Empowering rangers through technology and innovation

 
CONTINUE READING
Empowering rangers through technology and innovation
IMPLEMENTING THE CHITWAN DECLARATION OF THE 9TH WORLD RANGER CONGRESS:
                                  NEXT STEPS FOR THE GLOBAL RANGER COMMUNITY
                                                  ROHIT SINGH, GUEST EDITOR

                          Empowering rangers through
PSF
PARKS STEWARDSHIP FORUM
                          technology and innovation

           Drew T. Cronin, North Carolina Zoo; Sophie Benbow, Fauna & Flora International; Richard A. Bergl,
           North Carolina Zoo; Liz Bourgault, World Resources Institute; Lina Caro, Wildlife Conservation Society–
           Colombia; Anthony Dancer, Zoological Society of London; Alasdair Davies, Arribada Initiative;
           Denton Joachim, Peace Parks Foundation; Claire Lewis, North Luangwa Conservation Programme, Frankfurt
           Zoological Society; Antony J. Lynam, Wildlife Conservation Society; Julio Maaz, Wildlife Conservation
           Society–Belize; Jeff Muntifering, Save the Rhino Trust; Stephanie O’Donnell, WILDLABS and Fauna & Flora
           International; Jonathan Palmer, Wildlife Conservation Society; James Slade, Global Wildlife Conservation;
           Felipe Spina Avino, WWF–Brazil; Xia Stevens, Panthera; Alex Wyatt, WWF–Cambodia

           Corresponding author
           Drew T. Cronin
           North Carolina Zoo
           4401 Zoo Parkway
           Asheboro, NC 27205
           USA
           drew.cronin@nczoo.org

           Abstract
           Protected areas are key to biodiversity conservation and ranger-based monitoring, and law enforcement is
           the cornerstone upon which effective protected areas are built. Frontline practitioners, however, are often
           asked to protect large swathes of land or sea with limited resources, support, infrastructure, capacity, and/or
           training. Technology, when applied effectively and appropriately, has the capacity to empower practitioners,
           revolutionize ranger operations, improve ranger safety, and enhance wildlife protection and conservation
           outcomes. To do so, technology must be recognized, from the frontlines through to key decisionmakers, as
           a force multiplier, but only when it is fit for purpose, accessible, cost-effective, and supportive of rangers’
           needs. In this paper we detail the general state of conservation technology and innovation within the ranger
           context and provide a series of detailed recommendations to help the Universal Ranger Support Alliance
           (URSA) meet the needs of rangers around the world, including: demystifying technology and clarifying what
           it can and cannot do, connecting the right technology with the right people and places, focusing technology
           development and investment on substantive improvements and support, broadening ranger familiarization
           with technology, building technology capacity in rangers, fostering greater community building and creat-
           ing opportunities around technologies, engaging the technology sector to innovate and design technology
           to support rangers, and supporting technology as a complement to traditional knowledge and skills, rather
           than a replacement. These recommendations constitute an ambitious vision which cannot be delivered
           by URSA in isolation. Rather, we propose URSA leverages existing efforts to ensure rangers are supported
           around the world.

                                                                                                             PSF 37/1 | 2021   429
Empowering rangers through technology and innovation
Review and synthesis                                     two eras in conservation science with respect
Protected areas are key to biodiversity                  to technology, with the first underpinned by
conservation (Watson et al. 2014; Gray et al. 2016)      practitioners’ wariness towards technology in
and ranger-based monitoring and law enforcement          general, and the second characterized by “a
is the cornerstone upon which effective protected        widely accepting, albeit opportunistic and mostly
areas are built (Marvin et al. 2016; Critchlow et        centralized approach.” The authors go on to argue
al. 2017). Recent research also suggests that lands      that it is time for a new era in conservation and its
managed by Indigenous Peoples—which often                relationship with technology, defined by leadership
include “rangers” appointed by and accountable           and innovation driven by frontline practitioners.
to their local community (e.g., see Muntifering          The Universal Ranger Support Alliance (URSA)1—a
2019)—may support even greater levels of                 group of international conservation organizations
biodiversity than formal protected areas (Schuster       that have come together to address the issues and
et al. 2019). Often, however, these frontline            obstacles faced by rangers around the world—has
practitioners are asked to do the impossible:            the unique capacity to leverage its partners and the
protect large swathes of land or sea with limited        global ranger community to drive this new era of
resources, support, infrastructure, capacity, and        conservation technology. There are already several
training (Leverington et al. 2010; Belecky et al.        organizations and initiatives in the vanguard of
2019; Coad et al. 2019). Technology and innovation       this effort driving bottom-up innovation and
have the capacity to revolutionize the way rangers       developing technologies and communities of
operate and lead to significantly enhanced wildlife      practice to not just meet the needs of the frontline
protection and conservation outcomes. When               conservationists, but to do so at scale. These
applied effectively, technology can empower              organizations (e.g., the SMART (Spatial Monitoring
practitioners by providing critical tools to             and Reporting Tool) Partnership,2 Cybertracker,3
augment and streamline data collection, optimize         WILDLABS,4 Open Acoustic Devices,5 FieldKit,6
operational processes, enhance management                Arribada,7 Open Data Kit,8 Global Forest Watch,9
decisionmaking, and, importantly, reduce risk to         Global Fishing Watch,10 and more) can offer key
and improve the safety of those in the field.            lessons and provide a foundation from which URSA
                                                         can build its strategy to support the technology
As with the general challenges faced by rangers,         needs of rangers globally.
the conditions enabling technology to be
effective are often missing, and “technological          Here we detail the general state of conservation
solutionism” (Morozov 2013) is common across             technology in the ranger context and provide
conservation—new “silver bullets” arising regularly      a series of recommendations to help meet the
that purport to be able to solve complex problems        technology needs of rangers around the world.
with innovative new techniques or tools. New             Given the broad range of technologies available
technologies are also often presented in isolation,      to practitioners and the pace with which they are
developed outside the context of conservation            continuously updated, released, or deprecated (i.e.,
(Berger-Tal and Lahoz-Monfort 2018), have limited        made obsolete), these recommendations do not
ability to deploy at scale, are resource-intensive,      focus on specific technologies. Rather, we propose
or are provided with limited support. In order for       actions and areas that URSA should explore,
technology to have the impact on rangers seen in         evaluate, and prioritize to build capacity and
other sectors around the world, we need to ensure        adoption of technology in the field and that more
that it is recognized, from the frontlines through to    effectively supports ranger work.
key decisionmakers, as a force multiplier. This can
occur only if it is fit for purpose, accessible, cost-   We recognize that these recommendations
effective, and supportive of rangers’ needs.             constitute an ambitious vision that cannot be
                                                         delivered by URSA in isolation. Many of the issues
Berger-Tal and Lahoz-Monfort (2018) detail               identified below are not limited to rangers: they

                                                                                                 PSF 37/1 | 2021   430
Rangers documenting gorillas |   CREDIT NEEDED

are common across conservation technology (e.g.,        priority, then establishing and institutionalizing
WILDLABS 2018), and many groups are already             processes, and then implementing the appropriate
investing significant effort to address them. Where     technology.
possible, URSA should support delivery on these
recommendations by leveraging existing efforts          Recommended actions:
and influencing their focus to ensure the ranger        • Establish a common understanding of what
perspective is represented.                                “technology” is and is not, and what it means
                                                           for the ranger profession (and those who
Recommendations                                            manage rangers and/or protected areas). We
1. Demystifying technology and clarifying what it can      should advocate that:
and cannot do                                              o Technology is software and/or hardware
Widespread access to technology is not assured                  (either singly or as a suite) that can provide
around the world (Pew Research Center 2015,                     efficiencies or benefits that would not
2019; ‘Utoikamanu 2018), so basic understanding                 otherwise be possible.
of technology may be limited in some contexts.             o Technology is just a tool, and like all tools,
This lack of familiarity with technology can lead               it is ineffective if not appropriate for the
to misconceptions and confusion. In setting the                 specific situation or if used inappropriately.
context for technology, URSA should emphasize              o Technology is additive or complementary
that people implement processes efficiently using               to ranger work.
technology, and that these things matter in that           o Technology should be friendly to use and
order: building capacity in people is the highest               facilitate processes of ranger work.

                                                                                                       PSF 37/1 | 2021          431
•   Technology is not a replacement for                    approach in the first place. Instituting wholesale
    rangers or their traditional field skills, nor         changes to operations or existing technology
    is it a replacement for adequate resourcing            can require substantial effort and resources. It
    elsewhere. Prioritizing technology over                should be clear that the benefits of such changes,
    meeting basic ranger needs will undermine              and associated near- and long-term costs, make
    attempts to implement technology and limit             sense in terms of the overall benefit to operational
    ranger effectiveness. Funding agencies,                effectiveness.
    governments, and protected area authorities
    should not invest in development of                    Recommended actions:
    technology or its implementation at the                • Building on the recent Global Ranger Survey
    expense of the basic necessities of ranger work           (Belecky et al. 2019), conduct another to
    (e.g., uniforms, boots, basic communication               develop guidance and prioritize technology
    and navigation technologies; Belecky et al.               development to meet ranger needs.
    2019) or ensuring adequate staffing. The                  o Or, alternatively, leverage existing surveys
    enabling conditions for technology to be                      on conservation technology (e.g., the
    successful (e.g., basic training of rangers in                annual SMART user survey or WILDLABS
    technology, appropriate infrastructure, defined               annual survey) and encourage increased
    standard operating procedures, etc.) must also                ranger participation. Ranger responses
    be in place.                                                  could then be sectioned out to inform
•   Promote the understanding that for technology                 guidance and development.
    to be effectively used at sites, rangers and              o This survey should include an examination
    management staff need to be trained (both                     of existing curricula for technology
    initially and on an ongoing basis) and                        training, with the goal of including
    supported with frameworks that promote                        necessary basic skills, as well as regionally
    adoption and continued use (see point 5), as                  specific technology needs at the right levels
    well as adherence to best practices.                          (see point 5).
    o Ongoing training is particularly critical,           • Develop global guidelines for rangers or sites
          as well as the need for “training of                that are considering adopting technology,
          trainers” to ensure knowledge of the use            emphasizing these points:
          of technologies is retained in the event of         o Implementing technology well requires
          staff changeovers or redeployment.                      being highly selective, especially given
•   Promote understanding among developers                        limited budgets and having to justify
    about suitable user interface (UI) and user                   expenditures to donors and governments.
    experience (UX) design, as well as field                  o Selecting the right technologies will mean
    conditions that need to be considered.                        making strategic choices, weighing costs
•   Encourage research that expands knowledge                     (both initial and long term) against returns
    of how rangers adopt (or resist) technology                   and outcomes, continually evaluating
    (e.g., Sintov et al. 2019). Also encourage better             decisions as technologies change, and
    communication between researchers and                         staying focused on achieving specific
    rangers to ensure research development meets                  goals. Sites should be guided to pursue
    the needs on the frontline (see also point 6).                technology that meets these needs in
                                                                  the simplest, most effective, and most
2. Connecting the right technology with the right people          sustainable manner possible.
and places                                                 • This “tech readiness” guidance should
With the range of options available, it can be                specifically emphasize the following
complicated for conservation practitioners to                 considerations:
choose what will best meet their needs, or whether            ɐ Before anything else, are the basic
adopting technology to solve a problem is the right               necessities of ranger work being met, such

                                                                                                   PSF 37/1 | 2021   432
that the implementation of the technology                from the “buyer” factored into your
    does not detract from them?                              decision to opt for a technology?
ɐ   What are your goals and objectives? Why is           ɐ Is there a framework for feeding back
    technology the best way to achieve these?                performance reviews and experiences to
    Does the technology meet a clear and                     the organization?
    specific need?                                       ɐ Who will host and store the data associated
ɐ   What is the objective or necessary                       with the technology? Who will maintain
    outcome, and can the specific technology                 the technology? Do they have the capacity
    achieve or help you achieve it?                          to do these tasks over the long term?
ɐ   What are the most failure-prone aspects              ɐ Is staffing stable, especially for positions
    of the ranger work at your site? Will the                key to the management of the technology
    technology fall victim to this too? Can the              (i.e., is staff turnover high, and will
    technology be customized to overcome                     that lead to continual capacity losses
    this?                                                    necessitating consistent re-trainings)? How
ɐ   Is the technology robust and stable (i.e.,               will technology be maintained if there is
    not experimental) for use in real-world                  staff turnover?
    scenarios?                                       •   Establish working groups and communities
ɐ   Is the technology adaptable to and usable            of practice around specific technologies (e.g.,
    within your local conditions (e.g., mobile           camera trapping) to provide “getting started”
    network coverage, etc.)?                             guidance on different technologies and their
ɐ   Will the technology be supported— or                 applications for to ranger work, as well as other
    even exist—in five years’ time?                      professional advice.
ɐ   Will the technology align and integrate
    with other technologies and practices at         3. Focusing technology development and investment on
    the site, especially those that are working      substantive improvements and support to rangers
    well? Does it duplicate them?
ɐ   Is the technology cost-effective to              Recommended actions:
    implement relative to other approaches           • Prioritize adoption and expansion of
    (being sure to consider long-term                   technologies that meet the essential functions
    maintenance and technical support in                of ranger work, such as:
    addition to initial start-up costs)? The cost       o Expanding communications networks
    of any technology will be easier to justify if          at sites and ensuring ranger access
    it increases efficiency elsewhere.                      to and capacity for navigation and
ɐ   What are the time costs for implementing                communications devices that are
    the technology, both initially (i.e., getting           appropriate for the local context (Belecky
    up and running technically, training staff)             et al. 2019)
    and long term (i.e., continued (re)training,        o Expanding access to basic technologies,
    maintenance, and troubleshooting)?                      such as computers and GPS-enabled
ɐ   Is there a long-term commitment to                      smartphones
    implement the technology and adapt to               o Expanding access to and capacity for
    its use, throughout the organization’s                  technology related to monitoring of
    structure (e.g., from rangers through to                biodiversity values, threats, and responses
    managers)?                                              (e.g., SMART, CyberTracker, camera traps,
ɐ   Who purchases technology for you—                       etc.)
    is it management, an external non-                  o To the extent possible, increasing access to
    governmental organization (NGO), private                and stability of internet connectivity at the
    individuals, or someone else? Are long-                 lowest cost possible.
    term costs and sustainability of funding         • Evaluate existing partnerships, technologies,

                                                                                             PSF 37/1 | 2021   433
and ranger needs (e.g., see point 2 above on                       (i.e., the Global Register of Competencies for
    ranger surveys) to identify which technologies                     Protected Area Practitioners; Appleton 2016),
    have a high potential to improve and benefit                       there are substantial inadequacies in the level of
    ranger work, as well as where URSA has the                         basic training in all subject areas for new rangers
    most potential to exert influence. Where these                     globally, as well as a lack of regular continuing
    overlap, URSA should push for these specific                       education for rangers (Belecky et al. 2019).
    developments (e.g., listing the top ten things                     Particularly in the technology space, appropriate
    rangers need from a given technology).                             training and support will benefit adoption and
                                                                       effective use of technology (Sintov et al. 2019),
4. Building technology competence and capacity in                      as well as improve ranger job satisfaction and
rangers                                                                engagement (Moreto et al. 2016). URSA should
For technology to be used appropriately                                encourage the conservation community (NGOs,
and effectively, rangers and other frontline                           governments, funders, etc.) to expand and enhance
practitioners, as well as decisionmakers above                         rangers’ access to technology and basic computer/
them, need the capacity to interact with technology                    device proficiency, as such skills are increasingly
confidently. This begins with ready access to, and                     essential to their work and effective protected area
familiarity with, basic technology to support ranger                   management in general.
work, including computers, office productivity
software, and the internet. However, access to                         Recommended actions:
technology is often approached as ticking a box—                       • Promote an approach to and culture of
e.g., a computer has been delivered to the site and                       technology use that transforms ranger work,
configured, but no training provided for its use.                         similar to how the use of office productivity
Despite the existence of competence standards                             software (e.g., Microsoft Office11) has become
                                                                          routine.
                                                                          o Technology should be viewed as “a part of
                          Brazilian ranger |   OSVALDO GAJARDO / WWF           the trade” rather than a “shiny object” that
                                                                               is implemented opportunistically or forced
                                                                               on rangers by an external organization or
                                                                               superiors. This means it should be factored
                                                                               into ranger training curricula (see point 5).
                                                                          o Local conservation technology clubs that
                                                                               have developed digital literacy classes (e.g.,
                                                                               Arribada Club12) could be utilized here, or
                                                                               their model replicated, to target education
                                                                               for rangers to use mobile apps and devices
                                                                               and other technology tools.
                                                                          o Technical capacity should be emphasized
                                                                               as a key skill in modern ranger work, and
                                                                               should be included in communications
                                                                               about professionalization and professional
                                                                               development
                                                                       • Encourage and embrace alternative methods
                                                                          and technologies for building ranger capacity,
                                                                          such as communities of practice (e.g., see
                                                                          below point), online learning, exchanges, etc.
                                                                       • Encourage the development of competencies
                                                                          for the application of specific technologies
                                                                          (e.g., SMART) to ranger work and advocate for

                                                                                                                PSF 37/1 | 2021   434
their inclusion in ranger training programs.       For many rangers, reliable internet access is
•   Research the range of available opportunities      a problem (Pew Research Center 2015, 2019;
    and training related to technologies through       ‘Utoikamanu 2018). While URSA may have
    existing sources (e.g., NGOs, IGOs or private      limited ability to influence this, connectivity and
    companies) and encourage providers to fill the     smartphone usage are growing rapidly around the
    gaps (e.g., see point 6).                          world (Pew Research Center 2019).
    o URSA should also consider developing,
        offering and driving opportunities for         Recommended actions:
        training to fill identified gaps.              • Enable the development of a global ranger
•   Provide an accreditation service for technology       social media community, either through an
    trainings and qualifications.                         existing social platform or, potentially, one
•   Explore offering technology awards, grants,           specific to the profession (e.g., the nascent
    and/or support for rangers, to include funding,       Force for Nature14 app).
    training and/or professional mentoring.               o If necessary, URSA should manage and
    o The technology sector could be engaged as               support the infrastructure in order to
        leaders and/or providers of these awards              help the community of practice reach its
        (e.g. akin to Whitley Awards13) (e.g., see            potential.
        point 6).                                         o As most rangers will have limited capacity
                                                              to engage in an “international language,”
5. Fostering greater community building and creating          communities will likely need to be built
opportunities around technologies                             around common interests and languages,
Building a strong and supportive culture and                  supported by careful research.
community of practice around ranger work and           • Support the enhancement, expansion, and
technology can engage rangers, allow them to make         curation of existing platforms for technology
connections despite being spread out in remote            exchange (e.g., WILDLABS) to more
locations around the world, and provide a forum           specifically engage the ranger community and
for knowledge exchange. A more engaged ranger             to provide a non-intimidating entryway to
community is more likely to result in desirable           those considering technology.
learning outcomes (Carini et al. 2006) and               o By doing so, URSA could provide an
technology adoption (Sintov et al. 2019).                    entryway to technology for thousands of
                                                             rangers around the world, and generate
This effort needs to be twofold—technical and                a clearinghouse of data, resources, and
social—although the lines between the two                    contacts that will strengthen the ranger
are likely to blend. Existing platforms such as              community’s knowledge and experience.
WILDLABS are an excellent resource for those           • Promote and facilitate exchange programs to
seeking information on technologies and have              share knowledge and experience, as well as
the potential to accommodate much greater                 common values and standards.
engagement from practitioners around the world.
Numerous social platforms (e.g., Facebook,             6. Engaging the technology sector to innovate and
LinkedIn, WhatsApp) could be leveraged to              design technology to support rangers
provide a social media community for rangers, each     Technology companies and professionals, along
with specific pros and cons around such topics as      with funders of technology development, may
professionalism and privacy. For example, rangers      have limited understanding of the complexity of
may want to keep their work and private-life social    ranger work and the challenges associated with
accounts separate. A professional social network       implementing technology in remote, demanding,
dedicated to rangers could facilitate networking       and disconnected environments (Morozov 2013).
and serve as the foundation of the more technical      This can lead to technology that appears appealing
community of practice described above.                 to decisionmakers but may be impractical in

                                                                                               PSF 37/1 | 2021   435
the field or does not contribute to meeting key            trainings, professional mentoring (e.g., through
conservation objectives.                                   the WILDLABS Tech Hub16).

The advent of Berger-Tal and Lahoz-Monfort’s           7. Supporting technology as a complement to
(2018) “new era” in conservation, with its bottom-     traditional knowledge and skills, rather than a
up leadership and innovation, is particularly          replacement
necessary with respect to ranger work. URSA could      In this globalized world, the use of technology
facilitate bridge-building and greater collaboration   is now possible in even some of the remotest
between technology developers and rangers. Doing       locations. While this has its benefits, there is also
so can drive innovation specific to ranger work,       concern that the relationship humans have with
leading to novel applications and technologies         technology may be having an adverse impact on the
designed to meet rangers’ needs (Marvin et al.         connection we have to the natural environment.
2016; Berger-Tal and Lahoz-Monfort 2018).              Some studies of adolescents have shown that
                                                       an increase in the use of technology, namely
Recommended actions:                                   screen-based systems, correlates with a decline
• Encourage NGOs and the technology sector             in a connection to nature (Larson et al. 2018;
   to expand or develop new partnerships that          Michaelson et al. 2020). As younger generations
   factor in the goals of URSA and the Chitwan         seemingly become further disconnected from
   Declaration.15                                      nature, or rely on technology to support their
• Lobby NGOs, funders, and governments                 interest in and knowledge of nature (Kahn et
   to prioritize the expansion of access to            al. 2009), traditional skills and field knowledge
   technologies that meet the basic necessities of     that most rangers employ on a day-to-day basis
   ranger work, such as communication networks         may become increasingly diluted or lost. This
   and broadband access.                               disconnect from nature in younger generations
• Lobby the technology sector to prioritize            is likely to have far-reaching consequences for
   innovation and development of technologies          conservation beyond technology use and adoption.
   that meet the basic necessities of ranger work
   and that ensure access to low-cost technology.      Recommended actions:
• Lobby the technology sector to prioritize            • Encourage the transmission of skills from
   innovation based on the results of the URSA-           late-career or retiring rangers to early-career
   led global ranger survey on technology needs           rangers and those entering the profession.
   (see point #1 above).                               • Ensure that technologies do not supersede
• Encourage the technology sector to build a              the traditional field skills rangers require to be
   robust, common data integration platform that          effective in their role.
   will be provided and maintained free of charge      • Actively promote skills and competencies in
   to the conservation community.                         key general areas such as tracking, navigation,
   o New technologies should be compatible                and wildlife behavior, and in localized
        with the common platform to facilitate            knowledge of the environment, traditional
        access. A focus on integrated development         skills and other aspects of culture, and history.
        should allow for plug-and-play additions       • Identify and support programs that encourage
        or expansions of technologies and for             connections with nature and engagement with
        numerous technologies to all “play in the         professional rangers among younger groups
        same sandbox.”                                    from which rangers have traditionally been
• Encourage the technology sector to provide              drawn.
   more specific technology awards, grants, and
   other support for rangers, to include one or
   more of the following: innovation, funding
   (seed, start-up, project, and continuing),

                                                                                                PSF 37/1 | 2021   436
Endnotes                                               effectiveness and efficiency in protected
1.  www.ursa4rangers.org                               areas using ranger-collected monitoring data.
2.  www.smartconservationtools.org                     Conservation Letters 10: 572–580.
3.  www.cybertracker.org                               https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12288
4.  www.wildlabs.net
5.  www.openacousticdevices.info                       Gray, C.L., S.L.L. Hill, T. Newbold, L.N. Hudson, L.
6.  www.conservify.org/core-projects/fieldkit          Börger, S. Contu, A.J. Hoskins, S. Ferrier, A. Purvis,
7.  www.arribada.org                                   and J.P.W. Scharlemann. 2016. Local biodiversity
8.  www.opendatakit.org                                is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected
9.  www.globalforestwatch.org                          areas worldwide. Nature Communications 7: 12306.
10. www.globalfishingwatch.org                         https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12306
11. www.office.com
12. www.arribada.club                                  Kahn, P.H., R.L. Severson, and J.H. Ruckert. 2009.
13. www.whitleyaward.org                               The human relation with nature and technological
14. www.forcefornature.org                             nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18:
15. https://www.internationalrangers.org/wp-           37–42.
    content/uploads/Chitwan-Declaration_2019_          https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01602.x
    EN.pdf
16. www.wildlabs.net/resources/community-              Larson, L.R., R. Szczytko, E.P. Bowers, L.E.
    announcements/tech-hub-open-call-tech-end-         Stephens, K.T. Stevenson, and M.F. Floyd. 2018.
    wildlife-crime                                     Outdoor time, screen time, and connection to
                                                       nature: Troubling trends among rural youth?
References                                             Environment and Behavior 51: 966–991.
Belecky, M., R. Singh, and W. Moreto. 2019. Life on    https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518806686
the Frontline 2019: A Global Survey of the Working
Conditions of Rangers. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.        Leverington, F., K.L. Costa, H. Pavese, A. Lisle, and
                                                       M. Hockings. 2010. A global analysis of protected
Berger-Tal, O., and J.J. Lahoz-Monfort. 2018.          area management effectiveness. Environmental
Conservation technology: The next generation.          Management 46: 685–698.
Conservation Letters 11: e12458.                       https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12458
                                                       Marvin, D.C., L.P. Koh, A.J. Lynam, S. Wich, A.B.
Carini, R.M., G.D. Kuh and S.P. Klein. 2006.           Davies, R. Krishnamurthy, E. Stokes, R. Starkey,
Student engagement and student learning: Testing       and G.P. Asner. 2016. Integrating technologies for
the linkages. Research in Higher Education 47: 1–32.   scalable ecology and conservation. Global Ecology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8150-9              and Conservation 7: 262–275.
                                                       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2016.07.002
Coad, L., J.E. Watson, J. Geldmann, N.D. Burgess,
F. Leverington, M. Hockings, K. Knights, and           Michaelson, V., N. King, I. Janssen, S. Lawal, and
M. Di Marco. 2019. Widespread shortfalls in            W. Pickett. 2020. Electronic screen technology use
protected area resourcing undermine efforts to         and connection to nature in Canadian adolescents:
conserve biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the    a mixed methods study. Canadian Journal of Public
Environment 17: 259–264.                               Health 111: 502-514.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2042                       https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-019-00289-y

Critchlow, R., A.J. Plumptre, B. Alidria, M.           Millen, D.R., M.A. Fontaine, and M.J. Muller.
Nsubuga, M. Driciru, A. Rwetsiba, F. Wanyama,          2002. Understanding the benefit and costs of
and C.M. Beale. 2017. Improving law-enforcement        communities of practice. Communications of the

                                                                                                 PSF 37/1 | 2021   437
ACM 45: 69–73.                                          Schuster, R., R.R. Germain, J.R., Bennett, N.J.
https://doi.org/10.1145/505248.505276                   Reo, and P. Arcese. 2019. Vertebrate biodiversity
                                                        on indigenous-managed lands in Australia,
Moreto, W.D., A.M. Lemieux, and M.R. Nobles.            Brazil, and Canada equals that in protected areas.
2016. ‘It’s in my blood now’: The satisfaction of       Environmental Science and Policy 101: 1–6.
rangers working in Queen Elizabeth National Park,       https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.002
Uganda. Oryx 50: 655–663.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316000387               Sintov, N., V. Seyranian, and A. Lyet. 2019.
                                                        Fostering adoption of conservation technologies: A
Morozov, E., 2013. To Save Everything, Click Here:      case study with wildlife law enforcement rangers.
The Folly of Technological Solutionism. London: Allen   Oryx 53: 479–483.
Lane.                                                   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001533

Muntifering, J.R. 2019. Large-scale Rhino               ‘Utoikamanu, F. 2018. Closing the technology
Conservation in North-west Namibia. Windhoek,           gap in least developed countries. UN Chronicle.
Namibia: Venture Publications.                          https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/closing-
                                                        technology-gap-least-developed-countries
Pew Research Center. 2015. Internet seen as
positive influence on education but negative on         Watson, J.E.M., N. Dudley, D.B. Segan, and M.
morality in emerging and developing nations.            Hockings. 2014. The performance and potential of
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/03/19/          protected areas. Nature 515: 67–73.
internet-seen-as-positive-influence-on-education-       https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947
but-negative-influence-on-morality-in-emerging-
and-developing-nations                                  Wenger, E.C., and W.M. Snyder. 2000.
                                                        Communities of practice: The organizational
Pew Research Center. 2019. Smartphone ownership         frontier. Harvard Business Review.
is growing rapidly around the world, but not            https://hbr.org/2000/01/communities-of-practice-
always equally. https://www.pewresearch.org/            the-organizational-frontier
global/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-is-
growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-        WILDLABS. 2018. WILDLABS Community Survey
equally                                                 Results. Cambridge, UK: WILDLABS.

                                                                                               PSF 37/1 | 2021   438
You can also read