Potential of Citizen Science for Monitoring Use Impacts in a Scenario of Increasing Concessions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37002/biodiversidadebrasileira.v12i3.1935Keywords:
Participative monitoring, environmental impacts, partnerships, private sector, public participationAbstract
Tourism concessions in protected areas are intended to provide high-quality visitor experiences, bypassing problems such as the scarcity of financial resources and making long-term conservation viable. Identifying and monitoring negative impacts from use in protected areas, whether under concession or not, is essential to ensure desired environmental quality. This topic is scarcely explicit in notices for tourism concessions in Brazilian federal protected areas and, even when it appears, there is no mention of involving visitors or local communities in monitoring. Considering that this activity is generally carried out only by specialized professionals, this article seeks to present potential benefits and opportunities of citizen science for visitor impact monitoring in protected areas under concession. Literature and official documents show the importance of society's participation in visitor management, and the engagement of citizens in impact monitoring is an example of how this participation can occur. Initiatives involving citizen science in protected areas demonstrate several positive aspects, such as a greater interest of volunteers in environmental issues, an increase in the amount of available data and an optimization of time and resources. Thus, we consider promising to adopt as a guideline for concession contracts the incorporation of citizen science approach in a strategic way in visitor impact monitoring.Â
References
Aceves-Bueno, E. et al. Citizen science as an approach for overcoming insufficient monitoring and inadequate stakeholder buy-in in adaptive management: criteria and evidence. Ecosystems 18.3: 493-506, 2015.
Barnard, P.; Altwegg, R.; Ebrahim, I.; Uunderhill, L.G. Early warning systems for biodiversity in southern Africa - How much can citizen science mitigate imperfect data? Biological Conservation 208: 183-188. 2017.
Benjamins, S.; Dodd, J.; Thorburn, J.; Milway, V.A.; Campbell, R.; Bailey, D.M. Evaluating the potential of photo-identification as a monitoring tool for flapper skate (Dipturus intermedius). Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 28 (6): 1360-1373. 2018.
Bonney, R. 2007. Citizen Science at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, p. 213-229. In: Yager R. E., Falk, J. H. (eds.). Exemplary science in informal education settings: standards-based success stories. NSTA Press. 278p.
Bonney, R. et al. Citizen Science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11): 977-983, 2009.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. et al. 2013. Governance of protected areas: from understanding to action. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20. IUCN. 124p.
Boyd, S.W.; Butler, R.W. Managing ecotourism: an opportunity spectrum approach. Tourism management, 17(8): 557-566, 1996.
Brasil. 1995. Lei nº 8.987, de 13 de fevereiro de 1995. Diário Oficial da União. <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l8987cons.htm>. Acesso em 16/03/2021.
Brasil. 2000. Lei n. 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Diário Oficial da União. <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm>. Acesso em 16/03/2021.
Brasil. 2006. Diretrizes para Visitação em Unidades de Conservação. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. 61p.
Brasil. 2007. Lei nº 11.516 de 28 de agosto de 2007. Diário Oficial da União. <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2007/Lei/L11516.htm>. Acesso em 16/03/2021.
Brasil. 2011. Roteiro metodológico para manejo de impactos da visitação. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade - ICMBio. 88p.
Brasil. 2018a. Instrução Normativa n° 5, de 01 de junho de 2018. Diário Oficial da União. <https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/portarias/intrucao_normativa_5_2018.pdf> Acesso em 16/03/2021.
Brasil. 2018b. Instrução Normativa nº 9, de 13 de julho de 2018. Diário Oficial da União. <https://www.icmbio.gov.br/portal/images/stories/portarias/intrucao_normativa_9_2018.pdf>. Acesso em 16/03/2021.
Brasil. 2018c. Lei nº 13.668, de 28 de maio de 2018. Diário Oficial da União. <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/lei/L13668.htm>. Acesso em 16/03/2021.
Brasil. 2018d. Parques do Brasil: visitar é proteger! Estratégias de implementação da visitação em unidades de conservação federais: prioridades de execução 2018-2020. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade - ICMBio. 35p.
Brasil. 2020. Rol de Oportunidades de Visitação em Unidades de Conservação, 2ª Edição. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade - ICMBio. 69p.
Brasil. 2021. Lançados editais para estudos de concessão de parques nacionais. Governo do Brasil.<https://www.gov.br/pt-br/noticias/meio-ambiente-e-clima/2021/02/lancados-editais-para-estudos-de-concessao-de-parques-nacionais>. Acesso em: 23/11/2021.
Burgess, H.K. et al. The science of citizen science: exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biological Conservation, 208: 113-120, 2016.
Callaghan, C. T.; Martin, J. M.; Major, R. E.; Kingsford, R. T. Avian monitoring-comparing structured and unstructured citizen science. Wildlife Research, 45(2): 176-184, 2018
Carballo-Cárdenas, E. C.; Tobi, H. Citizen science regarding invasive lionfish in Dutch Caribbean MPAs: Drivers and barriers to participation. Ocean & Coastal Management, 133: 114-127, 2016.
Clark, R.N.; Stankey, G.H. 1979. The recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for planning, management, and research. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32p.
Cohn, J. Citizen Science: can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3): 192-197, 2008.
Conrad, C.C.; Hilchey, K.G. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176: 273-291, 2011.
Danielsen, F. et al. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology, 23(1): 31-42, 2009.
Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(11): 2507-2542, 2005.
Devictor, V.; Whittaker, R.J.; Beltrame, C. Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Diversity and Distributions, 16(3): 354-362, 2010.
Dinica, V. Tourism concessions in National Parks: neo-liberal governance experiments for a Conservation Economy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(12): 1811-1829, 2016.
Dinica, V. The environmental sustainability of protected area tourism: towards a concession-related theory of regulation. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(1): 146-164, 2018.
Eagles, P.F.J. Research priorities in park tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22(4): 528-549, 2014.
Eagles, P.F.J. et al. 2009. Guidelines for planning and management of concessions, licenses and permits for tourism in protected areas. University of Waterloo. 106p.
Eagles, P.F.J.; McCool, S.F.; Haynes, C.D.A. 2002. Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Planning and Management. IUCN. 183p.
Eagles, P.F.J; Romagosa, F.; Buteau-Duitschaever, W.C; Havitz, M.; Glover, T.D.; McCutcheon, B. Good governance in protected areas: an evaluation of stakeholders' perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario Provincial Parks. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(1): 60-79, 2013.
Eitzel, M.V. et al. Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citizen science: Theory and practice. 2(1): 1, 2017.
European Citizen Science Association. 2015. Dez princípios da ciência cidadã. <https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/ecsa_ten_principles_of_cs_portuguese.pdf>. Acesso em: 01 mar 2021.
Farhadinia, M. S. et al. Citizen science data facilitate monitoring of rare large carnivores in remote montane landscapes. Ecological Indicators, 94(1): 283-291, 2018.
Fritz, S. et al. Citizen science and the United Nations sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(10): 922-930, 2019.
Gilroy, L.; Kenny, H.; Morris, J. 2013. Parks 2.0: Operating State Parks through private partnerships. Reason Foundation. 39p.
Graham, J.; Amos, B.; Plumptre, T. 2003. Governance principles for protected areas in the 21st century. Institute on Governance, Governance Principles for Protected Areas. 40p.
Haklay, M.; Dörler, D.; Heigl, F.; Manzoni, M.; Hecker, S.; Vohland, K. 2021. What is Citizen Science? The challenges of definition, p. 13-33. In: Vohland, K. et al. (eds). The Science of Citizen Science. Springer, Cham. 529p.
Hammitt, E.; Cole, D.N.; Monz, C.A. 2015. Wildland recreation: ecology and management. 3 ed. Wiley-Blackwell. 334p.
Hockings, M.; Stolton, S.; Leverington, F.; Dudley, N.; Courrau, J. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. 2nd edition. IUCN. 105 p.
Hu, R. et al. A bird's view of new conservation hotspots in China. Biological Conservation, 211: 47-55, 2017.
Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade. 2011. Roteiro metodológico para manejo de impactos da visitação. ICMBio. 88p.
Instituto Semeia. 2019. Guia prático de parcerias em Parques. Instituto Semeia. 44p.
Instituto Semeia. 2021. Diagnóstico do Uso Público em Parques Brasileiros: A Perspectiva da Gestão. Pesquisa 2021. Instituto Semeia. 82p.
International Association for Impact Assessment. 2009. O que é a Avaliação de Impacto? IAIA Reference and Guidance Documents. <https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/What_is_IA_pt_1.pdf>. Acesso em: 14/03/2021.
Joseph, E.P.; Jackson, V.B.; Beckles, D.M.; Cox, L.; Edwards, S. A citizen science approach for monitoring volcanic emissions and promoting volcanic hazard awareness at Sulphur Springs, Saint Lucia in the Lesser Antilles arc. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 369: 50-63, 2019.
Kefalas, H.C.; Souza, F.A.Z. Navegando nos caminhos do uso público. Instituto Linha D'Água; Raiz Assessoria Socioambiental. 36 p, 2018.
Kobori, H.; Ellwood, E.R.; Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Sakurai, R. 2019. Citizen Science, p. 529-535. In: FATH, B. Encyclopedia of Ecology. 2 ed. Elsevier. 2780p.
Koss, R. S. et al. An evaluation of Sea Search as a citizen science programme in Marine Protected Areas. Pacific Conservation Biology, 15(2): 116-127, 2009.
Kullenberg, C.; Kasperowski, D. What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 11(1): e0147152, 2016.
Larson, L.R.; Conway, A.L.; Hernandez, S.M.; Carroll, J.P. Human-wildlife conflict, conservation attitudes, and a potential role for citizen science in Sierra Leone, Africa. Conservation and Society, 14(3): 205-17, 2016.
Leong, K. M.; Kyle, G. T. Engaging park stewards through biodiversity discovery: social outcomes of participation in bioblitzes. Park Science. 31(1): 106-111, 2014.
Leung, Y.F., et al. (eds.). 2018. Tourism and visitor management in protected areas: Guidelines for sustainability. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 27, IUCN. 120 p.
Leung, Y.F.; Marion, J.L. 2000. Recreational impacts in wilderness: a state of knowledge review, p. 23-48. In: Cole, D.N. et al. Wilderness science in a time of change conference - Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats and management. Proceedings. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Magro-Lindenkamp, T.C.; Passold, A.J. 2018. Coping with the effects of tourism in natural areas, p. 1-24. In: Cunha, A.A.; Magro-Lindenkamp T.C.; McCool, S.F. (eds.). Tourism and Protected Areas in Brazil: Challenges and Perspectives. Nova Science Publishers. 330 p.
Maher, M.L. et al. 2014. NatureNet: a model for crowdsourcing the design of citizen science systems, p. 201-204. In: Proceedings of the companion tion of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work & social computing.
Mamede, S.; Benites, M.; Alho, C. J. R. Ciência Cidadã e sua Contribuição na Proteção e Conservação da Biodiversidade na Reserva da Biosfera do Pantanal. Revista Brasileira de Educação Ambiental (RevBEA), v. 12, n. 4, p. 153-164, 2017.
Marion, J.L.; Leung, Y.F.; Eagleston, H.; Burroughs, K. A review and synthesis of recreation ecology research findings on visitor impacts to wilderness and protected natural areas. Journal of Forestry, 114(3): 352-362, 2016.
McKinley, D.C. et al. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biological Conservation, 208: 15-28, 2016.
Merlino, S., M.; Locritani, M.; Stroobant, E.; Mioni, D. SeaCleaner: Focusing citizen science and environment education on unraveling the marine litter problem. Marine Technology Society Journal, 49(4): 99-118, 2015.
Metzger, E.S.; Lendvay, J. M. COMMENTARY: seeking environmental justice through participation: a community-based water quality assessment in Bayview Hunters Point. Environmental Practice, 8(2): 104-114, 2006.
Moránâ€Ordóñez, A.; Canessa, S.; Bota, G.; Brotons, L.; Herrando, S.; Hermoso, V. Efficiency of species survey networks can be improved by integrating different monitoring approaches in a spatial prioritization design. Conservation Letters, 11(6): e12591, 2018.
Moyer-Horner, L.; Smith, M.M.; Belt, J. Citizen science and observer variability during American pika surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management, 76(7): 1472-1479, 2012.
Mulder, R.A.; Guay, P.J.; Wilson, M.; Coulson, G. Citizen science: recruiting residents for studies of tagged urban wildlife. Wildlife Research, 37(5): 440-446, 2010.
Observatório de Parcerias em Áreas Protegidas - OPAP. 2021. <https://www.opap.com.br/>. Acesso em: 17/03/2021.
Oxford English Dictionary. 2016. "Citizen Science". Disponível em: <https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/33513?redirectedFrom=citizen+science#eid316619123>. Acesso em: 01/03/2021.
PPI (Programa de Parcerias de Investimentos). 2021a. Concorrência para concessão dos Parques Nacionais de Aparados da Serra e da Serra Geral tem proposta vencedora com ágio de 2.750%. <https://www.ppi.gov.br/concessaoparquesnacionais>. Acesso em: 23/11/2021.
PPI (Programa de Parcerias de Investimentos). 2021b. Decreto qualifica nove Unidades de Conservação no PPI. <https://www.ppi.gov.br/decretoucs>. Acesso em: 23/11/2021.
PPI (Programa de Parcerias de Investimentos). 2021c. Projeto da nova concessão do Parque Nacional do Iguaçu é protocolado no TCU. <https://www.ppi.gov.br/protocolaiguacu>. Acesso em: 23/11/2021.
PPI (Programa de Parcerias de Investimentos). 2021d. da Resolução que recomenda qualificação no PPI de quatro Parques e a Florestal de Ipanema/SP. <https://www.ppi.gov.br/cppiparques>. Acesso em: 23/11/2021.
Rodrigues, C.G.O.; Abrucio, F.L. Parcerias e concessões para o desenvolvimento do turismo nos parques brasileiros: possibilidades e limitações de um novo modelo de governança. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo, 13:105-120, 2019.
Rodrigues, C.G.O; Abrucio, F.L. Os valores públicos e os desafios da responsabilização nas parcerias para o turismo em áreas protegidas: um ensaio teórico. Turismo - Visão e Ação, 22(1): 67-86, 2020.
Rodrigues, C.G.O.; Godoy, L.R.D.C. Atuação pública e privada na gestão de Unidades de Conservação : aspectos socioeconômicos da prestação de serviços de apoio à visitação em parques nacionais. Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente, 28: 75-88, 2013.
Septanil, M.P.B.; Ranieri, V.E.L. Ações de planejamento de concessões dos serviços de apoio à visitação em unidades de conservação federais brasileiras entre 1998 e 2018. Pesquisa Florestal Brasileira, 39: 93, 2019.
Shirk, J.L. . participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2): art. 29, 2012.
SiBBr (Sistema de Informação Sobre a Biodiversidade Brasileira). Projetos de Ciência Cidadã. <https://sibbr.gov.br/cienciacidada/projetos.html>. Acesso em: 24/11/2021.
Singh, N.J.; Danell, K.; Edenius, L.; Ericsson, G. Tackling the motivation to monitor: success and sustainability of a participatory monitoring program. Ecology and Society, 19(4): 7, 2014.
Silvertown, J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9): 467-471, 2009.
Spear, D.M.; Pauly, G.B.; Kaiser, K. Citizen science as a tool for augmenting museum collection data from urban areas. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 5: art. 86, 2017.
Spenceley, A. et al. 2015. Visitor management, p. 715-750. In: Worboys, G.L.; Lockwood, M.; Kothari, A.; Feary, S.; Pulsford, I. (eds.). Protected Area Governance and Management, ANU Press. 966p.
Spenceley, A.; Nevill, H.L.T.; Faustino-Coelho, C.M.N.; Gomes-Souto, M. 2016. An Introduction to Tourism Concessioning: 14 Characteristics of Successful Programs. World Bank. 32p.
Spenceley, A.; Snyman, S.; Eagles, P.F.J. 2017. Guidelines for tourism partnerships and concessions for protected areas: Generating sustainable revenues for conservation and development. Report to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and IUCN. 58p.
Sun, D.; Walsh, D. Review of studies on environmental impacts of recreation and tourism in Australia, Journal of Environmental Management, 53(4): 323-338, 1998.
Swann, D.E.; Springer, A.C.; O'Brien, K. Using citizen science to study saguaros and climate change at Saguaro National Park. PARKScience, 28(1): 69, 2011.
Swanson, A.; Kosmala, M.; Lintott, C.; Packer, C. A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images. Conservation Biology, 30(3): 520-531, 2016.
Thiel, M.; Penna-Díaz, M.A.; Luna-Jorquera, G.; Salas, S.; Sellanes, J.; Stotz, W. 2014. Citizen scientists and marine research: volunteer participants, their contributions, and projection for the future. p. 257-314 In: Hughes, R.N.; Hughes, D.J.; Smith, I.P. (eds.). Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review. Taylor & Francis. v. 52.
Thompson, A., Massyn, P.J., Pendry, J., Pastorelli, J. 2014. Tourism concessions in protected natural areas: guidelines for managers. United Nations Development Programme. 301p.
Trimboli, S. R. 2016. Citizen Science at Mammoth Cave National Park: Integrating Research and Education. In: Mammoth Cave Research Symposia. Paper 11.
Tulloch, A.I.T.; Mustin, K.; Possingham, H.P.; Szabo, J.K.; Wilson, K.A. To boldly go where no volunteer has gone before: predicting volunteer activity to prioritize surveys at the landscape scale. Diversity and Distributions, 19(4): 465-480, 2013.
Vann-Sander, S.; Clifton, J.; Harvey, E. Can citizen science work? Perceptions of the role and utility of citizen science in a marine policy and management context. Marine Policy, 72: 82-93, 2016.
Villaseñor, E.; Porter-Bolland, L.; Escobar, F.; Guariguata, M.R.; Moreno-Casasola, P. Characteristics of participatory monitoring projects and their relationship to decision-making in biological resource management: a review. Biodiversity and conservation, 25(11): 2001-2019, 2016.
United Nations Environmental Programme. 2019. Global Environment Outlook - GEO-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. UNEP. 708p.
Wagar, J.A. 1963. Campgrounds for many tastes. Intermountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture. 10p.
Wyman, M.; Barborak, J.R.; Inamdar, N.; Stein, T. Best practices for tourism concessions in protected areas: a review of the field. Forests, 2(4): 913-928, 2011.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Biodiversidade Brasileira - BioBrasil
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.
