The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science

Citizen science—the involvement of volunteers in data collection, analysis and interpretation—simultaneously supports research and public engagement with science, and its profile is rapidly rising. Citizen science represents a diverse range of approaches, but until now this diversity has not been quantitatively explored. We conducted a systematic internet search and discovered 509 environmental and ecological citizen science projects. We scored each project for 32 attributes based on publicly obtainable information and used multiple factor analysis to summarise this variation to assess citizen science approaches. We found that projects varied according to their methodological approach from ‘mass participation’ (e.g. easy participation by anyone anywhere) to ‘systematic monitoring’ (e.g. trained volunteers repeatedly sampling at specific locations). They also varied in complexity from approaches that are ‘simple’ to those that are ‘elaborate’ (e.g. provide lots of support to gather rich, detailed datasets). There was a separate cluster of entirely computer-based projects but, in general, we found that the range of citizen science projects in ecology and the environment showed continuous variation and cannot be neatly categorised into distinct types of activity. While the diversity of projects begun in each time period (pre 1990, 1990–99, 2000–09 and 2010–13) has not increased, we found that projects tended to have become increasingly different from each other as time progressed (possibly due to changing opportunities, including technological innovation). Most projects were still active so consequently we found that the overall diversity of active projects (available for participation) increased as time progressed. Overall, understanding the landscape of citizen science in ecology and the environment (and its change over time) is valuable because it informs the comparative evaluation of the ‘success’ of different citizen science approaches. Comparative evaluation provides an evidence-base to inform the future development of citizen science activities.

[1]  H. Sauermann,et al.  Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  M. Muggeo,et al.  segmented: An R package to Fit Regression Models with Broken-Line Relationships , 2008 .

[3]  Adrien Treuille,et al.  Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game , 2010, Nature.

[4]  Max J. Pfeffer,et al.  Process, Not Product: Investigating Recommendations for Improving Citizen Science “Success” , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  Diana Adler,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 2016 .

[6]  Candie C. Wilderman,et al.  Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design , 2012 .

[7]  Jason T. Reed,et al.  An Exploratory Factor Analysis of Motivations for Participating in Zooniverse, a Collection of Virtual Citizen Science Projects , 2013, 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[8]  Rick Bonney,et al.  The history of public participation in ecological research , 2012 .

[9]  D. Simberloff.  The Guild Concept and the Structure of Ecological Communities , 1991 .

[10]  Chris Sandbrook,et al.  Pokémon Go: Benefits, Costs, and Lessons for the Conservation Movement , 2017 .

[11]  R. Bonney,et al.  Next Steps for Citizen Science , 2014, Science.

[12]  Lauren V. Weatherdon,et al.  Is citizen science an open science in the case of biodiversity observations , 2017 .

[13]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Surveying the citizen science landscape , 2014, First Monday.

[14]  B. McKelvey.  Organizational Systematics: Taxonomic Lessons from Biology , 1978 .

[15]  Rebecca Jordan,et al.  Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen‐science learning outcomes , 2012 .

[16]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms , 2012, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

[17]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Escaping RGBland: Selecting colors for statistical graphics , 2009, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[18]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Goals and Tasks: Two Typologies of Citizen Science Projects , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  Helen E. Roy,et al.  Choosing and using citizen science: a guide to when and how to use citizen science to monitor biodiversity and the environment , 2014 .

[20]  C. Shennan.  Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[21]  S. R. Jammalamadaka,et al.  Topics in Circular Statistics , 2001 .

[22]  JOHN FIEBERG,et al.  QUANTIFYING HOME-RANGE OVERLAP: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE UTILIZATION DISTRIBUTION , 2005 .

[23]  Karin Pirhofer-Walzl,et al.  Linking Public Participation in Scientific Research to the Indicators and Needs of International Environmental Agreements , 2014 .

[24]  Clément Calenge,et al.  The package “adehabitat” for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals , 2006 .

[25]  B. Worton.  Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies , 1989 .

[26]  Margaret Kosmala,et al.  Assessing data quality in citizen science (preprint) , 2016, bioRxiv.

[27]  Pierre Legendre,et al.  Numerical Ecology with R , 2011 .

[28]  Ailene K. Ettinger,et al.  Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research , 2015 .

[29]  O. John.  Towards a Taxonomy of Personality Descriptors , 1989 .

[30]  David L. Tulloch.  Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: volunteered geographic information (VGI) in theory and practice , 2014, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[31]  Rebecca Jordan,et al.  Citizen Science as a Distinct Field of Inquiry , 2015 .

[32]  G. Turner.  The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation , 2001, Heredity.

[33]  J. Silvertown.  A new dawn for citizen science. , 2009, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[34]  Rick Bonney,et al.  The Theory and Practice of Citizen Science: Launching a New Journal , 2016 .

[35]  V. Muggeo.  Estimating regression models with unknown break‐points , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[36]  Candie C. Wilderman,et al.  Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. , 2009 .

[37]  Richard E. Lewis,et al.  At the heart of REDD+: a role for local people in monitoring forests? , 2011 .

[38]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs , 2013 .

[39]  Jody W. Enck,et al.  Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? , 2016, Public understanding of science.

[40]  Andrea Wiggins,et al.  Investing in citizen science can improve natural resource management and environmental protection , 2015 .

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

[42]  Steve Kelling,et al.  Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. , 2012, Trends in ecology & evolution.

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

[44]  Manuel Corpas,et al.  Lessons from Fraxinus, a crowd-sourced citizen science game in genomics , 2015, eLife.

[45]  R. Bonney,et al.  Citizen Science: A Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge and Scientific Literacy , 2009 .

[46]  Rick Bonney,et al.  The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement , 2012 .

[47]  M. Ruhlen.  On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy , 1994 .

[48]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

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