{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02595744680851064, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001702127659574468, 'mean_word_length': 6.18960244648318, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Identifying key needs for the integration of social–ecological outcomes in arctic wildlife monitoring

For effective monitoring in social–ecological systems to meet needs for biodiversity, science, and humans, desired outcomes must be clearly defined and routes from direct to derived outcomes understood. The Arctic is undergoing rapid climatic, ecological, social, and economic changes and requires effective wildlife monitoring to meet diverse stakeholder needs. To identify stakeholder priorities concerning desired outcomes of arctic wildlife monitoring, we conducted in‐depth interviews with 29 arctic scientists, policy and decision makers, and representatives of indigenous organizations and nongovernmental organizations. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified and defined desired outcomes and documented links between outcomes. Using network analysis, we investigated the structure of perceived links between desired outcomes. We identified 18 desired outcomes from monitoring and classified them as either driven by monitoring information, monitoring process, or a combination of both. Highly cited outcomes were make decisions, conserve, detect change, disseminate, and secure food. These reflect key foci of arctic monitoring. Infrequently cited outcomes (e.g., govern) were emerging themes. Three modules comprised our outcome network. The modularity highlighted the low strength of perceived links between outcomes that were primarily information driven or more derived (e.g., detect change, make decisions, conserve, or secure food) and outcomes that were primarily process driven or more derived (e.g., cooperate, learn, educate). The outcomes expand monitoring community and disseminate created connections between these modules. Key desired outcomes are widely applicable to social–ecological systems within and outside the Arctic, particularly those with wildlife subsistence economies. Attributes and motivations associated with outcomes can guide development of integrated monitoring goals for biodiversity conservation and human needs. Our results demonstrated the disconnect between information‐ and process‐driven goals and how expansion of the monitoring community and improved integration of monitoring stakeholders will help connect information‐ and process‐derived outcomes for effective ecosystem stewardship.