About

This project emerged from the question: does the Free and Open Source narrative of inclusivity, transparency, and accessibility correspond with the actual inclusion of frontline communities in open technology projects for environmental monitoring and sustainability? Quickly, though, we realized that the answer wasn’t straightforward. To understand why, we needed to start a bit further back to examine how frontline communities actually experience the practice of “open”.

Drawing on our backgrounds in environmental research and involvement in open source technology, communities, and projects, we approached this work with the recognition that “open” can mean very different things depending on one’s position, power, and proximity to decision-making. Our goal was to trace the tensions between ideals and lived experience and to create a practical resource for researchers and open developers navigating these dynamics.

In the last five years, open science has seen a surge in popularity. “Open technologies” (such as Free and Open Source Software, open data, and open hardware) have become prominent in public debate concerning the present and future of our digital infrastructures. Governments, international agencies, and funding organizations are beginning to understand the positive effects that “openness” could have in science and technology and are shifting their policy and funding priorities accordingly, making it easier for people to collaborate on a larger scale and utilize public resources more effectively.

While there are clear definitions of open source infrastructure, based on rules governing open technology and tools, we took a broader view of “open infrastructure” in the context of DIGITCORE: in practice, the concept of openness does not stop at a definition or rules applied to technology. It also applies to the context in which these technologies live – the practices and relationships established through and by their use, in our case, to produce and share data and knowledge about environmental issues relevant to frontline communities.

Even with this broader perspective, openness is not universally embraced. “Openness” is often perceived warily by communities that have been historically excluded from science and technology projects. This difference in perception can fuel tensions and misunderstandings between environmental scientists and technologists who are hopeful about open science, and “frontline communities” that bear the brunt of climate change and environmental pollution.

In the United States, $1.6 billion in federal spending was allocated during the Biden administration to address environmental pollution and climate change, especially at the community level. Environmental research saw increased funding levels, accompanied by clearer mandates for the development and release of open technologies and research practices. In practice, however, the disconnect between pollution and climate-affected communities and technoscientific initiatives remained, as support for digital infrastructure and connectivity was underemphasized.

In 2025, we’ve seen an abrupt and direct retreat from scientific and environmental progress in the U.S. While this trend is still evolving, it aligns with global developments: according to a report from OECD and the United Nations Development Program, climate action is losing momentum, and at the start of 2025, there was a low proportion of countries complying with the Paris Agreement’s commitment to submit national policies established to address climate change.

In this shifting landscape, environmental researchers and developers of open technologies have found themselves caught in the middle. New attention to and support for environmental and climate justice from national governments and global institutions have proven vulnerable to rapid rollback by governments, leaving the future of environmental research projects, especially those undertaken in collaboration with frontline communities, in jeopardy. Open science was initially viewed by policymakers as a desirable approach to advancing environmental and climate knowledge; now, with the withdrawal of public support for scientific research, openness presents strategic opportunities for researchers and communities to preserve and continue their investigations and their work toward justice. Yet, frontline communities continue to have good reasons to worry that the pursuit of open science could perpetuate extractive relationships, increase their vulnerability to violence, and/or undermine their economic security.

This project has become increasingly necessary as shifting political will, uncertain funding landscapes, and escalating climate crises make it critical to examine whether open technology efforts are truly inclusive of the communities most affected by these issues. These realities shaped how we approached DIGITCORE, not just as a study, but as a practical toolkit to support people in responding to these dynamics.

Openness is not a static description of a tool or a piece of software; openness is an ongoing practice. This toolkit is intended to be a resource for researchers (including both civil society organizations and academics) and open developers and technologists attempting to navigate these complex dynamics. While frontline communities also have a role to play in constructively navigating the tensions that openness can bring, we focused primarily on what researchers and developers can do to avoid placing additional burdens on communities that are already navigating the daily demands of climate and environmental challenges.

By centering governance, accountability, and collective care, alongside the practices and technologies of open infrastructure, the DIGITCORE toolkit provides actionable steps and resources that enable researchers and developers to build relationships and practices that meaningfully include and support the urgency of frontline communities' work.

In our research, we asked how is openness experienced by frontline community members? We were interested in understanding if there were points at which frontline communities felt that information faced enclosure, if openness was limiting in other problematic ways, or if openness offered noticeable benefits or opportunities.

We established criteria to be more specific about the interests driving our questions. Projects needed to (1) examine issues of concern to frontline communities, (2) include the participation of community members (in some form), and (3) create, use, or attempt to use open infrastructures. These criteria were shaped as a result of early discussions about how openness could be explored as a spectrum in the context of environmental research with frontline communities. This framing allowed us to consider infrastructures as both the tools and relationships among actors, helping us to hypothesize about the trade-offs that may lead to different approaches to this research.

The research consisted of four main components: (1) mapping relevant initiatives, (2) conducting focus groups, (3) conducting interviews, and (4) holding feedback and review sessions. As we developed the resulting toolkit, we also collaborated with participants and colleagues to design and operationalize the research findings.

We employed this combination of research techniques to investigate the development, dissemination, and application of open tools and approaches for environmental data collection, analysis, and visualization. We approached the initial mapping work by identifying databases related to participatory science initiatives and projects from around the world, and querying them for lists associated with environmental themes. We then selected and contacted those that were being developed with a degree of participation of frontline communities (at any phase of the research process), and created, used, or attempted to use a tool or set of technologies identified as open or an open-proprietary hybrid.

Building on a project list and our inclusion criteria, we then hosted a series of focus groups that examined the perceived “limits of openness” as experienced by community organizers and nonprofits, socio-environmental researchers, and open technology developers. During the focus groups, we asked research participants to elaborate on the challenges they perceive in the context of their projects, as well as their general perceptions of open technologies (such as open data and open research software) and the role that they play in the present and future of environmental research.

In our semi-structured interviews, we originally planned to explore in more detail the difficulties and solutions experienced with respect to community-based stewardship of common resources, with an interview protocol derived from results obtained during the focus groups. In these, we identified that the perspective from developers of open tools and technologies was not fully explored and may imply different challenges to the advancement of open infrastructures in environmental research. A series of interviews with developers connected to tools used in projects and initiatives related to environmental issues of community interest allowed us to explore the dimensions of openness associated with how these communities of practice engage or fail to engage with others when designing and implementing technological decisions. We asked the developers about their iterative processes and the mechanisms they use to communicate and consider the interests and needs of frontline communities or their organizations. 

In total, we hosted sixteen workshops, focus groups, interviews, and office hours. This allowed us to provide ample opportunities for participants to review progress and provide feedback throughout the project's duration.

As political, environmental, and technological landscapes continue to shift, we welcome your contributions and ideas for how to build upon and expand this toolkit. For more information on this project and to find out how to contribute, visit the Frequently Asked Questions page.