Devin Anne Nieusma
ABSTRACT
The field of Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI) has emerged alongside the increasing adoption of digital technologies for wildlife conservation and concern for wild animal welfare. To date, there have been relatively few applications of ACI to free-living wildlife, but the use of camera traps, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and other digital devices offers opportunities for ACI research in this space. This paper identifies potential benefits of applications of ACI research and methodologies toward conservation technology, as well as challenges that represent directions for future research within the field of ACI.
Supplemental Material
- Ben A. Minteer and James P. Collins. 2013. Ecological Ethics in Captivity: Balancing Values and Responsibilities in Zoo and Aquarium Research under Rapid Global Change. ILAR Journal, 54(1), (2013.) 41-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilt009Google Scholar
- Chris Sandbrook, Ivan R. Scales, Bhaskar Vira, William M Adams. 2010. Value Plurality among Conservation Professionals. Conservation Biology, (Oct. 2010). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01592.xGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Georgina M. Macine. 2014. Whose conservation? Science, 345(6204), (2014), 1558-1560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254704Google Scholar
- Koen Arts, René van der Wal, and William M. Adams. 2015. Digital technology and the conservation of nature. Ambio, 44, (Oct. 2015), 661-673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0705-1Google Scholar
- René van der Wal and Koen Arts. 2015. Digital conservation: An introduction. Ambio, 44, (Oct. 2015), 517-521. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0701-5Google Scholar
- SCB. Society for Conservation Biology: Conservation Technology Working Group. Retrieved from https://conbio.org/groups/working-groups/conservation-technology-working-groupGoogle Scholar
- Oded Berger-Tal and José J. Lahoz-Monfort. 2018. Conservation technology: The next generation. Conservation Letters 11(6). (Apr. 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12458Google Scholar
- José J Lahoz-Monfort 2019. A Call for International Leadership and Coordination to Realize the Potential of Conservation Technology. BioScience 69(10). (Oct. 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz090Google Scholar
- Francesca Cagnacci, Luigi Boitani, Roger A. Powell and Mark S. Boyce. 2010. Animal ecology meets GPS-based radiotelemetry: a perfect storm of opportunities and challenges. Royal Society 365(1550). (Jul. 2010). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0107Google Scholar
- Habib, B., Shrotriya, S., Sivakumar, K. et al. Three decades of wildlife radio telemetry in India: a review. Anim Biotelemetry, 4 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-3385-2-4Google Scholar
- Conrad J. Foley and Claudio Sillero-Zubiri. 2020. Open-source, low-cost modular GPS collars for monitoring and tracking wildlife. Methods in Ecological and Evolution 11(4) (Feb. 2020). 553-558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13369Google Scholar
- Allison Matthews . 2013. The success of GPS collar deployments on mammals in Australia. Australian Mammology 35(1) (Feb. 2013). 65-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AM12021Google Scholar
- A. Cole Burton et al. 2015. REVIEW: Wildlife camera trapping: a review and recommendations for linking surveys to ecological processes. Journal of Applied Ecology 52(3). 675-685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12432Google ScholarCross Ref
- Malachi Whitford and A. Peter Kimley. 2019. An overview of behavioral, physiological, and environmental sensors used in animal biotelemetry and biologging studies. Anim. Biotelemetry 7(26). (Dec. 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-019-0189-zGoogle Scholar
- Dirk van der Linden. 2021. Interspecies information systems. Requirement Eng. (May 2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-021-00355-3Google ScholarDigital Library
- Malachi Whitford and A. Peter Kimley. 2019. An overview of behavioral, physiological, and environmental sensors used in animal biotelemetry and biologging studies. Anim. Biotelemetry 7(26). (Dec. 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40317-019-0189-zGoogle Scholar
- John H. Tibbetts. 2017. Remote Sensors Bring Wildlife Tracking to New Level: Trove of data yields fresh insights—and challenges. BioScience 67(5). (May 2017). 411-417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix033Google ScholarCross Ref
- Robin Steenweg . 2016. Scaling-up camera traps: monitoring the planet's biodiversity with networks of remote sensors. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 15(1). (Dec. 2016). 26-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1448Google Scholar
- José J. Lahoz-Monfort and Michael J. L. Magrath. 2021. A Comprehensive Overview of Technologies for Species and Habitat Monitoring and Conservation. BioScience, (Jul. 2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab073Google Scholar
- Barbara Martinez 2020. Technology innovation: advancing capacities for the early detection of and rapid response to invasive species. Biological Invasions, 22, (Dec. 2019), 75–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-019-02146-yGoogle Scholar
- Serge A. Wich and Alex K. Piel. 2021. Conservation Technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
- Bradley Cantrell, Laura J. Martin, and Erle C. Ellis. 2017. Designing Autonomy: Opportunities for New Wildness in the Anthropocene. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 32(3), (Jan. 2017), 156–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.12.004Google Scholar
- PC Paquet and CT Darimont. 2010. Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: two sides of the same coin? Animal Welfare 19(2). (May 2010). 177–190.Google Scholar
- David Fraser. 2010. Toward a Synthesis of Conservation and Animal Welfare Science. Animal Welfare 19(2). (May 2010). 121-124.Google Scholar
- Michael C. Appleby, Daniel M Weary and Peter Sandøe (Ed.). 2014. Balancing the Need for Conservation and the Welfare of Individual Animals. Dilemmas in Animal Welfare. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780642161.0124Google Scholar
- Steven Portugal and Craig R. White. 2018 Miniaturisation of biologgers is not alleviating the 5% rule. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(7). (Apr. 2018). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13013Google Scholar
- Matthew Wijers 2018. Listening to Lions: Animal-Borne Acoustic Sensors Improve Bio-logger Calibration and Behaviour Classification Performance. Front. Ecol. Evol. (Oct. 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00171Google Scholar
- Jennifer McGowan 2016. Integrating research using animal-borne telemetry with the needs of conservation management. Journal of Applied Ecology 54(2). (Jul. 2016). 432-429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12755Google Scholar
- Mark Hebblewhite and Daniel T. Hayden. 2010. Distinguishing technology from biology: a critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Biological Sciences. (Jul. 2010). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0087Google Scholar
- Clive McMahon, Robert Harcourt, Patrick Bateson, and Mark A. Hindell. 2012. Animal welfare and decision making in wildlife research. Biological Conservation 153. (Sep. 2012). 254-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.004Google Scholar
- Julie Linchant, Jonathan Lisein, Jean Semeki, Philippe Lejeune, Cédric Vermeulen. 2015. Are unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) the future of wildlife monitoring? A review of accomplishments and challenges. Mammal Review 45(4). (Oct. 2015). 239-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/mam.12046Google Scholar
- Penny Hawkins. 2004. Bio-logging and animal welfare: practical refinements. Memoirs of National Institute of Polar Research, Spec. Issue 58. (May 2003). 58-68.Google Scholar
- Ruth M. Casper. 2009. Guidelines for the instrumentation of wild birds and mammals. Animal Behaviour 78(6). (Dec. 2009). 1477-1483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.09.023Google Scholar
- Matthew C. Perry. 1981. Abnormal Behavior of Canvasbacks Equipped with Radio Transmitters. The Journal of Wildlife Management 45(3). (Jul. 1981). 786-789. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3808723Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas W. Bodey . 2017. A phylogenetically controlled meta-analysis of biologging device effects on birds: Deleterious effects and a call for more standardized reporting of study data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9(4). (Nov. 2017). 946-955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12934Google Scholar
- CJ Brooks, C. Bonyongo, and S. Harris. 2008. Effects of Global Positioning System Collar Weight on Zebra Behavior and Location Error. Journal of Wildlife Error 72(2). (Feb. 2008). 527-534. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097569Google Scholar
- Rory P. Wilson. 2011. The price tag. Nature 469. (Jan. 2011). 164-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/469164aGoogle Scholar
- Richard C. Cotter and Cindy J. Gratto. 1995. Effects of Nest and Brood Visits and Radio Transmitters on Rock Ptarmigan. The Journal of Wildlife Management 59(1). (Jan. 1995). 93-98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3809120Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul M. Meyers, Scott A. Hatch, Daniel M. Mulcahy. 1998. Effect of Implanted Satellite Transmitters on the Nesting Behavior of Murres. The Condor 100(1). (Feb. 1998). 172-174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1369912Google Scholar
- Withey, John & Bloxton, Thomas & Marzluff, John. (2001). Chapter 3. Effects of Tagging and Location Error in Wildlife Radiotelemetry Studies. 10.1016/B978-012497781-5/50004-9.Google Scholar
- Marie-Charlott Rümmler, Osama Mustafa, Jakob Maercker, Hans-Ulrich Peter and Jan Esefeld. 2016. Measuring the influence of unmanned aerial vehicles on Adélie penguins. Polar Biology 39. (Nov. 2015). 1329-1334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00300-015-1838-1Google Scholar
- Mark A. Ditmer . 2015. Bears Show a Physiological but Limited Behavioral Response to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Current Biology 25(17). (Aug. 2015). 2278-2283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.07.024.Google Scholar
- Anthony Caravaggi 2020. A review of factors to consider when using camera traps to study animal behavior to inform wildlife ecology and conservation. Conservation Science and Practice 2(8). (Jun. 2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.239Google Scholar
- Bruno Cidl et al. 2013. Preventing injuries caused by radiotelemetry collars in reintroduced red-rumped agoutis, Dasyprocta leporina (Rodentia: Dasyproctidae), in Atlantic Forest, southeastern Brazil. Zoologia (Curitiba) 30(1). (Feb 2013). https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-46702013000100015.Google Scholar
- Raymond J. Greenwood and Alan B. Sargeant. 1973. Influence of Radio Packs on Captive Mallards and Blue-Winged Teal. Journal of Wildlife Management 37(1). (Jan. 1973). 3-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3799732Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paul R. Krausman 2019. From the Field: Neck lesions in ungulates from collars incorporating satellite technology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(3). (Sep. 2004). 987-991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[0987:FTFNLI]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
- Melia T. DeVivo . 2011. Survival and cause-specific mortality of elk Cervus canadensis calves in a predator rich environment. Wildlife Biology 17(2). (Jun. 2011). 156-165. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2981/10-080Google Scholar
- Jacob D. Hennig, J. Derek Scasta, Jeffrey L. Beck, Kathryn A. Schoenecker and Sarah R. B. King. 2020. Systematic review of equids and telemetry collars: implications for deployment and reporting. Wildlife Research 47(5). (Jul. 2020). 361-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR19229Google Scholar
- Jarrod C. Hodgson and Lian Pin Koh. 2016. Best practice for minimising unmanned aerial vehicle disturbance to wildlife in biological field research. Current Biology 26(10). (May 2016). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2016.04.001Google Scholar
- Courtney Lynd Daigle. 2014. Incorporating the Philosophy of Technology into Animal Welfare Assessment. J Agric Environ Ethics 27. (Jan. 2014). 633–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9482-7Google Scholar
- Patrizia Paci, Clara Mancini, and Blaine A. Price. 2019. Designing for wearability: an animal-centred framework. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI'19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3371049.3371051Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrizia Paci. 2019. A Wearer-Centred Framework to Design for Wearability in Animal Biotelemetry. Biotelemetry. PhD dissertation, The Open University, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21954/ou.ro.00010942Google Scholar
- International Biologging Society. Retrieved from https://www.bio-logging.net/#toolsGoogle Scholar
- Michael E. Soulé. 1985. What Is Conservation Biology? BioScience 35(11). (Dec. 1985). 727–734. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054Google Scholar
- Ngaio J. Beausoleil. 2020.I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist: Considering the Theoretical and Practical Differences Between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare. Animals 10(2). (Feb. 2020). 257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020257Google Scholar
- Ngaio J. Beausoleil 2018. “Feelings and Fitness” Not “Feelings or Fitness”–The Raison d'être of Conservation Welfare, Which Aligns Conservation and Animal Welfare Objectives. Front. Vet. Sci. (Nov. 2018). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00296Google Scholar
- James Kirkwood and Robert C. Hubrecht (Ed). 2010. Welfare and ‘best practice in field studies of wildlife. The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Ben A. Minteer and James P. Collins. 2005. Why we need an “ecological ethics”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(6). (Aug. 2005). 332-337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2005)003[0332:WWNAEE]2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
- Carl D. Soulsbury 2020. The welfare and ethics of research involving wild animals: A primer. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. (Jun. 2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13435Google Scholar
- JWD Wildlife Welfare Supplement Editorial Board. 2016. Advances in animal welfare for free-living animals. J Wildl Dis 52(2):S4-13. (Apr. 2016). DOI: 10.7589/52.2S.S4Google ScholarCross Ref
- Miriam A. Zemanova. 2020. Towards more compassionate wildlife research through the 3Rs principles: moving from invasive to non-invasive methods. Wildlife Biology 2020(1). (Mar 2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.2981/wlb.00607Google Scholar
- Field KA, Paquet PC, Artelle K, Proulx G, Brook RK, 2020. Publication reform to safeguard wildlife from researcher harm. PLOS Biology 18(5). (Apr. 2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000752Google Scholar
- Isabella L. K. Clegg, Rebecca M. Boys and Karen A. Stockin. 2021. Increasing the Awareness of Animal Welfare Science in Marine Mammal Conservation: Addressing Language, Translation and Reception Issues. Animal 11(6). (May 2021). 1596. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11061596Google Scholar
- Sandra E. Baker, Stephanie A. Maw, Paul J. Johnson and David W. Macdonald. 2020. Not in My Backyard: Public Perceptions of Wildlife and ‘Pest Control’ in and around UK Homes, and Local Authority ‘Pest Control’. Animals 10(2). (Jan. 2020). 644. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10020222Google Scholar
- Vassili Papastavrou, Russell Leaper and David Lavigne. 2017. Why management decisions involving marine mammals should include animal welfare. Marine Policy 79, (May 2017), 19-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.02.001Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ronald R. Swaisgood. 2007. Current status and future directions of applied behavioral research for animal welfare and conservation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 102(3–4), (Feb. 2007), 139–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2006.05.027Google Scholar
- Clara Mancini. 2011. Animal-computer interaction: a manifesto. Interactions. ACM 18, 4 (Jul. + Aug. 2011), 69–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1978822.1978836Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clara Mancini, Shaun Lawson, and Oskar Juhlin. 2017. Animal-Computer Interaction: the Emergence of a Discipline. Journal of Human Computer Studies, 98, (Feb. 2017), 129–134. DOI: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581916301355?via%3DihubGoogle ScholarDigital Library
- Hirskyj-Douglas I, Pons P, Read JC, and Jaen J. 2018. Seven Years after the Manifesto: Literature Review and Research Directions for Technologies in Animal Computer Interaction. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2, (2), 30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/mti2020030Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dirk van der Linden and Anna Zamansky. 2017. Agile with Animals: Towards a Development Method. In Just-In-Time Requirements Engineering (JITRE), 2017 IEEE Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal. 423–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/REW.2017.11Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ilyena Hirskyj-Douglas, Janet C. Read, Matthew Horton. 2017. Animal Personas: Representing Dog Stakeholders in Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 31st International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (HCI 2017). Digital Make-Believe, Sunderland, UK. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14236/ewic/HCI2017.37Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jessica Katherine Frawley and Laurel Evelyn Dyson. 2014. Animal personas: acknowledging non-human stakeholders in designing for sustainable food systems. In Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: the Future of Design (OzCHI '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 21–30. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2686612.2686617Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fiona French, Clara Mancini, and Helen Sharp. 2017. Exploring Research through Design in Animal Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 2, 1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3152130.3152147Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anna Zamansky, Amanda Roshier, Clara Mancini, Emily C. Collins, Carol Hall, Katie Grillaert, Ann Morrison, Steve North, and Hanna Wirman. 2017. A Report on the First International Workshop on Research Methods in Animal-Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 806–815. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3052759Google ScholarDigital Library
- Katherine Grillaert and Samuel Camenzind. 2016. Unleashed enthusiasm: ethical reflections on harms, benefits, and animal-centered aims of ACI. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 9, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2995257.299538Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clara Mancini. 2018. Animal-computer Interaction: Animals as Co-Designers of Technologically Supported Ecosystems. (July 2018). Retrieved August 17, 2021 from http://pd4more.urbaninformatics.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Mancini_Clara_v2.pdf.Google Scholar
- Clara Mancini. 2017. Towards an animal-centred ethics for Animal-Computer Interaction. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 50 (Apr. 2017). 221-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.04.008Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hiroki Kobayashi, Kana Muramatsu, Junya Okuno, Kazuhiko Nakamura, Akio Fujiwara, and Kaoru Saito. 2015. Playful rocksalt system: animal-computer interaction design in wild environments. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology(ACE '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 62, 1–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837012Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jean-Loup Rault, Sarah Webber, and Marcus Carter. 2015. Cross-disciplinary perspectives on animal welfare science and animal-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (ACE '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 56, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837014Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrizia Paci, Clara Mancini, and Blaine A. Price. 2017. The Role of Ethological Observation for Measuring Animal Reactions to Biotelemetry Devices. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction (ACI2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 5, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3152130.3152144Google ScholarDigital Library
- Patrizia Paci, Clara Mancini, and Blaine A. Price. 2016. Towards a Wearer-Centred Framework for Animal Biotelemetry. In: Proceedings of Measuring Behaviour 2016 (Spink, A.J ed.), 25-27 May 2016, Dublin.Google Scholar
- Anna Zamansky, Dirk van der Linden, and Sofya Baskin. 2017. Pushing Boundaries of RE: Requirement Elicitation for Non-Human Users. In 2017 IEEE 25th International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE). IEEE, Lisbon, Portugal, 406–411. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2017.30Google Scholar
- Bonnie M. Perdue, Andrea W. Clay, Diann E. Gaalema, Terry L. Maple, Tara S. Stoinski. 2012. Technology at the zoo: the influence of a touchscreen computer on orangutans and zoo visitors. Zoo Biol., 31(1), (Jan.–Feb. 2012), 27–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.20378Google Scholar
- Bonnie M. Perdue. 2016. The Effect of Computerized Testing on Sun Bear Behavior and Enrichment Preferences. Behav Sci (Basel), 6(4), (Dec. 2016), 19. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390%2Fbs6040019Google Scholar
- Fiona French, Clara Mancini, and Helen Sharp. 2015. Designing Interactive Toys for Elephants. In CHI PLAY ’15: Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play, ACM 523–528. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1145/2793107.2810327Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ida Kathrine Hammeleff Jørgensen and Hanna Wirman. 2016. Multispecies methods, technologies for play. Digital Creativity, 27(1), (Mar. 2016), 37–51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1145/2793107.2810327Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fiona French, Clara Mancini, and Helen Sharp. 2016. Exploring methods for interaction design with animals: a case-study with Valli. In ACI ’16: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Animal-Computer Interaction, Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2995257.2995394Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roosa Piitulainen and I. Hirskyj-Douglas. 2020. Music for Monkeys: Building Methods to Design with White-Faced Sakis for Animal-Driven Audio Enrichment Devices. Animals : an Open Access Journal from MDPI, 10, (Sept. 2020), 1768, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10101768Google Scholar
- Patricia Pons, Marcus Carter, and Javier Jaen. 2016. Sound to your Objects: A Novel Design Approach to Evaluate Orangutans’ Interest in Sound-based Stimuli. In ACI ’16: Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Animal Computer Interaction (ACI ’16). Association for Computing Machinery. New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2995257.2995383Google ScholarDigital Library
- Caitlin A. Ford, Liz Bellward, Clive J. C. Phillips, and Kris Descovich. 2021. Use of Interactive Technology in Captive Great Ape Management. J. Zool. Bot. Gard., 2(2), (Jun. 2021), 300–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jzbg2020021Google ScholarCross Ref
- Marcus Carter, Sarah Webber, and Sally L. Sherwen. 2015. Naturalism and ACI: Augmenting Zoo Enclosures with Digital Technology. In ACE '15: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology, Association for Computing Machinery. New York, NY, USA, Article 61, 1–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2832932.2837011Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sarah E. Ritvo and Robert S. Allison. 2017. Designing for the exceptional user: Nonhuman animal-computer interaction (ACI). Computers in Human Behavior, 70, (May 2017), 222–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.062Google ScholarDigital Library
- Steve North. 2016. Do Androids dream of electric steeds?: the allure of horse-computer interaction. Interactions, 23(2), (Mar. + Apr. 2016), 50–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2882529Google ScholarDigital Library
- Fredrik Aspling. 2020. Unleashing Animal-Computer Interaction: A Theoretical Investigation of the ‘I’ in ACI. PhD dissertation, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University. (May 2020). 152. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-180974Google Scholar
- W. L. Linklater and J. V. Gedir. 2010. Distress unites animal conservation and welfare towards synthesis and collaboration. Animal Conservation, 14(1), (Oct. 2010), 25–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00399.xGoogle Scholar
- Peter Jones. 2018. Contexts of Co-creation: Designing with System Stakeholders. In: Jones P., Kijima K. (eds) Systemic Design. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 8. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55639-8_1Google Scholar
- Lauren M. Aquino Shluzas, Martin Steinert, Larry J. Leifer. 2011. Designing to Maximize Value for Multiple Stakeholders: A Challenge to Med-Tech Innovation. In DS 68-10: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 10: Design Methods and Tools pt. 2, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.Google Scholar
- Hanna Hasselqvist and Elina Eriksson. 2018. Designing for diverse stakeholder engagement in resource-intensive practices. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 426–438. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240193Google ScholarDigital Library
- Niels van Berkel, Simon Dennis, Michael Zyphur, Jinjing Li, Andrew Heathcote, Vassilis Kostakos. 2020. Modeling interaction as a complex system. Human-Computer Interaction, 36(4), (Jan.2020), 1–27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2020.1715221Google Scholar
- Soenke Ziesche. 2021. AI Ethics and Value Alignment for Nonhuman Animals. Philosophies, 6(2), (Apr. 2021), 31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6020031Google Scholar
- Bill Tomlinson, Bonnie Nardi, Daniel Stokols, and Ankita Raturi. 2021. Ecosystemas: Representing Ecosystem Impacts in Design. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 14, 1–10. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3450382Google ScholarDigital Library
- David Fraser. 2011. A “Practical” Ethic for Animals. J Agric Environ Ethics, 25, (Oct. 2012), 721–746. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9353-zGoogle Scholar
- Jonathan Beever and Andrew O. Brightman. 2016. A Principlist Approach for Thinking About the Social Impacts of Engineering. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, ASEE, New Orleans, LA, USA, URL: https://peer.asee.org/26408Google Scholar
Recommendations
Multisurface Interaction in the WILD Room
The WILD (wall-sized interaction with large datasets) room serves as a testbed for exploring the next generation of interactive systems by distributing interaction across diverse computing devices, enabling multiple users to easily and seamlessly create,...
Motor-impaired touchscreen interactions in the wild
ASSETS '14: Proceedings of the 16th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers & accessibilityTouchscreens are pervasive in mainstream technologies; they offer novel user interfaces and exciting gestural interactions. However, to interpret and distinguish between the vast ranges of gestural inputs, the devices require users to consistently ...
Displays in the wild: understanding the dynamics and evolution of a display ecology
PERVASIVE'06: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Pervasive ComputingLarge interactive display systems are becoming increasingly pervasive, but most have been studied in isolation, rather than in the context of other technologies in the environment. We present an in-depth field evaluation of large interactive displays ...
Comments