Experimental evidence that behavioral nudges in citizen science projects can improve biodiversity data

One way to improve the value of citizen science data for a specific aim is through promoting adaptive sampling, where the marginal value of a citizen science observation is dependent on existing data collected to address a specific question. Adaptive sampling could increase sampling at places or times—using a dynamic and updateable framework—where data are expected to be most informative for a given ecological question or conservation goal. We used an experimental approach to test whether the participants in a popular Australian citizen science project—FrogID—would follow an adaptive sampling protocol aiming to maximize understanding of frog diversity. After a year, our results demonstrated that these citizen science participants were willing to adopt an adaptive sampling protocol, improving the sampling of biodiversity consistent with a specific aim. Such adaptive sampling can increase the value of citizen science data for biodiversity research and open up new avenues for citizen science project design.

[1]  A. Bonn,et al.  Decision-making of citizen scientists when recording species observations , 2022, Scientific Reports.

[2]  E. Marchante,et al.  A review of volunteers’ motivations to monitor and control invasive alien species , 2022, NeoBiota.

[3]  Aaron C. Greenville,et al.  Citizen science reveals current distribution, predicted habitat suitability and resource requirements of the introduced African Carder Bee Pseudoanthidium (Immanthidium) repetitum in Australia , 2022, Biological Invasions.

[4]  Akira Takahashi,et al.  Adaptive sampling methods via machine learning for materials screening , 2022, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials: Methods.

[5]  A. Vercammen,et al.  Understanding citizen scientists’ willingness to invest in, and advocate for, conservation , 2022, Biological Conservation.

[6]  R. Kays,et al.  Evaluation of the Spatial Biases and Sample Size of a Statewide Citizen Science Project , 2021, Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.

[7]  Brian J. Stucky,et al.  Observing the Observers: How Participants Contribute Data to iNaturalist and Implications for Biodiversity Science , 2021 .

[8]  S. West,et al.  Variations in the Motivations of Environmental Citizen Scientists , 2021, Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.

[9]  S. West,et al.  The Diversity of Participants in Environmental Citizen Science , 2021 .

[10]  Juan Carlos Rey-Velasco,et al.  Differential reporting of biodiversity in two citizen science platforms during COVID-19 lockdown in Colombia , 2021, Biological Conservation.

[11]  B. Fontaine,et al.  Do amateurs and citizen science fill the gaps left by scientists? , 2021, Current opinion in insect science.

[12]  R. Bonney,et al.  Sea Change: Using Citizen Science to Inform Fisheries Management , 2021, Bioscience.

[13]  S. Agarwal,et al.  Science Journals — AAAS , 2017 .

[14]  M. A. Guerrero,et al.  Between Level Up and Game Over: A Systematic Literature Review of Gamification in Education , 2021, Sustainability.

[15]  E. Mori,et al.  Observer‐oriented approach improves species distribution models from citizen science data , 2020, Ecology and evolution.

[16]  E. Porcher,et al.  Citizen science involving farmers as a means to document temporal trends in farmland biodiversity and relate them to agricultural practices , 2020 .

[17]  D. Keith,et al.  Rapidly mapping fire effects on biodiversity at a large-scale using citizen science. , 2020, The Science of the total environment.

[18]  Michael J. O. Pocock,et al.  Data-derived metrics describing the behaviour of field-based citizen scientists provide insights for project design and modelling bias , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[19]  Jaume Piera,et al.  Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals , 2020, Sustainability Science.

[20]  K. Irvine,et al.  What motivates the masses: Understanding why people contribute to conservation citizen science projects , 2020, Biological conservation.

[21]  Stephen R. Baillie,et al.  Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data , 2020 .

[22]  P. Ryan,et al.  COVID-19 and citizen science: lessons learned from southern Africa , 2020 .

[23]  C. Callaghan,et al.  The FrogID dataset: expert-validated occurrence records of Australia’s frogs collected by citizen scientists , 2020, ZooKeys.

[24]  Lincoln R. Larson,et al.  The diverse motivations of citizen scientists: Does conservation emphasis grow as volunteer participation progresses? , 2020 .

[25]  R. Alford,et al.  Citizen science data accurately predicts expert-derived species richness at a continental scale when sampling thresholds are met , 2020, Biodiversity and Conservation.

[26]  Corey T. Callaghan,et al.  Optimizing future biodiversity sampling by citizen scientists , 2019, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

[27]  T. Pearce,et al.  Rediscovery of the southern California endemic American Keeled Slug Anadenulus cockerelli (Hemphill, 1890) after a 68-year hiatus , 2019 .

[28]  Daniel F. Williams,et al.  Pelagic citizen science data reveal declines of seabirds off south-eastern Australia , 2019, Biological Conservation.

[29]  W. Cornwell,et al.  Improving big citizen science data: Moving beyond haphazard sampling , 2019, PLoS Biology.

[30]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Do Big Unstructured Biodiversity Data Mean More Knowledge? , 2019, Front. Ecol. Evol..

[31]  J. Vendetti,et al.  Five New Records of Introduced Terrestrial Gastropods in Southern California Discovered by Citizen Science , 2018, American Malacological Bulletin.

[32]  D. Fink,et al.  Optimizing the conservation of migratory species over their full annual cycle , 2019, Nature Communications.

[33]  Ç. Şekercioğlu,et al.  Using opportunistic citizen science data to estimate avian population trends , 2018 .

[34]  Ying Yu,et al.  Gamification artifacts and crowdsourcing participation: Examining the mediating role of intrinsic motivations , 2018, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[35]  Yuanyuan Zeng,et al.  Adaptive Sampling for Urban Air Quality through Participatory Sensing , 2017, Sensors.

[36]  H. Pereira,et al.  Spatial distribution of citizen science casuistic observations for different taxonomic groups , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[37]  J. K. Legind,et al.  Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring , 2017 .

[38]  H. Pereira,et al.  The influence of motivational factors on the frequency of participation in citizen science activities , 2017 .

[39]  Helen E Roy,et al.  The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science , 2017, PloS one.

[40]  A. Chao,et al.  iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers) , 2016 .

[41]  Bo Markussen,et al.  What determines spatial bias in citizen science? Exploring four recording schemes with different proficiency requirements , 2016 .

[42]  Peter Caley,et al.  Citizen surveillance for environmental monitoring: combining the efforts of citizen science and crowdsourcing in a quantitative data framework , 2016, SpringerPlus.

[43]  Carla P. Gomes,et al.  Avicaching: A Two Stage Game for Bias Reduction in Citizen Science , 2016, AAMAS.

[44]  David P. Hamilton,et al.  The use and value of citizen science data in New Zealand , 2015 .

[45]  Michael J. O. Pocock,et al.  The Biological Records Centre: a pioneer of citizen science , 2015 .

[46]  David B. Roy,et al.  Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data , 2014 .

[47]  Tomas J. Bird,et al.  Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets , 2014 .

[48]  Zachary H Morford,et al.  Gamification: The Intersection between Behavior Analysis and Game Design Technologies , 2014, The Behavior Analyst.

[49]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science , 2014, CHI.

[50]  Elizabeth L. Sander,et al.  Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies , 2014 .

[51]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Using gamification to inspire new citizen science volunteers , 2013, Gamification.

[52]  Jason R. Courter,et al.  Weekend bias in Citizen Science data reporting: implications for phenology studies , 2013, International Journal of Biometeorology.

[53]  H. Possingham,et al.  To boldly go where no volunteer has gone before: predicting volunteer activity to prioritize surveys at the landscape scale , 2013 .

[54]  Ayesha I. T. Tulloch,et al.  A behavioural ecology approach to understand volunteer surveying for citizen science datasets , 2012 .

[55]  James K. Scarborough,et al.  Leveraging the engagement of games to change energy behavior , 2012, 2012 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems (CTS).

[56]  Brian L. Sullivan,et al.  eBird: Engaging Birders in Science and Conservation , 2011, PLoS biology.

[57]  Georgina M. Mace,et al.  Distorted Views of Biodiversity: Spatial and Temporal Bias in Species Occurrence Data , 2010, PLoS biology.

[58]  James D. Nichols,et al.  Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time , 2001 .

[59]  M. Haklay.  Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation , 2013 .

[60]  Deborah I Thompson,et al.  Playing for real: video games and stories for health-related behavior change. , 2008, American journal of preventive medicine.