Browsing by Author "Rose, David"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Identifying stakeholders and collaborating with communities(OpenBook Publishers, 2022-12-06) Best, Marina; Irvine, Robyn; Bako, Longji; Citegetse, Geoffroy; Field, Alison; Roe, Dilys; Rose, David; Spencer, JonathanWorking with communities, including local and Indigenous communities, is fundamental to most successful conservation practice. Key elements include determining the appropriate level of engagement, identifying the key stakeholders, identifying appropriate means of collaborating with different stakeholders, creating and maintaining trust, and collaborating to deliver the objectives.Item Open Access Perceptions of farming stakeholders towards automating dairy cattle mobility and body condition scoring in farm assurance schemes(Elsevier, 2023-04-17) Schillings, J.; Bennett, R.; Rose, DavidAnimal welfare standards are used within the food industry to demonstrate efforts in reaching higher welfare on farms. To verify compliance with those standards, inspectors conduct regular on-farm animal welfare assessments. Conducting these welfare assessments can, however, be time-consuming and prone to human bias. The emergence of Digital Livestock Technologies (DLTs) offers new ways of monitoring farm animal welfare and can alleviate some of the challenges related to animal welfare assessments by collecting data automatically and more frequently. Whilst automating welfare assessments with DLTs may be promising, little attention has been paid to farmers’ perceptions of the challenges that could prevent successful implementation. This study aims to address this gap by focusing on the trial of a DLT (a 3D machine learning camera) to automate mobility and body condition scoring on 11 dairy cattle farms. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with farmers, technology developers and a stakeholder involved in a farm assurance scheme (N=14). Findings suggest that stakeholders perceived important benefits to the use of the camera in this context, from building consumer trust by increasing transparency to improved management efficiency. There was also a potential for greater consistency in data collection and thus for enhanced fairness across the UK dairy sector, particularly on the issue of lameness prevalence. However, stakeholders also raised important concerns, such as a lack of clarity around data ownership, reliability, and use, and the possibility of some farmers being penalised (e.g., if the technology failed to work). Better clarity should thus be given to farmers in relation to data governance and evidence provided in terms of technical performance and accuracy. The findings of this study highlighted the need for more inclusive approaches to ensure farmers’ concerns are adequately identified and addressed. These approaches can help minimise negative consequences to farmers and animal welfare, whilst maximising the potential benefits of automating welfare-related data collection.Item Open Access The EPSRC's responsible innovation framework: to what extent does it influence research practice?. Survey data(Cranfield University, 2023-04-05 10:24) Rose, David; Shortland, Faye; Smith, Rachel; Schillings, JulietteMethod: We also undertook an online Qualtrics survey of UK EPSRC-funded researchers and PhD students between September and November 2022. The survey was circulated via social media, by emailing interviewees, and by contacting CDT/DTP leads or administrators. Questions are shown in Appendix B. We received 138 responses (103 PhD students, 35 researchers/academics). In total, 30 institutions were represented in the responses with the top five institutions accounting for 76 responses and no more than 20 responses from any one single institution. At least 43[1] disciplines were covered. The gender response split was 87 Male, 43 Female, 2 Non-binary/non-conforming, with 5 preferring not to say or selecting other (no further detail provided). Descriptive statistics are provided for close-ended questions and open-ended answers were thematically coded. Software used: Qualtrics Format: Excel spreadsheet. Q1 and 2 were administrative questions and are not included. Anonymisation: Some open-ended question responses are removed or edited due to the possibility of identification. Where edits have been made, they are marked with xxx. · Q11: part anonymisation due to one answer giving identifiable information. · Q12_2: part anonymisation due to one answer giving identifiable information. · Q14: on training, fully removed as many answers identified their university or CDT. · Q20: giving further information, fully removed as many answers contained identifiable information. Q21: asked to name university. One respondent asked for this to be removed as it was too easy to identify themselves from a combination of discipline and university. Hence, the answers to this were fully removed for all. [1] Taking the first discipline given, as described by respondents (136 gave responses): Aeronautical engineering (1), Aerosol science (1), AI (2), Atmospheric Science (1), Automotive Engineering (1), Behavioural Science (1), Biochemical engineering (5), Biology (2), Biomaterials Science (1), Biomedical Science (4), Chemical Biology (1), Chemical Engineering (1), Chemistry (12), Computational Materials Modelling (1), Computer Science (13), Computing (5), Cybersecurity (2), Data Science (1), Economics (1), Electronic Engineering (3), Engineering (10), Environmental Science (1), Geography (1), Geospatial engineering (1), HCI (2), Health technology (2), Immunology (2), International relations (1), Machine Learning (3), Materials Science (6), Mathematical sciences (1), Mathematics (11), Mechanical engineering (2), Medical imaging (1), Neuroscience (3), Pharmaceutical Sciences (2), Physics (8), Psychology (9), Risk Analysis (1), Robotics (5), Social sciences (1), Sociology (1), Statistics (3).Item Open Access Transforming practice: checklists for delivering change(OpenBook Publishers, 2022-12-06) Amano, Tatsuya; Bako, Longji; Best, Marina; Rose, DavidDelivering a revolution in evidence use requires a cultural change across society. For a wide range of groups (practitioners, knowledge brokers, organisations, organisational leaders, policy makers, funders, researchers, journal publishers, the wider conservation community, educators, writers, and journalists), options are described to facilitate a change in practice, and a series of downloadable checklists is provided.