Unsettling Participation by Foregrounding More-than-Human Relations in Digital Forests

The question of who participates in making forest environments usually refers to human stakeholders. Yet forests are constituted through the participation of many other entities. At the same time, digital technologies are increasingly used in participatory projects to measure and monitor forest environments globally. However, such participatory initiatives are often limited to human involvement and overlook how more-than-human entities and relations shape digital and forest processes. To disrupt conventional anthropocentric understandings of participation, this text travels through three different processes of “unsettling” to show how more-than-human entities and relations disrupt, rework, and transform digital participation in and with forests. First, forest organisms as bioindicators signal environmental changes and contribute to the formation and operation of digital sensing technologies. Second, speculative blockchain infrastructures and decision-making algorithms raise questions about whether and how forests can own themselves. Third, Amerindian cosmologies redistribute subjectivities to change how digital technologies identify and monitor forests within Indigenous territories. Each of these examples shows how more-than-human participation can rework participatory processes and digital practices in forests. In a time when forests are rapidly disappearing, an unsettled and transformed understanding of participation that involves the world-making practices of more-than-human entities and relations can offer more pluralistic and expansive forest inhabitations and futures.

[1]  E. Corbera,et al.  Smart, Commodified and Encoded: Blockchain Technology for Environmental Sustainability and Nature Conservation , 2022, Conservation and Society.

[2]  May R. Berenbaum Same Old (Cicada) Song , 2021 .

[3]  J. Perry,et al.  Indigenous-led responsible innovation: lessons from co-developed protocols to guide the use of drones to monitor a biocultural landscape in Kakadu National Park, Australia , 2021, Journal of Responsible Innovation.

[4]  Johannes Urpelainen,et al.  Satellite-based deforestation alerts with training and incentives for patrolling facilitate community monitoring in the Peruvian Amazon , 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  Ian Graber-Stiehl To study swarming cicadas, it takes a crowd. , 2021, Science.

[6]  Pratichi Chatterjee,et al.  The Colonial Reproduction of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon: Violence Against Indigenous Peoples for Land Development , 2021, Journal of Genocide Research.

[7]  Ann Light,et al.  Expanding Participation to Design with More-Than-Human Concerns , 2020, PDC.

[8]  Peter Howson,et al.  Climate Crises and Crypto-Colonialism: Conjuring Value on the Blockchain Frontiers of the Global South , 2020, Frontiers in Blockchain.

[9]  L. Snook,et al.  The politics of participation: Negotiating relationships through community forestry in the Maya Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala , 2020 .

[10]  Jennifer Gabrys Smart forests and data practices: From the Internet of Trees to planetary governance , 2020, Big Data Soc..

[11]  Michelle Westerlaken,et al.  It matters what designs design designs: speculations on multispecies worlding , 2020 .

[12]  H. Numata,et al.  Ecophysiological responses to climate change in cicadas , 2019, Physiological Entomology.

[13]  Steven M. Radil,et al.  Rethinking PGIS: Participatory or (post)political GIS? , 2019 .

[14]  J. Swords,et al.  Cryptocarbon: The promises and pitfalls of forest protection on a blockchain , 2019, Geoforum.

[15]  Rachel Clarke,et al.  More-than-human participation: design for sustainable smart city futures , 2019, Interactions.

[16]  E. Westholm,et al.  Closing the Future: Environmental Research and the Management of Conflicting Future Value Orders , 2018, Science, Technology, & Human Values.

[17]  R. A. Samndong The Participation Illusion: Questioning Community Participation in a REDD+ Pilot Project in the Democratic Republic of Congo , 2018, International Forestry Review.

[18]  Suzanne Kite,et al.  Making Kin with the Machines , 2018, Journal of Design and Science.

[19]  Alex Rogers,et al.  AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment , 2018 .

[20]  Helen Verran,et al.  Doing Indigenous Methodologies:: Toward a Practice of the “Careful Partial Participant , 2018 .

[21]  UlloaAstrid Perspectives of Environmental Justice from Indigenous Peoples of Latin America: A Relational Indigenous Environmental Justice , 2017 .

[22]  C. Woelfle-Erskine The watershed body: Transgressing frontiers in riverine sciences, planning stochastic multispecies worlds , 2017 .

[23]  Alec Foster,et al.  Citizen Science for Urban Forest Management? Predicting the Data Density and Richness of Urban Forest Volunteered Geographic Information , 2017 .

[24]  Michelle Bastian,et al.  Towards a more-than-human participatory research , 2016 .

[25]  Thora Martina Herrmann,et al.  The role of digital data entry in participatory environmental monitoring , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[26]  Bram Büscher,et al.  Nature 2.0: Exploring and theorizing the links between new media and nature conservation , 2016, New Media Soc..

[27]  D. Jørgensen Presence of absence, absence of presence, and extinction narratives , 2016 .

[28]  Hugo Asselin Indigenous Forest Knowledge , 2015 .

[29]  Paul Jepson,et al.  Nature apps: Waiting for the revolution , 2015, Ambio.

[30]  Alec Foster,et al.  Volunteered geographic information, urban forests, & environmental justice , 2015, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[31]  M. Hird,et al.  Raven, Dog, Human: Inhuman Colonialism and Unsettling Cosmologies , 2015 .

[32]  Maria Tengö,et al.  Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach , 2014, AMBIO.

[33]  Eva Lövbrand,et al.  In pursuit of carbon accountability: the politics of REDD+ measuring, reporting and verification systems , 2012 .

[34]  M. Kearnes,et al.  Thinking Through the Environment, Unsettling the Humanities , 2012 .

[35]  Sven Schade,et al.  Digital Earth's Nervous System for crisis events: real-time Sensor Web Enablement of Volunteered Geographic Information , 2010, Int. J. Digit. Earth.

[36]  Michael F. Goodchild,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article International Journal of Digital Earth Crowdsourcing Geographic Information for Disaster Response: a Research Frontier Crowdsourcing Geographic Information for Disaster Response: a Research Frontier , 2022 .

[37]  K. Schreckenberg,et al.  Equity in Community Forestry: Insights from North and South , 2009 .

[38]  Christopher A. Thoms Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal , 2008 .

[39]  E. Castro,et al.  The Crystal Forest: Notes on the Ontology of Amazonian Spirits , 2007 .

[40]  S. Whatmore Materialist returns: practising cultural geography in and for a more-than-human world , 2006 .

[41]  S. Wynter,et al.  Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation--An Argument , 2004 .

[42]  J. Sueur Cicada acoustic communication: potential sound partitioning in a multispecies community from Mexico (Hemiptera: Cicadomorpha: Cicadidae) , 2002 .

[43]  B. Agarwal,et al.  Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework , 2001 .

[44]  N. Peluso WHOSE WOODS ARE THESE? COUNTER‐MAPPING FOREST TERRITORIES IN KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA , 1995 .