Direct Entry Program
Research Preparation and Practice
Research Assignment
Student Name: Purea Chanzy
Student ID: S5156752
Class: DEP 7.5A
Diploma/ Bachelor 6.0  6.5  7.0 
Score required:
Master/Doctorate 6.5  7.0 
Teacher: Christine
Draft 1
Draft 2
Final Assignment
Prescribed word length: 1200 words
Actual word length: 1286
Date due: Friday Week 8
Date submitted: Friday Week 8
Referencing Style:
APA
Assignment Topic:
Examine the growth and innovation in an area of scientific research
that has contributed towards better health and/or environment
outcomes for wildlife.
In the recent years, the environment and wildlife conditions decreased
significantly. A multitude of severe environmental issues are the consequences of the
human-modern world activity. Global warming, climate change and the extinction in
mass of numerous species such as plants and animals are the effects of human society.
According to the WWF report of 2018, 75% of certain species like reptile, plants, or
birds are endangered due to overexploitation and agricultural activity. This essay will
explore the benefits and innovation of new technologies for wildlife and the
environment but also the limitation of these technologies. New technologies are helping
wildlife and the environment but at the same time can have harmful consequences for
animal.
Firstly, new technologies were not as advanced as in today’s modern world.
Indeed, the first methods used to study wildlife are now not suitable, but these methods
helped, at first, to begin wildlife studies in order to understand and learn more about
animals. For instance, Urbano et al. (2010) showed classical methods like aerial images
in 1998 (Fuller et al. as cited in Urbano et al, 2010) or very high frequency (VHF)
radio-tracking systems based on the transmission of information by radio waves.
Notwithstanding, they pointed out that radio tracking systems were not as precise as the
global position system (GPS). At this time, as Hebblewhite & Haydon (2010) claimed,
GPS was the most powerful tool for wildlife research. Thanks to the spatial dimension
of GPS tracking data, GPS was a new perspective to locate animals in real life and so
have location data and time data at the same time (Hebblewhite & Haydon, 2010).
Afterwards, Urbano et al. (2010) asserted that remote sensing technology added
precision to wildlife studies but as well to the environmental data by using satellite and
2
S5156752 CHANZY Purea DEP 7.5A 2018 Final Assignment
airborne platforms. Nowadays, remote sensing technology is still utilised because it is,
for the moment, the most efficient tool to locate animals and collect environmental data.
Subsequently, many new technologies now exist and aim to collect information
about the environment, wildlife or even to conserve wildlife. But it can be seen that one
of the technologies that can contribute towards better health for wildlife that is an
example of sensor technology, the poaching detection technology. In fact, Kamminga et
al. (2018) analyse poaching detection technology to save endangered species from
extinction, especially wild animals. Different types of sensor technologies exist such as
radar, magnetic, optical, seismic or chemical (Kamminga et al., 2018). For example, the
optical sensor technology depends on cameras. They explain that cameras can be
directly implanted on the animal like in a rhino’s horn and are employed to detect
poachers or keep an eye on animals. As Kamminga et al. (2018) indicate, another
example is the utilisation of chemicals which can detect the presence of drugs or
explosive. In order to render a rhino’s horn unusable, the Rhino Rescue Project (2016)
demonstrates that scientist can sometimes inject indelible dye and poisonous chemicals
in it to discourage poachers. This technique makes it possible to easily detect illegal
transportation of horns. Furthermore, Kamminga et al. (2018) report that GPS satellite
collars and VHF radio techniques improved the tracking poaching incidents and can
alert the park rangers. Hence, like mentioned before, sensor technologies are essential in
these days because they can gather information like location for the environment and
wildlife but also improve their condition.
Another significant aspect in new technologies is how they can be used in
environmental conservation therefore in wildlife’s habitat. Recently, scientists have new
3
S5156752 CHANZY Purea DEP 7.5A 2018 Final Assignment
projects for the environment to control the human activity in the most efficient way. For
instance, the most popular technology that contributes towards a better environment is
green power. Using natural energy like the solar, wind or even the marine current
energy represents what the green power is about. As Wijk et al. (2018) mention,
nowadays energy is used for a better and an easier lifestyle. But all this energy could be
replaced by natural energy thus, to decrease drastically the pollution of non-renewable
energy. Besides, another solution to reduce the use of non-renewable sources is the
biomass. Biomass can be an alternative for coal (Deepak et al., 2018). The coal energy
consumption is one of the most three energies consumption used worldwide (Wijk et al.,
2018). Deepak et al. (2018) point out that biomass briquettes could be employed for
domestic, agricultural and even industrial use. This alternative is a good example to
control the world’s consumption. Lastly, new technologies can likewise be utilised in
different ways that is to control people’s house consumption by oneself. The Smart
Home concept presented by Cheggou, Khoumeri and Ferhah (2018), permits to have a
complete access to all the electronic devices of a house. Smart Home can be defined as
the process by which you control the energy of a house such as the lighting or the
heating very easily. All of these scientific projects are some good alternatives to try
decrease the energy and as such the pollution. Aiming to decrease the pollution can lead
to a better environment and with that, a better habitat for wildlife.
Technology obviously still helps to improve the environment, wildlife and also
this society, nonetheless there are limitations to new technologies. In fact, usually, the
connection between limitations of new technologies and the environment is the ethical
and natural debate about it. For instance, cloning endangered animals provokes several
questions for scientists. Firstly, animal cloning can be a serious solution to slow down
4
S5156752 CHANZY Purea DEP 7.5A 2018 Final Assignment
the extinction of different species because it can help recreate completely a specific
animal. However, cloning is a very expensive process as a consequence, this technique
is only utilised for precarious situation (Ibtisham, Fahd Qadir, Xiao & An, 2017). In
addition, many conservationists are against cloning. Indeed, they maintain that cloning
only endangered species, will cause a lack of diversity in the natural biodiversity (Lee,
2001). Moreover, natural animal habits and breeding are precariously altered by cloning.
Actually, many new technologies disturb wildlife’s habitat that is the
environment. It is obvious that human activity such as deforestation, construction of
cities, food consumption or even scientific project like animal cloning had enormous
effect on wildlife. Friis and Robert (2019) claims that owing to one of the human
activities that is the increasing population, the actual condition of the environment faces
serious outcomes. “Rapid growth of the world’s population contributes to the
deterioration of the environment through widespread depletion of natural resources and
by causing the levels of air, water, and other forms of pollution to increase” (Friis &
Robert, 2019, p. 28). Another significant concern is agriculture. Agriculture and
overexploitation are the most destructive and harmful human activity responsible for the
environment deterioration (WWF, 2018). As a result, these kind of activities can totally
change the habitat of an animal in fact, most of the time destroy it. Moreover, every
aspect of pollution has harmful consequences on the environment wildlife but mostly
these days, plastic pollution.
Many negative effects on the environment and wildlife are the result of new
technologies. Indeed, some technologies also known as innovative ideas can pollute the
5
S5156752 CHANZY Purea DEP 7.5A 2018 Final Assignment
environment, for example like plastic bags. In the recent years, plastic bags damage the
environment and have an irreversible effect on animals. According to Vince and Stoett
(2018), 79% of plastic production are found in the ocean or in the environment and are
not recycled. Consequently, several marine animals have been found dead because of
the ingestion of an enormous amount of plastic. Whales, sharks or sting rays are the
victims of the plastic pollution (“Microplastics endanger whales and sharks”, 2018).
This article shows that a whale filled with 800 kilograms of plastic died in France. Not
only enormous marine animals but marine life like corals faced major problems with
plastic. Another study points out that birds with a stomach full of plastic died of
stomach’s perforation or starvation (Tuckey, 2018). Hence, scientific research that helps
the human society have harmful consequences on the environment, everyone indirectly,
by using plastic bags or not recycling, are deteriorating the environment and so wildlife.
In conclusion, it may be seen that new technologies help to improve the
condition of the environment and wildlife. New technologies allowed for the first study
of wildlife with location data. Now, these technologies are used to reduce in the most
efficient way, some threats to the environment and wildlife. Nevertheless, new
technologies as well contribute to the deterioration of the environment and engendered
harmful consequences on wildlife. Technologies must always be employed in a
respectful approach for both the environment and the society.
6
S5156752 CHANZY Purea DEP 7.5A 2018 Final Assignment
Reference list
Deepak, K. B., Manujesh, B. J., Vivek, S., & Yashas, B. K. (2018). Biomass: Turning
agricultural waste to green power. Paper presented at the, 376(1)
12018.doi:10.1088/1757-899X/376/1/012018
Friis, R H., (2018). Essentials of environmental health (3rd ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones
& Bartlett Learning.
Cheggou, R., Khoumeri, E., & Ferhah, K. (2018). Artificial intelligence in renewable
energetic systems: Smart sustainable energy systems. Cham: Springer.
doi :10.1007/978-3-319-73192-6
Hebblewhite, M., & Haydon, D. T. (2010). Distinguishing technology from biology: A
critical review of the use of GPS telemetry data in ecology. Philosophical
Transactions: Biological Sciences, 365(1550), 2303-2312.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0087
Ibtisham, F., Fahd Qadir, M. M., Xiao, M., & An, L. (2017). Animal cloning
applications and issues. Russian Journal of Genetics, 53(9), 965-971.
doi:10.1134/S102279541709006X
Kamminga, J., Ayele, E., Meratnia, N., & Havinga, P. (2018). Poaching detection
technologies- A survey. Sensors, 18(5), 1474. doi:10.3390/s18051474
Lee, K. (2001). Can cloning save endangered species? Current Biology, 11(7), R245R246. doi:10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00126-9
Microplastics endanger whales and sharks. (2018, February 5). Daily News Egypt
Rhino Rescue Project. (2016) How it works retrieved from
http://rhinorescueproject.org/how-it-works/
Tuckey, K. (2018). Plastic in wild birds' stomachs. Manawatu Standard
Urbano, F., Cagnacci, F., Calenge, C., Dettki, H., Cameron, A., & Neteler, M. (2010).
Wildlife tracking data management: A new vision. Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society B: BiologicalSciences,365(1550),2177-2185.
doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0081
Vince, J., & Stoett, P. (2018). From problem to crisis to interdisciplinary solutions:
Plastic marine debris. Marine Policy, 96, 200-203.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.05.006
Wijk, A., Roest, E., Boere, J. (2018). Solar power to the people. Amsterdam: Ios Press.
WWF. (2018) Living Planet Report-2018: Aiming Higher. Switzerland, Grooten, M.
and Almond, R.E.A. (Eds).
7
S5156752 CHANZY Purea DEP 7.5A 2018 Final Assignment