Economical crowdsourcing for camera trap image classification

Camera trapping is widely used to monitor mammalian wildlife but creates large image datasets that must be classified. In response, there is a trend towards crowdsourcing image classification. For high‐profile studies of charismatic faunas, many classifications can be obtained per image, enabling consensus assessments of the image contents. For more local‐scale or less charismatic communities, however, demand may outstrip the supply of crowdsourced classifications. Here, we consider MammalWeb, a local‐scale project in North East England, which involves citizen scientists in both the capture and classification of sequences of camera trap images. We show that, for our global pool of image sequences, the probability of correct classification exceeds 99% with about nine concordant crowdsourced classifications per sequence. However, there is high variation among species. For highly recognizable species, species‐specific consensus algorithms could be even more efficient; for difficult to spot or easily confused taxa, expert classifications might be preferable. We show that two types of incorrect classifications – misidentification of species and overlooking the presence of animals – have different impacts on the confidence of consensus classifications, depending on the true species pictured. Our results have implications for data capture and classification in increasingly numerous, local‐scale citizen science projects. The species‐specific nature of our findings suggests that the performance of crowdsourcing projects is likely to be highly sensitive to the local fauna and context. The generality of consensus algorithms will, thus, be an important consideration for ecologists interested in harnessing the power of the crowd to assist with camera trapping studies.

[1]  N. Pettorelli,et al.  Management by proxy?:the use of indices in applied ecology , 2015 .

[2]  H. Thom,et al.  Unified detection system for automatic, real-time, accurate animal detection in camera trap images from the arctic tundra , 2017 .

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

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

[5]  Jeremy J. D. Greenwood,et al.  Citizens, science and bird conservation , 2007, Journal of Ornithology.

[6]  Roman Lukyanenko,et al.  Emerging problems of data quality in citizen science , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

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

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

[9]  Bart Kranstauber,et al.  Wildlife speed cameras: measuring animal travel speed and day range using camera traps , 2016 .

[10]  J. Cohn Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? , 2008 .

[11]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  Dates and Times Made Easy with lubridate , 2011 .

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

[13]  Jeremy J. D. Greenwood,et al.  Monitoring terrestrial mammals in the UK: past, present and future, using lessons from the bird world , 2004 .

[14]  Graham C. Smith,et al.  A systematic approach to estimate the distribution and total abundance of British mammals , 2017, PloS one.

[15]  M. Goodchild Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography , 2007 .

[16]  C. Lintott,et al.  Galaxy Zoo 2: detailed morphological classifications for 304,122 galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey , 2013, 1308.3496.

[17]  C. Mellish,et al.  The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

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

[19]  Randle Aaron M. Villanueva,et al.  ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd ed.) , 2019, Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives.

[20]  Christopher C. Hennon,et al.  Cyclone Center: Can Citizen Scientists Improve Tropical Cyclone Intensity Records? , 2015 .

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

[22]  S. T. Buckland,et al.  Distance sampling with camera traps , 2017 .

[23]  G. Everett,et al.  Initiating and continuing participation in citizen science for natural history , 2016, BMC Ecology.

[24]  Margaret Kosmala,et al.  A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[25]  A. Cox,et al.  Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science , 2016 .

[26]  Roland Kays,et al.  Creating advocates for mammal conservation through citizen science , 2017 .

[27]  Jiangping Wang,et al.  Automated identification of animal species in camera trap images , 2013, EURASIP J. Image Video Process..

[28]  Justin Longo,et al.  Design principles for engaging and retaining virtual citizen scientists , 2016, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[29]  Chris Mellish,et al.  Crowdsourcing Without a Crowd , 2016, ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol..

[30]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  Gravity Spy: Humans, Machines and The Future of Citizen Science , 2017, CSCW Companion.

[31]  Badrinath Roysam,et al.  Image change detection algorithms: a systematic survey , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[32]  David De Roure,et al.  Zooniverse: observing the world's largest citizen science platform , 2014, WWW.

[33]  Richard E. Lewis,et al.  A Multicountry Assessment of Tropical Resource Monitoring by Local Communities , 2014 .

[34]  J. Andrew Royle,et al.  Scaling-up camera traps: monitoring the planet's biodiversity with networks of remote sensors , 2017 .

[35]  Veronica Maidel,et al.  This Image Intentionally Left Blank : Mundane Images Increase Citizen Science Participation , 2015 .

[36]  Trevor Platt,et al.  Primary productivity of planet earth: biological determinants and physical constraints in terrestrial and aquatic habitats , 2001 .

[37]  Jon Rosewell,et al.  Crowdsourcing the identification of organisms: A case-study of iSpot , 2015, ZooKeys.

[38]  David N. Bonter,et al.  Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits , 2010 .

[39]  Zhihai He,et al.  Volunteer-run cameras as distributed sensors for macrosystem mammal research , 2015, Landscape Ecology.

[40]  C. Lintott,et al.  Snapshot Serengeti, high-frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna , 2015, Scientific Data.

[41]  Krista G. Hilchey,et al.  A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities , 2011, Environmental monitoring and assessment.

[42]  C. Carbone,et al.  Surveys using camera traps: are we looking to a brighter future? , 2008 .

[43]  Jamie Lorimer,et al.  Nonhuman Charisma , 2007 .

[44]  Steven P. Millard,et al.  EnvStats: An R Package for Environmental Statistics , 2013 .

[45]  K. Gaston,et al.  Commonness, population depletion and conservation biology. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[46]  Margaret Kosmala,et al.  Automatically identifying, counting, and describing wild animals in camera-trap images with deep learning , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[47]  Stanley J. Reeves,et al.  AnimalFinder: A semi-automated system for animal detection in time-lapse camera trap images , 2016, Ecol. Informatics.

[48]  R. Wal,et al.  Imagining wildlife: New technologies and animal censuses, maps and museums , 2016 .

[49]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[50]  H. Akaike A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .