Linking with Nature in the Digital Age E-Book
142,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
The use of digital technology in our societies is growing to meet the ever-increasing challenges of data collection, raising awareness, education and understanding nature. Artificial intelligence, for example, appears to be the answer to collecting massive amounts of data on biodiversity at a global scale and facilitating citizen participation in such data collection. Linking with Nature in the Digital Age explores the reconfiguration of our relationship with nature within this digital framework. This book examines this mediated linking from three angles. Firstly, it shows how digital technology can foster the development of links to nature. Then, it describes in greater detail the materiality of these links and how they have evolved with the developments in information technology. Finally, it questions the belief in the digital as a facilitator and opens up new perspectives on our relationship with nature and the living world
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 378
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2024
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Choosing the notion of linking to talk about nature and digital technology
The peculiarities of the “link”: semantic duality
Why choose to question the link?
Extension; materiality and structure; gain or loss: questioning links to nature in the digital age
References
PART 1: Extending Links through Digital Devices
1 Benchmarks: Biodiversity, Participation and Digital Technology
1.1. 20th century: the pioneers
1.2. 2000–2009: obtaining reliable data accessible to all
1.3. 2010–2014: technological acceleration and international expansion via global observation programs
1.4. 2015–2022: optimized exploitation of big data by the scientific community versus hijacking of observation devices by the “general public”
1.5. Conclusion
1.6. References
2 The Documentary Links of Herbarium Collections and Their Communicative Stakes
2.1. Introduction
2.2. The constructive documentary and social links of herbaria
2.3. Databases as vectors of new documentary, social and symbolic links
2.4. The new sociabilities of Internet users enriching herbarium data
2.5. Conclusion
2.6. References
3 Investigating the Relationship with Nature in the Animation of Wineries’ Facebook Pages
3.1. Ethnographic analysis of the Facebook pages of the Pic Saint-Loup estates
3.2. Standardization of publishing on Facebook
3.3. Cross-sectional analysis of actants related to nature
3.4. Diversity of relationships with nature, valuation principles and underlying values
3.5. Conclusion
3.6. References
4 Forms of Linking with Nature and with Others through a Digital Device: “Let Them Know and Participate”
4.1. The presupposition of digital technology as a link-builder: the Nature-Isère project
4.2. Analysis of the system: creating links through digital technology?
4.3. Institutions, representations and digital technology: the limiting link
4.4. Conclusion
4.5. References
PART 2: Link Materiality and Structure: Generating Data on Nature
5 Explainable Artificial Intelligence for a Better Understanding of Naturalist Data
5.1. The need for explainable artificial intelligence for naturalist data
5.2. Artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning definitions and challenges
5.3. Explainable AI: general presentation
5.4. Explainable AI for naturalist data: concrete examples
5.5. Discussion: XAI to empower everyone in the field of naturalist data
5.6. References
6 Pooling Biodiversity Databases: Linking Data, Linking Actors
6.1. Database developments in the field of biodiversity
6.2. Linking actors in order to link data
6.3. Conclusion
6.4. References
7 The Challenges and Implementation of the LPO Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes Naturalist Information System
7.1. The evolution of naturalist data management
7.2. Functions of the naturalist information system
7.3. Conclusion
7.4. References
PART 3: Gains and Losses: Questioning the Link to Nature
8 Complementarity of Big Data and Citizen Participation in Monitoring Plant Biodiversity
8.1. Introduction
8.2. The Pl@ntNet platform
8.3. Diversity of uses and implications
8.4. Discussion
8.5. Conclusion
8.6. References
9 New Automatic Identification Tools: An Aid for Botanists and Nature Managers?
9.1. Introduction
9.2. Interviews and testimonials
9.3. Discussion
9.4. Conclusion
9.5. References
10 The Contribution of New Technologies to Our Experiences of Nature
10.1. Introduction
10.2. From embodied experience to techno-mediated experience
10.3. The smartphone, a multifaceted mediator of our experiences of nature
10.4. Virtualized experiences of nature, from social networks to video games
10.5. What can be done with these experiences?
10.6. References
11 Belonging to the World to Think of the Link: The Relationship with the Natural Environment as a Crucible of Relatedness
11.1. Introduction
11.2. Activities, environment and relationship to self
11.3. Collaboration and relationships with others
11.4. Experiences of connection and relationships with the world
11.5. Relatedness, the link between links?
11.6. Openness: the missing link
11.7. References
Conclusion
Digital, natural… and social
The digital, the link… and the liana
References
List of Authors
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Science, Society and New Technologies
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1. Natural science: the long journey of the amateur. Émilie Kohlmann ...
Figure 1.2. Summary of data collected to establish four main periods
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1. Updating herbarium plate labels to link collections. Julie Polge (...
Figure 2.2. Herbarium plate from the Lyon Botanical Garden
3
Figure 2.3. Interface for consulting a digitized specimen stored in the Recoln...
Figure 2.4. Screenshot of the online laboratory prototype behind the Annotate ...
Figure 2.5. Screenshot of the online laboratory prototype behind the Annotate ...
Figure 2.6. Web page devoted to a specimen on the Les Herbonautes site, summar...
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1. Pic Saint-Loup winegrowers create their winery’s Facebook page. © ...
Chapter 4
Figure 4.1. What does digital technology change for biodiversity observation a...
Figure 4.2. Content of the Nature-Isère homepage and variety of conditions of ...
Figure 4.3. Nature-Isère’s “What Kind of Nature Is Around Me?”. Map: the circl...
Figure 4.4. From discovering “nature around me” to “putting on your boots” (na...
Figure 4.5. The “putting on your boots” section, creating an implicit link bet...
Figure 4.6. Cartographic representation of nature stakeholders in Isère and fi...
Figure 4.7. Linear representation of the public’s role in Nature-Isère...
Chapter 5
Figure 5.1. Explainable artificial intelligence to better understand naturalis...
Figure 5.2. Evolution of the AI field since the 1950s
Figure 5.3. Schematic representation of a neural network according to the “bla...
Figure 5.4. Schematic representation of the evolution of algorithm explainabil...
Figure 5.5. Example of expert questioning of AI system results
Figure 5.6. Illustration of the field of human-centered AI, intrinsically mult...
Figure 5.7. Comparison of saliency maps12 from four explanation methods genera...
Figure 5.8. Interpreting the species distribution model of the African elephan...
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1. Identifying species in the field: linking beyond the data. Julie P...
Figure 6.2. Five-step program for deploying datasets with open data
14
Figure 6.3. From the Web of documents to the Web of data.
Figure 6.4. RDF triplet expressing the fact that Helsinki is the capital of Fi...
Figure 6.5. RDF triplet linked to ontology concepts.
Figure 6.6. Example of pyramid-shaped ontology organization
Chapter 7
Figure 7.1. Faune-France, the new digital naturalist “community”? Julie Polge ...
Figure 7.2. Example of a handwritten observation form. Species are listed down...
Figure 7.3. Example of an observation entry screen (computer entry via spreads...
Figure 7.4. Example of an observation entry screen from the LPO Isère’s first ...
Figure 7.5. The main BIS acquisition and enhancement processes
Figure 7.6. Observational data collection process and flow
Figure 7.7. The simplified Web portal entry screen used by contributors to the...
Figure 7.8. The Web portal punctual-entry screen
Figure 7.9. Mobile location and observation entry screens in the iNaturalist a...
Figure 7.10. The information validation process
Figure 7.11. Example of a map available on the faune-aura.org Web portal, show...
Chapter 8
Figure 8.1. Pl@ntNet enriches its database thanks to its many users. Source: J...
Figure 8.2. Presentation of the Pl@ntNet group for the Semur-en-Auxois communa...
Figure 8.3. Location of groups restricted to one geographical area
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1. Automatic identification tools and field trips. Source: Julie Polg...
Figure 9.2. Example of uncertainty in Pl@ntNet image-based identification: the...
Figure 9.3. Geolocation interface for observation data integrated into Pl@ntNe...
Chapter 10
Figure 10.1. Gamers sensitive to nature thanks to video games. Source: Julie P...
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1. Mid-mountain area, a shared “natural” environment. Source: Julie ...
Figure 11.2. Percentages of responses to certain modalities of the question: “...
Figure 11.3. Percentages of responses to certain categories of the question: “...
Figure 11.4. Percentages of responses to certain modalities of the question: “...
Figure 11.5. Main response proportions to the multiple choice question: “Do yo...
Figure 11.6. Interrelationships and link building
Figure 11.7. Percentages of responses to the sub-question “If yes, on which si...
Figure 11.8. Percentages of responses to certain modalities of the question: “...
Figure 11.9. Examples of posters for the regional natural park communication c...
Figure 11.10. Proportion of responses to the question: “in your opinion, the m...
Figure 11.11. Schematic diagram of the mid-mountain dependence relationship.
Figure 11.12. Drawings by children of mid-mountain areas, 2021
Guide
Cover Page
Table of Contents
Title Page
Copyright Page
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Begin Reading
Conclusion
List of Authors
Index
Other titles from iSTE in Science, Society and New Technologies
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
iii
iv
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
Communication, Environment, Science and Society Set
coordinated byAndrea Catellani and Céline Pascual Espuny
Volume 1
Linking with Nature in the Digital Age
Edited by
Émilie Kohlmann
First published 2024 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd27-37 St George’s RoadLondon SW19 4EUUK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.111 River StreetHoboken, NJ 07030USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2024The rights of Émilie Kohlmann to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s), contributor(s) or editor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ISTE Group.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023949931
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA CIP record for this book is available from the British LibraryISBN 978-1-78630-858-0
Acknowledgments
The creation of this book would simply not have been possible without the support of the entire Muséum interface de médiation pour l’environnement et les sciences en Isère (MIMESIS)1 research team: Camille Bernard, Marie Cambone, Catherine Gauthier and François Munoz. Many thanks to them for their constant presence and motivation, and for the relevance of their scientific contributions. This two-year collaboration has been extremely enriching. I would also like to thank our master’s research intern, Dieynaba Kouyate, whose work has contributed to the progress of the project.
Thanks to the chapter authors in this book for their interest in this theme, and for their ability to respect all editorial constraints and build a coherent dialogue between their research, across the pages and the different sections.
Our thanks also go to Marie Arthuis for her excellent editorial support, which has enabled us to meet deadlines and harmonize all contributions as closely as possible.
Thanks to Julie Polge for the sketches she drew during the Penser le(s) lien(s) study day, and who gave us permission to publish them to accompany the various chapters of this book.
Finally, we would like to thank the coordinators of this set of books, Andrea Catellani and Céline Pascual-Espuny, who are also in charge of the “Communication, environnement, sciences et société” research group, for the trust they placed in us and for organizing the final proofreading. We would also like to thank all reviewers of the chapters in this book.
Note
1
Available at:
https://mimesisere.hypotheses.org/
[Accessed on November 22, 2022].
Introduction
Choosing the notion of linking to talk about nature and digital technology
The reflections presented in this book, reformulated a posteriori around “linking with nature in the digital age”, emerged from a multidisciplinary research project in which researchers in information and communication sciences, computer science and ecology had to learn to articulate their disciplinary thinking with others1. The notion of a link seemed to be particularly well-suited to this exchange, as it was sufficiently mobilized by all concerned and sufficiently ambiguous to be malleable and questioned from different angles. Indeed, the notion of a link seems to be something that can be approached from an angle and not head-on. The term “link” cannot be qualified as a firm concept and, if it is mobilized more precisely, it is often by being associated with an adjective that qualifies it: the “social link” (Durkheim and Paugam 2013), the “weak link” (Granovetter 1973), etc. However, the word and metaphor of link are regularly used in scientific texts, but without really being thought of as a concept, and sometimes without any real reflection on the choice of this term in place of another.
Another advantage of a link as a way of thinking about the nature and influence of digital technology is that the word evokes something and makes sense in several disciplines. In computer science, we speak of “linked data”, “hypertext links” or even links in man–machine interfaces or networks. In ecology, we talk about “interspecies links”, “links to the environment”, etc. Two terms are possible in ecology: relationship and link, the latter being stronger and associated with close interactions, as in the case of symbiosis, which highlights the gradation in the strength of links. In the humanities and social sciences, the link is mobilized in all of its forms: the link is therefore “social”, “weak”, as well as “affective”, “symbolic”, “interindividual”, etc. However, this ease of presence can also be a flaw in the term. This begs multiple questions: how does the link relate to closely related notions such as networks (Latour 1999), communities (Kaufmann 2022a, 2022b), connections (Klein and Proulx 2012), interactions (Goffman 1998), or mediations (Deschamps 2019)? In an attempt to answer these questions, we began with the linguistic meaning of the word “link”.
The peculiarities of the “link”: semantic duality
The Centre national de ressources textuelles et lexicales (CNRTL, the French National Center for Textual and Lexical Resources) offers several definitions of the term “lien”, French for “link”, at different times and in different contexts of use2. Here, the term is defined materially as “a flexible, elongated object used to enclose a thing to hold its various parts together, or to attach two or more things together” and more figuratively as “that which joins, attaches two or more things together”. The link is first considered in its physical dimension – it is the object that attaches – before being extended by analogy to an immaterial dimension – that which ensures the relationship, of a more symbolic order. The imaginary then comes into play as a means of maintaining ties, particularly for the societies and communities that result from them (Anderson 1983).
A double movement is also present in the different definitions of the word link. It can have a positive connotation, creating solidarity – “that which unites two or more people (or groups of people) and establishes social, moral or emotional relationships between them” – or a negative connotation – “that which restrains an animal, chains or binds a prisoner or a slave”. The link thus oscillates between positive stability and negative limitation, dependence of the individual on a third party or on society. This is reminiscent of the work of Elias (2004), who described individual interdependencies as “the fabric of the social”. Individuals, the “I”, are seen as a form of modern society, different from traditional forms of society, the social “we”.
Finally, the link can be considered as innate – the family bond, the kinship bond – or as requiring a construction, sometimes of a legal nature – the marriage bond as contractualization. This distinction is also found in the work of Dumont (1983), for example, when he highlights two ways of relating to others during the French Revolution: the traditionalist ties of interdependence between the constituted social bodies of the monarchist community, and the contractual ties of revolutionary society (Kaufmann 2022a).
Thinking in terms of links means looking not at objects in terms of their identification, but rather at their relationships (Descola 2005), what links them together, what holds a heterogeneous set of elements together, and ensures cohesion, even if only fleetingly (Latour 1999). Yet beyond these etymological and semantic elements, in the scientific literature, the link is often an implicit order or a metaphor used to illustrate a point, rather than a firm concept.
Why choose to question the link?
While Klein and Proulx (2012), in the introduction to their book devoted to the strong presence of digital technologies in human communication, raise the question of “the nature and forms of the link that is established between individuals, groups, organizations, communities [...] in and outside the digital universe?” (Klein and Proulx 2012, p. 5, author’s translation), they nevertheless fail to define the term link, quickly preferring “connection”, which refers to the idea of a society technically connected by digital technology. The authors postulate the existence of “connected individuals”, whose online activity reinforces their individuality. However, this multiplication of digital connections would weaken the significant symbolic links between people, or at least transform them. We can therefore postulate that the term connection has been retained here in a digital context, whereas link has a broader meaning.
In the same work, Heaton et al. (2012) study the naturalist communities created around the Tela Botanica collaborative network. The term “link” disappears in favor of the idea of a networked device that “connects its members, and [circulates] anything that can circulate: information, reflection, resources, people [...]” (Heaton et al. 2012, p. 255, author’s translation). The term community, itself imprecise and polemical (Kaufmann 2022a), is then preferred to emphasize the idea of cooperation, of coordinating contributions, of the collective.
It is perhaps then by comparing the notion of link and that of community that we can better understand the epistemological difference between the works that mobilize them. In sociology, the nature of the link, its temporality, its strength, its intensity, its permanent or ephemeral character, are used to understand the difference between society and community, and the place of individuals in the different models (Tönnies 1944).
Political in nature, the opposition between society and community is also ontological. Whereas the bond of society is a contingent and a posteriori bond, which can only unite beings superficially and from which it is always possible to withdraw, the bond of community is an a priori bond that immerses its members in a totality that shapes them through and through [Kaufmann 2010] (Kaufmann 2022a, paragraph 1).
Thinking in terms of link(s) rather than network(s) or community(-ies) could then enable a complex approach to articulations between actors, as well as between objects, and reveal the richness of the worlds that can be built up according to the possibilities they are offered of attaching themselves to one another (Hennion 2004). The focus would no longer be on an overall, finalistic view of the worlds, societies or communities created, but rather on the choices, imaginaries, techniques, etc. that support them and bring them into being. For the elements that interest us in this book, this level seems rich in potential: nature and the digital enable – oblige? – the inclusion in our reflections of those on objects and techniques and on what they do to the possibilities of links, to the imaginaries they mobilize (Cardon 2010). However, nature and the digital also lead us to question the introduction of “non-human” actors3 into these possibilities of connection: animals, plants, as well as, more broadly, “nature” in its entirety. In this way, we are approaching the project outlined by Gefen and Laugier in Le pouvoir des liens faibles (2020):
[...] to extend [...] Granovetter’s concept [i.e. the weak link] to describe forms of tenuous attachments to beings and the world, non-utilitarian solidarities, complex and non-deterministic relationships, not only of humans to humans, but also of humans to things, natural beings, fictional and virtual beings (Gefen and Laugier 2020, pp. 17–18, author’s translation).
In the following chapters, however, we will take a broader and more circumscribed approach to these aspects. We shall limit ourselves to thinking about the link when it involves the triptych nature, digital and human actors, whilst opening onto questions of intensity and quality of links without restricting ourselves to postulating their initial weakness. Moreover, the links studied and presented here do not only concern the links between humans and things, but may also concern the links between the things themselves. Finally, the various chapters have been written by researchers from a variety of disciplines, but with a common aim: to reflect on the meaning of the link to nature and the influence of the digital on it. To answer these questions, we have structured this book in three parts.
Extension; materiality and structure; gain or loss: questioning links to nature in the digital age
In the first part of this book, entitled “Extending Links through Digital Devices”, Chapter 1 presents the work carried out by the MIMESIS team. We have drawn up a periodization of the major temporalities around biodiversity observation, digital technology and issues of citizen participation (participatory science) when these issues are mediated by technological devices. The aim of this chapter is to provide a frame of reference that enables us to keep abreast of legislative and social developments, as well as technological, scientific and ideological ones.
Following on from this, we examine the impact that digital technology has had on the possibilities for creating links with nature, as well as social ties. We question the massive growth in the use of digital technology as a link facilitator and the assumption that digital technology makes it possible to extend links and connect more and more things and more and more beings with each other.
With this in mind, Lisa Chupin (Chapter 2) examines the communicative stakes of documentary links in digitized herbarium collections. The arrival of digital technology is studied both as a new way of linking documents and specimens together and as a transformation of the communicative relationships mediated by collections for the people who produce or consult these documents. The author also discusses the forms of attachment to nature and to the species studied by naturalist communities, and reflects on the possibilities for breaking down or renewing forms of naturalist sociability linked to collections.
Marie-Caroline Heïd and Catherine De Lavergne, in Chapter 3, leave the world of naturalist databases to focus on digital social networks with a study of the mobilization of links to nature by winegrowers on their Facebook pages. They study a form of sensitive attachment to species and territory that can be seen in the diversity of the forms and content of publications, despite a highly standardizing socio-technical device. Their analysis leads to a proposed typology of five values attributed to nature by the actors: the domains of “inspired nature”, “domestic nature”, “civic nature”, “industrial nature” and “nature of renown”.
To close this first part, Émilie Kohlmann (Chapter 4) presents the results of an analysis of a digital platform intended to become a space for exchanging and sharing nature observations and practices in Isère: Nature-Isère. In this chapter, she demonstrates that, while digital technology may have generated new links and collaborations between previously separate players, it has also frozen the links and possibilities for change within a socio-technical framework that is hardly conducive to change. The participation set, as the objective and desired outcome at the outset of the project, was thus limited and restricted by the digital device and had to be supported by human links and various forms of mediation.
This chapter makes the transition to the content of the second part of this book, which focuses on the materiality and structure of links enabled by digital devices for observing and collecting naturalistic data.
Ikram Chraibi Kaadoud presents in Chapter 5 the implications of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI for eXplainable AI) in the field of naturalistic data. By illustrating through concrete examples of mobilization of the XAI in this sector, it aims to highlight its impact on the production of scientific knowledge, as well as on the links that are built between individuals and societies through these different models. According to the author, by helping to make the behavioral mechanisms of an AI model less opaque, by demystifying it and the reasons for the choices made, the retained factors, XAI can serve as a mediation tool to preserve nature and allow for a rise in the power to act of the various stakeholders.
Following this demonstration, Camille Bernard (Chapter 6) discusses the challenges of sharing biodiversity observation databases. After describing the evolution of nature observation platforms and biodiversity databases over the last 20 years, the author examines the question of sharing standards and formats, in order to demonstrate how this impacts the possibilities for links between the various players. In this chapter, she examines the emergence of new communities stemming from the technological innovations of the Semantic Web (crowdsourcing, linked open data, etc.), as well as the limits to sharing, whether technical or symbolic. For example, the question of data ownership can be an obstacle to sharing, even for players who are already committed.
In Chapter 7, Daniel Thonon shares his views on the development of the Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux’s (LPO) naturalist information system (NIS) in Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. As an IT specialist and volunteer with the naturalist association, he has followed and participated in the development of the NIS for several years. His feedback enables us to understand the issues involved in setting up this type of system, seen from the inside, as well as the reasons for the evolution of the various functionalities, particularly around the conditions of contribution and communication between partners.
Finally, in the third and final part of the book, the various authors address the question of the gains or losses of the link to nature thanks to digital technology.
The various technological evolutions mentioned in the previous section, and in particular the development of big data and artificial intelligence, are also changing the way in which citizens can participate in biodiversity data collection and naturalistic observation. Such is the case with the Pl@ntNet application presented by Pierre Bonnet, Alexis Joly and François Munoz in Chapter 8. Digital tools are used to remove obstacles to species identification, in this case through image recognition based on photographs taken from a smartphone or recorded online on a computer. The authors turn to an analysis of the app’s user “groups”, to highlight the wide variety of practices and contributions it authorizes and which are facilitated by digital technology, thus helping to strengthen the links between nature and amateurs.
In Chapter 9, François Munoz and Pierre Bonnet examine the contribution and interest of Pl@ntNet for communities of botanists and nature professionals. Through interviews with professionals (mountain guides and park scientists) and a study of Facebook discussion threads, the authors highlight the tool’s expectations, criticisms and development prospects. A central aspect is the understanding and management of the uncertainty inherent in analyzing the limited and imperfect content of a photographic medium. The application provides not one, but several answers to the user’s query, with a certain confidence score reflecting the level of uncertainty of the identification. This score is little taken into account and little understood by users, and a major challenge will be to better understand and take into account uncertainty via this score.
Minh-Xuan Truong (Chapter 10) examines forms of experiencing nature mediated by technology. In so doing, he highlights the variety of possibilities for experiencing nature, encompassing in his reflection direct experiences – immersion in a natural environment – or indirect, through different media such as books, cinema, digital social networks or video games. He then seeks to present these alternatives to direct experiences as legitimate and equally part of environmental education and raising awareness of natural environments. By not separating these two forms of experiences, but creating links between them, the author sees them as a lever for a new techno-mediated way of life.
Conversely, to close this book, in Chapter 11, Amélie Coulbaut-Lazzarini exclusively analyzes embodied experiences of nature in a mountainous territory. In a natural environment, she observes the ways in which we relate to ourselves, to others and to the world as three interconnected axes. While corporeality plays an important role – through the place of the human body in nature, physical and sensory immersion and sensory immersion in natural environments – the author proposes to question the role of the imaginary in representations of nature and in the possibilities of connecting with it, and to open up to the influence of narratives and art.
References
Anderson, B. (1983).
L’Imaginaire national. Réflexions sur l’origine et l’essor du nationalisme
. La Découverte, Paris.
Cardon, D. (2010).
La Démocratie internet. Promesses et limites
. Le Seuil, Paris.
Deschamps, J. (2019).
Mediation: A Concept for Information and Communication Sciences
. ISTE Ltd, London, and John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Descola, P. (2005).
Par-delà nature et culture
. Gallimard, Paris.
Dumont, L. (1983).
Essais sur l’individualisme. Une perspective anthropologique sur l’idéologie moderne
. Le Seuil, Paris.
Durkheim, É. and Paugam, S. (2013).
De la division du travail social
. Presses universitaires de France, Paris.
Elias, N. (2004).
La société des individus
. Pocket, Paris.
Gefen, A. and Laugier, S. (2020).
Le pouvoir des liens faibles
. CNRS, Paris.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties.
American Journal of Sociology
, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Heaton, L., Millerand, F., Proulx, S. (2012). Émergence d’une communauté épistémique : création et partage du savoir botanique en réseau. In
Connexions : communication numérique et lien social
, Klein, A. and Proulx, S. (eds). Presses Universitaires de Namur, Namur.
Heaton, L., Millerand, F., Dias da Silva, P., Proulx, S. (2018).
La reconfiguration du travail scientifique en biodiversité : pratiques amateurs et technologies numériques.
Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal.
Hennion, A. (2004). Une sociologie des attachements. D’une sociologie de la culture à une pragmatique de l’amateur.
Sociétés
, 85(3), 9–24.
Kaufmann, L. (2022a). Communauté 1. Du concept au “Peuple-Un” Publictionnaire. Dictionnaire encyclopédique et critique des publics [Online]. Available at:
http://publictionnaire.huma-num.fr/notice/communaute-1
[Accessed 5 June 2022].
Kaufmann, L. (2022b). Communauté 2. Du communautarisme aux collectifs. Publictionnaire. Dictionnaire encyclopédique et critique des publics [Online]. Available at:
http://publictionnaire.huma-num.fr/notice/communaute-2-du-communau-tarisme-aux-collectifs
[Accessed 5 March 2022].
Klein, A. and Proulx, S. (2012).
Connexions : communication numérique et lien social
. Presses Universitaires de Namur, Namur.
Latour, B. (1999).
Politiques de la nature : comment faire entrer les sciences en démocratie
. La Découverte, Paris.
Roux, J., Charvolin, F., Dumain, A. (2009). Les “passions cognitives” ou la dimension rebelle du connaître en régime de passion. Premiers résultats d’un programme en cours.
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances
, 3(3), 369–385.
Tönnies, F. (1944).
Communauté et société. Catégories fondamentales de la sociologie pure
. Presses universitaires de France, Paris.
Notes
Introduction written by Émilie KOHLMANN.
1
The Muséum interface de médiation pour l’environnement et les sciences en Isère (MIMESIS) project received government funding managed by the Agence nationale de la recherche under the “Investissement d’avenir” program, reference ANR-15-IDEX-02. Available at:
https://mimesisere.hypotheses.org
[Accessed on 24 November 2022].
2
Available at:
www.cnrtl.fr/definition/lien
[Accessed 12 July 2022].
3
We have chosen here to use the vocabulary of actor–network theory (Latour
1999
), although this seems to us to preserve a potentially dichotomous vision of the world between humans and others.
PART 1Extending Links through Digital Devices
1Benchmarks: Biodiversity, Participation and Digital Technology
Figure 1.1.Natural science: the long journey of the amateur. Émilie Kohlmann (2022).
This first chapter has a rather special status in the project for this book. It answers the desire that the Muséum interface de médiation pour l’environnement et les sciences en Isère (MIMESIS)1 project team had to work together on the major temporalities associated with the themes studied and to think about these stages in a multidisciplinary way.
Different phases of reflection have led to the definition of four main periods, described by the major developments in the various disciplines (ecology, information technology, information and communication sciences), as well as in practices and in administrative and legislative standardization, whether at national or international level.
Thus, this proposal for a time frame for issues relating to biodiversity, to contributors and to digitization has been drawn up in a collegial manner based on the aggregation and synthesis of various scientific readings2 and on the emergence of a number of biodiversity observation, monitoring and counting systems, as well as the testimonies of the stakeholders involved.
This effort to pool knowledge that is sometimes embedded in – and circumscribed by – specific disciplines has led to the identification of strong currents that we feel are important for contextualizing and understanding the “linking with nature in the digital age”3 discussed in this book.
We therefore propose to share them here as a starting point for the texts that follow.
We develop each of the peculiarities of the periods identified using the proposed Figure 1.2 as a guide:
the first trials of participatory biodiversity inventories;
opening up of digitally mediated observations to the “general public”;
the process of standardizing data for interoperability and technological acceleration, with analyses opened up to deep learning and artificial intelligence;
the exploitation of big data and the hijacking of systems by practices.
1.1. 20th century: the pioneers
Although naturalistic observation is an older practice, we have chosen to focus on biodiversity observation4 organized on a large scale and designed for a wide audience.
Figure 1.2.Summary of data collected to establish four main periods
We therefore take the Christmas Bird Count in the USA in December 1900 as the starting point for mass citizen involvement in this type of program: “You can add to a century of community science by joining a count near you”.5 In these programs, the naturalistic observation of specific species is presented to the public – and not just to birdwatchers – as part of nature leisure activities:
[…] You have to go to the United States at the turn of the 20th century to see the beginning of leisure activities and the widespread use of the car in excursions outside the city to observe animals, birds and insects. This massification of the interest in nature was to determine a quantum leap in the number of species recognized worldwide by outdoor enthusiasts on their weekend outings. (Charvolin 2019, p. 22)
From the Christmas Bird Count until the 2000s, various programs emerged with varying degrees of openness. The launch of suivi temporel des oiseaux communs (STOC, monitoring of common birds over time)6in France in 1989, now run by the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle (French Natural History Museum) in association with the Ligue de protection des oiseaux (French League for the Protection of Birds) and the Office français de biodiversité (French Biodiversity Office), united amateur biologists and ornithologists around a common scientific protocol, just as Tela Botanica7in 1999 brought together professional and amateur botanists: “Le réseau Tela Botanica, c’est vous !” (The Tela Botanica network is you!)8
In the humanities and social sciences, the practice was then studied and linked to the question of participatory sciences, citizen sciences (Irwin 1995), and much less to the question of leisure activities, particularly outdoor activities. In a context where big data collection is becoming increasingly important, the “citizen” is called upon to help researchers collect these data:
The discovery of the importance of the citizen and their contribution to the definition of knowledge goes beyond the strictly institutional framework; it has also developed in other, more informal sectors, leading to the formation of what has been called the scientific third sector […]. (Severo 2021, author’s translation)
In the model of biodiversity-related participatory observation programs, the citizen is considered less as a partner in this research, as in the “participatory action research” of 1940–1970, and more as a producer of data, a “petit main” [helper] (Fages 2021), as in older models, notably in astronomical observation (Fages 2018).
These first observatories were not systematically computerized and organized into large databases, as is currently the case. Biodiversity data collection and processing, and possible exchanges between databases, were still in their infancy. It was from the 2000s onwards that the movement gained momentum in France, and recourse to the participatory science model became systematic, being included in the general French public agenda in 2016 with the Houllier report (Houllier and Merilhou-Goudard 2016).
1.2. 2000–2009: obtaining reliable data accessible to all
This second period was characterized by the convergence of three major trends that led to the proliferation of digital biodiversity observation systems open to all:
the standardization of naturalistic data;
the development of Web 2.0, which enables online contribution;
open access to public data for all stakeholders.
The first issue to consider for this period is that of data “consolidation”, i.e. verifying their reliability, whether in terms of determining the species observed, its geolocation or the fact that it may have been saved two or three times in the databases at different aggregation times. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)9, created in 2001 and strengthened following the Nagoya Protocol in 2010, assigns a standardized international number to data producers. This makes it possible to eliminate duplication, which creates observation bias, while verifying the scientific quality of the observer (if a determination needs to be revalidated). Automated processing of batches of data is becoming essential to produce legitimate data in the eyes of the scientific community, for example, in entomology, where dissection of certain species is essential for identification. Consolidation spreadsheets were therefore created from 2013 onwards as part of the coordination of insect data standardization carried out by the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, a coordination commonly referred to as the “Insect project”10. This was followed by online training programs. Data standardization, i.e. the pooling of fields from compatible databases, became a necessity in order to automate exchanges, but paradoxically led to a loss of data through smoothing in the recipient aggregation database. At the same time, the TAXREF systematics repository was gaining ground in France for standardizing naturalistic data and “the knowledge that is the foundation of nomenclature and taxonomy”11.
The second advance of broadening contributions to obtain mass data was made possible by the emergence of Web 2.0, its democratization and the practice of crowdsourcing. From 2001, Wikipedia12 was emblematic of this movement, as was OpenStreetMap13 from 2004. While the former is a participatory encyclopedia and the latter a participatory cartography project, both aim to share and co-produce knowledge on a global scale: “OpenStreetMap is the open, collaborative map of the world. It is improved every day by over a million contributors” (extract from the site’s homepage). This movement coincided with European directives requiring access to data produced by member state bodies, such as the new Public Sector Information (PSI) directive of 2003, which aimed to free up information produced by the public sector in a context of concern over the monetization of data. It was also the start of the ideal of co-production of content with citizens, facilitated by new IT developments (Flichy 2019), as well as “science and society” action programs (Las Vergnas 2016).
These data were supported by a legal framework that guaranteed free access to the public. In 2007, the French government launched the Observatoire national de la biodiversité (National Biodiversity Observatory), linked with an Internet portal14. This initiative followed Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information, which states that:
(1) Increased public access to environmental information and the dissemination of such information contribute to a greater awareness of environmental matters, a free exchange of views, more effective participation by the public in environmental decision-making and, eventually, to a better environment. (OJEU L41, 14 March 2003)
In the same year, the INSPIRE directive15 was translated into France’s environmental code, requiring public authorities to make environmental data easily, if not freely, accessible on the Internet. The système d’information sur la nature et les paysages (SINP, Nature and Landscape Information System) was launched as a result of this16.
At the same time, and by bringing these movements together, the new data collection systems, increasingly accessible to the “general public”, were multiplying and being deployed on the Internet.
In 2002, Tela Botanica “set up a collaborative project space for experienced and novice botanists, to enable the exchange and co-construction of projects”17. In 2006, the Observatoire de la biodiversité des jardins (French Garden Biodiversity Observatory) launched Opération Papillons (Operation Butterfly), one of the first participatory science projects open to all in France18. The same year, the Vigie-Nature program was launched, offering two levels of entry: the general public and naturalists (Julliard 2017). In 2008, iNaturalist, a US-based biodiversity observation system, launched a Web interface for the “general public” to contribute data to the GBIF19.
Finally, in 2009, the Pl@ntNet application was created by computer scientists, botanists, a large consortium of institutions (IRD, ICAD, INRA, INRIA, etc.), private players such as the Agropolis foundation and Tela Botanica amateurs. Pl@ntnet is emblematic of the arrival of a new period in the deployment of applications that enable observer mobility (live data capture in the field) and the amplification of data standardization issues associated with accelerating technological developments (Bonnet et al. 2020).
1.3. 2010–2014: technological acceleration and international expansion via global observation programs
Biodiversity took center stage in 2010. UNESCO was supporting the theme and helping to publicize it in the media by declaring the “International Year of Biodiversity”20. The question of highlighting the “erosion of biodiversity” – a slogan of the time – had been topical since the National Forum on Biodiversity in 1986, and scientists were wondering about the reasons for its lower media profile, particularly in comparison with climate issues (Legagneux et al. 2018).
