@article{SchmiedelArayaBortolottoetal.2016, author = {Schmiedel, Ute and Araya, Yoseph and Bortolotto, Maria Ieda and Boeckenhoff, Linda and Hallwachs, Winnie and Janzen, Daniel and Kolipaka, Shekhar S. and Novotny, Vojtech and Palm, Matilda and Parfondry, Marc and Smanis, Athanasios and Toko, Pagi}, title = {Contributions of paraecologists and parataxonomists to research, conservation, and social development}, series = {Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology}, volume = {30}, journal = {Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology}, publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0888-8892}, doi = {10.1111/cobi.12661}, pages = {506 -- 519}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Citizen science has been gaining momentum in the United States and Europe, where citizens are literate and often interested in science. However, in developing countries, which have a dire need for environmental data, such programs are slow to emerge, despite the large and untapped human resources in close proximity to areas of high biodiversity and poorly known floras and faunas. Thus, we propose that the parataxonomist and paraecologist approach, which originates from citizen-based science, is well suited to rural areas in developing countries. Being a paraecologist or a parataxonomist is a vocation and entails full-time employment underpinned by extensive training, whereas citizen science involves the temporary engagement of volunteers. Both approaches have their merits depending on the context and objectives of the research. We examined 4 ongoing paraecologist or parataxonomist programs in Costa Rica, India, Papua New Guinea, and southern Africa and compared their origins, long-term objectives, implementation strategies, activities, key challenges, achievements, and implications for resident communities. The programs supported ongoing research on biodiversity assessment, monitoring, and management, and participants engaged in non-academic capacity development in these fields. The programs in Southern Africa related to specific projects, whereas the programs in Costa Rica, India, and Papua New Guinea were designed for the long term, provided sufficient funding was available. The main focus of the paraecologists' and parataxonomists' activities ranged from collection and processing of specimens (Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea) or of socioeconomic and natural science data (India and Southern Africa) to communication between scientists and residents (India and Southern Africa). As members of both the local land user and research communities, paraecologists and parataxonomists can greatly improve the flow of biodiversity information to all users, from local stakeholders to international academia.}, language = {en} } @article{SchoonoverGretRegameyMetzgeretal.2019, author = {Schoonover, Heather A. and Gret-Regamey, Adrienne and Metzger, Marc J. and Ruiz-Frau, Ana and Santos-Reis, Margarida and Scholte, Samantha S. K. and Walz, Ariane and Nicholas, Kimberly A.}, title = {Creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust}, series = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability}, volume = {24}, journal = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability}, number = {1}, publisher = {Resilience Alliance}, address = {Wolfville}, issn = {1708-3087}, doi = {10.5751/ES-10061-240111}, pages = {13}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Ecosystem services inherently involve people, whose values help define the benefits of nature's services. It is thus important for researchers to involve stakeholders in ecosystem services research. However, a simple and practicable framework to guide such engagement, and in particular to help researchers anticipate and consider key issues and challenges, has not been well explored. Here, we use experience from the 12 case studies in the European Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications (OPERAs) project to propose a stakeholder engagement framework comprising three key elements: creating space, aligning motivations, and building trust. We argue that involving stakeholders in research demands thoughtful reflection from the researchers about what kind of space they want to create, including if and how they want to bring different interests together, how much space they want to allow for critical discussion, and whether there is a role for particular stakeholders to serve as conduits between others. In addition, understanding their own motivations—including values, knowledge, goals, and desired benefits—will help researchers decide when and how to involve stakeholders, identify areas of common ground and potential disagreement, frame the project appropriately, set expectations, and ensure each party is able to see benefits of engaging with each other. Finally, building relationships with stakeholders can be difficult but considering the roles of existing relationships, time, approach, reputation, and belonging can help build mutual trust. Although the three key elements and the paths between them can play out differently depending on the particular research project, we suggest that a research design that considers how to create the space in which researchers and stakeholders will meet, align motivations between researchers and stakeholders, and build mutual trust will help foster productive researcher-stakeholder relationships.}, language = {en} } @article{BustamanteDuarteBrendelDegbeloetal.2018, author = {Bustamante Duarte, Ana Maria and Brendel, Nina and Degbelo, Auriol and Kray, Christian}, title = {Participatory design and participatory research}, series = {ACM transactions on computer human interaction : TOCHI / Association for Computing Machinery}, volume = {25}, journal = {ACM transactions on computer human interaction : TOCHI / Association for Computing Machinery}, number = {1}, publisher = {Association for Computing Machinery}, address = {New York}, issn = {1073-0516}, doi = {10.1145/3145472}, pages = {1 -- 39}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Participatory design (PD) in HCI has been successfully applied to vulnerable groups, but further research is still needed on forced migrants. We report on a month-long case study with a group of about 25 young forced migrants (YFMs), where we applied and adapted strategies from PD and participatory research (PR). We gained insights into the benefits and drawbacks of combining PD and PR concepts in this particular scenario. The PD+PR approach supported intercultural collaborations between YFMs and young members of the host community. It also enabled communication across language barriers by using visual and "didactic reduction" resources. On a theoretical level, the experiences we gained allowed us to reflect on the role of "safe spaces" for participation and the need for further discussing it in PD. Our results can benefit researchers who take part in technology-related participatory processes with YFMs.}, language = {en} } @article{ReinhardtLierschAbdeladhimetal.2018, author = {Reinhardt, Julia and Liersch, Stefan and Abdeladhim, Mohamed Arbi and Diallo, Mori and Dickens, Chris and Fournet, Samuel and Hattermann, Fred and Kabaseke, Clovis and Muhumuza, Moses and Mul, Marloes L. and Pilz, Tobias and Otto, Ilona M. and Walz, Ariane}, title = {Systematic evaluation of scenario assessments supporting sustainable integrated natural resources management}, series = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability}, volume = {23}, journal = {Ecology and society : a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability}, number = {1}, publisher = {Resilience Alliance}, address = {Wolfville}, issn = {1708-3087}, doi = {10.5751/ES-09728-230105}, pages = {34}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Scenarios have become a key tool for supporting sustainability research on regional and global change. In this study we evaluate four regional scenario assessments: first, to explore a number of research challenges related to sustainability science and, second, to contribute to sustainability research in the specific case studies. The four case studies used commonly applied scenario approaches that are (i) a story and simulation approach with stakeholder participation in the Oum Zessar watershed, Tunisia, (ii) a participatory scenario exploration in the Rwenzori region, Uganda, (iii) a model-based prepolicy study in the Inner Niger Delta, Mali, and (iv) a model coupling-based scenario analysis in upper Thukela basin, South Africa. The scenario assessments are evaluated against a set of known challenges in sustainability science, with each challenge represented by two indicators, complemented by a survey carried out on the perception of the scenario assessments within the case study regions. The results show that all types of scenario assessments address many sustainability challenges, but that the more complex ones based on story and simulation and model coupling are the most comprehensive. The study highlights the need to investigate abrupt system changes as well as governmental and political factors as important sources of uncertainty. For an in-depth analysis of these issues, the use of qualitative approaches and an active engagement of local stakeholders are suggested. Studying ecological thresholds for the regional scale is recommended to support research on regional sustainability. The evaluation of the scenario processes and outcomes by local researchers indicates the most transparent scenario assessments as the most useful. Focused, straightforward, yet iterative scenario assessments can be very relevant by contributing information to selected sustainability problems.}, language = {en} }