Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S527–S537 DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0703-3 Digital technology and human development: A charter for nature conservation Georgina Maffey, Hilary Homans, Ken Banks, Koen Arts Abstract The application of digital technology in well as the embedded use of digital technology within conservation holds much potential for advancing the others (e.g., Geographic Information Systems—GIS), is understanding of, and facilitating interaction with, the testament to this. natural world. In other sectors, digital technology has long Discussion on the use of digital technology in the con- been used to engage communities and share information. text of nature conservation (hereafter conservation) in its Human development—which holds parallels with the broadest sense1 is less developed (Arts et al. 2015a). Those nature conservation sector—has seen a proliferation of academic studies that have begun to consider the use of innovation in technological development. Throughout this digital technology in conservation have cited factors such Perspective, we consider what nature conservation can as cost (Graham et al. 2012), durability (Stevens et al. learn from the introduction of digital technology in human 2013), and data integration (Teacher et al. 2013) as key development. From this, we derive a charter to be used challenges in this area. Yet, the same studies also empha- before and throughout project development, in order to size the potential that digital technology holds to improve help reduce replication and failure of digital innovation in data collection in the field to share information and to nature conservation projects. We argue that the proposed empower local communities involved in conservation. charter will promote collaboration with the development of Domains such as health, education, and human devel- digital tools and ensure that nature conservation projects opment have embraced the notion of empowerment, and progress appropriately with the development of new digital continue to explore the use of digital technology as a technologies. facilitator of attitudinal or behavioral change—e.g., investment in telemedicine (Rosser et al. 2009). Conse- Keywords Charter of best practice Á quently, such domains can offer insight into how digital Nature conservation Á Mobile phone Á Developing world Á technology might best be used in conservation; in this Information Age Á Innovation sense, conservationists may, for instance, be able to ‘leap frog’ the development of inappropriate tools. The aim of this Perspective is to explore the potential INTRODUCTION lessons that conservationists can learn from other domains on using digital technology as a tool to meet conservation The current era in the history of humankind has been goals. Due to parallels between the conservation and described as ‘the Information Age,’ a period characterized human development domains (Adams et al. 2004;Bu¨scher by the increasing use of digital technology to mediate and Dressler 2012), we focus primarily on examples from access to, and management of, information (Mason 1986; human development, a domain that has capacity-building Castells 2010). Like many other societal domains, the characteristics (i.e., the ability of individuals and environmental sciences have embraced digital technology to manage information and enhance analytical power 1 We use the term conservation to refer to the preservation and (Stafford et al. 1994, p. 3). The establishment of sub-dis- protection of the natural world—a definition that is inclusive, not ciplines such as ecological modeling and bioinformatics, as exclusive, of human interaction (Adams 2009, p. xiv). Ó The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com www.kva.se/en 123 S528 Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S527–S537 organizations to perform functions, solve problems, and set the fact that on a day-to-day basis, conservation issues do and achieve objectives—United Nations Economic and not always have the same urgency for individuals as other Social Council 2006). We conclude with a proposed charter domains and facets of modern-day life (Jepson and Canney of best practice for the application of the lessons cited and 2003). Yet as such, technology, which is increasingly the constructive future use of digital technology in integrated into modern-day life, may provide an opportu- conservation. nity to facilitate a connection between conservation and other domains. BACKGROUND Digital connectors Three dimensions There have arguably been two key developments that have This Perspective revolves around three dimensions: digital disproportionately influenced individuals’ behaviors in the technology, human development, and conservation. While Information Age: the Internet and the mobile phone (Sch- there are parallels between human development and con- wanen and Kwan 2008). The Internet acts as a mass con- servation, it should be considered that different key drivers nector, shaping modern society in myriad ways (Castells are behind changes in each of the three dimensions. Human 2010), with implications for security, privacy, politics development is influenced by cultural, economic, envi- (Shah et al. 2005), and social justice (Jones 1997). Yet, ronmental, political, and social factors that affect people access to the Internet is not yet a global privilege. While (Malik 2014). Thus innovation in human development individuals and institutions may generally appear to be tends to focus on capacity building (United Nations Eco- better digitally connected, such connection can vary con- nomic and Social Council 2006) either to mitigate (po- siderably both across and between communities2 (Kvasny tential) threats or to improve the status quo. Because of this et al. 2006; Newman et al. 2010). trend, we consider human development as being problem According to the International Telecommunication driven. Union (ITU), in 2014 approximately 40% of the global The development of digital technology is, on the whole, population was using the Internet (ITU 2015a). In devel- market driven due to influences from the commercial sec- oped3 countries, 78 % of the population were Internet tor—e.g., competitive innovation, as companies file for users, but in developing countries this was just 32 % of the patents to protect their technological developments. How- population. The figures on Internet use contrast starkly with ever, at the interface of human and technological devel- those on mobile cellular subscriptions. Mobile cellular opment innovation often occurs through non-profit subscriptions have more than trebled globally since 2005, organizations and is problem orientated in its design. Such and it was estimated that at the end of 2014 subscriptions innovations tend to arise from an open-source approach, numbered almost 7 billion, of which 78 % (5.4 billion) which can result in further innovation in technology use by were held in developing countries. It is because of the others. Designing digital technology to address problems in continued growth of mobile phone use in the developing this way can also be influenced by the availability of world, and the majority of the examples discussed in this funding, which in turn may result in the replication of paper are centered on mobile, rather than Internet, projects that do not fully address the actual problem (cf. applications. Araral Jr 2005). Thus, while competition does exist in the At present, access to, and use of, mobile phones in many non-profit sector, it has a fundamentally different character developing countries is largely an urban phenomenon. to that in the commercial sector (Lall 1993). This, in combination with cultural factors, can result in Conservation can be thought of as mission driven or ‘usage gaps’ (Van Dijk and Hacker 2003) and leave some concern driven (Soule´ 1985; Meine et al. 2006; Mace 2014) groups without access, e.g., women, persons with disabil- with desires to protect landscapes and species that are ities, people living in poverty, and the elderly (Kvasny (potentially) threatened by anthropogenic factors. Such et al. 2006; ITU 2015b). Despite these tendencies, the motivations to conserve hold clear similarities to those that increasing availability of cheap handsets (e.g., Google’s underpin problem-driven human development, and the Android One—an affordable smartphone released in allocation of funding to support conservation projects is strongly influenced by social pressure and public policy 2 ‘Communities’ are here understood as social units in the same (Czech et al. 1998; Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006). How- geographic location, or as groups of individuals who share practices, world views, resources, beliefs, or ideals (McMillan 1996). ever, it is often more difficult to see the results of con- 3 References to developed and developing countries are used in servation efforts within the same timeframes as those of accordance with categorization under the UN M49: http://www.itu. human development projects. This may in part be due to int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/definitions/regions.aspx. Ó The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com 123 www.kva.se/en Ambio 2015, 44(Suppl. 4):S527–S537 S529 India4), pre-paid price plans, and greater network coverage For conservation projects, similar problems arise in how (Donner 2007) have provided opportunities for individuals to address evolving digital technology and its use. In and communities in developing countries to connect conservation, digital technology is not always developed