ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Building trust with marginalized communities in participatory acoustic monitoring through dynamic consent.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There exists a growing suite of technologies that support significant and exciting progress in biodiversity conservation and research. Citizen scientist participation is common in this research and often focuses on data collection and labeling. Yet, ongoing challenges exist concerning trust in participatory monitoring projects engaging Indigenous Peoples or local communities. These challenges are rooted in the proliferation of Western-centric approaches to engagement and uneven power dynamics between researchers and participants. Using passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) as a model, we explored how researchers can build trust in participatory research with conservation technologies. Working closely with 12 members of a forest fringe community in Ghana, we conducted semistructured interviews investigating community members' perceptions of and concerns with ecoacoustic technologies and a series of participatory workshops exploring ecoacoustic data practices. Through our interviews, we found that 4 key themes-questioning, agency, proof, and knowledge-shaped community members' sense of trust when engaging with conservation and technology systems or practices. Our engagements highlighted a need for a dynamic consent process, which entails a set of engagements and activities tailored to community members' needs, to ensure they could make informed decisions on their involvement in research projects. To facilitate more ethical and just community engagements that result in higher quality data and more successful conservation outcomes, we recommend that researchers working with conservation technologies and marginalized communities respond to suspicion, address agency, center community knowledge, and demonstrate data practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.