Conservation tools: the next generation of engineering–biology collaborations
Creators
-
1.
Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems
-
2.
Georgia Institute of Technology
-
3.
California Institute of Technology
-
4.
Zoo Atlanta
Abstract
The recent increase in public and academic interest in preserving biodiversity has led to the growth of the field of conservation technology. This field involves designing and constructing tools that use technology to aid in the conservation of wildlife. In this review, we present five case studies and infer a framework for designing conservation tools (CT) based on human–wildlife interaction. Successful CT range in complexity from cat collars to machine learning and game theory methodologies and do not require technological expertise to contribute to conservation tool creation. Our goal is to introduce researchers to the field of conservation technology and provide references for guiding the next generation of conservation technologists. Conservation technology not only has the potential to benefit biodiversity but also has broader impacts on fields such as sustainability and environmental protection. By using innovative technologies to address conservation challenges, we can find more effective and efficient solutions to protect and preserve our planet's resources.
Copyright and License
© 2023 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited.
Acknowledgement
Thank you to all of the Georgia Tech Tech4Wildlife Student Organization members for their support.
Contributions
A.K.S.: conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, project administration, resources, supervision, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; C.S.: conceptualization, investigation, resources, validation, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; S.S.: conceptualization, investigation, software, visualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; B.S.: conceptualization, investigation, resources, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; E.G.W.: conceptualization, supervision, validation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; Y.-H.C.: resources, supervision, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; M.S.B.: investigation, supervision, validation, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing; D.L.H.: resources, writing—review and editing; J.R.M.: project administration, resources, visualization, writing—review and editing.
All authors gave final approval for publication and agreed to be held accountable for the work performed therein.
Data Availability
This article has no additional data.
Ethics
We have not used AI-assisted technologies in creating this article.
Funding
M.S.B. acknowledges funding support from NIH grant no. R25GM142044, NSF grant CAREER IOS-1941933 and the Open Philanthropy Project. A.K.S. acknowledges funding support by the Max Planck Society.
Conflict of Interest
We declare we have no competing interests.
Files
rsif.2023.0232.pdf
Files
(1.7 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:c87439095e627eeb4a72e95a8dd0d25a
|
1.7 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Identifiers
- PMCID
- PMC10427197
Funding
- National Institutes of Health
- R25GM142044
- National Science Foundation
- IOS-1941933
- Open Philanthropy Project
- Max Planck Society