Trends and key elements in community-based monitoring: a systematic review of the literature with an emphasis on Arctic and Subarctic regions

Abstract

Community-based monitoring (CBM) is receiving much attention from the research community, particularly in Arctic and Subarctic regions of Canada and other circumpolar regions. Currently, there is a lack of understanding of the trends and patterns in its use within the literature and a documented need to improve environmental CBM efforts in the Arctic and Subarctic regions. A systematic literature review was conducted of CBM publications in peer-reviewed and grey literature to provide a synthesis of trends on the topic and to clarify key elements that are needed to operate an environmental CBM program in Arctic and Subarctic regions. Both sets of literature show a significant growth in the publication of CBM studies over time, with a high proportion of research taking place in North America and in the field of environmental sciences. More CBM studies are reported in connection to First Nations and Inuit groups, as compared to other Indigenous groups. Thirteen key elements of environmental CBM programs, commonly reported in the literature focused on Arctic and Subarctic regions, were identified in the analysis. Specifically, traditional and local ecological knowledge (TLEK) was a unique component highlighted in Arctic and Subarctic sources and a specific feature observed in studies focusing on Indigenous groups. The identification of such key CBM elements serves as a resource to guide current and future environmental CBM initiatives in northern regions and elsewhere. Future research on this topic should contrast and compare literature findings with existing environmental CBM programs and provide more case studies to show the process and utility of environmental CBM initiatives in the Arctic and Subarctic, particularly with use of TLEK and the ways to facilitate it within a CBM program.

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

“…; Şekercioğlu ; Kouril et al. ). These potential benefits are often considered separately from information needs, despite the importance of their integration.…”

“…Higherlevel frameworks are needed to maximize monitoring effectiveness for a wider set of biodiversity-and humanrelated goals and to incorporate the complexity of socialecological systems (Ostrom 2009;Chapin et al 2015). Benefits related to local capacity and environmental stewardship are important outcomes of monitoring (e.g., Fernandez-Gimenez et al 2008;Şekercioglu 2012;Kouril et al 2015). These potential benefits are often considered separately from information needs, despite the importance of their integration.…”

“…Approaches range from theoretical (contextindependent knowledge generation or evaluation of the influence of context) to applied science (knowledge built within the context in which it will be applied) (Brunet et al 2014). Modes of local participation and partnership include externally driven projects with data collection and use by scientists not usually residing in the Arctic; externally driven projects with local data collectors (sometimes included within the definition of community-based monitoring); locally driven projects with external advice and external analysis of information (community-based or community-driven monitoring); and locally driven projects with local analysis (Danielsen et al 2009;Kouril et al 2015).…”

Stakeholder Perspectives on Triage in Wildlife Monitoring in a Rapidly Changing Arctic

“…These methods include a range of stakeholders including scientists, local resource users, government agencies, and industry (Kouril et al, 2015). It is important to consider the needs of multiple stakeholders when examining the concept of triage in wildlife monitoring in the Arctic.…”

“…In particular, the potential for monitoring and conservation plans to be co-produced with local communities is being recognized (Johnson et al, 2005), however the extent to which Indigenous peoples have land rights and the degree of self-determination varies very substantially across the Arctic, particularly between countries. In North America, local participation of Indigenous peoples is greatest, primarily occurring in local and regional decision-making through wildlife management boards and this is also observed in greater levels of community based monitoring (Kouril et al, 2015). Further, little is currently known about the perspectives of different actors in arctic wildlife monitoring and conservation regarding the application of triage.…”