What's in a name? Unpacking “participatory” environmental monitoring
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
What's in a name? Unpacking “participatory” environmental monitoring. / Turreira Garcia, Nerea; Lund, Jens Friis; Domínguez, Pablo ; Carrillo-Anglés, Elena ; Brummer, Mathias C. ; Duenn, Priya ; Reyes-García, Victoria .
In: Ecology and Society, Vol. 23, No. 2, 24, 2018.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - What's in a name? Unpacking “participatory” environmental monitoring
AU - Turreira Garcia, Nerea
AU - Lund, Jens Friis
AU - Domínguez, Pablo
AU - Carrillo-Anglés, Elena
AU - Brummer, Mathias C.
AU - Duenn, Priya
AU - Reyes-García, Victoria
PY - 2018
Y1 - 2018
N2 - While the number of projects that claim to conduct participatory environmental monitoring (PEM) is growing, “participation” continues to be translated into very different practices. We performed a systematic review of PEM projects reported in peer-reviewed journals (n = 146) to explore the main ways in which participation is operationalized and whose interests it serves. We found that local people were mainly involved in PEM projects through data collection, while professionals dominated during the ideation and design of the projects, as well as during the evaluation and use of data. Data collected through PEM was mainly used by professionals and researchers (56% of the cases that provided information on this topic), and less often used by local communities (20%). Our findings indicate that in most PEM projects published in scientific journals, participation is mostly functional in the sense that local peoples’ involvement is framed so that they contribute to the gathering of information in a cost-effective way, while their potential interests in shaping the purpose and format of the project and use of the data appear overlooked. Overall, the actual practice of most PEM projects analyzed appears to foster participation in a very limited sense of the word. Although some studies document strong empowerment effects of PEM programs, many studies are superficial in their documentation of this aspect or they do not involve local people beyond collecting data.
AB - While the number of projects that claim to conduct participatory environmental monitoring (PEM) is growing, “participation” continues to be translated into very different practices. We performed a systematic review of PEM projects reported in peer-reviewed journals (n = 146) to explore the main ways in which participation is operationalized and whose interests it serves. We found that local people were mainly involved in PEM projects through data collection, while professionals dominated during the ideation and design of the projects, as well as during the evaluation and use of data. Data collected through PEM was mainly used by professionals and researchers (56% of the cases that provided information on this topic), and less often used by local communities (20%). Our findings indicate that in most PEM projects published in scientific journals, participation is mostly functional in the sense that local peoples’ involvement is framed so that they contribute to the gathering of information in a cost-effective way, while their potential interests in shaping the purpose and format of the project and use of the data appear overlooked. Overall, the actual practice of most PEM projects analyzed appears to foster participation in a very limited sense of the word. Although some studies document strong empowerment effects of PEM programs, many studies are superficial in their documentation of this aspect or they do not involve local people beyond collecting data.
KW - Citizen science
KW - Community-based
KW - Empowerment
KW - Locally based
KW - Patrolling
U2 - 10.5751/ES-10144-230224
DO - 10.5751/ES-10144-230224
M3 - Journal article
VL - 23
JO - Ecology and Society
JF - Ecology and Society
SN - 1708-3087
IS - 2
M1 - 24
ER -
ID: 196409470