Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun;36(3):e13871.
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13871. Epub 2022 Feb 3.

A global community-sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology

Affiliations

A global community-sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology

Talia Speaker et al. Conserv Biol. 2022 Jun.

Abstract

Conservation technology holds the potential to vastly increase conservationists' ability to understand and address critical environmental challenges, but systemic constraints appear to hamper its development and adoption. Understanding of these constraints and opportunities for advancement remains limited. We conducted a global online survey of 248 conservation technology users and developers to identify perceptions of existing tools' current performance and potential impact, user and developer constraints, and key opportunities for growth. We also conducted focus groups with 45 leading experts to triangulate findings. The technologies with the highest perceived potential were machine learning and computer vision, eDNA and genomics, and networked sensors. A total of 95%, 94%, and 92% respondents, respectively, rated them as very helpful or game changers. The most pressing challenges affecting the field as a whole were competition for limited funding, duplication of efforts, and inadequate capacity building. A total of 76%, 67%, and 55% respondents, respectively, identified these as primary concerns. The key opportunities for growth identified in focus groups were increasing collaboration and information sharing, improving the interoperability of tools, and enhancing capacity for data analyses at scale. Some constraints appeared to disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Respondents in countries with developing economies were more likely to report being constrained by upfront costs, maintenance costs, and development funding (p = 0.048, odds ratio [OR] = 2.78; p = 0.005, OR = 4.23; p = 0.024, OR = 4.26), and female respondents were more likely to report being constrained by development funding and perceived technical skills (p = 0.027, OR = 3.98; p = 0.048, OR = 2.33). To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to formally capture the perspectives and needs of the global conservation technology community, providing foundational data that can serve as a benchmark to measure progress. We see tremendous potential for this community to further the vision they define, in which collaboration trumps competition; solutions are open, accessible, and interoperable; and user-friendly processing tools empower the rapid translation of data into conservation action. Article impact statement: Addressing financing, coordination, and capacity-building constraints is critical to the development and adoption of conservation technology.

La tecnología de conservación tiene el potencial para incrementar considerablemente la habilidad de los conservacionistas para entender y lidiar con los retos ambientales más importantes, pero las restricciones sistémicas parecen dificultar su desarrollo y adopción. La comprensión de estas restricciones y las oportunidades para el avance todavía son limitadas. Encuestamos en línea a 248 usuarios y programadores mundiales de tecnología de conservación para identificar las percepciones existentes del desempeño e impacto potencial de las herramientas actuales, restricciones para los usuarios y programadores y oportunidades clave para el crecimiento. También realizamos grupos de discusión con 45 expertos destacados para triangular los hallazgos. Las tecnologías con el potencial percibido más alto fueron el aprendizaje mecánico y la visión por computadora, la genómica y el eADN y los sensores en red. El 95%, 94% y 92% de los respondientes, respectivamente, clasificó estas tecnologías como muy útiles o como puntos de inflexión. Los retos más apremiantes que afectaron al área como conjunto fueron la competencia por el financiamiento limitado, la duplicación de esfuerzos y el desarrollo inadecuado de capacidades. El 76%, 67% y 55% de los respondientes, respectivamente, identificaron estos retos como de interés primario. Las oportunidades clave para el crecimiento que se identificaron en los grupos de diálogo fueron el incremento de la colaboración y la distribución de información, la mejoría de la operatividad entre herramientas y la potenciación de la capacidad de análisis de datos a escala. Algunas restricciones parecieron afectar desproporcionadamente a grupos marginalizados. Los respondientes de países con economías en desarrollo tuvieron mayor probabilidad de reportar la restricción por los costos iniciales, costos de mantenimiento y la financiación del desarrollo (p = 0.048, tasa de probabilidad [OR] = 2.78; p = 0.005, OR = 4.23; p = 0.024, OR = 4.26), y las mujeres respondientes tuvieron una mayor probabilidad de reportar restricciones por la financiación del desarrollo y habilidades técnicas percibidas (p = 0.027, OR = 3.98; p = 0.048, OR = 2.33). A nuestro entendimiento, este es el primero intento por capturar formalmente las perspectivas y necesidades de la comunidad mundial de la tecnología de conservación, proporcionando datos fundamentales que pueden servir como referencia para medir el progreso. Vemos un potencial tremendo para que esta comunidad amplíe la visión que definen, en la cual la colaboración se sobrepone a la competencia; las soluciones son abierta, accesibles e interoperativas; y las herramientas intuitivas de procesamiento capacitan la traducción veloz de datos a acciones de conservación.

Keywords: biodiversity conservation; capacity building; colaboración; collaboration; conservación de la biodiversidad; desarrollo de capacidad; encuesta mundial; financiamiento; funding; global survey; innovación; innovation; monitoreo de fauna; technology; tecnología; wildlife monitoring.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Conservation technologies frequently used by survey respondents and mean proficiency scores for each (GIS, geographic information systems; ML, machine learning; UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles; PA mgmt, protected area management; eDNA, environmental DNA). Respondents reported proficiency levels for each technology they selected on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being novice and 5 being expert
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Survey respondent ratings of (a) overall performance of conservation technology groups and (b) their capacity to advance conservation if current problems were addressed (abbreviations defined in Figure 1)
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Key constraints affecting engagement with conservation technology reported by (a) end users and (b) developers or testers
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Survey respondent rankings of the greatest challenges facing the field of conservation technology (1, most important; 9, least important)

References

    1. Adams, W. M . (2019). Geographies of conservation II: Technology, surveillance and conservation by algorithm. Progress in Human Geography, 43, 337–350.
    1. Agarwal, B . (2009). Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women's participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics, 68, 2785–2799.
    1. Allan, B. M. , Nimmo, D. G. , Ierodiaconou, D. , VanDerWal, J. , Koh, L. P. , & Ritchie, E. G . (2018). Futurecasting ecological research: The rise of technoecology. Ecosphere, 9, e02163.
    1. Anadón, J. D. , Giménez, A. , Ballestar, R. , & Pérez, I . (2009). Evaluation of local ecological knowledge as a method for collecting extensive data on animal abundance. Conservation Biology, 23, 617–625. - PubMed
    1. Arts, K. , van der Wal, R. , & Adams, W. M . (2015). Digital technology and the conservation of nature. Ambio, 44, 661–673. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types