Collaborative Software Development for Biodiversity Conservation
Author Information
Author(s): Mary E. Blair, Elkin A. Noguera-Urbano, Jose Manuel Ochoa-Quintero, Andréa Paz, Cristina Lopez-Gallego, María Ángela Echeverry-Galvis, Juan Zuloaga, Pilar Rodríguez, Leonardo Lemus-Mejia, Peter Ersts, Daniel F. López-Lozano, Matthew E. Aiello-Lammens, Hector M. Arango, Leonardo Buitrago, Samuel Chang Triguero, Cristian A. Cruz-Rodríguez, Juan F. Díaz-Nieto, Dairo Escobar, Valentina Grisales-Betancur, Bethany A. Johnson, Jamie M. Kass, María C. Londoño-Murcia, Cory Merow, Carlos J. Muñoz-Rodríguez, María Helena Olaya-Rodríguez, Juan L. Parra, Gonzalo E. Pinilla-Buitrago, Nicolette S. Roach, Octavio Rojas-Soto, Néstor Roncancio-Duque, Erika Suárez-Valencia, J. Nicolás Urbina-Cardona, Jorge Velásquez-Tibatá, Camilo A. Zapata-Martinez, Robert P. Anderson
Primary Institution: American Museum of Natural History
Hypothesis
Participatory, collaborative codesign enhances the utility of software tools for better decision-making in biodiversity conservation planning.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that involving diverse stakeholders in software development leads to more effective tools for biodiversity conservation.
Supporting Evidence
- Participatory codesign led to the development of user-friendly software tools for biodiversity conservation.
- The integration of diverse perspectives improved the accessibility and applicability of the tools.
- Collaboration among various institutions facilitated the creation of effective decision-support systems.
- User feedback was essential in refining the software tools during the development process.
- Training and documentation were critical for the tools to reach a broad user community.
Takeaway
When making software to help protect nature, it's important to ask lots of different people what they need so the tools work better for everyone.
Methodology
The study involved interdisciplinary collaboration among ecological modelers, software engineers, and end users to develop software tools through participatory codesign.
Potential Biases
Potential biases may arise from the varying expertise and perspectives of the participants involved in the codesign process.
Limitations
The codesign process took longer due to the need for broad inclusion, which may slow down development.
Participant Demographics
Participants included ecological modelers, software engineers, decision-makers, conservation practitioners, and biodiversity experts from various institutions.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website