{"ID":91415,"post_author":"9412100","post_date":"2020-07-07 16:31:09","post_date_gmt":"2020-07-07 20:31:09","post_content":"","post_title":"LIMSjournal - Spring 2020","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"limsjournal-spring-2020","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2020-07-07 16:43:31","post_modified_gmt":"2020-07-07 20:43:31","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"https:\/\/www.limsforum.com\/?post_type=ebook&p=91415","menu_order":0,"post_type":"ebook","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"","_ebook_metadata":{"enabled":"on","private":"0","guid":"A4214AC5-1CCB-4786-822C-CE4F6E85F906","title":"LIMSjournal - Spring 2020","subtitle":"Volume 6, Issue 1","cover_theme":"nico_7","cover_image":"https:\/\/www.limsforum.com\/wp-content\/plugins\/rdp-ebook-builder\/pl\/cover.php?cover_style=nico_7&subtitle=Volume+6%2C+Issue+1&editor=Shawn+Douglas&title=LIMSjournal+-+Spring+2020&title_image=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.limsforum.com%2Fwww.limsforum.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FFig1_Mtonga_AfricanJofLabMed2019_8-1.jpg&publisher=LabLynx+Press","editor":"Shawn Douglas","publisher":"LabLynx Press","author_id":"26","image_url":"https:\/\/s3.limswiki.org\/www.limswiki.org\/images\/7\/73\/Fig1_Mtonga_AfricanJofLabMed2019_8-1.jpg","items":{"d14ab23a070a6dedd70edd1f31559d55_type":"article","d14ab23a070a6dedd70edd1f31559d55_title":"Leveraging conservation action with open\u2010source hardware (Hill et al. 2019)","d14ab23a070a6dedd70edd1f31559d55_url":"https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware","d14ab23a070a6dedd70edd1f31559d55_plaintext":"\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\tJournal:Leveraging conservation action with open\u2010source hardware\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tFrom LIMSWiki\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJump to: navigation, search\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tFull article title\n \nLeveraging conservation action with open\u2010source hardwareJournal\n \nConservation LettersAuthor(s)\n \nHill, Andrew P.; Davies, Alasdair; Prince, Peter; Snaddon, Jake L.; Doncaster, C. Patrick; Rogers, AlexAuthor affiliation(s)\n \nUniversity of Southampton, Zoological Society of London, University of OxfordPrimary contact\n \nEmail: ah1u14 at soton dot ac dot ukYear published\n \n2019Volume and issue\n \n12(5)Page(s)\n \ne12661DOI\n \n10.1111\/conl.12661ISSN\n \n1755-263XDistribution license\n \nCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalWebsite\n \nhttps:\/\/conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/full\/10.1111\/conl.12661Download\n \nhttps:\/\/conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/epdf\/10.1111\/conl.12661 (PDF)\n\nContents\n\n1 Abstract \n2 Introduction \n3 A framework to support OSH for conservation \n4 Case study \n5 Leveraging frontline action \n6 Acknowledgements \n\n6.1 Author contributions \n6.2 Funding \n6.3 Conflict of interest \n\n\n7 References \n8 Notes \n\n\n\nAbstract \nData collection by conservation biologists is undergoing radical change, with researchers collaborating across disciplines to create bespoke, low\u2010cost monitoring equipment from open\u2010source hardware (OSH). Compared to commercial hardware, OSH dramatically reduces participation costs. Four barriers currently hold back its wide adoption: (1) user inexperience inhibits initial uptake; (2) complex and costly manufacturing\/distribution procedures impede global dissemination; (3) lack of creator support results in lapsed projects; and (4) lack of user support degrades continued utility in the field. Here, we propose a framework to address these barriers, illustrating how OSH offers a route to rapid expansion of community\u2010driven conservation action.\nKeywords: biodiversity monitoring, conservation technology, environmental monitoring, open\u2010source hardware, open\u2010source software\n\nIntroduction \nConservation policy urgently needs accessible, affordable, fit\u2010for\u2010purpose tools to address unprecedented reductions in global biodiversity and rise in illegal wildlife trade (IWT).[1] National governments are now committing to the wild\u2010tech sector, in which open science plays a vital role. For example, the U.K. government is funding initiatives to tackle IWT using innovative open data standards.[2] In this policy perspective, we identify current barriers to the wide adoption of open\u2010source technology and propose a framework for addressing them.\nOver the last 30 years, conservation biology has seen a shift toward data transparency with the growth of open science, including open\u2010access journals, websites hosting open data, software and hardware, and sharing through social media.[3] The new openness has generated a profound change in the ways that hardware and software are developed, leading to conservation biologists collaborating with engineers to create bespoke tools for their specific applications.[4][5] Readily available open\u2010source hardware (OSH) is increasingly used in the rapid and cheap development of deployable prototypes.[6] The fields of conservation, ecology, and environmental sciences have seen an increased uptake in OSH over the last four years, with over a hundred publications reporting on scientific tools created using open\u2010source microcomputers, such as the Raspberry Pi or Arduino.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]\nThe OSH designation refers to the intellectual property, design principles, and legality of freely available hardware design files, which in their most liberal form can be used to manufacture, distribute, and sell the physically constructed product. Design files consist of circuit\u2010board schematics, circuit\u2010board layout files, and the software source code that together permit construction of a piece of electronic hardware. OSH provides transparency, allowing full public scrutiny of designs to the benefit of their scientific integrity. Open designs create freedom to customize technology for specific applications.[14] The unrestricted access of developers to user needs, and users to developer designs, facilitates rapid community prototyping, either by centrally managed revisions based on user feedback or by user modifications on original designs.[15] The resulting self\u2010made equipment enables replicable data to be gathered at a lower cost than can be achieved with commercial hardware of equivalent utility.[16] These benefits have enabled OSH to colonize niches in technology markets previously unreachable by models based on intellectual property.[17]\nMany barriers still lie in the way of implementing OSH for conservation purposes. Conservation practitioners must assemble the technology manually, generally with no support other than build instructions. Organizations formed around OSH find it difficult to obtain financial resources to continue development[18], often resulting in project termination soon after initial funds are spent.[19] New creators inadvertently reinvent tools when the design files of previously created equipment lapse or become lost. Commercial hardware retains an advantage in this respect with the higher financial outlay paying for product delivery, guarantees, and after\u2010sales care.\nOvercoming current barriers to OSH will require (1) establishing procedures for the manufacture and distribution of hardware that facilitate access and dissemination among the conservation community; (2) financial support for product maintenance; (3) nontechnical instructions for implementing OSH; and (4) after\u2010sale support for continued utility in the field. Models now exist to support adoption of open\u2010source software, such as Canonical providing commercial services for consumers of Linux Ubuntu operating systems. Such frameworks are still lacking, however, to support the not\u2010for\u2010profit uptake and implementation of OSH for conservation. Although profitable businesses are being built around OSH, they meet a demand that comes principally from technically savvy users, capable of building their own hardware from published design files.[20] Conservation practitioners largely fall into a different category of user. They often have limited technical electronics know\u2010how, or they have limited resources for technical training. These users typically require others to build the hardware for them. They remain hard to target for OSH business models due to the complexities that go with hand fabricating hardware from an open design. With appropriate support, however, conservation practitioners are best placed to apply OSH to conservation actions.\nHere, we introduce a provisional framework for developing and sustaining the life cycle of not\u2010for\u2010profit OSH for conservationists. The framework addresses current technical barriers to manufacture and presents simple guidelines for distribution, user accessibility, creator support, and user support. It comprises a set of defined product\u2010development processes that guide a collaborative team through the life cycle of an open\u2010source product, from construction and after\u2010sales support, to the reinvestment strategy that sustains the creators and community. We demonstrate an application of the framework with a real\u2010world case study of an OSH product in the form of an acoustic monitoring device.[21] The case study serves to illustrate how the framework unlocks useful technology for local communities, researchers funded by government research councils, and individuals funded by non\u2010government organizations (NGOs). In recent years, similar frameworks, such as Crowd Supply, have been shown to increase the adoption of proprietary products by consumers[22] and even to improve competitive advantage through crowdsourced tools.[23] We argue for wide adoption of flexible approaches of this sort by conservation NGOs and universities in particular. A framework can facilitate rapid uptake of OSH for conservation activities supported by these organizations, thereby fostering the proliferation of local\u2010scale projects that lead to global\u2010scale action.[24][25]\n\nA framework to support OSH for conservation \nThe framework has six phases, each with formulated guidelines: (1) hardware, (2) manufacture, (3) release, (4) distribution, (5) support, and (6) sustainability. (See Figure 1.) The framework is formed around a management team consisting of a creator group (engineering team), which leads the technical developments of the technology, and a logistics group (funder\/NGO\/university), which leads logistical and financial operations. This unified entity requires an open and collaborative relationship between the two groups, with clear lines of responsibility (detailed in Table 1).\n\r\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure 1. An overview of the framework for developing, funding, supporting, and sustaining open\u2010source hardware (OSH) for conservation. The framework differs from a traditional business model for a commercial product in having open\u2010source licenses, relying on word\u2010of\u2010mouth in lieu of an advertising budget, allowing group\u2010purchase only, explicitly excluding housing for electronic components and guarantees on product performance, and outsourcing after\u2010sales care to web forums.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTable 1. Distribution of responsibilities for the management team, between the creator group, which focuses on hardware issues, and the logistics group, which focuses on assurance issues\n\n\nManagement team group\n\nResponsibility\n\n\nCreator group\n\n\nConception of idea\r\n\nCircuit design\r\n\nHardware development\r\n\nSoftware development\u2014website, firmware, supporting software and algorithm design\r\n\nPrototyping\r\n\nBench testing\r\n\nField testing\r\n\nChoosing appropriate manufacturers\r\n\nTesting small\u2010batch build quality of chosen manufacturer\r\n\nSourcing components for crowd funding order\r\n\nTesting alternative components if original components become obsolete\r\n\nWebsite maintenance\r\n\nTechnical community support via website forum\n\n\n\nLogistics group\n\n\nnitiating crowd funded campaign\r\n\nTaking payment from crowdfunding organisation\r\n\nCo\u2010organising distribution of units\r\n\nAssurance\u2010related community support via crowd funders website\r\n\nHolding pool of funds\r\n\nDistributing pool of funds to support technology development\n\n\n\nBoth groups\n\nSocial media presence\n\n\n\nThe end users are the communities requiring the conservation hardware, such as local conservation activists, research scientists, educators, and wildlife enthusiasts. The framework provides a provisional set of management guidelines for OSH development, and a scalable method for the community to acquire and use the created technology. The framework generates a pool of crowdsourced funds out of unit sales margins obtained in the bulk manufacturing of hardware. Funds can be reinvested back into the hardware project to sustain its lifespan. In addition to providing support for creators and users, the framework minimizes the investment in human and financial capacity needed to initiate, manufacture, and distribute OSH. It makes use of new websites for crowdfunding and for turn\u2010key electronics manufacturing to provide tailored and cheap solutions for nontechnical conservation organizations. A framework can be viewed as successful if it is able to harness a large community of individuals to acquire low\u2010cost single units from a high-volume manufacturing process, while also creating extra funds to continue support. Success will depend on simple hardware construction to reduce overhead when manufacturing at bulk, and the timely orchestration of a large group of buyers to crowdfund industrial manufacture of the hardware.[26]\nThe initial \u201chardware\u201d phase is the design stage, which commences after the creator group has proven the feasibility of using a particular technology for a desired conservation task. The proven hardware needs to be adapted to an open\u2010source design, and initial investment is required to fund this development. To open source a technology means to apply an open license to it. Various licenses are commonly used to define how OSH design files can be adapted, shared, or commercialized by the user community. (See Table 2.) Each license has its own benefits, depending on the goal. For example, the most open license, CC0, may be useful for community ownership of the design, thus allowing it to be shared, adapted, and commercialized without the need to attribute changes to the original creator(s). Any of the OSH licenses can be used in the framework. Oberloier and Pearce[27] detail formal procedures for designers of OSH.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTable 2. Comparison of the available Creative Commons OSH licenses\n\n\nCreative Commons licenses\n\nAdaptations can be shared\n\nCommercial use\n\n\nCC0 (No attribution)\n\nYes\n\nYes\n\n\nAttribution (BY)\n\nYes\n\nYes\n\n\nShareAlike (CC BY\u2010SA)\n\nYes, but must share alike\n\nYes\n\n\nNonCommercial (CC BY\u2010NC)\n\nYes\n\nNo\n\n\nNonCommercial\u2010NoDerivatives (CC BY\u2010NC\u2010ND)\n\nNo\n\nNo\n\n\nNoDerivatives (BY\u2010ND)\n\nNo\n\nYes\n\n\nNonCommercial\u2010ShareAlike (CC BY\u2010NC\u2010SA)\n\nYes, but must share alike\n\nNo\n\n\n\nThe \u201cmanufacture\u201d phase involves physical fabrication and testing of the subsequent OSH design. Manufacturing often involves complex fabrication processes, including sourcing parts, assembly of printed circuit boards (PCBs), programming the PCBs, and developing housing for the product suitable for field deployment. Keeping this sequence as simple as possible minimizes manufacturing costs. Web services chosen for PCB manufacture should be trialed by testing the build quality of small batches of the developed hardware units before release. Tests should involve checking the quality of assembled PCBs, assessing the fit\u2010for\u2010purpose functionality of the final product, and providing solutions to assembly problems found during manufacture. Issues found at this stage need to be resolved before continuing to the next phase. Spare devices built during this process can be used as trial devices or backup units to support after\u2010sales assurance issues.\nThe \u201crelease\u201d phase consists of the publication, promotion, sales, and large\u2010batch manufacture of the hardware units. Technology design files are first uploaded to a publicly accessible open\u2010source hosting website to allow community access. The guiding principle of this phase is to minimize the cost per unit for users while also generating a pool of funds. Large\u2010scale industrial manufacturing processes reduce unit material cost and assembly time; however, they require an initial sum of money to bulk order before making any sales. To this end, minimum quantity batch manufacturing can be crowdsourced to reduce risk and produce an economy of scale.[28] A crowdfunding platform is required to collect user's funds during funding campaigns. Campaigns should run at regular intervals, and each should end when a maximum order quantity is reached, or a time period is elapsed. The crowdfunding campaign should be publicized on social media and conservation forums, so as to gain traction and reduce the risk of failing to meet the monetary target.\nThe \u201cdistribution\u201d phase consists of the global dissemination of the manufactured units. Depending on the crowdfunding organization used, the logistics group may need to take on the role of global distributor, or employ a dedicated distribution house to ship and track deliveries.\nThe \u201csupport\u201d phase provides technical and logistical assistance to the community of users. Users may require support with diverse issues, including devices getting lost in transit, out\u2010of\u2010box malfunctions, and difficulties with operating the device. A mechanism should be established for users to send their end\u2010of\u2010life devices back to the creator group for re\u2010use or disposal according to the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations.\n\u201cSustainability\u201d encompasses the reinvestment strategy to facilitate continued functioning of the technology into the future. It involves addressing how pooled funds can be generated and used to continue future development and promote future purchases. To create pooled funds, a margin should be added to each unit sold that generates enough funds from the minimum quantity order to sustain the team until the next group purchase campaign ends. The crowdfunding campaign should set its goal to this minimum batch order. Costs incurred by the logistics group to manage logistical operations, such as employing a part\u2010time member of staff and purchasing packaging for shipping, should be reimbursed from this generated fund. The creator and logistics groups should take a percentage of funds to support their tasks after each group funding campaign. The remaining pool of funds can be held by the logistics group and made accessible to the creator group as needed to pay for further support, bug fixes, and further enhancement or development.\n\nCase study \nThe framework was developed and formalized for the open\u2010source manufacture and distribution of an acoustic monitoring device called AudioMoth, created by Open Acoustic Devices (OAD). Within the management team, the creator group comprised OAD, and the logistics group comprised a small conservation NGO called the Arribada Initiative.\nThe AudioMoth case study used the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY) open\u2010source license. (See Table 2.) This attribution allowed full participation by the community in all aspects of design, attributing all changes to the original creators. The license allowed other manufacturers to construct and re\u2010sell the platform independently (e.g., LabMaker). This brought mixed benefits: it raised awareness and distribution of devices, while also reducing the funds available for sustaining the devices, although in this case only by about one\u2010tenth.\nHardware was designed to fit a single fixed part, consisting of one single\u2010sided PCB that could be purchased from a single manufacturer. The creator group developed the hardware as part of their research budget from U.K. Research Council grants. Development of the product was funded by grants totaling \u223cUSD $13,000 per\/year over three years for two PhD students, excluding stipends and course fees.\nThe chosen manufacturer was CircuitHub. This online web service specializes in assembly of open\u2010source PCBs. It enables design files to be uploaded, shared, manufactured, and delivered to order, with transparent batch size, lead time, and pricing. It first built small test batches of prototype PCBs, which were used to evaluate the single\u2010board construction and address any build issues. Test boards had a 20\u2010day lead time and cost USD $60 per unit for a batch of 50.\nThe finalized AudioMoth design files were published on the open\u2010source hosting websites GitHub and CircuitHub. This made them freely available to adapt and share. CircuitHub's online quotation tool was used to calculate the unit selling price on a manufactured batch of 200 units. A further 20% was added to this unit price, which was calculated to generate enough funds to support global distribution, after\u2010sales support, and future enhancements. Cost\u2010free promotion of AudioMoth was achieved through the WILDLABS forum, social media, and the OAD subscription page. Trial devices were distributed to potential users to proliferate the spread of information throughout the conservation community and to generate feedback to the creator group on the AudioMoth utility.\nThe crowdfunding organization GroupGets coordinated the group purchase campaign for each batch order from CircuitHub. GroupGets linked back to OAD's subscription page to help the creators gauge the level of online interest. To fulfill a cost\u2010effective manufacturing run, each campaign had to gain a minimum of 200 backers.\nGroupGets handled postage to users based in the United States. For orders bound elsewhere, GroupGets batch posted the ordered units to the U.K. headquarters of the logistics group. This minimized individual customs declarations, freeing up sufficient funds from the price margin for the logistics group to distribute units to the rest of the world. The logistics group handled all non\u2010U.S. distribution until the rising level of demand necessitated a dedicated distribution house. Weengs was then selected to receive devices directly from GroupGets and manage the major distribution channels to the U.K. and E.U.\nThe creator group maintained a website supporting users of AudioMoth. This was updated on a weekly basis, taking approximately two person\u2010hours\/week. The website hosted usage instructions, open\u2010source design files, and a support forum. The forum enabled users to discuss ongoing projects, report technical issues, and suggest modifications to the open\u2010source design files. Over time, it became partially self\u2010sustaining as the community of users gained expertise in the technology. The creator group was still required to provide solutions to more technical issues.\nThe case study supported six rounds of group\u2010purchase campaigns over 18 months, from October 2017 to March 2019. These campaigns generated a pool of funds to finance U.S. distribution, hardware improvements, ongoing user support for all purchased devices, and community\u2010based events, including workshops for users. The sixth group\u2010funding campaign introduced the first hardware modification to the design files. A lesson learned during this change was the importance of maintaining backwards compatible firmware across hardware versions.\nThe six campaigns resulted in 5,242 unit sales in total, with 34% purchased by universities, 23% by conservation organizations, 11% by businesses\/consultants, 1% by government agencies, and 30% by unspecified individuals. All devices sold for USD $49.99 per unit, creating a net revenue of USD $262,048 and a pool of funds after device manufacture and distribution of USD $58,188 (discounting the initial external investment). Pooled funds were managed by the logistics group throughout the study. The remaining pool will continue to be reinvested back into the framework to pay for ongoing maintenance of the website, to support the community of users, and to further improve the hardware. (See Table 3.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTable 3. Breakdown of revenue and expenditure throughout the 18\u2010month AudioMoth case study using the framework to support OSH\n\n\nPayments in\/out\n\nAmount (USD)\n\n\nSale of 5,242 units\n\n$262,047.58\n\n\nManufacturing costs\n\n\u2212$141,404.28\n\n\nGroup purchase fees\n\n\u2212$36,871.01\n\n\nPostage fees\n\n\u2212$11,228.25\n\n\nCommunity activity costs\n\n\u2212$8,076.19\n\n\nAdditional hardware improvements\n\n\u2212$6,279.67\n\n\nTotal pool of funds\n\n$58,188.18\n\n\n\nLeveraging frontline action \nThe case study demonstrates the capability of the framework for sustaining the lifecycle of an open\u2010source conservation tool, while also stimulating global deployment of conservation technology. The framework has to date enabled 687 separate projects to purchase OSH. Purchasers are globally distributed (Figure 2a), with clusters around the financial hubs of advanced economies, particularly in Europe (63%), North America (23%), and Australia (8%). Purchases made elsewhere include Central and South America (4%), Asia (2%), and Africa (<1%).\n\r\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure 2. The global impact of the framework to support OSH: (a) Heat map of all OSH purchase locations; (b) deployment locations and field applications of a 14% sample of purchasers\n\n\n\nFourteen percent of the framework's end\u2010users posted on social media about conservation work using AudioMoths, with conservation action occurring largely away from purchase locations. For example, Africa was the source country for only two sales, but the deployment location for 23% of purchases. Devices were used for a wide range of applications, including terrestrial monitoring of individual species, general ecosystem soundscape analysis, monitoring of human\u2013wildlife conflicts, experimental marine surveys, and university\u2010level education (Figure 2b). Also by lowering the cost of participating in applied acoustic monitoring research, the application of the framework to AudioMoth facilitated public engagement, including citizen science projects for a national bat survey[29], biodiversity mapping surveys[30][31][32], and engagement by the general public in wildlife monitoring.[33] It also led to the development of new methods to address previously untestable research questions.[34]\nThose participating in group purchases of AudioMoths actively shared modifications and enhancements, including designs for housing the devices, on independent forum pages as well as on the OAD online community forum where changes could be validated by the creator group. Although the framework functions well for AudioMoth, more complicated OSH products may need additional manufacturing stages. Incorporating a framework to support OSH into NGO policy still requires substantial work, including further case studies of different conservation monitoring equipment. Without a framework of the type we propose, however, existing OSH will continue to have short life spans, and remain out of reach for the majority of conservation biologists.\nCreating legacy value for OSH and proprietary projects used for conservation should be the first principle of action for conservation organizations and universities. Online community platforms for conservation technology such as WILDLABS could take a lead in policy adoption, creating an official platform for recording long\u2010term OSH findings for the community to share and learn from. It is important to push access to OSH toward communities outside of the pockets of wealth and high opportunity that the framework may initially serve. Future developments should investigate benefits and costs of completely transitioning the framework to the conservation community, ways of making it more accessible to those communities typically underserved by citizen science, and methods of community\u2010led support for conservation tools.\n\nAcknowledgements \nWe thank Jos\u00e9 Lahoz\u2010Monfort for organizing the ARC CEED workshop entitled \u201cStepping into the future: Driving the Technology Agenda in Ecology and Conservation,\u201d where the OAD and Arribada Initiative seeded the idea for a framework. We thank Stephanie O'Donnell for help with establishing the user\u2010group and providing data for Figure 2b, Anne Dangerfield for logistics management, and Holly Baines for user support. A special thanks goes to the AudioMoth community.\n\nAuthor contributions \nAndrew P. Hill, Peter Prince, Alex Rogers, C. Patrick Doncaster, and Jake L. Snaddon contributed to the design of AudioMoth acoustic sensors, with Alex Rogers, Andrew P. Hill, and Peter Prince leading hardware and software development; Alasdair Davies led the logistics group and AudioMoth distribution service; and all authors contributed to writing of the paper.\n\nFunding \nThis work was supported by a U.K. EPSRC Studentship (1658469) to A. Hill, and a U.K. NERC SPITFIRE DTP award (NE\/L002531\/1) to P. Prince. \n\nConflict of interest \nThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\n\nReferences \n\n\n\u2191 The Royal Society (08 October 2018). \"Illegal wildlife trade\". https:\/\/royalsociety.org\/topics-policy\/projects\/illegal-wildlife-trade\/ .   \n\n\u2191 U.K. Government (31 January 2019). \"Digital revolution to use the power of data to combat illegal wildlife trade and reduce food waste\". https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/digital-revolution-to-use-the-power-of-data-to-combat-illegal-wildlife-trade-and-reduce-food-waste .   \n\n\u2191 Hampton, S.E.; Anderson, S.S.; Bagby, S.C. et al. (2015). \"The Tao of open science for ecology\". Ecosphere 6 (7): 1\u201313. doi:10.1890\/ES14-00402.1.   \n\n\u2191 Berger-Tal, O.; Lahoz-Monfort, J.J. (2018). \"Conservation technology: The next generation\". Conservation Letters 11 (6): e12458. doi:10.1111\/conl.12458.   \n\n\u2191 Kwok, R. (2017). \"Field Instruments: Build it yourself\". Nature 545: 253\u201355. doi:10.1038\/nj7653-253a.   \n\n\u2191 Pearce, J.M. (2014). \"Laboratory equipment: Cut costs with open-source hardware\". Nature 505 (7485): 618. doi:10.1038\/505618d. PMID 24476879.   \n\n\u2191 Ahmad, A.; Nadzri, M.M.M.; Rosli, I.M. et al. (2018). \"Rapid Prototyping of Wireless Image Transmission for Wildlife (Tiger) Monitoring System - A Preliminary Study\". Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering 10 (2-5): 75\u201379. http:\/\/journal.utem.edu.my\/index.php\/jtec\/article\/view\/4354 .   \n\n\u2191 Nazir, S.; Newey, S.; Irvine, R.J. et al. (2017). \"WiseEye: Next Generation Expandable and Programmable Camera Trap Platform for Wildlife Research\". PLoS One 12 (1): e0169758. doi:10.1371\/journal.pone.0169758. PMC PMC5226779. PMID 28076444. http:\/\/www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov\/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5226779 .   \n\n\u2191 Sankupellay, M.; McLaughlin, C.; Davis, J. et al. (2016). \"B4 - Brisbane Backyard Bird Box: Connecting People to the Environment\". Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems: 9\u201312. doi:10.1145\/2908805.2908808.   \n\n\u2191 Soro, A.; Brereton, M.; Dema, T. et al. (2018). \"The Ambient Birdhouse: An IoT Device to Discover Birds and Engage with Nature\". Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: 1\u201313. doi:10.1145\/3173574.3173971.   \n\n\u2191 Tan, T.F.; Teoh, S.S.; Fow, J.E. et al. (2016). \"Embedded human detection system based on thermal and infrared sensors for anti-poaching application\". Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Systems, Process and Control: 37\u201342. doi:10.1109\/SPC.2016.7920700.   \n\n\u2191 Maina, C.W.; Muchiri, D.; Njoroge, P. (2016). \"A Bioacoustic Record of a Conservancy in the Mount Kenya Ecosystem\". Biodiversity Data Journal 4: e9906. doi:10.3897\/BDJ.4.e9906.   \n\n\u2191 Whytock, R.C.; Christie, J. (2017). \"Solo: An open source, customizable and inexpensive audio recorder for bioacoustic research\". Methods in Ecology and Evolution 8 (3): 308\u201312. doi:10.1111\/2041-210X.12678.   \n\n\u2191 Kling, J. (2018). \"DIY goes in vivo\". Lab Animal 47: 143\u201346. doi:10.1038\/s41684-018-0066-z.   \n\n\u2191 O'Mahony, S. (2007). \"The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed?\". Journal of Management and Governance 11 (2): 139\u201350. doi:10.1007\/s10997-007-9024-7.   \n\n\u2191 Drack, M.; Hartmann, F.; Bauer, S. et al. (2018). \"The importance of open and frugal labware\". Nature Electronics 1 (9): 484\u201386. doi:10.1038\/s41928-018-0133-x.   \n\n\u2191 Hsing, P.-Y. (2018). \"Sustainable Innovation for Open Hardware and Open Science \u2013 Lessons from The Hardware Hacker\". Journal of Open Hardware 2 (1): 4. doi:10.5334\/joh.11.   \n\n\u2191 Li, Z.; Seering, W.; Wallace, D. (2018). \"Understanding Value Propositions and Revenue Models in Open Source Hardware Companies\". Proceedings from the 2018 International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship: 214\u201323.   \n\n\u2191 Iacona, G.; Ramachandra, A.; McGowan, J. et al. (2019). \"Identifying technology solutions to bring conservation into the innovation era\". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17 (10): 591\u201398. doi:10.1002\/fee.2111.   \n\n\u2191 Pearce, J.M. (2017). \"Emerging Business Models for Open Source Hardware\". Journal of Open Hardware 1 (1): 2. doi:10.5334\/joh.4.   \n\n\u2191 Hill, A.P.; Prince, P.; Covarrubias, E.P. et al. (2017). \"AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment\". Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9 (5): 1199\u20131211. doi:10.1111\/2041-210X.12955.   \n\n\u2191 Ilin, P.; Platis, D. Hammouda, I. (2018). \"Insights into the Trilateral Relationship of Crowdfunding Campaigns, Open Source and Communities\". Proceedings from the 2018 Open Source Systems: Enterprise Software and Solutions: 26\u201336. doi:10.1007\/978-3-319-92375-8_3.   \n\n\u2191 Nagle, F. (2018). \"Learning by Contributing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Contribution to Crowdsourced Public Goods\". Organization Science 29 (4): 547\u2013753. doi:10.1287\/orsc.2018.1202.   \n\n\u2191 Arlettaz, R.; Schaub, M.; Fournier, J. et al. (2010). \"From Publications to Public Actions: When Conservation Biologists Bridge the Gap between Research and Implementation\". BioScience 60 (10): 835\u201342. doi:10.1525\/bio.2010.60.10.10.   \n\n\u2191 Pocock, M.J.O.; Chandler, M.; Bonney, R. et al. (2018). \"A Vision for Global Biodiversity Monitoring With Citizen Science\". Advances in Ecological Research 59: 169\u2013223. doi:10.1016\/bs.aecr.2018.06.003.   \n\n\u2191 Kohler, T.; Chesbrough, H. (2019). \"From collaborative community to competitive market: The quest to build a crowdsourcing platform for social innovation\". R&D Management 49 (3): 356\u201368. doi:10.1111\/radm.12372.   \n\n\u2191 Oberloier, S.; Pearce, J.M. (2017). \"General Design Procedure for Free and Open-Source Hardware for Scientific Equipment\". Designs 2 (1): 2. doi:10.3390\/designs2010002.   \n\n\u2191 Wheat, R.E.; Wang, Y.; Byrnes, J.E.; Ranganathan, J. (2013). \"Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding\". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28 (2): 71\u20132. doi:10.1016\/j.tree.2012.11.001.   \n\n\u2191 Bat Conservation Trust (2019). \"National Bat Monitoring Programme\". https:\/\/www.bats.org.uk\/our-work\/national-bat-monitoring-programme .   \n\n\u2191 Point Blue Conservation Science (2019). \"Soundscapes to Landscapes\". https:\/\/www.soundscapes2landscapes.org .   \n\n\u2191 Bodon, S. (26 February 2019). \"Pitt Researchers Are Eavesdropping On Birds In The Name Of Science\". 90.5 WESA. https:\/\/www.wesa.fm\/post\/pitt-researchers-are-eavesdropping-birds-name-science .   \n\n\u2191 Cetalingua (2019). \"Participatory Platform for Citizen Scientists\". https:\/\/www.cetalingua.com\/citizen-science\/ .   \n\n\u2191 Gillings, S.; Moran, N. (2019). \"AudioMoth\". NOCMIG: Tips for Recording Nocturnal Bird Migration. https:\/\/www.nocmig.com\/audiomoth .   \n\n\u2191 Pi\u00f1a\u2010Covarrubias, E.; Hill, A.P.; Prince, P. et al. (2019). \"Optimization of sensor deployment for acoustic detection and localization in terrestrial environments\". Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation 5 (2): 180\u201392. doi:10.1002\/rse2.97.   \n\n\nNotes \nThis presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version\u2014by design\u2014lists them in order of appearance. The Iacona et al. in-press article was updated with the now-published version.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSource: <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external\" href=\"https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\">https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\tCategories: LIMSwiki journal articles (added in 2020)LIMSwiki journal articles (all)LIMSwiki journal articles on biodiversity informaticsLIMSwiki journal articles on information technologyLIMSwiki journal articles on open source\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\tNavigation menu\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\tViews\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tJournal\n\t\t\t\tDiscussion\n\t\t\t\tView source\n\t\t\t\tHistory\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\tPersonal tools\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tLog in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRequest account\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\tNavigation\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMain page\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRecent changes\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRandom page\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHelp\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tSearch\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\tTools\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tWhat links here\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRelated changes\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSpecial pages\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPermanent link\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPage information\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\tPrint\/export\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tCreate a book\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDownload as PDF\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDownload as Plain text\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPrintable version\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\tSponsors\n\t\t\n\t\t\t \r\n\n\t\r\n\n\t\r\n\n\t\n\t\r\n\n\t\r\n\n\t\n\t\r\n\n \n\t\r\n\n\t\n\t\r\n\n \n\t\n\t\r\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\r\n\n\t\r\n\n\t\r\n\n\t\n\t\r\n\n\t\r\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t This page was last modified on 4 February 2020, at 17:58.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tThis page has been accessed 208 times.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tContent is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License unless otherwise noted.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPrivacy policy\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAbout LIMSWiki\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDisclaimers\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n","d14ab23a070a6dedd70edd1f31559d55_html":"<body class=\"mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr ns-206 ns-subject page-Journal_Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open\u2010source_hardware skin-monobook action-view\">\n<div id=\"rdp-ebb-globalWrapper\">\n\t\t<div id=\"rdp-ebb-column-content\">\n\t\t\t<div id=\"rdp-ebb-content\" class=\"mw-body\" role=\"main\">\n\t\t\t\t<a id=\"rdp-ebb-top\"><\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<h1 id=\"rdp-ebb-firstHeading\" class=\"firstHeading\" lang=\"en\">Journal:Leveraging conservation action with open\u2010source hardware<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<div id=\"rdp-ebb-bodyContent\" class=\"mw-body-content\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<!-- start content -->\n\t\t\t\t\t<div id=\"rdp-ebb-mw-content-text\" lang=\"en\" dir=\"ltr\" class=\"mw-content-ltr\">\n\n\n<h2><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Abstract\">Abstract<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Data collection by conservation biologists is undergoing radical change, with researchers collaborating across disciplines to create bespoke, low\u2010cost <a href=\"https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/Environmental_monitoring\" title=\"Environmental monitoring\" class=\"wiki-link\" data-key=\"4671d3cbb4201e1698d0fb44369dc1ea\">monitoring<\/a> equipment from open\u2010source hardware (OSH). Compared to commercial hardware, OSH dramatically reduces participation costs. Four barriers currently hold back its wide adoption: (1) user inexperience inhibits initial uptake; (2) complex and costly manufacturing\/distribution procedures impede global dissemination; (3) lack of creator support results in lapsed projects; and (4) lack of user support degrades continued utility in the field. Here, we propose a framework to address these barriers, illustrating how OSH offers a route to rapid expansion of community\u2010driven conservation action.\n<\/p><p><b>Keywords<\/b>: biodiversity monitoring, conservation technology, environmental monitoring, open\u2010source hardware, open\u2010source software\n<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Conservation policy urgently needs accessible, affordable, fit\u2010for\u2010purpose tools to address unprecedented reductions in global biodiversity and rise in illegal wildlife trade (IWT).<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-RSIllegal18_1-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-RSIllegal18-1\">[1]<\/a><\/sup> National governments are now committing to the wild\u2010tech sector, in which open science plays a vital role. For example, the U.K. government is funding initiatives to tackle IWT using innovative open data standards.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-UKGovDigital19_2-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-UKGovDigital19-2\">[2]<\/a><\/sup> In this policy perspective, we identify current barriers to the wide adoption of open\u2010source technology and propose a framework for addressing them.\n<\/p><p>Over the last 30 years, conservation biology has seen a shift toward data transparency with the growth of open science, including open\u2010access journals, websites hosting open data, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/Free_and_open-source_software\" title=\"Free and open-source software\" class=\"wiki-link\" data-key=\"688dbf2b7fb58c69c6ad476828ee2c6a\">software<\/a> and hardware, and sharing through social media.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-HamptonTheTao15_3-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-HamptonTheTao15-3\">[3]<\/a><\/sup> The new openness has generated a profound change in the ways that hardware and software are developed, leading to conservation biologists collaborating with engineers to create bespoke tools for their specific applications.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-Berger-TalConserv18_4-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-Berger-TalConserv18-4\">[4]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-KwokField17_5-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-KwokField17-5\">[5]<\/a><\/sup> Readily available open\u2010source hardware (OSH) is increasingly used in the rapid and cheap development of deployable prototypes.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-PearceLab14_6-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-PearceLab14-6\">[6]<\/a><\/sup> The fields of conservation, ecology, and environmental sciences have seen an increased uptake in OSH over the last four years, with over a hundred publications reporting on scientific tools created using open\u2010source microcomputers, such as the Raspberry Pi or Arduino.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-AhmadRapid18_7-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-AhmadRapid18-7\">[7]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-NazirWise17_8-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-NazirWise17-8\">[8]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-SankupellayB4_16_9-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-SankupellayB4_16-9\">[9]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-SoroTheAmbient18_10-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-SoroTheAmbient18-10\">[10]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-TanEmbed16_11-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-TanEmbed16-11\">[11]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-MainaABio16_12-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-MainaABio16-12\">[12]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-WhytockSolo16_13-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-WhytockSolo16-13\">[13]<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p><p>The OSH designation refers to the intellectual property, design principles, and legality of freely available hardware design files, which in their most liberal form can be used to manufacture, distribute, and sell the physically constructed product. Design files consist of circuit\u2010board schematics, circuit\u2010board layout files, and the software source code that together permit construction of a piece of electronic hardware. OSH provides transparency, allowing full public scrutiny of designs to the benefit of their scientific integrity. Open designs create freedom to customize technology for specific applications.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-KlingDIY18_14-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-KlingDIY18-14\">[14]<\/a><\/sup> The unrestricted access of developers to user needs, and users to developer designs, facilitates rapid community prototyping, either by centrally managed revisions based on user feedback or by user modifications on original designs.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-OMahonyTheGov07_15-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-OMahonyTheGov07-15\">[15]<\/a><\/sup> The resulting self\u2010made equipment enables replicable data to be gathered at a lower cost than can be achieved with commercial hardware of equivalent utility.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-DrackTheImport18_16-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-DrackTheImport18-16\">[16]<\/a><\/sup> These benefits have enabled OSH to colonize niches in technology markets previously unreachable by models based on intellectual property.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-HsingSustain18_17-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-HsingSustain18-17\">[17]<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p><p>Many barriers still lie in the way of implementing OSH for conservation purposes. Conservation practitioners must assemble the technology manually, generally with no support other than build instructions. Organizations formed around OSH find it difficult to obtain financial resources to continue development<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-LiUnder18_18-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-LiUnder18-18\">[18]<\/a><\/sup>, often resulting in project termination soon after initial funds are spent.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-IaconaIdent19_19-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-IaconaIdent19-19\">[19]<\/a><\/sup> New creators inadvertently reinvent tools when the design files of previously created equipment lapse or become lost. Commercial hardware retains an advantage in this respect with the higher financial outlay paying for product delivery, guarantees, and after\u2010sales care.\n<\/p><p>Overcoming current barriers to OSH will require (1) establishing procedures for the manufacture and distribution of hardware that facilitate access and dissemination among the conservation community; (2) financial support for product maintenance; (3) nontechnical instructions for implementing OSH; and (4) after\u2010sale support for continued utility in the field. Models now exist to support adoption of open\u2010source software, such as <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/canonical.com\/\" target=\"_blank\">Canonical<\/a> providing commercial services for consumers of Linux Ubuntu operating systems. Such frameworks are still lacking, however, to support the not\u2010for\u2010profit uptake and implementation of OSH for conservation. Although profitable businesses are being built around OSH, they meet a demand that comes principally from technically savvy users, capable of building their own hardware from published design files.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-PearceEmerging17_20-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-PearceEmerging17-20\">[20]<\/a><\/sup> Conservation practitioners largely fall into a different category of user. They often have limited technical electronics know\u2010how, or they have limited resources for technical training. These users typically require others to build the hardware for them. They remain hard to target for OSH business models due to the complexities that go with hand fabricating hardware from an open design. With appropriate support, however, conservation practitioners are best placed to apply OSH to conservation actions.\n<\/p><p>Here, we introduce a provisional framework for developing and sustaining the life cycle of not\u2010for\u2010profit OSH for conservationists. The framework addresses current technical barriers to manufacture and presents simple guidelines for distribution, user accessibility, creator support, and user support. It comprises a set of defined product\u2010development processes that guide a collaborative team through the life cycle of an open\u2010source product, from construction and after\u2010sales support, to the reinvestment strategy that sustains the creators and community. We demonstrate an application of the framework with a real\u2010world case study of an OSH product in the form of an acoustic monitoring device.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-HillAudio17_21-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-HillAudio17-21\">[21]<\/a><\/sup> The case study serves to illustrate how the framework unlocks useful technology for local communities, researchers funded by government research councils, and individuals funded by non\u2010government organizations (NGOs). In recent years, similar frameworks, such as Crowd Supply, have been shown to increase the adoption of proprietary products by consumers<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-IlinInsights18_22-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-IlinInsights18-22\">[22]<\/a><\/sup> and even to improve competitive advantage through crowdsourced tools.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-NagleLearning18_23-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-NagleLearning18-23\">[23]<\/a><\/sup> We argue for wide adoption of flexible approaches of this sort by conservation NGOs and universities in particular. A framework can facilitate rapid uptake of OSH for conservation activities supported by these organizations, thereby fostering the proliferation of local\u2010scale projects that lead to global\u2010scale action.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-ArlettazFromPub10_24-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-ArlettazFromPub10-24\">[24]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-PocockAVision18_25-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-PocockAVision18-25\">[25]<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"A_framework_to_support_OSH_for_conservation\">A framework to support OSH for conservation<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The framework has six phases, each with formulated guidelines: (1) hardware, (2) manufacture, (3) release, (4) distribution, (5) support, and (6) sustainability. (See Figure 1.) The framework is formed around a management team consisting of a creator group (engineering team), which leads the technical developments of the technology, and a logistics group (funder\/NGO\/university), which leads logistical and financial operations. This unified entity requires an open and collaborative relationship between the two groups, with clear lines of responsibility (detailed in Table 1).\n<\/p><p><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/File:Fig1_Hill_ConsLetters2019_12-5.jpg\" class=\"image wiki-link\" data-key=\"34021e7bf58f6e7fe430b9f44e5ac812\"><img alt=\"Fig1 Hill ConsLetters2019 12-5.jpg\" src=\"https:\/\/s3.limswiki.org\/www.limswiki.org\/images\/e\/ea\/Fig1_Hill_ConsLetters2019_12-5.jpg\" style=\"width: 100%;max-width: 400px;height: auto;\" \/><\/a>\n<\/p>\n<div style=\"clear:both;\"><\/div>\n<table style=\"\">\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align:top;\">\n<table border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\" cellspacing=\"0\" style=\"\">\n\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\"> <blockquote><b>Figure 1.<\/b> An overview of the framework for developing, funding, supporting, and sustaining open\u2010source hardware (OSH) for conservation. The framework differs from a traditional business model for a commercial product in having open\u2010source licenses, relying on word\u2010of\u2010mouth in lieu of an advertising budget, allowing group\u2010purchase only, explicitly excluding housing for electronic components and guarantees on product performance, and outsourcing after\u2010sales care to web forums.<\/blockquote>\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table>\n<table style=\"\">\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align:top;\">\n<table class=\"wikitable\" border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"5\" cellspacing=\"0\" style=\"\">\n\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\" colspan=\"2\"><b>Table 1.<\/b> Distribution of responsibilities for the management team, between the creator group, which focuses on hardware issues, and the logistics group, which focuses on assurance issues\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th style=\"padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Management team group\n<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Responsibility\n<\/th><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Creator group\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">\n<p>Conception of idea<br \/>\nCircuit design<br \/>\nHardware development<br \/>\nSoftware development\u2014website, firmware, supporting software and algorithm design<br \/>\nPrototyping<br \/>\nBench testing<br \/>\nField testing<br \/>\nChoosing appropriate manufacturers<br \/>\nTesting small\u2010batch build quality of chosen manufacturer<br \/>\nSourcing components for crowd funding order<br \/>\nTesting alternative components if original components become obsolete<br \/>\nWebsite maintenance<br \/>\nTechnical community support via website forum\n<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Logistics group\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">\n<p>nitiating crowd funded campaign<br \/>\nTaking payment from crowdfunding organisation<br \/>\nCo\u2010organising distribution of units<br \/>\nAssurance\u2010related community support via crowd funders website<br \/>\nHolding pool of funds<br \/>\nDistributing pool of funds to support technology development\n<\/p>\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Both groups\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Social media presence\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table>\n<p>The end users are the communities requiring the conservation hardware, such as local conservation activists, research scientists, educators, and wildlife enthusiasts. The framework provides a provisional set of management guidelines for OSH development, and a scalable method for the community to acquire and use the created technology. The framework generates a pool of crowdsourced funds out of unit sales margins obtained in the bulk manufacturing of hardware. Funds can be reinvested back into the hardware project to sustain its lifespan. In addition to providing support for creators and users, the framework minimizes the investment in human and financial capacity needed to initiate, manufacture, and distribute OSH. It makes use of new websites for crowdfunding and for turn\u2010key electronics manufacturing to provide tailored and cheap solutions for nontechnical conservation organizations. A framework can be viewed as successful if it is able to harness a large community of individuals to acquire low\u2010cost single units from a high-volume manufacturing process, while also creating extra funds to continue support. Success will depend on simple hardware construction to reduce overhead when manufacturing at bulk, and the timely orchestration of a large group of buyers to crowdfund industrial manufacture of the hardware.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-KohlerFromCollab19_26-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-KohlerFromCollab19-26\">[26]<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p><p>The initial \u201chardware\u201d phase is the design stage, which commences after the creator group has proven the feasibility of using a particular technology for a desired conservation task. The proven hardware needs to be adapted to an open\u2010source design, and initial investment is required to fund this development. To open source a technology means to apply an open license to it. Various licenses are commonly used to define how OSH design files can be adapted, shared, or commercialized by the user community. (See Table 2.) Each license has its own benefits, depending on the goal. For example, the most open license, CC0, may be useful for community ownership of the design, thus allowing it to be shared, adapted, and commercialized without the need to attribute changes to the original creator(s). Any of the OSH licenses can be used in the framework. Oberloier and Pearce<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-OberloierGeneral17_27-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-OberloierGeneral17-27\">[27]<\/a><\/sup> detail formal procedures for designers of OSH.\n<\/p>\n<table style=\"\">\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align:top;\">\n<table class=\"wikitable\" border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"5\" cellspacing=\"0\" style=\"\">\n\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\" colspan=\"3\"><b>Table 2.<\/b> Comparison of the available Creative Commons OSH licenses\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th style=\"padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Creative Commons licenses\n<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Adaptations can be shared\n<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Commercial use\n<\/th><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">CC0 (No attribution)\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Attribution (BY)\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">ShareAlike (CC BY\u2010SA)\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes, but must share alike\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">NonCommercial (CC BY\u2010NC)\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">No\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">NonCommercial\u2010NoDerivatives (CC BY\u2010NC\u2010ND)\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">No\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">No\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">NoDerivatives (BY\u2010ND)\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">No\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">NonCommercial\u2010ShareAlike (CC BY\u2010NC\u2010SA)\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Yes, but must share alike\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">No\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table>\n<p>The \u201cmanufacture\u201d phase involves physical fabrication and testing of the subsequent OSH design. Manufacturing often involves complex fabrication processes, including sourcing parts, assembly of printed circuit boards (PCBs), programming the PCBs, and developing housing for the product suitable for field deployment. Keeping this sequence as simple as possible minimizes manufacturing costs. Web services chosen for PCB manufacture should be trialed by testing the build quality of small batches of the developed hardware units before release. Tests should involve checking the quality of assembled PCBs, assessing the fit\u2010for\u2010purpose functionality of the final product, and providing solutions to assembly problems found during manufacture. Issues found at this stage need to be resolved before continuing to the next phase. Spare devices built during this process can be used as trial devices or backup units to support after\u2010sales assurance issues.\n<\/p><p>The \u201crelease\u201d phase consists of the publication, promotion, sales, and large\u2010batch manufacture of the hardware units. Technology design files are first uploaded to a publicly accessible open\u2010source hosting website to allow community access. The guiding principle of this phase is to minimize the cost per unit for users while also generating a pool of funds. Large\u2010scale industrial manufacturing processes reduce unit material cost and assembly time; however, they require an initial sum of money to bulk order before making any sales. To this end, minimum quantity batch manufacturing can be crowdsourced to reduce risk and produce an economy of scale.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-WheatRaising13_28-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-WheatRaising13-28\">[28]<\/a><\/sup> A crowdfunding platform is required to collect user's funds during funding campaigns. Campaigns should run at regular intervals, and each should end when a maximum order quantity is reached, or a time period is elapsed. The crowdfunding campaign should be publicized on social media and conservation forums, so as to gain traction and reduce the risk of failing to meet the monetary target.\n<\/p><p>The \u201cdistribution\u201d phase consists of the global dissemination of the manufactured units. Depending on the crowdfunding organization used, the logistics group may need to take on the role of global distributor, or employ a dedicated distribution house to ship and track deliveries.\n<\/p><p>The \u201csupport\u201d phase provides technical and logistical assistance to the community of users. Users may require support with diverse issues, including devices getting lost in transit, out\u2010of\u2010box malfunctions, and difficulties with operating the device. A mechanism should be established for users to send their end\u2010of\u2010life devices back to the creator group for re\u2010use or disposal according to the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations.\n<\/p><p>\u201cSustainability\u201d encompasses the reinvestment strategy to facilitate continued functioning of the technology into the future. It involves addressing how pooled funds can be generated and used to continue future development and promote future purchases. To create pooled funds, a margin should be added to each unit sold that generates enough funds from the minimum quantity order to sustain the team until the next group purchase campaign ends. The crowdfunding campaign should set its goal to this minimum batch order. Costs incurred by the logistics group to manage logistical operations, such as employing a part\u2010time member of staff and purchasing packaging for shipping, should be reimbursed from this generated fund. The creator and logistics groups should take a percentage of funds to support their tasks after each group funding campaign. The remaining pool of funds can be held by the logistics group and made accessible to the creator group as needed to pay for further support, bug fixes, and further enhancement or development.\n<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Case_study\">Case study<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The framework was developed and formalized for the open\u2010source manufacture and distribution of an acoustic monitoring device called AudioMoth, created by <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.openacousticdevices.info\/\" target=\"_blank\">Open Acoustic Devices<\/a> (OAD). Within the management team, the creator group comprised OAD, and the logistics group comprised a small conservation NGO called the <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/blog.arribada.org\/\" target=\"_blank\">Arribada Initiative<\/a>.\n<\/p><p>The AudioMoth case study used the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY) open\u2010source license. (See Table 2.) This attribution allowed full participation by the community in all aspects of design, attributing all changes to the original creators. The license allowed other manufacturers to construct and re\u2010sell the platform independently (e.g., <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.labmaker.org\/\" target=\"_blank\">LabMaker<\/a>). This brought mixed benefits: it raised awareness and distribution of devices, while also reducing the funds available for sustaining the devices, although in this case only by about one\u2010tenth.\n<\/p><p>Hardware was designed to fit a single fixed part, consisting of one single\u2010sided PCB that could be purchased from a single manufacturer. The creator group developed the hardware as part of their research budget from U.K. Research Council grants. Development of the product was funded by grants totaling \u223cUSD $13,000 per\/year over three years for two PhD students, excluding stipends and course fees.\n<\/p><p>The chosen manufacturer was <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/circuithub.com\/\" target=\"_blank\">CircuitHub<\/a>. This online web service specializes in assembly of open\u2010source PCBs. It enables design files to be uploaded, shared, manufactured, and delivered to order, with transparent batch size, lead time, and pricing. It first built small test batches of prototype PCBs, which were used to evaluate the single\u2010board construction and address any build issues. Test boards had a 20\u2010day lead time and cost USD $60 per unit for a batch of 50.\n<\/p><p>The finalized AudioMoth design files were published on the open\u2010source hosting websites GitHub and CircuitHub. This made them freely available to adapt and share. CircuitHub's online quotation tool was used to calculate the unit selling price on a manufactured batch of 200 units. A further 20% was added to this unit price, which was calculated to generate enough funds to support global distribution, after\u2010sales support, and future enhancements. Cost\u2010free promotion of AudioMoth was achieved through the <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wildlabs.net\/\" target=\"_blank\">WILDLABS<\/a> forum, social media, and the OAD subscription page. Trial devices were distributed to potential users to proliferate the spread of information throughout the conservation community and to generate feedback to the creator group on the AudioMoth utility.\n<\/p><p>The crowdfunding organization <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/groupgets.com\/\" target=\"_blank\">GroupGets<\/a> coordinated the group purchase campaign for each batch order from CircuitHub. GroupGets linked back to OAD's subscription page to help the creators gauge the level of online interest. To fulfill a cost\u2010effective manufacturing run, each campaign had to gain a minimum of 200 backers.\n<\/p><p>GroupGets handled postage to users based in the United States. For orders bound elsewhere, GroupGets batch posted the ordered units to the U.K. headquarters of the logistics group. This minimized individual customs declarations, freeing up sufficient funds from the price margin for the logistics group to distribute units to the rest of the world. The logistics group handled all non\u2010U.S. distribution until the rising level of demand necessitated a dedicated distribution house. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.weengs.co.uk\/\" target=\"_blank\">Weengs<\/a> was then selected to receive devices directly from GroupGets and manage the major distribution channels to the U.K. and E.U.\n<\/p><p>The creator group maintained a website supporting users of AudioMoth. This was updated on a weekly basis, taking approximately two person\u2010hours\/week. The website hosted usage instructions, open\u2010source design files, and a support forum. The forum enabled users to discuss ongoing projects, report technical issues, and suggest modifications to the open\u2010source design files. Over time, it became partially self\u2010sustaining as the community of users gained expertise in the technology. The creator group was still required to provide solutions to more technical issues.\n<\/p><p>The case study supported six rounds of group\u2010purchase campaigns over 18 months, from October 2017 to March 2019. These campaigns generated a pool of funds to finance U.S. distribution, hardware improvements, ongoing user support for all purchased devices, and community\u2010based events, including workshops for users. The sixth group\u2010funding campaign introduced the first hardware modification to the design files. A lesson learned during this change was the importance of maintaining backwards compatible firmware across hardware versions.\n<\/p><p>The six campaigns resulted in 5,242 unit sales in total, with 34% purchased by universities, 23% by conservation organizations, 11% by businesses\/consultants, 1% by government agencies, and 30% by unspecified individuals. All devices sold for USD $49.99 per unit, creating a net revenue of USD $262,048 and a pool of funds after device manufacture and distribution of USD $58,188 (discounting the initial external investment). Pooled funds were managed by the logistics group throughout the study. The remaining pool will continue to be reinvested back into the framework to pay for ongoing maintenance of the website, to support the community of users, and to further improve the hardware. (See Table 3.)\n<\/p>\n<table style=\"\">\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align:top;\">\n<table class=\"wikitable\" border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"5\" cellspacing=\"0\" style=\"\">\n\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\" colspan=\"2\"><b>Table 3.<\/b> Breakdown of revenue and expenditure throughout the 18\u2010month AudioMoth case study using the framework to support OSH\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th style=\"padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Payments in\/out\n<\/th>\n<th style=\"padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Amount (USD)\n<\/th><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Sale of 5,242 units\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">$262,047.58\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Manufacturing costs\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">\u2212$141,404.28\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Group purchase fees\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">\u2212$36,871.01\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Postage fees\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">\u2212$11,228.25\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Community activity costs\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">\u2212$8,076.19\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Additional hardware improvements\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">\u2212$6,279.67\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">Total pool of funds\n<\/td>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\">$58,188.18\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table>\n<h2><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Leveraging_frontline_action\">Leveraging frontline action<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The case study demonstrates the capability of the framework for sustaining the lifecycle of an open\u2010source conservation tool, while also stimulating global deployment of conservation technology. The framework has to date enabled 687 separate projects to purchase OSH. Purchasers are globally distributed (Figure 2a), with clusters around the financial hubs of advanced economies, particularly in Europe (63%), North America (23%), and Australia (8%). Purchases made elsewhere include Central and South America (4%), Asia (2%), and Africa (<1%).\n<\/p><p><br \/>\n<a href=\"https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/File:Fig2_Hill_ConsLetters2019_12-5.jpg\" class=\"image wiki-link\" data-key=\"6123f4187cf36e56f9f3cf00c562ba4f\"><img alt=\"Fig2 Hill ConsLetters2019 12-5.jpg\" src=\"https:\/\/s3.limswiki.org\/www.limswiki.org\/images\/6\/6b\/Fig2_Hill_ConsLetters2019_12-5.jpg\" style=\"width: 100%;max-width: 400px;height: auto;\" \/><\/a>\n<\/p>\n<div style=\"clear:both;\"><\/div>\n<table style=\"\">\n<tr>\n<td style=\"vertical-align:top;\">\n<table border=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\" cellspacing=\"0\" style=\"\">\n\n<tr>\n<td style=\"background-color:white; padding-left:10px; padding-right:10px;\"> <blockquote><b>Figure 2.<\/b> The global impact of the framework to support OSH: (a) Heat map of all OSH purchase locations; (b) deployment locations and field applications of a 14% sample of purchasers<\/blockquote>\n<\/td><\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<\/td><\/tr><\/table>\n<p>Fourteen percent of the framework's end\u2010users posted on social media about conservation work using AudioMoths, with conservation action occurring largely away from purchase locations. For example, Africa was the source country for only two sales, but the deployment location for 23% of purchases. Devices were used for a wide range of applications, including terrestrial monitoring of individual species, general ecosystem soundscape analysis, monitoring of human\u2013wildlife conflicts, experimental marine surveys, and university\u2010level education (Figure 2b). Also by lowering the cost of participating in applied acoustic monitoring research, the application of the framework to AudioMoth facilitated public engagement, including citizen science projects for a national bat survey<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-BCTNational19_29-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-BCTNational19-29\">[29]<\/a><\/sup>, biodiversity mapping surveys<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-PBSoundscapes19_30-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-PBSoundscapes19-30\">[30]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-BodonPitt19_31-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-BodonPitt19-31\">[31]<\/a><\/sup><sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-CetalinguaPartic19_32-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-CetalinguaPartic19-32\">[32]<\/a><\/sup>, and engagement by the general public in wildlife monitoring.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-GillingsNOCMIG19_33-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-GillingsNOCMIG19-33\">[33]<\/a><\/sup> It also led to the development of new methods to address previously untestable research questions.<sup id=\"rdp-ebb-cite_ref-Pi.C3.B1a.E2.80.90CovarrubiasOpti19_34-0\" class=\"reference\"><a href=\"#cite_note-Pi.C3.B1a.E2.80.90CovarrubiasOpti19-34\">[34]<\/a><\/sup>\n<\/p><p>Those participating in group purchases of AudioMoths actively shared modifications and enhancements, including designs for housing the devices, on independent forum pages as well as on the <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.openacousticdevices.info\/support\/\" target=\"_blank\">OAD online community forum<\/a> where changes could be validated by the creator group. Although the framework functions well for AudioMoth, more complicated OSH products may need additional manufacturing stages. Incorporating a framework to support OSH into NGO policy still requires substantial work, including further case studies of different conservation monitoring equipment. Without a framework of the type we propose, however, existing OSH will continue to have short life spans, and remain out of reach for the majority of conservation biologists.\n<\/p><p>Creating legacy value for OSH and proprietary projects used for conservation should be the first principle of action for conservation organizations and universities. Online community platforms for conservation technology such as WILDLABS could take a lead in policy adoption, creating an official platform for recording long\u2010term OSH findings for the community to share and learn from. It is important to push access to OSH toward communities outside of the pockets of wealth and high opportunity that the framework may initially serve. Future developments should investigate benefits and costs of completely transitioning the framework to the conservation community, ways of making it more accessible to those communities typically underserved by citizen science, and methods of community\u2010led support for conservation tools.\n<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Acknowledgements\">Acknowledgements<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>We thank Jos\u00e9 Lahoz\u2010Monfort for organizing the ARC CEED workshop entitled \u201cStepping into the future: Driving the Technology Agenda in Ecology and Conservation,\u201d where the OAD and Arribada Initiative seeded the idea for a framework. We thank Stephanie O'Donnell for help with establishing the user\u2010group and providing data for Figure 2b, Anne Dangerfield for logistics management, and Holly Baines for user support. A special thanks goes to the AudioMoth community.\n<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Author_contributions\">Author contributions<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Andrew P. Hill, Peter Prince, Alex Rogers, C. Patrick Doncaster, and Jake L. Snaddon contributed to the design of AudioMoth acoustic sensors, with Alex Rogers, Andrew P. Hill, and Peter Prince leading hardware and software development; Alasdair Davies led the logistics group and AudioMoth distribution service; and all authors contributed to writing of the paper.\n<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Funding\">Funding<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>This work was supported by a U.K. EPSRC Studentship (1658469) to A. Hill, and a U.K. NERC SPITFIRE DTP award (NE\/L002531\/1) to P. Prince. \n<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Conflict_of_interest\">Conflict of interest<\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The authors declare no conflict of interest.\n<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"References\">References<\/span><\/h2>\n<div class=\"reflist references-column-width\" style=\"-moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;\">\n<ol class=\"references\">\n<li id=\"cite_note-RSIllegal18-1\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-RSIllegal18_1-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation web\">The Royal Society (08 October 2018). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/royalsociety.org\/topics-policy\/projects\/illegal-wildlife-trade\/\" target=\"_blank\">\"Illegal wildlife trade\"<\/a><span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"https:\/\/royalsociety.org\/topics-policy\/projects\/illegal-wildlife-trade\/\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/royalsociety.org\/topics-policy\/projects\/illegal-wildlife-trade\/<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Illegal+wildlife+trade&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=The+Royal+Society&rft.au=The+Royal+Society&rft.date=08+October+2018&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Froyalsociety.org%2Ftopics-policy%2Fprojects%2Fillegal-wildlife-trade%2F&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-UKGovDigital19-2\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-UKGovDigital19_2-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation web\">U.K. Government (31 January 2019). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/digital-revolution-to-use-the-power-of-data-to-combat-illegal-wildlife-trade-and-reduce-food-waste\" target=\"_blank\">\"Digital revolution to use the power of data to combat illegal wildlife trade and reduce food waste\"<\/a><span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/digital-revolution-to-use-the-power-of-data-to-combat-illegal-wildlife-trade-and-reduce-food-waste\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/news\/digital-revolution-to-use-the-power-of-data-to-combat-illegal-wildlife-trade-and-reduce-food-waste<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Digital+revolution+to+use+the+power+of+data+to+combat+illegal+wildlife+trade+and+reduce+food+waste&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=U.K.+Government&rft.au=U.K.+Government&rft.date=31+January+2019&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fnews%2Fdigital-revolution-to-use-the-power-of-data-to-combat-illegal-wildlife-trade-and-reduce-food-waste&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-HamptonTheTao15-3\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-HamptonTheTao15_3-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Hampton, S.E.; Anderson, S.S.; Bagby, S.C. et al. (2015). \"The Tao of open science for ecology\". <i>Ecosphere<\/i> <b>6<\/b> (7): 1\u201313. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1890%2FES14-00402.1\" target=\"_blank\">10.1890\/ES14-00402.1<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+Tao+of+open+science+for+ecology&rft.jtitle=Ecosphere&rft.aulast=Hampton%2C+S.E.%3B+Anderson%2C+S.S.%3B+Bagby%2C+S.C.+et+al.&rft.au=Hampton%2C+S.E.%3B+Anderson%2C+S.S.%3B+Bagby%2C+S.C.+et+al.&rft.date=2015&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=7&rft.pages=1%E2%80%9313&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1890%2FES14-00402.1&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-Berger-TalConserv18-4\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-Berger-TalConserv18_4-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Berger-Tal, O.; Lahoz-Monfort, J.J. (2018). \"Conservation technology: The next generation\". <i>Conservation Letters<\/i> <b>11<\/b> (6): e12458. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111%2Fconl.12458\" target=\"_blank\">10.1111\/conl.12458<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conservation+technology%3A+The+next+generation&rft.jtitle=Conservation+Letters&rft.aulast=Berger-Tal%2C+O.%3B+Lahoz-Monfort%2C+J.J.&rft.au=Berger-Tal%2C+O.%3B+Lahoz-Monfort%2C+J.J.&rft.date=2018&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=6&rft.pages=e12458&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1111%2Fconl.12458&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-KwokField17-5\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-KwokField17_5-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Kwok, R. (2017). \"Field Instruments: Build it yourself\". <i>Nature<\/i> <b>545<\/b>: 253\u201355. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1038%2Fnj7653-253a\" target=\"_blank\">10.1038\/nj7653-253a<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Field+Instruments%3A+Build+it+yourself&rft.jtitle=Nature&rft.aulast=Kwok%2C+R.&rft.au=Kwok%2C+R.&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=545&rft.pages=253%E2%80%9355&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1038%2Fnj7653-253a&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-PearceLab14-6\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-PearceLab14_6-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Pearce, J.M. (2014). \"Laboratory equipment: Cut costs with open-source hardware\". <i>Nature<\/i> <b>505<\/b> (7485): 618. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1038%2F505618d\" target=\"_blank\">10.1038\/505618d<\/a>. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/PubMed_Identifier\" data-key=\"1d34e999f13d8801964a6b3e9d7b4e30\">PMID<\/a> <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/24476879\" target=\"_blank\">24476879<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Laboratory+equipment%3A+Cut+costs+with+open-source+hardware&rft.jtitle=Nature&rft.aulast=Pearce%2C+J.M.&rft.au=Pearce%2C+J.M.&rft.date=2014&rft.volume=505&rft.issue=7485&rft.pages=618&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1038%2F505618d&rft_id=info:pmid\/24476879&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-AhmadRapid18-7\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-AhmadRapid18_7-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Ahmad, A.; Nadzri, M.M.M.; Rosli, I.M. et al. (2018). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/journal.utem.edu.my\/index.php\/jtec\/article\/view\/4354\" target=\"_blank\">\"Rapid Prototyping of Wireless Image Transmission for Wildlife (Tiger) Monitoring System - A Preliminary Study\"<\/a>. <i>Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering<\/i> <b>10<\/b> (2-5): 75\u201379<span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"http:\/\/journal.utem.edu.my\/index.php\/jtec\/article\/view\/4354\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/journal.utem.edu.my\/index.php\/jtec\/article\/view\/4354<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rapid+Prototyping+of+Wireless+Image+Transmission+for+Wildlife+%28Tiger%29+Monitoring+System+-+A+Preliminary+Study&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Telecommunication%2C+Electronic+and+Computer+Engineering&rft.aulast=Ahmad%2C+A.%3B+Nadzri%2C+M.M.M.%3B+Rosli%2C+I.M.+et+al.&rft.au=Ahmad%2C+A.%3B+Nadzri%2C+M.M.M.%3B+Rosli%2C+I.M.+et+al.&rft.date=2018&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=2-5&rft.pages=75%E2%80%9379&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fjournal.utem.edu.my%2Findex.php%2Fjtec%2Farticle%2Fview%2F4354&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-NazirWise17-8\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-NazirWise17_8-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Nazir, S.; Newey, S.; Irvine, R.J. et al. (2017). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov\/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5226779\" target=\"_blank\">\"WiseEye: Next Generation Expandable and Programmable Camera Trap Platform for Wildlife Research\"<\/a>. <i>PLoS One<\/i> <b>12<\/b> (1): e0169758. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0169758\" target=\"_blank\">10.1371\/journal.pone.0169758<\/a>. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/PubMed_Central\" data-key=\"c85bdffd69dd30e02024b9cc3d7679e2\">PMC<\/a> <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC5226779\/\" target=\"_blank\">PMC5226779<\/a>. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/PubMed_Identifier\" data-key=\"1d34e999f13d8801964a6b3e9d7b4e30\">PMID<\/a> <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pubmed\/28076444\" target=\"_blank\">28076444<\/a><span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"http:\/\/www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov\/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5226779\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov\/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=PMC5226779<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=WiseEye%3A+Next+Generation+Expandable+and+Programmable+Camera+Trap+Platform+for+Wildlife+Research&rft.jtitle=PLoS+One&rft.aulast=Nazir%2C+S.%3B+Newey%2C+S.%3B+Irvine%2C+R.J.+et+al.&rft.au=Nazir%2C+S.%3B+Newey%2C+S.%3B+Irvine%2C+R.J.+et+al.&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=12&rft.issue=1&rft.pages=e0169758&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0169758&rft_id=info:pmc\/PMC5226779&rft_id=info:pmid\/28076444&rft_id=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pubmedcentral.nih.gov%2Farticlerender.fcgi%3Ftool%3Dpmcentrez%26artid%3DPMC5226779&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-SankupellayB4_16-9\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-SankupellayB4_16_9-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Sankupellay, M.; McLaughlin, C.; Davis, J. et al. (2016). \"B4 - Brisbane Backyard Bird Box: Connecting People to the Environment\". <i>Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems<\/i>: 9\u201312. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1145%2F2908805.2908808\" target=\"_blank\">10.1145\/2908805.2908808<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=B4+-+Brisbane+Backyard+Bird+Box%3A+Connecting+People+to+the+Environment&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+2016+ACM+Conference+Companion+Publication+on+Designing+Interactive+Systems&rft.aulast=Sankupellay%2C+M.%3B+McLaughlin%2C+C.%3B+Davis%2C+J.+et+al.&rft.au=Sankupellay%2C+M.%3B+McLaughlin%2C+C.%3B+Davis%2C+J.+et+al.&rft.date=2016&rft.pages=9%E2%80%9312&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1145%2F2908805.2908808&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-SoroTheAmbient18-10\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-SoroTheAmbient18_10-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Soro, A.; Brereton, M.; Dema, T. et al. (2018). \"The Ambient Birdhouse: An IoT Device to Discover Birds and Engage with Nature\". <i>Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems<\/i>: 1\u201313. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1145%2F3173574.3173971\" target=\"_blank\">10.1145\/3173574.3173971<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+Ambient+Birdhouse%3A+An+IoT+Device+to+Discover+Birds+and+Engage+with+Nature&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+2018+CHI+Conference+on+Human+Factors+in+Computing+Systems&rft.aulast=Soro%2C+A.%3B+Brereton%2C+M.%3B+Dema%2C+T.+et+al.&rft.au=Soro%2C+A.%3B+Brereton%2C+M.%3B+Dema%2C+T.+et+al.&rft.date=2018&rft.pages=1%E2%80%9313&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1145%2F3173574.3173971&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-TanEmbed16-11\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-TanEmbed16_11-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Tan, T.F.; Teoh, S.S.; Fow, J.E. et al. (2016). \"Embedded human detection system based on thermal and infrared sensors for anti-poaching application\". <i>Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Conference on Systems, Process and Control<\/i>: 37\u201342. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1109%2FSPC.2016.7920700\" target=\"_blank\">10.1109\/SPC.2016.7920700<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Embedded+human+detection+system+based+on+thermal+and+infrared+sensors+for+anti-poaching+application&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+of+the+2016+IEEE+Conference+on+Systems%2C+Process+and+Control&rft.aulast=Tan%2C+T.F.%3B+Teoh%2C+S.S.%3B+Fow%2C+J.E.+et+al.&rft.au=Tan%2C+T.F.%3B+Teoh%2C+S.S.%3B+Fow%2C+J.E.+et+al.&rft.date=2016&rft.pages=37%E2%80%9342&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1109%2FSPC.2016.7920700&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-MainaABio16-12\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-MainaABio16_12-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Maina, C.W.; Muchiri, D.; Njoroge, P. (2016). \"A Bioacoustic Record of a Conservancy in the Mount Kenya Ecosystem\". <i>Biodiversity Data Journal<\/i> <b>4<\/b>: e9906. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.3897%2FBDJ.4.e9906\" target=\"_blank\">10.3897\/BDJ.4.e9906<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+Bioacoustic+Record+of+a+Conservancy+in+the+Mount+Kenya+Ecosystem&rft.jtitle=Biodiversity+Data+Journal&rft.aulast=Maina%2C+C.W.%3B+Muchiri%2C+D.%3B+Njoroge%2C+P.&rft.au=Maina%2C+C.W.%3B+Muchiri%2C+D.%3B+Njoroge%2C+P.&rft.date=2016&rft.volume=4&rft.pages=e9906&rft_id=info:doi\/10.3897%2FBDJ.4.e9906&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-WhytockSolo16-13\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-WhytockSolo16_13-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Whytock, R.C.; Christie, J. (2017). \"Solo: An open source, customizable and inexpensive audio recorder for bioacoustic research\". <i>Methods in Ecology and Evolution<\/i> <b>8<\/b> (3): 308\u201312. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111%2F2041-210X.12678\" target=\"_blank\">10.1111\/2041-210X.12678<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Solo%3A+An+open+source%2C+customizable+and+inexpensive+audio+recorder+for+bioacoustic+research&rft.jtitle=Methods+in+Ecology+and+Evolution&rft.aulast=Whytock%2C+R.C.%3B+Christie%2C+J.&rft.au=Whytock%2C+R.C.%3B+Christie%2C+J.&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=3&rft.pages=308%E2%80%9312&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1111%2F2041-210X.12678&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-KlingDIY18-14\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-KlingDIY18_14-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Kling, J. (2018). \"DIY goes <i>in vivo<\/i>\". <i>Lab Animal<\/i> <b>47<\/b>: 143\u201346. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1038%2Fs41684-018-0066-z\" target=\"_blank\">10.1038\/s41684-018-0066-z<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=DIY+goes+%27%27in+vivo%27%27&rft.jtitle=Lab+Animal&rft.aulast=Kling%2C+J.&rft.au=Kling%2C+J.&rft.date=2018&rft.volume=47&rft.pages=143%E2%80%9346&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1038%2Fs41684-018-0066-z&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-OMahonyTheGov07-15\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-OMahonyTheGov07_15-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">O'Mahony, S. (2007). \"The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed?\". <i>Journal of Management and Governance<\/i> <b>11<\/b> (2): 139\u201350. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1007%2Fs10997-007-9024-7\" target=\"_blank\">10.1007\/s10997-007-9024-7<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+governance+of+open+source+initiatives%3A+what+does+it+mean+to+be+community+managed%3F&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Management+and+Governance&rft.aulast=O%27Mahony%2C+S.&rft.au=O%27Mahony%2C+S.&rft.date=2007&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=2&rft.pages=139%E2%80%9350&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1007%2Fs10997-007-9024-7&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-DrackTheImport18-16\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-DrackTheImport18_16-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Drack, M.; Hartmann, F.; Bauer, S. et al. (2018). \"The importance of open and frugal labware\". <i>Nature Electronics<\/i> <b>1<\/b> (9): 484\u201386. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1038%2Fs41928-018-0133-x\" target=\"_blank\">10.1038\/s41928-018-0133-x<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+importance+of+open+and+frugal+labware&rft.jtitle=Nature+Electronics&rft.aulast=Drack%2C+M.%3B+Hartmann%2C+F.%3B+Bauer%2C+S.+et+al.&rft.au=Drack%2C+M.%3B+Hartmann%2C+F.%3B+Bauer%2C+S.+et+al.&rft.date=2018&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=9&rft.pages=484%E2%80%9386&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1038%2Fs41928-018-0133-x&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-HsingSustain18-17\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-HsingSustain18_17-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Hsing, P.-Y. (2018). \"Sustainable Innovation for Open Hardware and Open Science \u2013 Lessons from The Hardware Hacker\". <i>Journal of Open Hardware<\/i> <b>2<\/b> (1): 4. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.5334%2Fjoh.11\" target=\"_blank\">10.5334\/joh.11<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sustainable+Innovation+for+Open+Hardware+and+Open+Science+%E2%80%93+Lessons+from+The+Hardware+Hacker&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Open+Hardware&rft.aulast=Hsing%2C+P.-Y.&rft.au=Hsing%2C+P.-Y.&rft.date=2018&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=1&rft.pages=4&rft_id=info:doi\/10.5334%2Fjoh.11&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-LiUnder18-18\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-LiUnder18_18-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Li, Z.; Seering, W.; Wallace, D. (2018). \"Understanding Value Propositions and Revenue Models in Open Source Hardware Companies\". <i>Proceedings from the 2018 International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship<\/i>: 214\u201323.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Understanding+Value+Propositions+and+Revenue+Models+in+Open+Source+Hardware+Companies&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+from+the+2018+International+Conference+on+Innovation+and+Entrepreneurship&rft.aulast=Li%2C+Z.%3B+Seering%2C+W.%3B+Wallace%2C+D.&rft.au=Li%2C+Z.%3B+Seering%2C+W.%3B+Wallace%2C+D.&rft.date=2018&rft.pages=214%E2%80%9323&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-IaconaIdent19-19\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-IaconaIdent19_19-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Iacona, G.; Ramachandra, A.; McGowan, J. et al. (2019). \"Identifying technology solutions to bring conservation into the innovation era\". <i>Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment<\/i> <b>17<\/b> (10): 591\u201398. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1002%2Ffee.2111\" target=\"_blank\">10.1002\/fee.2111<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Identifying+technology+solutions+to+bring+conservation+into+the+innovation+era&rft.jtitle=Frontiers+in+Ecology+and+the+Environment&rft.aulast=Iacona%2C+G.%3B+Ramachandra%2C+A.%3B+McGowan%2C+J.+et+al.&rft.au=Iacona%2C+G.%3B+Ramachandra%2C+A.%3B+McGowan%2C+J.+et+al.&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=10&rft.pages=591%E2%80%9398&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1002%2Ffee.2111&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-PearceEmerging17-20\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-PearceEmerging17_20-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Pearce, J.M. (2017). \"Emerging Business Models for Open Source Hardware\". <i>Journal of Open Hardware<\/i> <b>1<\/b> (1): 2. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.5334%2Fjoh.4\" target=\"_blank\">10.5334\/joh.4<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Emerging+Business+Models+for+Open+Source+Hardware&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Open+Hardware&rft.aulast=Pearce%2C+J.M.&rft.au=Pearce%2C+J.M.&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=1&rft.pages=2&rft_id=info:doi\/10.5334%2Fjoh.4&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-HillAudio17-21\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-HillAudio17_21-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Hill, A.P.; Prince, P.; Covarrubias, E.P. et al. (2017). \"AudioMoth: Evaluation of a smart open acoustic device for monitoring biodiversity and the environment\". <i>Methods in Ecology and Evolution<\/i> <b>9<\/b> (5): 1199\u20131211. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111%2F2041-210X.12955\" target=\"_blank\">10.1111\/2041-210X.12955<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=AudioMoth%3A+Evaluation+of+a+smart+open+acoustic+device+for+monitoring+biodiversity+and+the+environment&rft.jtitle=Methods+in+Ecology+and+Evolution&rft.aulast=Hill%2C+A.P.%3B+Prince%2C+P.%3B+Covarrubias%2C+E.P.+et+al.&rft.au=Hill%2C+A.P.%3B+Prince%2C+P.%3B+Covarrubias%2C+E.P.+et+al.&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=5&rft.pages=1199%E2%80%931211&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1111%2F2041-210X.12955&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-IlinInsights18-22\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-IlinInsights18_22-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Ilin, P.; Platis, D. Hammouda, I. (2018). \"Insights into the Trilateral Relationship of Crowdfunding Campaigns, Open Source and Communities\". <i>Proceedings from the 2018 Open Source Systems: Enterprise Software and Solutions<\/i>: 26\u201336. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1007%2F978-3-319-92375-8_3\" target=\"_blank\">10.1007\/978-3-319-92375-8_3<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Insights+into+the+Trilateral+Relationship+of+Crowdfunding+Campaigns%2C+Open+Source+and+Communities&rft.jtitle=Proceedings+from+the+2018+Open+Source+Systems%3A+Enterprise+Software+and+Solutions&rft.aulast=Ilin%2C+P.%3B+Platis%2C+D.+Hammouda%2C+I.&rft.au=Ilin%2C+P.%3B+Platis%2C+D.+Hammouda%2C+I.&rft.date=2018&rft.pages=26%E2%80%9336&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1007%2F978-3-319-92375-8_3&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-NagleLearning18-23\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-NagleLearning18_23-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Nagle, F. (2018). \"Learning by Contributing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Contribution to Crowdsourced Public Goods\". <i>Organization Science<\/i> <b>29<\/b> (4): 547\u2013753. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1287%2Forsc.2018.1202\" target=\"_blank\">10.1287\/orsc.2018.1202<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Learning+by+Contributing%3A+Gaining+Competitive+Advantage+Through+Contribution+to+Crowdsourced+Public+Goods&rft.jtitle=Organization+Science&rft.aulast=Nagle%2C+F.&rft.au=Nagle%2C+F.&rft.date=2018&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.pages=547%E2%80%93753&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1287%2Forsc.2018.1202&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-ArlettazFromPub10-24\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-ArlettazFromPub10_24-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Arlettaz, R.; Schaub, M.; Fournier, J. et al. (2010). \"From Publications to Public Actions: When Conservation Biologists Bridge the Gap between Research and Implementation\". <i>BioScience<\/i> <b>60<\/b> (10): 835\u201342. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1525%2Fbio.2010.60.10.10\" target=\"_blank\">10.1525\/bio.2010.60.10.10<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=From+Publications+to+Public+Actions%3A+When+Conservation+Biologists+Bridge+the+Gap+between+Research+and+Implementation&rft.jtitle=BioScience&rft.aulast=Arlettaz%2C+R.%3B+Schaub%2C+M.%3B+Fournier%2C+J.+et+al.&rft.au=Arlettaz%2C+R.%3B+Schaub%2C+M.%3B+Fournier%2C+J.+et+al.&rft.date=2010&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=10&rft.pages=835%E2%80%9342&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1525%2Fbio.2010.60.10.10&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-PocockAVision18-25\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-PocockAVision18_25-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Pocock, M.J.O.; Chandler, M.; Bonney, R. et al. (2018). \"A Vision for Global Biodiversity Monitoring With Citizen Science\". <i>Advances in Ecological Research<\/i> <b>59<\/b>: 169\u2013223. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016%2Fbs.aecr.2018.06.003\" target=\"_blank\">10.1016\/bs.aecr.2018.06.003<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A+Vision+for+Global+Biodiversity+Monitoring+With+Citizen+Science&rft.jtitle=Advances+in+Ecological+Research&rft.aulast=Pocock%2C+M.J.O.%3B+Chandler%2C+M.%3B+Bonney%2C+R.+et+al.&rft.au=Pocock%2C+M.J.O.%3B+Chandler%2C+M.%3B+Bonney%2C+R.+et+al.&rft.date=2018&rft.volume=59&rft.pages=169%E2%80%93223&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1016%2Fbs.aecr.2018.06.003&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-KohlerFromCollab19-26\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-KohlerFromCollab19_26-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Kohler, T.; Chesbrough, H. (2019). \"From collaborative community to competitive market: The quest to build a crowdsourcing platform for social innovation\". <i>R&D Management<\/i> <b>49<\/b> (3): 356\u201368. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1111%2Fradm.12372\" target=\"_blank\">10.1111\/radm.12372<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=From+collaborative+community+to+competitive+market%3A+The+quest+to+build+a+crowdsourcing+platform+for+social+innovation&rft.jtitle=R%26D+Management&rft.aulast=Kohler%2C+T.%3B+Chesbrough%2C+H.&rft.au=Kohler%2C+T.%3B+Chesbrough%2C+H.&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=3&rft.pages=356%E2%80%9368&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1111%2Fradm.12372&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-OberloierGeneral17-27\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-OberloierGeneral17_27-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Oberloier, S.; Pearce, J.M. (2017). \"General Design Procedure for Free and Open-Source Hardware for Scientific Equipment\". <i>Designs<\/i> <b>2<\/b> (1): 2. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.3390%2Fdesigns2010002\" target=\"_blank\">10.3390\/designs2010002<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=General+Design+Procedure+for+Free+and+Open-Source+Hardware+for+Scientific+Equipment&rft.jtitle=Designs&rft.aulast=Oberloier%2C+S.%3B+Pearce%2C+J.M.&rft.au=Oberloier%2C+S.%3B+Pearce%2C+J.M.&rft.date=2017&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=1&rft.pages=2&rft_id=info:doi\/10.3390%2Fdesigns2010002&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-WheatRaising13-28\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-WheatRaising13_28-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Wheat, R.E.; Wang, Y.; Byrnes, J.E.; Ranganathan, J. (2013). \"Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding\". <i>Trends in Ecology & Evolution<\/i> <b>28<\/b> (2): 71\u20132. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016%2Fj.tree.2012.11.001\" target=\"_blank\">10.1016\/j.tree.2012.11.001<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Raising+money+for+scientific+research+through+crowdfunding&rft.jtitle=Trends+in+Ecology+%26+Evolution&rft.aulast=Wheat%2C+R.E.%3B+Wang%2C+Y.%3B+Byrnes%2C+J.E.%3B+Ranganathan%2C+J.&rft.au=Wheat%2C+R.E.%3B+Wang%2C+Y.%3B+Byrnes%2C+J.E.%3B+Ranganathan%2C+J.&rft.date=2013&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=2&rft.pages=71%E2%80%932&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1016%2Fj.tree.2012.11.001&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-BCTNational19-29\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-BCTNational19_29-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation web\">Bat Conservation Trust (2019). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bats.org.uk\/our-work\/national-bat-monitoring-programme\" target=\"_blank\">\"National Bat Monitoring Programme\"<\/a><span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"https:\/\/www.bats.org.uk\/our-work\/national-bat-monitoring-programme\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/www.bats.org.uk\/our-work\/national-bat-monitoring-programme<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=National+Bat+Monitoring+Programme&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Bat+Conservation+Trust&rft.au=Bat+Conservation+Trust&rft.date=2019&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bats.org.uk%2Four-work%2Fnational-bat-monitoring-programme&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-PBSoundscapes19-30\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-PBSoundscapes19_30-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation web\">Point Blue Conservation Science (2019). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.soundscapes2landscapes.org\" target=\"_blank\">\"Soundscapes to Landscapes\"<\/a><span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"https:\/\/www.soundscapes2landscapes.org\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/www.soundscapes2landscapes.org<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Soundscapes+to+Landscapes&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Point+Blue+Conservation+Science&rft.au=Point+Blue+Conservation+Science&rft.date=2019&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.soundscapes2landscapes.org&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-BodonPitt19-31\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-BodonPitt19_31-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation web\">Bodon, S. (26 February 2019). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wesa.fm\/post\/pitt-researchers-are-eavesdropping-birds-name-science\" target=\"_blank\">\"Pitt Researchers Are Eavesdropping On Birds In The Name Of Science\"<\/a>. <i>90.5 WESA<\/i><span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"https:\/\/www.wesa.fm\/post\/pitt-researchers-are-eavesdropping-birds-name-science\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/www.wesa.fm\/post\/pitt-researchers-are-eavesdropping-birds-name-science<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Pitt+Researchers+Are+Eavesdropping+On+Birds+In+The+Name+Of+Science&rft.atitle=90.5+WESA&rft.aulast=Bodon%2C+S.&rft.au=Bodon%2C+S.&rft.date=26+February+2019&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesa.fm%2Fpost%2Fpitt-researchers-are-eavesdropping-birds-name-science&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-CetalinguaPartic19-32\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-CetalinguaPartic19_32-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation web\">Cetalingua (2019). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.cetalingua.com\/citizen-science\/\" target=\"_blank\">\"Participatory Platform for Citizen Scientists\"<\/a><span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"https:\/\/www.cetalingua.com\/citizen-science\/\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/www.cetalingua.com\/citizen-science\/<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=Participatory+Platform+for+Citizen+Scientists&rft.atitle=&rft.aulast=Cetalingua&rft.au=Cetalingua&rft.date=2019&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cetalingua.com%2Fcitizen-science%2F&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-GillingsNOCMIG19-33\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-GillingsNOCMIG19_33-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation web\">Gillings, S.; Moran, N. (2019). <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nocmig.com\/audiomoth\" target=\"_blank\">\"AudioMoth\"<\/a>. <i>NOCMIG: Tips for Recording Nocturnal Bird Migration<\/i><span class=\"printonly\">. <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external free\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nocmig.com\/audiomoth\" target=\"_blank\">https:\/\/www.nocmig.com\/audiomoth<\/a><\/span>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.btitle=AudioMoth&rft.atitle=NOCMIG%3A+Tips+for+Recording+Nocturnal+Bird+Migration&rft.aulast=Gillings%2C+S.%3B+Moran%2C+N.&rft.au=Gillings%2C+S.%3B+Moran%2C+N.&rft.date=2019&rft_id=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nocmig.com%2Faudiomoth&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<li id=\"cite_note-Pi.C3.B1a.E2.80.90CovarrubiasOpti19-34\"><span class=\"mw-cite-backlink\"><a href=\"#cite_ref-Pi.C3.B1a.E2.80.90CovarrubiasOpti19_34-0\">\u2191<\/a><\/span> <span class=\"reference-text\"><span class=\"citation Journal\">Pi\u00f1a\u2010Covarrubias, E.; Hill, A.P.; Prince, P. et al. (2019). \"Optimization of sensor deployment for acoustic detection and localization in terrestrial environments\". <i>Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation<\/i> <b>5<\/b> (2): 180\u201392. <a rel=\"nofollow\" class=\"external text wiki-link\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Digital_object_identifier\" data-key=\"ae6d69c760ab710abc2dd89f3937d2f4\">doi<\/a>:<a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external text\" href=\"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1002%2Frse2.97\" target=\"_blank\">10.1002\/rse2.97<\/a>.<\/span><span class=\"Z3988\" title=\"ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Optimization+of+sensor+deployment+for+acoustic+detection+and+localization+in+terrestrial+environments&rft.jtitle=Remote+Sensing+in+Ecology+and+Conservation&rft.aulast=Pi%C3%B1a%E2%80%90Covarrubias%2C+E.%3B+Hill%2C+A.P.%3B+Prince%2C+P.+et+al.&rft.au=Pi%C3%B1a%E2%80%90Covarrubias%2C+E.%3B+Hill%2C+A.P.%3B+Prince%2C+P.+et+al.&rft.date=2019&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=2&rft.pages=180%E2%80%9392&rft_id=info:doi\/10.1002%2Frse2.97&rfr_id=info:sid\/en.wikipedia.org:Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\"><span style=\"display: none;\"> <\/span><\/span><\/span>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"mw-headline\" id=\"Notes\">Notes<\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version\u2014by design\u2014lists them in order of appearance. The Iacona <i>et al.<\/i> in-press article was updated with the now-published version.\n<\/p>\n<!-- \nNewPP limit report\nCached time: 20200707204405\nCache expiry: 86400\nDynamic content: false\nCPU time usage: 0.577 seconds\nReal time usage: 1.593 seconds\nPreprocessor visited node count: 25074\/1000000\nPreprocessor generated node count: 34050\/1000000\nPost\u2010expand include size: 161473\/2097152 bytes\nTemplate argument size: 54341\/2097152 bytes\nHighest expansion depth: 18\/40\nExpensive parser function count: 0\/100\n-->\n\n<!-- \nTransclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)\n100.00% 510.315 1 - -total\n 87.21% 445.066 1 - Template:Reflist\n 74.96% 382.541 34 - Template:Citation\/core\n 64.05% 326.875 27 - Template:Cite_journal\n 14.60% 74.514 7 - Template:Cite_web\n 7.47% 38.097 1 - Template:Infobox_journal_article\n 7.11% 36.282 1 - Template:Infobox\n 5.55% 28.311 28 - Template:Citation\/identifier\n 4.82% 24.573 80 - Template:Infobox\/row\n 3.82% 19.505 36 - Template:Citation\/make_link\n-->\n\n<!-- Saved in parser cache with key limswiki:pcache:idhash:11407-0!*!0!!en!5!* and timestamp 20200707204404 and revision id 37782\n -->\n<\/div><div class=\"printfooter\">Source: <a rel=\"external_link\" class=\"external\" href=\"https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware\">https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/Journal:Leveraging_conservation_action_with_open%E2%80%90source_hardware<\/a><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<!-- end content -->\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"visualClear\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<!-- end of the left (by default at least) column -->\n\t\t<div class=\"visualClear\"><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\n\n<\/body>","d14ab23a070a6dedd70edd1f31559d55_images":["https:\/\/s3.limswiki.org\/www.limswiki.org\/images\/e\/ea\/Fig1_Hill_ConsLetters2019_12-5.jpg","https:\/\/s3.limswiki.org\/www.limswiki.org\/images\/6\/6b\/Fig2_Hill_ConsLetters2019_12-5.jpg"],"d14ab23a070a6dedd70edd1f31559d55_timestamp":1594154644,"3ab9770e7fca9810f5573456215e3853_type":"article","3ab9770e7fca9810f5573456215e3853_title":"What is the \"source\" of open-source hardware? (Bonvoisin et al. 2017)","3ab9770e7fca9810f5573456215e3853_url":"https:\/\/www.limswiki.org\/index.php\/Journal:What_is_the_%22source%22_of_open-source_hardware%3F","3ab9770e7fca9810f5573456215e3853_plaintext":"\n\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\tJournal:What is the \"source\" of open-source hardware?\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tFrom LIMSWiki\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJump to: navigation, search\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tFull article title\n \nWhat is the \"source\" of open-source hardware?Journal\n \nJournal of Open HardwareAuthor(s)\n \nBonvoisin, J\u00e9r\u00e9my; Mies, Robert; Boujut, Jean-Fran\u00e7ois; Stark, RainerAuthor affiliation(s)\n \nTechnische Universit\u00e4t Berlin, Grenoble Alpes UniversityPrimary contact\n \nEmail: jeremy dot bonvoisin at tu-berlin dot deYear published\n \n2017Volume and issue\n \n1(1)Page(s)\n \n5DOI\n \n10.5334\/joh.7ISSN\n \n2514-1708Distribution license\n \nCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalWebsite\n \nhttps:\/\/openhardware.metajnl.com\/articles\/10.5334\/joh.7\/Download\n \nhttps:\/\/openhardware.metajnl.com\/articles\/10.5334\/joh.7\/galley\/12\/download\/ (PDF)\n\n\n\n\n \n This article contains rendered mathematical formulae. You may require the TeX All the Things plugin for Chrome or the Native MathML add-on and fonts for Firefox if they don't render properly for you. \n\n\nContents\n\n1 Abstract \n2 Introduction \n3 The context of open-source hardware \n4 Definitions of openness from practice and research \n\n4.1 Definitions from practice communities \n4.2 Definitions from scholarly research \n4.3 Theory-practice-gap \n\n\n5 Research approach and methodology \n\n5.1 Focus: Complex non-electronic hardware products \n5.2 Product selection \n5.3 Data acquisition \n5.4 Openness assessment criteria \n5.5 Clustering \n\n\n6 Results \n\n6.1 Pool of gathered products \n6.2 Overall openness of the published documentation \n6.3 Relative frequency of openness factors \n6.4 Role of contextual criteria in openness \n6.5 Typical profiles \n\n\n7 Discussion \n\n7.1 Framing the \u201csource\u201d of open source hardware \n7.2 Limits of the reported research \n\n\n8 Conclusion \n9 Footnotes \n10 Acknowledgements \n\n10.1 Competing interests \n\n\n11 References \n12 Notes \n\n\n\nAbstract \nWhat \u201copen source\u201d means once applied to tangible products has been so far mostly addressed through the light of licensing. While this approach is suitable for software, it appears to be over-simplistic for complex hardware products. Whether such a product can be labelled as open-source is not only a question of licence but a question of documentation, i.e. what is the information that sufficiently describes it? Or in other words, what is the \u201csource\u201d of open-source hardware? To date there is no simple answer to this question, leaving large room for interpretation in the usage of the term. Based on analysis of public documentation of 132 products, this paper provides an overview of how practitioners tend to interpret the concept of open-source hardware. It specifically focuses on the recent evolution of the open-source movement outside the domain of electronics and DIY to that of non-electronic and complex open-source hardware products. The empirical results strongly indicate the existence of two main usages of open-source principles in the context of tangible products: publication of product-related documentation as a means to support community-based product development and to disseminate privately developed innovations. It also underlines the high variety of interpretations and even misuses of the concept of open-source hardware. This reveals in turn that this concept may not even be clear to practitioners and calls for more narrowed down definitions of what has to be shared for a product to be called open source. This article contributes towards this effort through the definition of an open-source hardware lifecycle, summarizing the observed approaches to open-source hardware.\nKeywords: open-source hardware, open design, open innovation, open-source innovation, open-source product development\n\nIntroduction \nWe are currently witnessing an increasing number of initiatives transferring product development and production from the private sector to the public. Enabled by the growing accessibility of affordable manufacturing technology, this is manifested in the expansion of the so-called \u201cmaker culture,\u201d which takes action to install participational production as an alternative to industrial production.[1][2] The emergence of this culture is interwoven with the phenomenon of open-source hardware (OSH), which transfers open-source principles (as defined by Open Source Initiative 2007) from their origins in software development to the world of physical objects.[3] While these new practices are raising significant attention, they are still in their infancy and struggle to reveal their full economic, social, and environmental potential. One of the challenges they face is that sharing knowledge about atoms is not as frictionless as sharing bits.\nBoth practitioners and the scientific community generally acknowledge that online sharing of a piece of hardware is more difficult than the sharing of a piece of software (e.g., see discussion of this point by Raasch[4]. Software is digital by nature; it is made of series of characters in a format that can be shared and displayed online without specific tools, with a text editor being enough. Hardware may need to be described through more complex constructs like 2D or 3D schematics, which may require more specific software to be edited and displayed. Based on the evaluation of a pool of 20 OSH projects whose products embedded both software and hardware components, Balka, Raasch, and Herstatt[5] highlighted that hardware components were generally less documented than the software components. This result raises questions in terms of practice. When a piece of hardware is poorly documented, is it still open source? What does \u201cless documented\u201d mean? What are the minimal requirements for labeling a hardware product as \"open source\"?\nIn the absence of clear guidance on this issue, it is not easy to draw a line between which piece of hardware is open source and which is not, even when licensing terms may be clear. Unlike in software, attributing appropriate licences[a] is not sufficient to call hardware open source. Given OSH is a sociotechnical phenomenon, the answer primarily depends on how the product documentation enables co-development and replication. This article seeks to provide guidance on which information sufficiently describes OSH. In other words, what is the source of OSH?\nThe objective of this article is to provide an overview of how current projects tend to interpret and make use of the concept of OSH. Its ultimate goal is to provide a deeper description of what OSH means based on the observation of actual practices. This is performed through the analysis of the \u201csource\u201d, i.e., the published documentation of 132 OSH products with the help of categorical criteria addressing the question \u201chow open are OSH products?\u201d It specifically focuses on the recent evolution of the open-source movement outside the domain of electronics and DIY to those of non-electronic and complex OSH products.\nThe remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section the general context of emergence of OSH as an alternative product development pattern based on free distribution of information is depicted and characterized. Then definitions from practice communities and scholars are analysed and combined in order to provide a consolidated overview of the concept of OSH. After the definitions, the methodological approach for the acquisition of empirical data allowing the analysis of current practices of OSH documentation is introduced. The results produced by the application of this method are then described and interpreted. Finally, we summarize the findings into an original framework termed \"OSH lifecycle,\" additionally summarizing observed approaches to OSH.\n\nThe context of open-source hardware \nOSH is a relatively young phenomenon with projects emerging in the past decade[7], although it has several prominent examples already. Pioneering projects such as RepRap, Open Source Ecology, and Local Motors have certainly set a precedence to lift the air of mystery and aloofness of engineering ingenuity closely guarded for means of commercial appropriation. As to whether these are heralds of what Moritz et al.[8] depict as disruptive changes on the upstream end of value chains toward value-co-creation, only time will tell. Clearly, this alternative course of action could take an active part in shaping the technological future. Indeed, there are already promising examples of successful businesses based on OSH for which the scientific community identified corresponding value creation models.[9][10] These examples, together with the empirical evidence provided by free and open-source software, allow for a foreseeing of a flourishing future for OSH.[9][10]\nLike free and open-source software, OSH is an IT-enabled internet phenomenon. Fjeldsted et al.[11], as well as Bonvoisin and Boujut[12], point out the integral part IT platforms play in fostering product-related data sharing and community-based product development, as well as the emergence of OSH-based business models. However, Raasch[4] draws a contrast: compared with OSS development, the aspect of physical object design in OSH has strong impacts on required skills, tools, and infrastructure. This aspect is even increasingly salient as the focus of OSH progressively expands towards many other forms of hardware than electronic hardware, like mechanical, construction, medical, optical, agricultural, or textile hardware. From a design point-of-view, the degree of freedom in the problem-solution space introduced by their mechanical portion rises significantly. Howard et al.[13] and Raasch, Herstatt, and Balka[14] also illustrate how OSH is looking at the full spectrum of product complexity and different manufacturing strategies, from do-it-yourself (DIY) to industrial production.\nThe capacity of communities outside the closed and hierarchical environment of research and development (R&D) departments to develop complex and high-quality products remains a challenge; the largest majority of OSH products available to date are gadgets for hobbyists.[15] As processes transform inputs into outputs, their structure is generally related to the product and project scope. OSH can be described as individual or participatory realization of a shared product design. Therefore, 3D printing designs shared by individuals on sites such as Thingiverse[b] may classify as OSH, similar to large community-based efforts such as the E-Nable project.[c] This makes a big difference in regards to the type of effort being structured for the realization of an open-source product. Hence, depending on the product scope and also the originator's intent to foster co-design, levels of interaction maturity differ starkly in OSH. A useful macro-level classification is offered by Camarinha-Matos et al.[16], starting at networks, then moving to coordination, cooperation, and collaboration.\nThe conceptual space that supports collective spirit and collaborative problem solving is described by Maher, Paulini, and Murty.[17] It is based on the three aspects of shared representation, motivation, and communication. They enable problem solving in collective design projects within a continuum from collected (individual) to collective intelligence. The latter is demarcated by collaborative generation of solutions as well as synthesis of individual solutions. From their study of collective design activities[18] conclude that within the frame of what they call an inclusive nature of participatory design, individuals proactively self-organize and choose their own roles as well as period of involvement. The maturity of this participatory nature may in fact be the primary determinant of collective design projects.\nSocial dynamics in crowds are context-dependent, however. In the OSH context, from all of the above, communities can be viewed as socially formed groups of heterogeneous actors who co-create OSH products. Depending on the participatory roles of actors, they may engage as followers, replicators, developers, or community managers. In the frame of open innovation, West and Lakhani[19] describe them as actor volunteers lacking of organizational affiliation. Due to partial influence of market-based factors, this role may somewhat reflect the notion of people giving away their time and effort without any monetary compensation. In addition, actors may as well include individuals, firms, and many other types of organizations.[20]\nAksulu and Wade[21] provide insight on how pure open-source systems set a community-based context of personal development, process learning, and effective technology outputs. In contrast, within the purely proprietary context, purpose is realized by the efficient generation of technology outputs within organizations with clear boundaries.\nWhat exactly makes open-source processes effective seems to be rooted in the task environment. According to Lee and Cole[22], the trade-off between exploration and exploitation is made through a two-tier task structure of generated variations within the periphery, and selection and retention at the core. In their case study of the Linux kernel development project, they observe community-based knowledge creation in the form of an evolutionary learning process based on a culture of critical evaluations and peer learning. Moreover, Howison and Crowston[23] describe collaborative development of OSS as an evolutionary process of incremental and independent tasks, by which a layer structure emerges task-by-task. They argue that added layers change the context over time and significantly reduce complexity of tasks. By gradually laying the foundation, previously unattainable tasks eventually may suddenly become easily achievable by individual developers, or simple workarounds may become obvious. This is in line with the concept of Maher et al.[24] concerning the co-evolution of the problem and solution spaces, which describes how these dimensions influence each other during the design process. Collaborative evolutionary design on the activity level is key in explaining how solutions are generated effectively in open-source systems[d] and needs to be further researched.\n\nDefinitions of openness from practice and research \nThis section reviews existing definitions from practice and identifies resulting implications in terms of published product-related documentation. These definitions are then matched with existing contributions from research in order to provide a comprehensive framework defining OSH. Results of empirical studies which challenge these definitions and show a more heterogeneous landscape of OSH are then presented and lead to the identification of two research questions addressed in this article.\n\nDefinitions from practice communities \nThe Open Source Hardware Statement of Principles 1.0 states that \u201copen source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design.\u201d[25] It is based on the assumption that publishing a \u201cdesign\u201d (alternatively termed \u201cdocumentation\u201d) realizes the four freedoms of the open-source concept, which are reinterpreted in the context of tangible products as the freedom to study, modify, make, and distribute.[e]\nThis definition is an adaptation of the original Open Source Definition by the Open Source Initiative[27] to the realms of tangible products. Coined in the context of free and open-source software, it specifies requirements on two interwoven objects: the \u201csoftware,\u201d alternatively called the \u201cproduct,\u201d and the \u201csource code.\u201d It is implicitly accepted that the object called \u201csource code\u201d allows defining the object called \u201cproduct\u201d unambiguously in its depth and its entirety. In the case of software, this implicit prerequisite is automatically fulfilled, as a software product is the translation of a text written in programming language into a machine language by a deterministic algorithm. However, this is not the case for tangible products: what information has to be shared in order to allow any interested person to study, modify, make, and distribute a piece of hardware is not a simple question.\nA closer look at the definitions of widely recognized OSH licences and current practices of OSH seeks to give some hints and shows that the four freedoms of open source tend to be supported by different document types or properties[28]:\n\n The freedom to study (i.e., the right to access sufficient information to understand how the piece of hardware\u2014referred herein as the product\u2014works and to retrace the underlying design rationale as defined by Wang, Johnson, and Bracewell[29]) can be supported by the publication of schematics, 2D, or 3D CAD files.\n The freedom to modify (i.e., the right to edit the product definition documents and to tweak or develop the product further for any purpose) can be supported by the publication of all documents in their original editable format.\n The freedom to make (i.e., the right to use the product definition documents in order to make\u2014in other words to produce, to manufacture\u2014the piece of hardware) can be supported by the publication of a bill of materials and assembly instructions.\n The freedom to distribute (i.e., the right to give or sell the product definition documents as well as the physical products fabricated with the help of these documents) is allowed by the publication of all documents under a licence which grants free redistribution, including for commercial purposes.\nDefinitions from scholarly research \nScholarly definitions\u2014mostly stemming from innovation management research\u2014deliver categories which are consistent with the Open Source Hardware Statement of Principles 1.0 without, however, giving further details on the nature of the documentation to be published.\nFreedoms to study, to edit, and to make are consistent with the three factors of openness defined by Balka, Raasch, and Herstatt.[5] They respectively term these factors \"transparency,\" \"accessibility,\" and \"replicability.\" Transparency refers to the possibility for any interested person to access sufficient information to understand the product in detail without restriction (which equals the freedom to study). Accessibility refers to the possibility for any interested person to edit design information and therefore to further develop the product (which equals the freedom to modify). Replicability refers to the possibility for any interested person to physically produce the product (which equals the freedom to make). These three factors of openness are introduced as preconditions for three complementary behaviors on the part of the community surrounding the product: Transparency enables observation (and eventually feedback), accessibility enables further development (and eventually co-development), and replicability enables prototyping and production (and eventually co-production). What is missing in this contribution is the fourth factor of openness termed henceforth \"commercial usability,\" which addresses the above listed freedom to distribute.\nThe four freedoms and corresponding factors of openness cover both \u201cdistinct and competing meanings\u201d of openness identified by von Hippel[30]: the permeability of the innovation process to the participation of external people and the public sharing of documentation. Transparency, replicability, and commercial usability are about sharing documentation publicly. Accessibility is about enabling the participation of external people in the design process. Aitamurto, Holland, and Hussain[31] term two meanings of openness: process openness (whether the innovation process is open or closed) and product openness (whether the innovation outcome is open or closed). Huizingh[32] defines open-source innovation as a result of both process and product openness. Raasch, Herstatt, and Balka[14] particularly deliver the following definition: \u201copen-source innovation is characterized by free revealing of information on a new design with the intention of collaborative development of a single design or a limited number of related designs for market or nonmarket exploitation.\u201d\nThe coherent picture of OSH drawn by those definitions from practice and scholarly research is displayed in Figure 1. OSH builds upon product and process openness. Product openness results from the factors transparency, replicability, and commercial usability, which respectively address the freedoms to study, make, and distribute. Process openness results from the sole factor accessibility, which addresses the freedom to edit.\n\r\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure 1. Forms of openness involved in open-source hardware\n\n\n\nTheory-practice-gap \nThe few existing empirical studies of OSH deliver a picture from practice observations that is less strict than the ambitious theoretical approach summarized by Figure 1, beyond the misuses, which can be expected with the upcoming of a new concept.\nBalka, Raasch, and Herstatt[5] showed that factors of openness may be valued differently by development community members in the fields of consumer electronics and IT hardware. In the communities they analyzed, accessibility of software tended to play the largest role in the involvement of members, while transparency and replicability of software played a secondary role, and the openness of the related hardware played no role. They also highlighted that, as a result of the low importance given to hardware in those communities, hardware components were generally \u201cless documented\u201d than the software components. This raises the following research question:\n\nRQ1 \u2013 To what extent are the four aspects of openness reflected by practitioners in the publication of product-related documentation? Do practitioners tend to employ the whole set of these factors, or do they tend to employ only subsets of these factors?\nBased on interviews with originators of OSH products, Bonvoisin et al.[33] defined the contours of two archetypes of projects developing OSH they termed \"development communities\" and \"isolated innovators.\" Development communities are characterized by high process openness, adopt systematic and early release policies, and gather contributions from a larger and permeable group of people. On the contrary, isolated innovators are characterized by low levels of process openness. They do not gather contributions from the outside, but rather they release complete product documentations after product versions are fully developed. While the former are interested in integrating people from the outside during the product development process, the latter are more interested in broadcasting their innovation, i.e., enabling other people to produce it. This contradicts the statement made by Gacek and Arief[34] that \u201cthe term 'open source' has been widely used to describe a software development process.\u201d Findings reported by Bonvoisin et al.[33] suggest on the contrary that motivations for publishing documentation may depend on the phase of the product lifecycle in which the community is supposed to play a role and raise the following second research question:\n\nRQ2 \u2013 If factors of openness are understood by practitioners as optional, can we find typical patterns in the way practitioners decide to comply with specific factors of openness? Are these aspects related to specific product lifecycle phases?\nResearch approach and methodology \nIn order to address the research questions defined above, an empirical approach based on the systematic analysis of a representative group of OSH products, as well as their published documentation, has been adopted. This approach is similar to those adopted by Balka, Raasch, and Herstatt[5][35] while avoiding two pitfalls limiting the validity of the produced results. The first is the use of unclear categories such as the size of the development community. As shown in Bonvoisin et al.[33], belonging to a development community is a fickle concept which may be based on different types of activities (from pressing the button \u201cI like\u201d to bringing significant contribution to the product design), which are highly flexible over time and therefore difficult to measure objectively.[f] The second is the use of subjective evaluation of the openness factors with the help of Likert scales. In contrast to the approaches of Balka, Raasch, and Herstatt[5][35], the research reported here strives at a systematic analysis of published documentation with the help of measurable indicators, from the part of an impartial observer.\nIn the following subsections, the approach adopted for the acquisition and the analysis of empirical data is presented. The first subsection introduces methodological choice made in focusing on non-electronic complex hardware products. The second subsection describes the method applied for the establishment of a representative pool of those products. The third subsection defines a set of criteria used to characterize products and their related documentation. The fourth subsection defines criteria for the assessment of openness factors based on the acquired data. The last subsection introduces a clustering method used for identifying typical patterns in the publication of OSH documentation.\n\nFocus: Complex non-electronic hardware products \nWhile the transfer of open-source principles from software to hardware historically and logically started with electronic hardware[36], other technologies are increasingly impacted by the phenomenon. The extension of open-source practices to non-electronic hardware such as mechanical products is of particular interest in terms of documentation. Electronic hardware is a thoroughly standardized field where components are purchased off the shelf. But this is not the case for mechanical hardware, where non-standardized free form components play a large role.\nAlso, particularly interesting is the consideration of complex products. Product complexity is defined by Jacobs[37] as \u201ca design state resulting from the multiplicity of, and relatedness among, product architectural elements.\u201d This characteristic influences the level of professionalization required in the development and production of a given product. It also determines whether production can take place in either DIY or industrial production settings. Noteworthy is that, while DIY and OSH are two interwoven phenomena, not every OSH product is meant to be produced in a DIY production setting.[38] Product complexity also relates to design effort in terms of resources consumed and process duration.[39] Highly complex products tend to require inputs from multiple people and are more relevant for the topic of collaborative design.\nIn order to reflect the challenges faced by OSH products in terms of documentation, the methodological approach pursued in this article is to focus on the most challenging range of products. The underlying assumption is that \u201cwho can do more can do less,\u201d so what applies to complex non-electronic hardware applies also to more electronic hardware and simple products. As a consequence, this article specifically focuses on the recent evolution of the open-source movement outside the domain of electronics and DIY to those of non-electronic and complex OSH products. It excludes the field of purely electronic hardware products. Not only is this methodological choice in consistency with the academic background of the authors situated in mechanical engineering and collaborative engineering design; it is also in line with the most recent advancement of the open-source concept on forms of hardware which are in the sphere of influence in these disciplines. It should be borne in mind that the huge achievements of the still much larger open electronic hardware field have paved the way for this development. In no way is the exclusion of this field in this study an indicator of its irrelevance. Rather, it is a matter of limiting the extent of the research undertaking.\nAs a result of this position, in the rest of the paper, \u201copen source hardware\u201d is used to refer to complex, non-electronic OSH.\n\nProduct selection \nIn contrast to previous research works aiming at grasping the contours of a phenomenon related to open source, e.g., sharing of 3D-printed designs (see Kyriakou, Nickerson, and Sabnis[40]), no major centralized online entry point exists which aggregates relevant products in the context of OSH. While platforms such as GitHub or Thingiverse are playing this role for free and open-source software or 3D-printing communities, to date, there is no generally acknowledged and widely used online platform supporting open-source product development. These observations have been respectively made by Raasch[4] and Howard et al.[13] and are still valid. On the contrary, projects developing OSH products tend to use a wide variety of tools for collaboration and dissemination.[33]\nAs a result, OSH products have been identified using conventional internet search engines using a snowball-effect approach. The results of this search have been screened through a restrictive criteria set in order to ensure a conservative evaluation of the phenomenon to be studied and to keep a deliberately narrow focus within the highly diverse field of open-source innovation (see for example Ehls[41] on that topic). The following selection criteria have been applied:\n\n The product is the outcome of discrete manufacturing. Products of food and process industries such as yogurt, cement, chemicals, or plastic compounds are excluded.\n The product contains at least in-house, tangible, and non-electronic hardware, which includes mechanical or any other type of non-electronic physical elements (e.g., textile). It may eventually include electronic hardware and consequently software. Purely electronic hardware or software products such as Arduino or Linux are therefore excluded. In-house means that the piece of non-electronic hardware is \"original equipment\" created by the product originator and not a component bought off the shelf.\n The product is complex. While well-defined metrics assessing product complexity on a positive real scale have been proposed in the scientific literature (e.g., Rodriguez-Toro, Jared, and Swift [39]), using those metrics requires having sufficient access to detailed data such as the number of parts. This condition is difficult to satisfy in the context of observation of partly documented and defined products. Therefore, in the following analysis, the complexity of products is evaluated with a rule of thumb: products are considered as complex if they consist of more than two parts of different materials. Products such as business card holders, cell phone cases, or other 3D-printed gimmicks are out of scope. The objective here is to bring to the foreground those open-source products that are on the upper side of the complexity scale. In other words, to select the few complex ones and let aside the myriad of gimmicks that can be found on CAD file exchange platforms such as Thingiverse or Shapeways.\n The product is developed for functional rather than aesthetic purposes. Jewelry, artistic, and decorative items do not fulfill this criterion and therefore were not included.\n The product is at least partly defined, i.e., is provided with sufficient documentation to indicate that the product development maturity is equivalent or above the stage \u201csystem-level design\u201d of the product development process as defined by Ulrich and Eppinger.[42] Undeveloped product concepts are not considered. Thus, the focus delineates them from challenge platforms, which focus solely on capturing concepts from external participants.\n The product is labelled by its surrounding community as open source. The terms \u201copen source,\u201d \u201copen-source hardware,\u201d or \u201copen hardware\u201d are used in the published documentation as an adjective to qualify either the product or the activities around the product. This is quite a conservative criterion. A non-negligible number of projects adopt principles of OSH without necessarily fitting neatly into this conservative criterion.\n There are no systematic 1:1 relations between product, project, and community. For example, a community may be involved in more than one project and a project may involve the development of more than one product. However, in order to simplify the analysis, only one product per project and per community has been considered.\nData acquisition \nFor each of the selected products, two sets of descriptive criteria are defined. These are summarized in Table 1. The first set is dedicated to the characterization of the published product-related information. It translates in measurable terms the best practices of OSH as provided by the Open Source Hardware Association[43] and complemented by a practice review performed prior to the reported research.[28] In the absence of practicable indicators for assessing the quantity, the quality, or the relevance of a piece of information, simple binary criteria are used, which indicate the presence or the absence of a given piece of information or of a given property. The second set delivers contextual information about the product, the corresponding development project, as well as the surrounding product development community.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTable 1. Open-source hardware product characterization criteria.\n\n\nRef.\n\nName\n\nDescription\n\n\nPart I \u2013 Criteria regarding shared product-related documentation\n\n\na\n\nCAD files available\n\nBoolean value indicating whether CAD files or schematics of the non-electronic hardware are available online\n\n\nb\n\nCAD files aeditable\n\nBoolean value indicating whether the online released CAD files of the product are editable. CAD files are considered editable if they are released in their original format. They are not considered editable if they are only released in an export format such as PDF or STL, which does not allow further modifications.\n\n\nc\n\nAssembly instructions available\n\nBoolean value indicating whether instructions for building the non-electronic hardware are available online\n\n\nd\n\nAssembly instructions editable\n\nBoolean value indicating whether the published assembly instructions are editable. Assembly instructions are considered editable if they can be edited in a web 2.0 environment or downloaded as editable files. A file is furthermore considered editable if it is released in its original format. It is not considered as editable if it is only available in an export format such as PDF.\n\n\ne\n\nBill of materials available\n\nBoolean value indicating whether a bill of materials relative to the non-electronic hardware is available online\n\n\nf\n\nBill of materials editable\n\nBoolean value indicating whether the published bill of materials is editable. A bill of materials is considered editable if it can be edited in a web. 2.0 environment or downloaded as an editable file. A file is furthermore considered editable if it is released in the original format. It is not considered editable if it is only available in an export format such as PDF.\n\n\ng\n\nGuidelines for participation\n\nBoolean value indicating whether guidelines for participation or a dedicated call for contribution are provided to potential contributors\n\n\nh\n\nCommercial usage allowed\n\nBoolean value indicating whether the licence applied to the non-electronic hardware allows commercial usage of the published content. If no licence is applied, the criterion is set to false.\n\n\nPart II \u2013 Criteria regarding contextual information\n\n\ni\n\nLicense\n\nLicensing scheme used for the publication of the non-electronic hardware\n\n\nj\n\nContains electronics\n\nBoolean value indicating whether the product contains electronic hardware components as well\n\n\nk\n\nMaturity\n\nDefines the maximum maturity level achieved by one of the eventual versions of the product over time. Five maturity levels are defined in the order of increasing liability risk:\r\n \r\n\n1. Design - There is only a theoretical design that is still to be fully developed. No liability of the product originator applies.\r\n\n2. Prototype - The early design phases have been completed and the first functional prototype has been built. No liability of the product originator applies.\r\n\n3. Production\/DIY - The product is fully defined and documented and can be replicated. No liability of the product originator applies.\r\n\n4. Production\/Kit - The product is sold by a commercial actor as a kit. Limited availability applies to the vendor.\r\n\n5. Production\/full product - The product is sold by a company as a finished product. Full availability applies to the vendor.\n\n\n\nl\n\nStatus of the community\n\nBinary value indicating whether the community is active. The community is considered inactive in case no activity (encompassing either product development or sales and marketing) can be detected on the website or the collaboration platforms within one year.\n\n\nm\n\nProduct category\n\nClassification of the products in product groups\n\n\n\nCriteria are evaluated based on information that can be accessed through the websites of the product development communities. For the four criteria \u201cCAD files available,\u201d \u201cassembly instructions available,\u201d \u201cbill of materials available,\u201d and \u201cguidelines for participation,\u201d the following practical cut-off rule is applied for each binary criterion: If the necessary information to satisfy a criterion cannot be found in less than 10 minutes, it is considered unavailable. This cut-off rule is consistent with the fact that accessibility to documents required by the Open Source Definition implies not only that these documents can be accessed, but also that they can be found easily.\nNote that with the focus of the prior subsection titled \u201cFocus: Complex non-electronic hardware products,\u201d solely the documentation relative to the non-electronic hardware has been assessed. Documentation regarding electronic hardware and software has not been regarded. The authors emphasize here that this does not mean that the openness of electronic hardware has lower relevance in general. This methodological choice is instead dictated by the background of the authors and the willingness to limit volume of data to be gathered in this study. This attempt is based on the assumption that data gathered for non-electronic hardware are representative for data about electronic hardware.\nAlso, this article specifically focuses on OSH development. The use of OSH may require pieces of documentation which are not considered here, such as operating instructions and parts specifications. Withholding this information may render a product useless or even unsafe. The provision of operating instructions is for this reason legally requested in specific product branches such as an automobile. As a consequence, the provision of operational instructions has not been considered as a distinctive characteristic of OSH in this article.\n\nOpenness assessment criteria \nBased on the data defined in previous sections, four composite criteria are defined for assessing the compliance of the product-related documentation to the four factors of openness:\n\n The transparency (T) criterion addresses the freedom to study. A product satisfies this criterion when CAD files are published.\n The accessibility (A) criterion addresses the freedom to modify. A product satisfies this criterion when all published content is editable or when a guideline for participation is available.\n The replicability (R) criterion addresses the freedom to make. A product satisfies this criterion when assembly instructions and bill of materials are available.\n The commercial usability (C) criterion addresses the freedom to distribute. A product satisfies this criterion when licences applied to the non-electronic hardware allow commercial usage of the published content.\nThe four criteria are defined as logical operations on the Boolean values [a,\u2026,h] as depicted by the following equation:\n\r\n\n\n \n \n \n \n {\n \n \n \n \n \n T\n =\n a\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A\n =\n \n (\n \n \n (\n \n a\n ∨\n c\n ∨\n e\n \n )\n \n ∧\n \n (\n \n a\n →\n b\n \n )\n \n ∧\n \n (\n \n c\n →\n d\n \n )\n \n ∧\n \n (\n \n e\n →\n f\n \n )\n \n \n )\n \n ∨\n g\n \n \n \n \n \n \n R\n =\n c\n ∧\n e\n \n \n \n \n \n \n C\n =\n h\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n {\\displaystyle \\left\\{{\\begin{array}{l}{T=a}\\\\{A=\\left({\\left({a\\vee c\\vee e}\\right)\\land \\left({a\\rightarrow b}\\right)\\land \\left({c\\rightarrow d}\\right)\\land \\left({e\\rightarrow f}\\right)}\\right)\\vee g}\\\\{R=c\\land e}\\\\{C=h}\\\\\\end{array}}\\right.}\n \n \n\r\n\nIn addition to this, a global openness index (OI) is defined as a cumulative point system. A product gets one point each time one of the criteria a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h is satisfied. An OI = 8 means the product fully satisfies the best practices of OSH. An OI = 0 means the product satisfies none of the criteria defining OSH. The openness index is defined in the next equation:\n\r\n\n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n O\n I\n =\n \n \n \n \n Γ\n \n (\n a\n )\n \n +\n Γ\n \n (\n b\n )\n \n +\n Γ\n \n (\n c\n )\n \n +\n Γ\n \n (\n d\n )\n \n +\n Γ\n \n (\n e\n )\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n +\n Γ\n \n (\n f\n )\n \n +\n Γ\n \n (\n g\n )\n \n +\n Γ\n \n (\n h\n )\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n w\n h\n e\n r\n e\n  \n Γ\n \n (\n x\n )\n \n =\n \n {\n \n \n \n \n \n 1\n  \n i\n f\n  \n x\n \n \n \n \n \n \n 0\n  \n i\n f\n ¬\n  \n x\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n {\\displaystyle {\\begin{array}{ll}{OI=}&{\\Gamma \\left(a\\right)+\\Gamma \\left(b\\right)+\\Gamma \\left(c\\right)+\\Gamma \\left(d\\right)+\\Gamma \\left(e\\right)}\\\\&{+\\Gamma \\left(f\\right)+\\Gamma \\left(g\\right)+\\Gamma \\left(h\\right)}\\\\&{\\quad {where\\ \\Gamma \\left(x\\right)=\\left\\{{\\begin{array}{l}{1\\ if\\ x}\\\\{0\\ if\\neg \\ x}\\\\\\end{array}}\\right.}}\\\\\\end{array}}}\n \n \n\r\n\n\nClustering \nIn order to identify typical patterns in the publication of product-related documentation, products are clustered according to the values of the eight binary criteria [a,\u2026,h] defined above. The k-medioids algorithm (or PAM, Partitioning Around Medioids) has been used since it is particularly adapted to the clustering of objects described by categorical data. This method requires as input an n*n matrix giving a measure of the similarity of each pair of product. Each product is represented by a binary word of eight bits, with each bit representing a criterion from a to h, as described in the following equation:\n\r\n\n\n \n \n \n \n P\n \n i\n \n \n =\n \n a\n \n i\n \n \n ,\n …\n ,\n \n h\n \n i\n \n \n \n \n {\\displaystyle P_{i}=a_{i},\\ldots ,h_{i}}\n \n \nWhere:\n\n Pi is an eight-bit word representing the product i; and\n ai, \u2026, hi are the binary values of criteria a to h evaluated for product i.\n\r\n\nInter-product similarity is computed according to the Manhattan distance[44] of the products\u2019 descriptive 8-bit words as described in the following equation:\n\r\n\n\n \n \n \n \n S\n \n i\n j\n \n \n =\n \n ∑\n \n k\n =\n 1\n \n \n 8\n \n \n \n Γ\n \n (\n \n \n (\n \n \n P\n \n i\n ,\n k\n \n \n ∧\n ¬\n \n P\n \n j\n ,\n k\n \n \n \n )\n \n ∨\n \n (\n \n ¬\n \n P\n \n i\n ,\n k\n \n \n ∧\n \n P\n \n j\n ,\n k\n \n \n \n )\n \n \n )\n \n \n \n \n {\\displaystyle S_{ij}=\\sum \\limits _{k=1}^{8}{\\Gamma \\left({\\left({P_{i,k}\\land \\neg P_{j,k}}\\right)\\vee \\left({\\neg P_{i,k}\\land P_{j,k}}\\right)}\\right)}}\n \n \nWhere:\n\n Sij is the Manhattan distance of binary words Pi and Pj and is a numerical of [0, 8]. A distance of 0 means words are equal. A distance of 8 means words are completely different.\n Pi,k and Pj,k are respectively the kth bit of words Pi and Pj; and\n \u0393 is the function defined in the second equation.\n\r\n\nThe k-medioids algorithm requires also as parameter the number of clusters to be defined. The optimal number of clusters\u2014so that adding another cluster does not provide further information\u2014is calculated with the help of the elbow method.[45]\n\nResults \nA data acquisition campaign was carried out between March 2016 and April 2017. This large time period ensured sufficient exhaustiveness of the snow-ball research. At the same time, it generated risks of data obsolescence. Therefore, the gathered data set was screened and actualized in its entirety in a last verification pass performed May 2017. In total, 132 products were found which satisfied the conservative selection criteria. Further modifications of the considered objects of research that occurred after May 2017 were not considered and are not reported in this article.\n\nPool of gathered products \nThe selected products cover a wide range of categories. The largest categories represented are machine tools (33 products), vehicles (18 products), and robotics (11 products), as well as medical and laboratory equipment (9 products each, Figure 2a). The category of machine tools includes mainly desktop machine tools such as the 3D printer Ultimaker or the laser cutter Lasersaur. The vehicles category mainly consists of bikes like XYZ Space Frame Vehicles and cars like the Tabby OSVehicle. The robotics category is largely represented by humanoid robots developed for teaching or research purposes, such as the igus Humanoid Open Platform. Finally, the medical equipment category covers diverse products like OpenBionics\u2019 Prosthetic Hand or diagnostic equipment such as the echo-stethoscope echOpen.\n\r\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure 2. Characterization per product category (a), per technology (b) and per project status (c)\n\n\n\nIn total, a share of 43% of these (57 products) consist exclusively of non-electronic components. The remaining share of 57% (75 products) also comprise electronic hardware as well as software (Figure 2b). Three quarters of the products are currently developed and\/or marketed; while other products originate from projects which are not active anymore (Figure 2b).\nThe distribution of products per maturity level, depicted in Figure 3, indicates that the majority of the selected products has reached a stage of development that enables systematic replication and production; 70% are in production stages.\n\r\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure 3. Distribution of products per maturity level\n\n\n\nOverall openness of the published documentation \nFigure 4 depicts the number of products satisfying the criteria a to h, as well as the distribution of products along the openness index (OI). The most satisfied criterion is the publication of CAD files (criterion a, with 77%, 102\/132) and the least satisfied are the publication of a call for contribution and the editability of assembly instructions (criterion g and d, with respectively 26% and 25%, 34\/ and 33\/132). In total, 11 products satisfy all criteria [a,\u2026,h], while 10 products satisfy none of them. The arithmetic mean of the openness index of all products is 4.2 points (median value 4 points). \n\r\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure 4. Number of products satisfying the criteria a to h\n\n\n\nFigure 5 shows the number of products satisfying the four criteria of openness (T, A, R, and C). The most satisfied criterion is transparency (T, 77%, 102\/132), respectively followed by commercial usability (C, 72%, 95\/132), replicability (R, 60%, 80\/132), and accessibility (A, 41%, 54\/132). In total, 22 products comply with all the four criteria, while 11 others fulfill none of them. The average number of criteria fulfilled is 2.5 (median value 3).\n\r\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Figure 5. Number of products satisfying the criteria T, A, R, and C\n\n\n\nThis data highlights a certain heterogeneity of practices in the publication of OSH product documentation. The large spectrum of openness observed tends to indicate that the different factors of openness are considered by practitioners more as optional factors rather than mandatory ones. On one side of the spectrum, a few products can be considered as fully open, because they satisfy the four criteria of openness (17%, 22\/132) or get the maximal openness index (11%, 15\/132). On the other side of the spectrum, another few products can be considered as fully closed, as they either do not satisfy any of the four criteria of openness (8%, 10\/132) or get a null openness index (8%, 11\/132). Between those extremes, the large majority of products show diverse profiles of partial openness, without clearly identifiable patterns.\n\nRelative frequency of openness factors \nResults provided by Figure 4 suggest that transparency and commercial usability may be aspects which are given high importance on average or which are easily achievable, while accessibility is an aspect which may be given low importance on average or difficult to achieve.\nTransparency is not associated with high additional costs, as it is related to the publication of files which are required in the development process (CAD files and schematics). Nonetheless, a significant number of products (almost one fourth) are not providing these files publicly.\nCommercial usability is related to IP risks. The commercial usability aspect is at the core of the concept of open source, yet more than one third of the products are not provided with a licence allowing commercial usage or are published under licences excluding commercial usage. In the latter case, these products are actually unambiguously not complying with the Open Source Hardware Statement of Principles 1.0, which requires explicitly the use of licences allowing commercial usability.\nThe lower occurrence rate of replicability may be explained by the corresponding additional effort. Indeed, it requires more resources to make a product replicable than transparent or commercially usable. Furthermore, while transparency is about sharing files which are required for the development process of the product and exist whether or not the product is open source, replicability requires the formalization of assembly instructions and bill of materials, which is a time intensive activity. Not all communities may be willing to make the effort to formalize these documents. Moreover, assembly instructions may only be relevant for products which are meant to be produced in a DIY production setting. In the context of projects dedicated to the development of complex OSH products which are meant for industrial production, assembly instructions may be secondary or even irrelevant information.\nThe lower occurrence rate of accessibility may also be explained by the corresponding additional effort. As introduced earlier, accessibility is a precondition for the emergence of a community-based co-development process. Integrating contributions from a development community implies significant coordination costs and requires dedicated resources. As accessibility supports a process which is difficult to implement in practice, not all product originators may give this aspect a high priority.\n\nRole of contextual criteria in openness \nTable 2 compares the openness of all products categorized along three assessed contextual criteria: product maturity, whether products are purely mechanical or mechatronic, and whether the surrounding community is active or inactive.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTable 2. Openness vs. contextual criteria\n\n\n\n\nNumber of products\n\nOI\n\nTransparency\n\nAccessibility\n\nReplicability\n\nCommercial usability\n\n\n\n\n\n\nMean value\n\nAbsolute\n\nRelative\n\nAbsolute\n\nRelative\n\nAbsolute\n\nRelative\n\nAbsolute\n\nRelative\n\n\nConcept\n\n14\n\n1.64\n\n4\n\n29%\n\n6\n\n43%\n\n1\n\n7%\n\n7\n\n50%\n\n\nPrototype\n\n26\n\n2.54\n\n14\n\n54%\n\n10\n\n38%\n\n6\n\n23%\n\n16\n\n62%\n\n\nProduction\/DIY\n\n61\n\n4.93\n\n54\n\n89%\n\n26\n\n43%\n\n48\n\n79%\n\n46\n\n75%\n\n\nProduction\/kit\n\n16\n\n5.38\n\n15\n\n94%\n\n4\n\n25%\n\n15\n\n94%\n\n14\n\n88%\n\n\nProduction\/full product\n\n15\n\n4.80\n\n15\n\n100%\n\n8\n\n53%\n\n10\n\n67%\n\n12\n\n80%\n\n\nMechanic\n\n57\n\n3.65\n\n38\n\n67%\n\n25\n\n44%\n\n30\n\n53%\n\n39\n\n68%\n\n\nMechatronic\n\n75\n\n4.53\n\n64\n\n85%\n\n29\n\n39%\n\n50\n\n67%\n\n56\n\n75%\n\n\nActive\n\n99\n\n4.57\n\n83\n\n84%\n\n46\n\n46%\n\n67\n\n68%\n\n76\n\n77%\n\n\nInactive\n\n33\n\n2.91\n\n19\n\n58%\n\n8\n\n24%\n\n13\n\n39%\n\n19\n\n58%\n\n\n\nA first possible reason for the absence of published documentation may be that this documentation does not exist and cannot exist in the level of detail required by the criterion used here. Indeed, in early design stages, the product documentation may not be mature enough for the product concept to be formalized into CAD files, assembly instructions, and bills of materials. This explanation tends to be supported by the gathered data, as the average openness index of products in the early phases (concept and prototype) is significantly lower than those of production phases (DIY, kit, full product production). The percentage of products satisfying the criterion of transparency grows along with product maturity: it is lower than 54% in the concept and prototype phases and grows over 89% in the other phases. The average openness index increases as well; however, it starts to sink again at the last stage (full product production) due to lower replicability and commercial reusability. In this phase, products are marketed by companies which are taking financial risks. This may make them hesitant to disclose information that facilitates imitation.\nA second possible reason for the absence of published documentation may be that the community which drove the product development is not active anymore. In that case, there is not enough workforce anymore to maintain data online; links become \u201cdead links\u201d and information finally disappears. This explanation tends to be supported by the gathered data, as the average openness index is significantly higher for products with active surrounding communities than for products with inactive communities (respectively 4.57 points and 2.91 points).\nA third possible reason for the absence of published documentation may be that the community which drives the product development does not follow an open-source approach for the entire product but only for selected components. A straightforward case is when products include off-the-shelf components which are not open source. Another case is when originators deliberately exclude a developed component from the open-source approach in order to protect their strategic knowledge. This behavior has been previously empirically observed and is discussed by Balka, Raasch, and Herstatt.[5] It is however explicitly excluded by the Open Source Hardware Certification Programme of the Open Source Hardware Association, as it is claimed that \u201call parts, designs, code, and rights under the control of the creator must be made open.\u201d[46] In the current study, only the openness of mechanical components has been assessed, and those of software and electronic hardware components contained in mechatronic products have been left aside. It is therefore possible that a mechatronic product appears here as non-open although the corresponding electronic hardware and software are open source. Following this explanation, there would be a high chance that the average openness of mechanical parts of mechatronic products should be lower than those of purely mechanical products. This explanation is however not supported by the gathered data, as the average openness index is higher for mechatronic products than for purely mechanical products.\nThe following other possible interpretations of the absence of published documentation cannot be verified by the data gathered in this article:\n\n The intention of openness is given in the product development project, but the project lacks capacity to document and to put the product-related documentation online. Although in open-source communities publishing documentation is seen as a way to gather new workforce, generating product documentation remains a time-consuming process and may get lower priority than other product development activities.\n There is a certain delay between the statement that the product is open source and the actual disclosure of product-related information. Project initiators may start claiming a product is open source before the corresponding documentation is put online.\n The product is claimed to be open source whereas no intention to publish product-related information is given in the product development project, what we can term here as \u201copenwashing\u201d in analogy to \u201cgreenwashing\u201d or \u201cwhitewashing.\u201d\nTypical profiles \nIn order to identify possible typical profiles, the k-medioids algorithm has
