Ciência cidadã extrema: Uma nova abordagem
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v6i1.529Keywords:
Citizen Science, community monitoring, traditional peoples and communitiesAbstract
Biodiversity conservation is an issue of central concern worldwide. In the last decades,
thousands of protected areas were created to secure the preservation of the planet's biodiversity. A large
number of protected areas are inhabited by people who rely on the use of natural resources not only for
their livelihoods, but also for their social and cultural reproduction. In many cases, local populations have
been directly responsible for sustainably managing these complex ecosystems for centuries. Citizen Science
initiatives - understood as the participation of amateurs, volunteers and enthusiasts in scientific projects
- have engaged people in scientific production and environmental monitoring projects, but have usually
limited their participation to data collection and are normally placed in affluent places, excluding people
with low or no literacy and who live in remote areas. Traditional peoples and communities have an extensive
knowledge of the natural aspects of the areas they permanently inhabit, which can be very beneficial forsuccessful biodiversity management and monitoring. Therefore, when it comes to biodiversity monitoring in
protected areas inhabited by people, their engagement in initiatives is key, and can lead to a win-win scenario.
The Extreme Citizen Science (ExCiteS) is an interdisciplinary research group that was created in 2011 at
University College London to advance the current mode of Citizen Science, and it seeks to push beyond the
edges of current Citizen Science practice. The idea is to allow any community, anywhere in the world - from
marginalised groups living in urban areas to hunter gatherers in the rainforest - to start a Citizen Science
project that will deal with the issues that concern them. This article will outline the various aspects that make
Citizen Science "extreme" in the work of ExCiteS, by looking at its theories, methods and tools, and will
present the current case studies around the world involving traditional communities. Finally, it will highlight
the main concern of the group, which is making participation truly effective, and will suggest how biodiversity monitoring initiatives can be carried out in collaborative ways which benefit everyone involved.
References
Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27 (4): 629-649.
Albrecht, M. & Davies, C. 2010. Application planning, 127-143. In: Haklay, M.Interacting with Geospatial Technologies. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 310p.
Brasil, 1967. Decreto n° 6.040, de 7 de fevereiro de 2007. Institui a Política Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentável dos Povos e Comunidades Tradicionais. Diário Oficial da União. (Acesso em 14/11/2014).
Brosius, P. 2004. Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas at the World Park Congress. Conservation Biology, 18 (3): 609-612. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.01834.x/abstract.
Cleaver, F. 2001. Limitations of participatory approaches, cap.3. In: Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. Participation: the new tyranny?. Zed Books. 224p.
Conquest, G. 2012. Dodging Silver Bullets: Opportunities and Challenges for an "Extreme Citizen Science" Approach to Forest Management in the Republic of the Congo. Dissertação (MSc in Anthropology, Environment and Development). University College London. 80p.
Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. 2001. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books. 224p.
Danielsen, F.; Jensen, P.M.; Burgess, N.D.; Altamirano, R. et al. 2014. A Multicountry Assessment of Tropical Resource Monitoring by Local Communities. BioScience, 64 (30): 236-251.
Francis, P. 2001. Participatory Development at the World Bank, cap 5. In: Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books. 224p.
Hailey, J. 2001. Beyond the Formulaic: South Asian NGO's, cap.6. In: Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books. 224p.
Haklay, M. 2013. Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: overview and typology of participation, p.105-122. In: Sui, D.; Elwood, S. & Goodchild, M. Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice. Springer. 410p.
Heeks, R. 2009. The ICT4D 2.0 Manifesto: Where Next for ICTs and International Development? Development Informatics Working Paper Series, 42. 33p.
Henkel, H. & Stirrat, R. 2011. Participation as a Spiritual Duty, cap. 11. In: Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books. 224p.
Hildyard, N. et al. 2001. Pluralism, Participation and Power, cap. 4. In: Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books, 224p.
Kothari, U. 2001. Power, Knowledge and Social Control, cap. 9. In: Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books, 224p.
Lauer, M. & Aswani, S. 2010. Indigenous knowledge and long-term ecological change: detection, interpretation, and responses to changing ecological conditions in Pacific Island communities. Environmental Management, 45 (5): 985-997.
Lertzman, D. & Vredenburg, H. 2005. Indigenous Peoples, Resource Extraction and Sustainable Development: An Ethical Approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 56 (3): 239-254.
Lewis, J. & Nelson, J. 2006. Logging in the Congo Basin. What hope for indigenous peoples' resources, and their environments? Indigenous affairs: 1-8.
Lewis, J. 2009. Making the invisible visible: designing technology for non-literate hunter-gatherers. In: Leach, J. & Wilson, L. (eds.) Subversion, Conversion, Development: Involvements with Information and Communication Technologies. MA: MIT Press Infrastructures Series.
Lewis, J. & Nkuintchua, T. 2012. Accessible Technologies and FPIC: Independent monitoring with forest communities in Cameroon. Participatory Learning and Action, 65: 151-165.
Lewis, J. 2012. Technological Leap-frogging in the Congo Basin, Pygmies and Global Positioning Systems in Central Africa: What has happened and where is it going? African study monographs, 43: 15-44. Disponível em: http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/handle/2433/153065. (Acesso em 14/11/2014).
Stevens, M.; Vitos, M.; Altenbuchner, J.; Conquest, G.; Lewis, J. & Haklay, M. 2014. Taking Participatory Citizen Science to Extremes. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 13 (2): 20-29.
Taylor, H. 2001. Insights from Management and Labour Process Perspectives, cap. 8. In: Cooke, B & Kothari, U. Participation: the new tyranny? Zed Books. 224p. Thompson, M. 2007. ICT and development studies: Towards development 2.0. Journal of International Development, 20: 821-835.
Traynor, C. & Williams, M.G. 1995. Why are geographic information systems hard to use? In: Conference companion on human factors in computing systems, p. 288-289.
Unwin, T. 2009. ICT4D: Information and Communication Technology for Development. Cambridge University Press. 404p.
Vitos, M.; Lewis, J.; Stevens, M. & Haklay, M. 2013. Making local knowledge matter: supporting nonliterate people to monitor poaching in Congo. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Symposium on Computing for Development. art. 1. New York: ACM.
West, P.; Igoe, J. & Brockington, D. 2006. Parks and People: the social impact of protected areas. The Annual Review of Anthropology. Junho, 5: 251-277.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Biodiversidade Brasileira - BioBrasil
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Os artigos estão licenciados sob uma licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). O acesso é livre e gratuito para download e leitura, ou seja, é permitido copiar e redistribuir o material em qualquer mídia ou formato.