Difference between revisions of "Journal:Leveraging conservation action with open‐source hardware"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Saving and adding more.)
(Saving and adding more.)
Line 29: Line 29:


The OSH designation refers to the intellectual property, design principles, and legality of freely available hardware design files, which in their most liberal form can be used to manufacture, distribute, and sell the physically constructed product. Design files consist of circuit‐board schematics, circuit‐board layout files, and the software source code that together permit construction of a piece of electronic hardware. OSH provides transparency, allowing full public scrutiny of designs to the benefit of their scientific integrity. Open designs create freedom to customize technology for specific applications.<ref name="KlingDIY18">{{cite journal |title=DIY goes ''in vivo'' |journal=Lab Animal |author=Kling, J. |volume=47 |pages=143–46 |year=2018 |doi=10.1038/s41684-018-0066-z}}</ref> The unrestricted access of developers to user needs, and users to developer designs, facilitates rapid community prototyping, either by centrally managed revisions based on user feedback or by user modifications on original designs.<ref name="OMahonyTheGov07">{{cite journal |title=The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed? |journal=Journal of Management and Governance |author=O'Mahony, S. |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=139–50 |year=2007 |doi=10.1007/s10997-007-9024-7}}</ref> The resulting self‐made equipment enables replicable data to be gathered at a lower cost than can be achieved with commercial hardware of equivalent utility.<ref name="DrackTheImport18">{{cite journal |title=The importance of open and frugal labware |journal=Nature Electronics |author=Drack, M.; Hartmann, F.; Bauer, S. et al. |volume=1 |issue=9 |pages=484–86 |year=2018 |doi=10.1038/s41928-018-0133-x}}</ref> These benefits have enabled OSH to colonize niches in technology markets previously unreachable by models based on intellectual property.<ref name="HsingSustain18">{{cite journal |title=Sustainable Innovation for Open Hardware and Open Science – Lessons from The Hardware Hacker |journal=Journal of Open Hardware |author=Hsing, P.-Y. |volume=2 |issue=1 |page=4 |year=2018 |doi=10.5334/joh.11}}</ref>
The OSH designation refers to the intellectual property, design principles, and legality of freely available hardware design files, which in their most liberal form can be used to manufacture, distribute, and sell the physically constructed product. Design files consist of circuit‐board schematics, circuit‐board layout files, and the software source code that together permit construction of a piece of electronic hardware. OSH provides transparency, allowing full public scrutiny of designs to the benefit of their scientific integrity. Open designs create freedom to customize technology for specific applications.<ref name="KlingDIY18">{{cite journal |title=DIY goes ''in vivo'' |journal=Lab Animal |author=Kling, J. |volume=47 |pages=143–46 |year=2018 |doi=10.1038/s41684-018-0066-z}}</ref> The unrestricted access of developers to user needs, and users to developer designs, facilitates rapid community prototyping, either by centrally managed revisions based on user feedback or by user modifications on original designs.<ref name="OMahonyTheGov07">{{cite journal |title=The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed? |journal=Journal of Management and Governance |author=O'Mahony, S. |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=139–50 |year=2007 |doi=10.1007/s10997-007-9024-7}}</ref> The resulting self‐made equipment enables replicable data to be gathered at a lower cost than can be achieved with commercial hardware of equivalent utility.<ref name="DrackTheImport18">{{cite journal |title=The importance of open and frugal labware |journal=Nature Electronics |author=Drack, M.; Hartmann, F.; Bauer, S. et al. |volume=1 |issue=9 |pages=484–86 |year=2018 |doi=10.1038/s41928-018-0133-x}}</ref> These benefits have enabled OSH to colonize niches in technology markets previously unreachable by models based on intellectual property.<ref name="HsingSustain18">{{cite journal |title=Sustainable Innovation for Open Hardware and Open Science – Lessons from The Hardware Hacker |journal=Journal of Open Hardware |author=Hsing, P.-Y. |volume=2 |issue=1 |page=4 |year=2018 |doi=10.5334/joh.11}}</ref>
Many barriers still lie in the way of implementing OSH for conservation purposes. Conservation practitioners must assemble the technology manually, generally with no support other than build instructions. Organizations formed around OSH find it difficult to obtain financial resources to continue development<ref name="LiUnder18">{{cite journal |title=Understanding Value Propositions and Revenue Models in Open Source Hardware Companies |journal=Proceedings from the 2018 International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship |author=Li, Z.; Seering, W.; Wallace, D. |pages=214–23 |year=2018}}</ref>, often resulting in project termination soon after initial funds are spent.<ref name="IaconaIdent19">{{cite journal |title=Identifying technology solutions to bring conservation into the innovation era |journal=Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment |author=Iacona, G.; Ramachandra, A.; McGowan, J. et al. |volume=17 |issue=10 |pages=591–98 |year=2019 |doi=10.1002/fee.2111}}</ref> New creators inadvertently reinvent tools when the design files of previously created equipment lapse or become lost. Commercial hardware retains an advantage in this respect with the higher financial outlay paying for product delivery, guarantees, and after‐sales care.


==References==
==References==
Line 34: Line 36:


==Notes==
==Notes==
This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version—by design—lists them in order of appearance.  
This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version—by design—lists them in order of appearance. The Iacona ''et al.'' in-press article was updated with the now-published version.


<!--Place all category tags here-->
<!--Place all category tags here-->

Revision as of 23:09, 3 February 2020

Full article title Leveraging conservation action with open‐source hardware
Journal Conservation Letters
Author(s) Hill, Andrew P.; Davies, Alasdair; Prince, Peter; Snaddon, Jake L.; Doncaster, C. Patrick; Rogers, Alex
Author affiliation(s) University of Southampton, Zoological Society of London, University of Oxford
Primary contact Email: ah1u14 at soton dot ac dot uk
Year published 2019
Volume and issue 12(5)
Page(s) e12661
DOI 10.1111/conl.12661
ISSN 1755-263X
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Website https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12661
Download https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/conl.12661 (PDF)

Abstract

Data collection by conservation biologists is undergoing radical change, with researchers collaborating across disciplines to create bespoke, low‐cost monitoring equipment from open‐source hardware (OSH). Compared to commercial hardware, OSH dramatically reduces participation costs. Four barriers currently hold back its wide adoption: (1) user inexperience inhibits initial uptake; (2) complex and costly manufacturing/distribution procedures impede global dissemination; (3) lack of creator support results in lapsed projects; and (4) lack of user support degrades continued utility in the field. Here, we propose a framework to address these barriers, illustrating how OSH offers a route to rapid expansion of community‐driven conservation action.

Introduction

Conservation policy urgently needs accessible, affordable, fit‐for‐purpose tools to address unprecedented reductions in global biodiversity and rise in illegal wildlife trade (IWT).[1] National governments are now committing to the wild‐tech sector, in which open science plays a vital role. For example, the U.K. government is funding initiatives to tackle IWT using innovative open data standards.[2] In this policy perspective, we identify current barriers to the wide adoption of open‐source technology and propose a framework for addressing them.

Over the last 30 years, conservation biology has seen a shift toward data transparency with the growth of open science, including open‐access journals, websites hosting open data, software and hardware, and sharing through social media.[3] The new openness has generated a profound change in the ways that hardware and software are developed, leading to conservation biologists collaborating with engineers to create bespoke tools for their specific applications.[4][5] Readily available open‐source hardware (OSH) is increasingly used in the rapid and cheap development of deployable prototypes.[6] The fields of conservation, ecology, and environmental sciences have seen an increased uptake in OSH over the last four years, with over a hundred publications reporting on scientific tools created using open‐source microcomputers, such as the Raspberry Pi or Arduino.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]

The OSH designation refers to the intellectual property, design principles, and legality of freely available hardware design files, which in their most liberal form can be used to manufacture, distribute, and sell the physically constructed product. Design files consist of circuit‐board schematics, circuit‐board layout files, and the software source code that together permit construction of a piece of electronic hardware. OSH provides transparency, allowing full public scrutiny of designs to the benefit of their scientific integrity. Open designs create freedom to customize technology for specific applications.[14] The unrestricted access of developers to user needs, and users to developer designs, facilitates rapid community prototyping, either by centrally managed revisions based on user feedback or by user modifications on original designs.[15] The resulting self‐made equipment enables replicable data to be gathered at a lower cost than can be achieved with commercial hardware of equivalent utility.[16] These benefits have enabled OSH to colonize niches in technology markets previously unreachable by models based on intellectual property.[17]

Many barriers still lie in the way of implementing OSH for conservation purposes. Conservation practitioners must assemble the technology manually, generally with no support other than build instructions. Organizations formed around OSH find it difficult to obtain financial resources to continue development[18], often resulting in project termination soon after initial funds are spent.[19] New creators inadvertently reinvent tools when the design files of previously created equipment lapse or become lost. Commercial hardware retains an advantage in this respect with the higher financial outlay paying for product delivery, guarantees, and after‐sales care.

References

  1. ↑ The Royal Society (8 October 2018). "Illegal wildlife trade". https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/illegal-wildlife-trade/. 
  2. ↑ U.K. Government (31 January 2019). "Digital revolution to use the power of data to combat illegal wildlife trade and reduce food waste". https://www.gov.uk/government/news/digital-revolution-to-use-the-power-of-data-to-combat-illegal-wildlife-trade-and-reduce-food-waste. 
  3. ↑ Hampton, S.E.; Anderson, S.S.; Bagby, S.C. et al. (2015). "The Tao of open science for ecology". Ecosphere 6 (7): 1–13. doi:10.1890/ES14-00402.1. 
  4. ↑ Berger-Tal, O.; Lahoz-Monfort, J.J. (2018). "Conservation technology: The next generation". Conservation Letters 11 (6): e12458. doi:10.1111/conl.12458. 
  5. ↑ Kwok, R. (2017). "Field Instruments: Build it yourself". Nature 545: 253–55. doi:10.1038/nj7653-253a. 
  6. ↑ Pearce, J.M. (2014). "Laboratory equipment: Cut costs with open-source hardware". Nature 505 (7485): 618. doi:10.1038/505618d. PMID 24476879. 
  7. ↑ Ahmad, A.; Nadzri, M.M.M.; Rosli, I.M. et al. (2018). "Rapid Prototyping of Wireless Image Transmission for Wildlife (Tiger) Monitoring System - A Preliminary Study". Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering 10 (2-5): 75–79. http://journal.utem.edu.my/index.php/jtec/article/view/4354. 
  8. ↑ Nazir, S.; Newey, S.; Irvine, R.J. et al. (2017). "WiseEye: Next Generation Expandable and Programmable Camera Trap Platform for Wildlife Research". PLoS One 12 (1): e0169758. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169758. PMC PMC5226779. PMID 28076444. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5226779. 
  9. ↑ Sankupellay, M.; McLaughlin, C.; Davis, J. et al. (2016). "B4 - Brisbane Backyard Bird Box: Connecting People to the Environment". Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems: 9–12. doi:10.1145/2908805.2908808. 
  10. ↑ Soro, A.; Brereton, M.; Dema, T. et al. (2018). "The Ambient Birdhouse: An IoT Device to Discover Birds and Engage with Nature". Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 1–13. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173971. 
  11. ↑ Tan, T.F.; Teoh, S.S.; Fow, J.E. et al. (2016). "Embedded human detection system based on thermal and infrared sensors for anti-poaching application". Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Systems, Process and Control: 37–42. doi:10.1109/SPC.2016.7920700. 
  12. ↑ Maina, C.W.; Muchiri, D.; Njoroge, P. (2016). "A Bioacoustic Record of a Conservancy in the Mount Kenya Ecosystem". Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e9906. doi:10.3897/BDJ.4.e9906. 
  13. ↑ Whytock, R.C.; Christie, J. (2017). "Solo: An open source, customizable and inexpensive audio recorder for bioacoustic research". Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8 (3): 308–12. doi:10.1111/2041-210X.12678. 
  14. ↑ Kling, J. (2018). "DIY goes in vivo". Lab Animal 47: 143–46. doi:10.1038/s41684-018-0066-z. 
  15. ↑ O'Mahony, S. (2007). "The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed?". Journal of Management and Governance 11 (2): 139–50. doi:10.1007/s10997-007-9024-7. 
  16. ↑ Drack, M.; Hartmann, F.; Bauer, S. et al. (2018). "The importance of open and frugal labware". Nature Electronics 1 (9): 484–86. doi:10.1038/s41928-018-0133-x. 
  17. ↑ Hsing, P.-Y. (2018). "Sustainable Innovation for Open Hardware and Open Science – Lessons from The Hardware Hacker". Journal of Open Hardware 2 (1): 4. doi:10.5334/joh.11. 
  18. ↑ Li, Z.; Seering, W.; Wallace, D. (2018). "Understanding Value Propositions and Revenue Models in Open Source Hardware Companies". Proceedings from the 2018 International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship: 214–23. 
  19. ↑ Iacona, G.; Ramachandra, A.; McGowan, J. et al. (2019). "Identifying technology solutions to bring conservation into the innovation era". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17 (10): 591–98. doi:10.1002/fee.2111. 

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version—by design—lists them in order of appearance. The Iacona et al. in-press article was updated with the now-published version.

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open‐source_hardware&oldid=37773"