify species or individuals from camera traps (Guo et al, 2020; Wearn et al, 2019). Extensive habitat loss and climate change have provided the perfect justification for tech companies to present their tools for conservation and develop marketing campaigns that call for the optimization of biodiversity conservation by using smart sensors to collect data and automate processes (Sarkar & Chapman, 2021). Governments and conservation agencies followed the lead of tech companies as the use of sensors was seen as a means to overcome budgetary austerity.…”

“…However, other sensors are used because they are considered cost-effective, they can easily assess large areas, they follow popular trends, or are used prior to appropriate verification of their accuracy. Examples may include using drones to monitor tree phenology or detect the night nests of chimpanzee and orangutans (Marshall & Wich, 2013; Wich, 2015; Wich & Koh, 2018), using camera traps rather than tracking stations (Sarkar & Chapman, 2021), assessing local habitat productivity or species richness using generalized satellite indices (e.g., NDVI) rather than checking on the status of trees and understory or careful calibration of indices (Gautam et al, 2019; Phillips et al, 2008).…”