Assessing and upgrading online camera trap applications at wwf world wildlife fund for nature organisation

Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference Assessing and upgrading online camera trap applications at WWF (World Wildlife Fund For Nature) Organisation Group sciences: Nguyễn Thị Mỹ Duyên Dương Thị Anh Nguyễn Thị Trang Ngô Thị Phương Võ Hồng Quân Class: MIS2015A Science advisors: Dr Phạm Thị Huệ Ms Trần Thị Hải CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 148 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference This chapter provides background information of this study including the practical basis, objectives of the research, methodology and the expected outcomes 1.1 Practical basis Why we choose this research topic ? Over the last 10 years, and in particular since 2006, there has been a substantial growth in the number of published camera trap studies Even though camera trapping has been used in ecological studies for decades (Kucera and Barrett, 2011), its application expanded with the advent of commercial wildlife camera traps in the early 1990s and the popular need of using camera trapping systems for security purposes of in the industry Today, with the development of digital technology, camera trapping is increasingly used in the world and gradually applied in Vietnam Moreover, a variety of software tools aimed at managing camera trap data have been produced Camelot and Cametest software are currently attracting the interest of wildlife conservation organizations, especially WWF organization The significant growth of camera trapping software used in biodiversity research is posing a challenge of selecting the most suitable software The current software tools still have technical problems, for example, cataloging and analyzing camera trap surveys which take a lot of time and manpower and various issues related to data management Camelot Camelot is a new open source software tool for managing the data associated with camera trap surveys, specifically for applications in wildlife conservation research Camelot is a new invention with the application of data capture management software camera trap Camelot is designed to be the first step in camera trap survey image classification, and provide versatile outputs that can be used in other software The goal of Camelot is to provide a modern and intuitive software application for classifying large volumes of camera trap data efficiently and accurately In addition, Camelot is designed to be both powerful and easy-to- use It provides a number of innovative features, such as an extensible reporting system that serves as an integration point with specialized analysis tools This combination of features and usability makes it a compelling alternative to existing camera trap data management software Camelot provides a workflow that caters for camera trap surveys currently in the field, where, as images are collected, they can be processed immediately and ongoing reports 149 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference produced Furthermore, Camelot provides a number of purpose-specific reports builtin, and is also open to extension by the user Several purpose-specific built-in reports are provided to enable subsequent analysis of the data with PRESENCE and the R package camtrapR and any other software utilising similar data formats Camera trap application – Cametest The cametest software is designed specifically for the WWF to meet almost all the needs of the researcher Cametest has a hierarchical database structure It has the ability to manage and analyze data accurately Camelot and Cametest software meet most of the requirements of researchers in the field of wildlife protection It seemed convenient and shortened the time management and data analysis for the organization However, these two software has certain limitations that have not been investigated This research aimed to make a system evaluation for camera trap software, based on standards and specific organisation’s requirements, in order to provide solutions for upgrading to the WWF’s camera trapping software and provide interested communities with practical guidelines and recommendations 1.2 Objectives of the study The use of camera trapping software has been very popular and each is serving a particular purpose in many different fields Thus, choosing an appropriate software to the needs of organizations to use, and ensures reliability and high security is very important In this research, we create a framework for evaluating and comparing the software which are Camelot- an open source software system and Cametest- a software that was written exclusively for WWF Vietnam The framework is proposed to be a comprehensive list of software evaluation criteria which can be used as a tool for evaluating similar software packages 1.3 Research methods Case study is a process or record of research in which detailed consideration is given to the development of a particular person, group, or situation over a period of interview and also reading related documents about Cameratest and Camelot, we have some useful and necessary data to compare both of them and we also have a new framework During data analysing, we base on some references about software of reseachers and scientists and we collect some similar information that can help us to analysis Camelot and Cametest Beside that, we also know that these software, 150 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference especially Camelot has upgraded sometimes This is an important information to evaluate both of software We had an opportunity for training at WWF Vietnam and it hepls us to have more clear information and data about Cameratest We also have some short interviews with staff there to aks something were still not clear Especially IT of WWF reponsed a lot of questions After getting information, training and also using both of software, we make ourr own framework and evaluating software that we hope they can support other people to a science reseach 1.4 Expectation outcomes For this research, we expect to produce :  A complete report on the comparison and evaluation of the two software Cametest,Camelot and thereby can offer objective opinions about the use of software that will bring benefits to the WWF  A standard framework that can be used for similar software  Useful experience for novice and interested researchers in the process of studying and evaluating camera trapping system CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews research related to the two software that we aimed to compare and materials that provides the basis for developing the system evaluation framework Firstly, we should know what is Camelot, what is Cametest and what camera trapping mean? And why did WWF choose them for managing information? WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations, with over million supporters and a global network active in more than 100 countries WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planets natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature by conserving the worlds biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption [0].A camera trap is a remotely activated camera that is equipped with a motion sensor or an infrared sensor, or uses a light beam as a trigger Camera trapping is a method for capturing wild animals on film when researchers are not present, and has been used in ecological research for decades In addition to applications in hunting 151 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference and wildlife viewing, research applications include studies of nest ecology, detection of rare species, estimation of population size and species richness, as well as research on habitat use and occupation of human-built structures [1] A variety of software tools for camera trap data management have been produced over the years, though the authors encountered numerous shortcomings with each Camelot is a new open source cross-platform software application for managing camera trap survey data Camelot is designed to be both powerful and easy-to- use It provides a number of innovative features, such as an extensible reporting system that serves as an integration point with specialized analysis tools This combination of features and usability makes it a compelling alternative to existing camera trap data management software [2] Cametest is a software that is written specific for WWF Viet Nam base on demand of field staff From the camera trapping- a guide to best practices for conversation, Camelot and Cametest were born to become effective supporter for managing and analyzing the data But besides some advantages of both softwares, they still have a lot of drawbacks that they need to improve and develop for service better Camelot is a software which commonly known as programs or apps, consists of all the instructure that tell the hardware how to perform a task It designed to run on many operating systems including Windows, macOS, Linux,… and it is written by Hedi Hendry and Chris Mann On the other hand, Cametest is a software which is developed by IT program at World Wildlife Fund Vietnam Both of them serve the purpose of importing, analyzing and reporting image data, these processes help biologists and professors have an overlook about biodivesity 2.1 Camera trap and Camelot applications Camera trap application is the most useful tool for biodiversity research Camera trap application is one of the most effective methods for biodiversity research in Vietnam as well as around the world International organizations for the protection of wildlife have identified cameratrap software as an important tool in campaigns to conserve endangered species As a result of the cameratrap software , Conservation organization have identified and documented several rare species listed in the Red Book of Vietnam and the endangered IUCN Red List According to the United Solidarity newspaper, issued on 24.4.2017 “The situation of conservation of endangered wildlife, high risk of extinction”, the 152 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference conservation of biodiversity and wildlife is alarming If things keep going this way, it will not be long, there will be many animals that our offspring can only know through books or specimens in the museum To be more serious, it is we humans who share the habitat on Earth and the survival of human beings will certainly be seriously threatened Camelot is a new tool to support biologists and researchers to research Today, a variety of software tools for managing camera trap data used in biodiversity research have been produced This poses the challenge of choosing the most suitable software Because the existing software tools still have issues such as cataloging and analyzing camera trap surveys it takes a lot of time and manpower Thus, the emergence of Camelot as a useful tool for biologists and researchers in the field of wildlife protection Camelot is designed with user-responsive interface and can also be More than that, Camelot offers a modern and intuitive software application that helps to classify large volumes of camera data efficiently and effectively We can search for classification descriptions of species available when Camelot is running on a computer with an internet connection Alternatively, we can manually import species not in the data or without an internet connection In this way, researchers and biologists can reduce input time and risk of error while entering data In addition, Camelot's image recognition interface is called a 'library' Here, we can choose one or more different images and details of The detected species are identified In each image is included full information, resolution and zoom feature of each image Researchers may also enter additional fields in the identification process if needed With regard to the release of the report, Camelot software integrates the necessary information into various reporting formats, which is convenient and effective for the collection and research of biologists and researchers in working process Firstly, According to Software Evaluation Guide by Mike Jackson, Steve Crouch and Rob Baxter, " A software evaluation is done for someone Someone wants to know about the state of a particular package, and may even be paying you to look into it! So, at the outset, you should agree with this "someone" the scope of the evaluation This includes what software and other project resources will be evaluated and the user classes from whose perspective the evaluation will be done The user 153 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference classes determine the tasks that will form the basis of any evaluation, especially a tutorial-based evaluation " 2.2 Software evaluation research Exploited references that support for software evaluation In this research, Software Evaluation is process to find out about the demand of users and organizations, then we can make a framework including standards to evalute a sofware and find another suitable software for them In recently years, reseachers have focused on models and methods for reusable off-the-shelf software selection  A structured Approach to the Evaluation and Selection of CASE Tools ( Blanc and Korn, 1992 )  Framework for evaluation and selection of the software packages ( Anil S Jadhava, Rajendra M Sonar, 2011)  An evaluation framework for data quality tools( V Gousdoue', Snugier, D Duquennoy, B Laoisse, 2007 )  Conservation technology CAMERA-TRAPING ( Oliver R Wearn & Paul Glover-Kapfer 2017) 2.3 Frameworks for software evaluation Some descriptions about these frameworks The contribution of the reviewed literature in the field of evaluation and selection of the software packages includes: Blanc and Korn,1992, open software, WWF-UK and the software evaluation criteria of Jadhav author It has software evaluation criteria, methodologies for software selection, software evaluation techniques, and systems/tools to support decision makers in evaluating and selecting software packages It enables decision makers to structure a decision making problem into a hierarchy, helping them to understand and simplify the problem Weighting methods for software are very clear and easy to understand We will be based on Jadhav, Blanc and Korn's 1992, WWF and Open Source framework to find out the limitations and limitations of each software From that point of view, we will make a comparative analysis of the software specific to the user Our observations based on review of literature are: 154 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference (1)Here are our research and findings on the highlights and limitations of the four software comparison frameworks First, the article by Blanc and Korn in 1992 there is a little work done on developing decision making framework comprising: methodology for selecting software packages,criteria for evaluating software packages, technique for evaluing software packages, (2) Tthere is need of system/tool having inbuilt knowledge of software evaluation criteria and evaluation technique which will assist decision makers not only in software selection but also increase efficiency, and brings consistency and transparency in the process of software selection (3) This article also focuses a lot on the important criteria for a software evaluation Although the functional requirements need to be described in great detail and each piece of software requires a different functionality, we have also added a number of other criteria that users can easily evaluate Other criteria related to the quality, cost and benefits, vendor, hardware and software requirements, opinion of different stakeholders about the software package, and output characteristics of the software package are common and can be used for evaluation of any software package Here are our reviews of the highlights and limitations of the four software comparison frameworks Firstly, the article by Blanc and Korn in 1992 The evaluation and collection method for Case software by Blanc and Korn provides more detail information The methodology proposed in this paper facilitates the development of specific applications with Case tools However, we can see some advantages and disadvantages First, the highlight of the article is to provide a clear assessment and collection method, in particular, the screening reduces the number of Case packages are evaluated in detail There are three main steps proposed :  The first stage is screening of prospective candidates and development of a short list of Case software packages Determines whether appropriate tools exist and narrows the field of available  The second stage determines that selecting a CASE tool, if any, which best suits the systems development requirements Determines which of the remaining product best meet the needs of organization, from both functional and technical perspectives 155 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference  The third stage is matching user requirements to the features of the selected Case tool and describing how these requirement will be satisfied by building system application with selected product Furthermore, this method of assessment also focuses on functional requirements The information is describes more detailed : full system development life cycle support, standard/common users interface, network support In addition, Blanc and Korn author provides information on software modification In addition, Blanc and Korn authors provide information on software modification and supporting programs through vendor-supplied enhancements, supporting programs and alter code This makes Case software evaluation more effective Finally, the final advantage is the addition of the criteria for documentation and training and it is well appropriated On the other hand, there are some limitations in Case software evaluation It only described in four categories: technical requirements, functional requirements, documentation and training, and vendor information, and not focus on a number of important criteria such as cost and profitability, opinions, quality and output related characteristics of the software package Moreover, this paper is lack of comparison between different software evaluation methods Secondly, in the research " A comparison framework for Open Source Software (OSS) evaluation method" of Klass- Jan Stol, Muhammad Ali Babar,2010 This writing starts with reality about using Open Source Software, then he finds out why software is chosen by the user and used less and finds the cause He does not blame for users, he said this responsibility belongs to OSS However, It has not make clear why he gives those standards and he also does not explain meaning of these Beside that, Open Source Software Evaluation Methods’ framework does not give weight for each criteria, I mean he does show me which criteria is most important and necessary Third, the article by two authors ( Anil S Jadhave, Rajendra M Sonar, 2010) about Framework for evaluation and selection of the software packages is very useful It describe and provides a conceptual understanding about generic methodology about describes and provides a conceptual understanding about generic methodology for software selection, software evaluation criteria and hybrid knowledge base system to 156 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference help reader or company give evaluations and choice But, defining the criteria for evaluating and comparison the work package is tedious and time-consuming for policy makers Fourth, along with camera trap software, WWF-UK(2009) has a very detailed research paper on production need, and, it is a good guide for readers as well as advice and recommendations for the use of camera trap and camera trap software But, it has not yet comparison and evaluation of the features of the camera trap software as the framework does not help reader find out what software they or their company need 157 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference results that can use in other software The overarching goal of Camelot is to provide one Modern and intuitive software application to classify large volumes Camelot architecture is a web application running on the Java Virtual Machine platform Therefore, those with more advanced technical skills may use the Java archive directly, which provides more fine-grained control around the application behaviors This can be desirable when running Camelot on a server with numerous clients Relative to the report, Camelot has many common types of reports such as Occupancy, Relative abundance, Species richness, Species presence Interviews Data collection, observation and analyzing with export In developing the use of assessment, a better approach is to take interviews with specialists Listening to comments and informal discussions will be always possible Questions that you may want to explore in a more systematic way Early discussions also allow for a deeper understanding of important software issues In some organizations, discussions between participants and experts can create a stronger understanding before developing and drawing on the experience These can help to establish understanding Basic knowledge of the skills of the experts as well as clarification of both the implementer and the needs group needs to be address The main objectives of the meetings and interviews were data collection, observation, and research with experts This means that we should focus on each criterion according to expert opinion, such as criteria for function, activity, requirement to get the data to compare between two software Points of interest are the ability to export reports and the ability to customize reports of Camelot software For the most experienced reviewers in this study, the more effort put into designing their assessments at the top of the interface and using powerful mental models to assess the structure to keep it tracked In order to obtain important information, interviewers need to develop a series of deeper questions such as: What is the highlight of this software ? Does it meet the real needs of the WWF? What information should be used when making a report? Over a few months of software research, we have provided an important framework for the Camelot and Cametest software using information from experts and information via the internet The methods and criteria we provide are useful for users and organizations However, we encountered many difficulties in the evaluation 187 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference process Therefore, we would like to present some of the experiences and shortcomings that we encountered during the implementation process First, during the software installation process, we took a lot of time to complete this software on our computer because of complicated Java installation problems Moreover, we still have problems with software testing due to limited information and data sources An important shortcoming is that the implementation of the survey is small For a more objective assessment, we should conduct multiple surveys in one area It is important to note that the evaluators should define the framework based on a variety of sources to ensure credibility and objectivity in the article For example, for the comparison between Camelot and Cametest, our team has relied on a number of sources for previous comparison frameworks such as Jadhav's review, CASE tool of two author (Blanc and Korn, 1992), WWF-UK 2009 and "A comparison framework for Open Source Software Evaluation Method" Klass-Jan Stol, Muhammad Ali Babar These resources are well researched and have many highlights For Jadhav author review, the highlight of this article is to provide a clear method of collection and evaluation, specifically screening, which reduces the number of Case packages reviewed in detail Moreover, this method of assessment also focuses on functional requirements The information is described in more detail: the whole development cycle of the support system, the user's standard / common interface, network support In addition, Blanc and Korn's authors provide information on the fixes Software modifications and supporting programs through vendor-provided enhancement, support for programs and code changes This makes the Case software more valuable effective Finally, the ultimate advantage is the addition of standards for documentation and training and it is highly appreciated For the CASE tool of two authors (Blanc and Korn , 1992), a method for evaluating clarity and a focus on functional requirements To provide information on software modifications and program support and additional criteria for documentation and training For WWF-UK, There is a very detailed research on production needs, and, it is good guide to readers as well as advice and suggestions for using Camelot and Cametest software For open source, the structure of the post is very clear The article also discusses the reality of why software is chosen and used by so many users and why Not only through the past sources, but we should 188 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference also survey the needs of users, professionals and organizations As well as rely on the expertise of the experts Another important point is that the benchmarking framework should focus on many important functions such as supplier, cost and benefit, output, quality and opinion This makes the idea of the review clearer and more convincing Finally, the experience for us is to read all the documentation of two software, if there are problems we should contact the potential or send mail to the experts 4.4 Interview For purpose of getting a better understanding of the software we use for comparison and evaluation, we have interviewed and talked to experts who have experience using the software at WWF Vietnam These interviews have given us new insights, issues that we have not yet discovered through expert insights, and from which we continue to deepen our understanding More and more practical to evaluate comparable results between Camelot and Cametest of the study To tell the truth, both of these software are very useful for supporting and analyzing images from the camera trap, but each software has different characteristics such as Cametest is written for WWF Vietnam Camelot is still open software that anyone can use and WWF does not require users to have access Some of the issues that we can come up with are direct user experience of both software such as the interface of the software, the logic of the reports that the software allows to export, the ability to customize the report, the report output time of each software, the ability to add fields that users can add when they need and some other features needed for the user's needs From a user's point of view we see the shortcomings and there are also small suggestions to make the software more complete and easy to use 4.5 Evaluation Scores Criteria Functional criteria Sub-Criteria Basic Criteria Speed Size Ease of Use 189 Score 2 Software Cametes Camelot t 1.5 1 1.5 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference Reliability Robustness 1.5 1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 2 2 2 Communication protocol External storage Technical criteria Network technology Primary storage Quality Middleware criteria standards DBMS standards Communication Portability standards OS compatibility Hardware compatibility Vertical solution Customizable fields Customizable Personalizability Maintainability reports Interface type Programming languages Modules Number 190 of Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference independently installable modules Number of workstations Maximum number of distribution tiers Number of modules that can be installed Usability Efficiency Security Vendor criteria Training and documentation criteria Maintenance and up-gradation on separate servers Scalability User interface Learning curve User types Data visualization Error reporting Domain variety Robustness Backup and recovery Time behavior Auditing Password Data security Individual and group access rights Field level security Data/document 2.5 2.5 2 1.5 2.5 2 2.5 encryption Tutorial Troubleshooting guide Training User manual Consultation Communication Demo Response time Business skills 191 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference Vendor popularity Product history Length of experience Vendor reputation Number of references Number of Output criteria Cost and installations Report Relative Index Image License cost Hardware and software cost Installation and implementation cost Maintenance cost Training cost Upgrading cost Direct benefits Indirect benefits End users Technical experts Advertisements External consultants Subordinates Vendor and sales benefit criteria Opinion criteria representatives Organizations Customers Total NOTE: Total: 100 SCORE 10 Functional criteria 192 2 6 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1.5 2 1 1 63 1 60.5 1 100 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference 15 Technical criteria 20 Quality criteria 10 Vendor criteria 15 Output criteria 20 Cost and benefit criteria 10 Opinion criteria After all the steps to get information, have some short interviews and test both of software, we have some main things to compare them that base on demands of users and organizations We show seven main criteria tables of them including: functional criteria, technical criteria, quality criteria, vendor criteria, output criteria, cost and benefit criteria, opinion criteria During testing and reading documents, we score total is 100 and divide to seven tables Firstly, we notice that the quality criteria table and cost and benefit criteria table have high score and it is 20 In the quality criteria table, we appreciate some criteria such as: portability, personalize ability, maintainability, usability, efficiency, security These criteria are useful and necessary to evaluate the quality of a software package In addition, the cost and benefit criteria table also has the same score It means that not only is quality, technology, important to choose a software package to use, but the cost and benefit are also necessary for users and organizations to decide which software is suitable Because a lot of people think a software package is very good but the cost to pay for it is too high that they cannot 193 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference effort to use it Balancing the cost and benefit of software and high quality of software is really a problem for both users and software developers Beside the quality criteria and the cost and benefit criteria, we also score for technical criteria and output criteria at 15 points For technical criteria, we notice at four factors including communication protocol, external storage, network technology, primary storage These factors are main things to consider the technology of a software package After a period of time users use software, if the communication protocol to response is good and fast and also network is good, users will be satisfied On the other hand, output criteria is final products that users want to have after they work with software With Camelot and Cametest, we evaluate them by three factors, such as : report, relative index and image For instance, report is a product that users want to export to synthesize the data Base on type of report that users want, software will show it for them We also score for three tables by ten points including functional criteria, vendor criteria and opinion criteria Some of the sources usually describe only focusing on functional criteria and evaluating them with high scores However, we only evaluated this criterion with a score of ten For functional criteria, we rely on five key factors for scoring each software, including: Speed, Size, Ease of Use, Reliability, Robustness All of them are factors that users are interested in when choosing software So that we evaluate the point between the above factors are the same More specifically, users are eager to choose easy to use software with high processing speed This makes it easy for individuals and organizations to capture and shorten the time spent solving problems Moreover, a software product is highly valued if it ensures data integrity and security This means that they need to have a security mechanism that prevents unauthorized access to the software or data and prevents the creation of invalid objects Software if there are problems Regarding vendor criteria, it is used to assess the vendor's ability to provide software packages We also give a score of ten points for this criterion They are divided into three sub-criteria: Training and documentation criteria, Maintenance and up-gradation and Vendor reputation Among them, maintenance and upgrades are rated with a score of four The other two are three points Because they rely on the 194 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference psychological needs of their customers, they often choose reputable software vendors as well as provide warranties, maintenance and upgrades to their software as needed Finally, that is the criterion of opinion We also evaluated with a score of ten points We can measure a software product through different sources of opinion And we focus on eight elements: End Users, Technical Experts, Advertisements, External Consultants, Subordinates, Vendors and Sales Representatives, Organizations, Customers In addition, to comments from end users and technical experts, there are two points where other sources of opinion are a point Because of end users and professionals have important and intuitive information about the software to bring to users Overall, With results through assessment table above, we think WWF should continue to use the software Cametest and upgrades as well as improvements Cametest so that it becomes specialized and more popular in supporting cameratrap management processing and analysis of image data Moreover, on the interface, Cametest should reorganize so that users can easily use and attract more users Camelot should improve more on the report and the proposed species library Add to that, both software should have more parts can customize reports to better complete the export feature its report CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Today, as higher education forms are being developed in an increasingly innovative way, students are able to access theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge in a variety of ways Among them, doing scientific research is considered an effective way for students to broaden their knowledge as well as their own soft capital; It is an opportunity for students to apply theoretical knowledge learned in solving practical problems However, most students today are not aware of the importance of scientific research, so not really have the passion, passion, invested properly in this activity The student's scientific research activities can be done in various forms such as essay writing, internship report, graduation thesis, or conducting scientific research at the faculty level Scientific research activities of the students are implemented for three purposes: Contribute to improving the quality of training; Access to and use of scientific research methods; Addressing a number of scientific 195 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference and practical issues When conducting scientific research, students will be able to access small-scale topics, with guidance from faculty; students will begin to shape the way and process To carry out a research work of quality and efficiency Not only that, scientific research activities also contribute to promoting dynamism and creativity; ability to think independently, self-learning of students For each student, these skills are important not only during their time studying in the lecture hall, but also in pursuing them during the drunken period Therefore, the cultivation and promotion of these skills is required to be extremely urgent with the students In addition, students need to be aware of the practical role of scientific research, so that they have a sense of self-discipline, seriousness and persistence in successfully pursuing their research projects selected Scientific research not only reinforces the understanding of theoretical knowledge and social knowledge, but also contributes to the development of important soft skills for students such as teamwork skills, Therefore, the school and each student must always emphasize the importance of scientific research activities, actively implement measures to constantly improve the quality of research Rescue science in students World Wildlife Fund Vietnam is having a need of assessing and comparing two online camera trap applications, one is commissioned and developed in house, while considering the possibility of upgrading the systems or developing a new system — Camelot to enhance the quality of current conservation project as well as to prevent deforestation and hunting of rare animals WWF has worked closely with the Vietnamese government on a diverse range of environmental issues and implemented field activities across the country Therefore, our team aims to investigate the application of camera trapping software in this organization and will build a framework for evaluating online camera trap software Then developing a framework for evaluating online camera trapping software within an organization, WWF, and identify the current issues of two online trapping applications used at WWF Finally, developing proposals for upgrading current systems or implementing a new system Research results will benefit conservation organizations, ecologists, and business organizations, businesses who are wishing to use trapping cameras for security purposes 196 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference Our team has spent over half a year researching and comparing two camera management software, Cametest and Camelot Throughout the research process, the group has provided comments on the World Wide Fund for Nature Advantages of Cametest - Camera management software is being used mainly in management in three areas of Quang Nam, Hue and Bach Ma including: The first advantage of the Cametest is that there are software manuals in Vietnamese This is very useful for new field engineers, they have not had time to get acquainted with the software and need the shortest time to master it It takes a long time to read and understand how to use a non-native language So having a software manual is a great advantage of Cametest compared to other photo trapping software The second advantage is that the software has almost no extraneous and nonpurposeful functions Cametest is built on the needs and management of field engineers, key users and most of the camera management software So Cametest uses maximum efficiency and effectiveness The third advantage of the Cametest is that it does not have to be installed This helps field engineers shorten the time to get acquainted with the software Cametest is an online web browser and has a large data server, which can store a lot of data And can be accessed remotely and many places, many at the same time access In addition, the software has another great advantage is the user rights in the system Cametest assigns Super Admin, Admin, Expert, User, and Visitor privileges Super Admin reserves the right to alter, modify or modify any of Cametest's functions, including altering the source code Administrators have the power to edit data, add fields, and create other users In addition, the Admin has the right to set publicity rights to the data For the User, its usage rights are to allow users to download data and to retrieve report data Besides, this is a very special use right, it was created to fit the reporters Authorized Expert has the right to edit the data in the final report without permission Finally, the Visitor, who is authorized to view the data and information is public This decentralization can be said to be the safest and most prudent data preservation In addition to the above advantages of Cametest, this software still has the disadvantages that we can see clearly below.The first downside we all can recognize is that it will not be able to access the Cametest without the Internet.This is understandable because Cametest is an online software that does not require 197 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference installation so it is completely dependent on the Internet Without the Internet, we would not be able to anything about it.The second disadvantage of Cametest is that over the years, the time to log in, upload data to the system will gradually increase This is explained by Cametest having a very large data storage server, more and more data will be uploaded Once logged in and using this software, the system will have to launch a check on the server's data Therefore, the time to log in, upload data, access data to report will be a long time From a Cametest standpoint we can infer another drawback of this software that Cametest is built on the needs of field engineers Why say this is a downside, because Cametest is ordered by the World Wide Fund for Nature Vietnam and designed specifically for camera trapping management This will cost the company a lot of money to set up and maintain the software Through the advantages and disadvantages of the Cametest, our team recommends the World Wide Fund for Nature continue to use this software because of the great advantages it brings About the disadvantages that are acceptable to a camera trapping management software like Cametest To get the most out of your work, spending money or longer loading time on the Cametest is completely overshadowed by its advantages The framework created by the group meets the needs of many individuals, companies and organizations, particularly non-governmental organizations interested in this research Individuals, companies, and organizations need an intermediary evaluation rating and specific software tailored to their individual needs Or maybe the Framework facilitates the development of camera trapping systems for software developers It is considered as a library that contains a lot of information in many areas or a framework for developing software That is, it creates "materials" in each area for programmers or compilers, rather than spending too much time designing or comparing them without a common standard So, just find out the software and then make a comparison through the Framework, give opinions Therefore, depending on the way in which the individual or organization is selected or created, the product or feature is different but still consistent in the way it is built, which avoids conflicts about software and needs when using For example, to compare two software, if there is no specialized framework for comparing software, individuals and organizations have to create standards such as features, performance and usage Get a score to get 198 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference better software conclusions While also comparing two softwares, if the built-in Framework was designed, individuals and organizations would only need to take the standards out of the framework and compare them Depending on the comparison, evaluation of different individuals and organizations that the software selected has different features and applications In addition to the clear results that the Framework brings to individuals and organizations, our team also wants to demonstrate the experience we have in the process of studying and evaluating Camelot and Cametest That will provide a lot of useful information for individuals and organizations that have the same purpose of researching and developing software Our team will provide experience in three main processes: research approach, training and interviews Firstly, to reach the most accurate and comprehensive research, our team has collected a lot of documents and more than 10 specific frameworks and analyzed them in detail Furthermore, we need to have a proper thought about the purpose and the real resources Setting up timeframes for different phases and tasks helps people keep up with the schedule and determine the next goal of the study Secondly is finding information about their software; the guidance and training of the software to users and organizations Experienced professionals will present the overview and functions of the Cametest software From there, we will test how its functions work The best approach to software functionality is to try several times to understand the output and the input as well as the benefits that it provides to the organization Finally is interviews, it’s about data collection, observation and analyzing with export In developing the use of assessment, a better approach is to take interviews with specialists Questions that you may want to explore in a more systematic way Early discussions also allow for a deeper understanding of important software issues The main objectives of the meetings and interviews were data collection, observation, and research with experts This means that we should focus on each criterion according to expert opinion, such as criteria for function, activity, and demand, to get the data comparison between difference software Points of interest are the ability to export reports and the ability to customize reports of Camelot software 199 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference REFERENCES http://camelot-project.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/10/18/203216.full.pdf https://media.readthedocs.org/pdf/camelot-project/latest/camelot-project.pdf http://mitiq.mit.edu/iciq/PDF/AN%20EVALUATION%20FRAMEWORK %20FOR%20DATA%20QUALITY%20TOOLS.pdf https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-13244-5_36.pdf https://www.worldwildlife.org/ https://sites.google.com/site/huskylovers1461/tour-du-lich-o-thai-lan http://www.italian-journal-of-mamalogy.it/artical/view/6316/pdf 200 Proceedings the 10th students scientific research conference https://baomoi.com/bay-anh-phuong-phap-huu-hieu-phuc-vu-nghien-cuu-da- dang-sinh-hoc-tai-viet-nam/c/19955882.epi 10 http://rces.info/sinh-vien-kinh-te-nckh/gioi-thieu-phuong-phap-nghien-cuu- case-study/# 11 https://ilhamjournals.wordpress.com/tag/strength-and-weakness-of-case-study/ 12 https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%E1%BB%B9_Qu%E1%BB%91c_t%E1%BA %BF_B%E1%BA%A3o_v%E1%BB%87_Thi%C3%AAn_nhi%C3%AAn 13 http://vietnam.panda.org/about_us_wwf_vietnam_vi/ 14 http://quantri.vn/dict/details/9505-cac-phuong-phap-thu-thap-du-lieu 15 http://www.daidoanket.vn/tin-tuc/dan-toc/bao-ton-cac-loai-hoang-da-nguy-cap- 364258 16 O'Connell, A F., Nichols, J D., Karanth, U K (Eds.) (2010) Camera Traps in Ecology: Methods and Analyses Tokyo, Dordrecht, London, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 17 Dr Paul Mullins, Slippery Rock University Introduction to Computers 18 https://ilhamjournals.wordpress.com/tag/strength-and-weakness-of-case-study/ 19 Merriam, Sharan B 1998 Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in Education.San Fransisco:Jossey-bass publishers 20 https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%E1%BB%B9_Qu%E1%BB%91c_t%E1%BA %BF_B%E1%BA%A3o_v%E1%BB%87_Thi%C3%AAn_nhi %C3%AAn#cite_note-4 21 https://www.wwf.org.uk/conservationtechnology/documents/CameraTraps- WWF- guidelines.pdf 22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_trap#cite_note-swann10-1 23 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/10/18/203216.full.pdf 24 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-13244-5_36 25 https://www.wwf.org.uk/conservationtechnology/documents/CameraTraps- WWF-guidelines.pdf 26 Framework for evaluation and selection of the software packages:A hybrid knowledge based system approach (Anil S Jadhava,, Rajendra M Sonar,2011) 27 http://www.daidoanket.vn/tin-tuc/dan-toc/bao-ton-cac-loai-hoang-da-nguy-cap- 364258 201 ... research project ? ?Assessing and upgrading online camera trap applications at WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature) Organization.” Case study is an empirical investigation, investigating a contemporary... Wide Fund For Nature – WWF [3] World Wide Fund For Nature - WWF is one of the world' s largest nongovernmental organizations for the protection of nature, the old name of this company is World Wildlife. .. for evaluating online camera trapping software within an organization, WWF, and identify the current issues of two online trapping applications used at WWF Finally, developing proposals for upgrading