scholarly journals Engaging Publics: Biodiversity Data Collection and the Geographies of Citizen Science

2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 611-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Toogood
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Biodiversity Data

Ten years of citizen science data collection of wetland plants in an urban protected area

2015 ◽  
Vol 162 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrizio Buldrini ◽  
Antinisca Simoncelli ◽  
Stefania Accordi ◽  
Giovanna Pezzi ◽  
Daniele Dallai
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Wetland Plants ◽  
Science Data

scholarly journals Contribution of Citizen Science to Biodiversity Data Mobilization in Russia

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalya Ivanova ◽  
Maxim Shashkov
Keyword(s):  
New Species ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Breeding Bird ◽  
Breeding Bird Atlas ◽  
Research Grade ◽  
Taxonomic Groups ◽  
Species Occurrences ◽  
Biodiversity Information

Currently Russia doesn't have a national biodiversity information system, and is still not a GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) member. Nevertheless, GBIF is the largest source of biodiversity data for Russia. As of August 2020, >5M species occurrences were available through the GBIF portal, of which 54% were published by Russian organisations. There are 107 institutions from Russia that have become GBIF publishers and 357 datasets have been published. The important trend of data mobilization in Russia is driven by the considerable contribution of citizen science. The most popular platform is iNaturalist. This year, the related GBIF dataset (Ueda 2020) became the largest one for Russia (793,049 species occurrences as of 2020-08-11). The first observation for Russia was posted in 2011, but iNaturalist started becoming popular in 2017. That year, 88 observers added >4500 observations that represented 1390 new species for Russia, 7- and 2-fold more respectively, than for the previous 6 years. Now we have nearly 12,000 observers, about 15,000 observed species and >1M research-grade observations. The ratio of observations for Tracheophyta, Chordata, and Arthropoda in Russia is different compared to the global scale. There are almost an equal amount of observations in the global iNaturalist GBIF dataset for these groups. At the same time in Russia, vascular plants make up 2/3rds of the observations. That is due to the "Flora of Russia" project, which attracted many professional botanists both as observers and experts. Thanks to their activity, Russia has a high proportion of research-grade observations in iNaturalist, 78% versus 60% globally. Another consequence of wide participation by professional researchers is the high rate of species accumulation. For some taxonomic groups conspicuous species were already revealed. There are about 850 bird species in Russia of which 398 species were observed in 2018, and only 83 new species in 2019. Currently, the number of new species recorded over time is decreasing despite the increase in observers and overall user activity. Russian iNaturalist observers have shared a lot of archive photos (taken during past years). In 2018, it was nearly 1/4 of the total number of observations and about 3/4 of new species for the year, with similar trends observed during 2019. Usually archive photos are posted from December until April, but the 2020 pandemic lockdown spurred a new wave of archive photo mobilisation in April and May. There are many iNaturalist projects for protected areas in Russia: 27 for strict nature reserves and national parks, and about 300 for others. About 100,000 observations (7.5% of all Russian observations) from the umbrella project "Protected areas of Russia" represent >34% of the species diversity observed in Russia. For some regions, e.g., Novosibirsk, Nizhniy Novgorod and Vladimir Oblasts, almost all protected areas are covered by iNaturalist projects, and are often their only source of available biodiversity data. There are also other popular citizen science platforms developed by Russian researchers. The first one is the Russian birdwatching network RU-BIRDS.RU. The related GBIF dataset (Ukolov et al. 2019) is the third largest dataset for Russia (>370,000 species occurrences). Another Russian citizen science system is wildlifemonitoring.ru, which includes thematic resources for different taxonomic groups of vertebrates. This is the crowd-sourced web-GIS maintained by the Siberian Environmental Center NGO in Novosibirsk. It is noteworthy that iNaturalist activities in Russia are developed more as a social network than as a way to attract volunteers to participate in scientific research. Of 746 citations in the iNaturalist dataset, only 18 articles include co-authors from Russia. iNaturalist data are used for the management of regional red lists (in the Republic of Bashkortostan, Novosibirsk Oblast and others), and as an additional information source for regional inventories. RU-BIRDS data were used in the European Russia Breeding Bird Atlas and the new edition of the European Breeding Bird Atlas. In Russia, citizen science activities significantly contribute to filling gaps in the global biodiversity map. However, Russian iNaturalist observations available through GBIF originate from the USA. It is not ideal, because the iNaturalist GBIF dataset is growing rapidly, and in the future it will represent more than all other datasets for Russia combined. In our opinion, iNaturalist data should be repatriated during the process of publishing through GBIF, as it is implemented for the eBird dataset (Levatich and Ligocki 2020).

scholarly journals A Framework of Observer-Based Biases in Citizen Science Biodiversity Monitoring: Semi-Structuring Unstructured Biodiversity Monitoring Protocols

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ofer Arazy ◽  
Dan Malkinson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Temporal Distribution ◽  
Biodiversity Monitoring ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Science Data ◽  
The Public ◽  
Spatio Temporal ◽  
Monitoring Protocols ◽  
And Behavior

Citizen science, whereby ordinary citizens participate in scientific endeavors, is widely used for biodiversity monitoring, most commonly by relying on unstructured monitoring approaches. Notwithstanding the potential of unstructured citizen science to engage the public and collect large amounts of biodiversity data, observers’ considerations regarding what, where and when to monitor result in biases in the aggregate database, thus impeding the ability to draw conclusions about trends in species’ spatio-temporal distribution. Hence, the goal of this study is to enhance our understanding of observer-based biases in citizen science for biodiversity monitoring. Toward this goals we: (a) develop a conceptual framework of observers’ decision-making process along the steps of monitor – > record and share, identifying the considerations that take place at each step, specifically highlighting the factors that influence the decisions of whether to record an observation (b) propose an approach for operationalizing the framework using a targeted and focused questionnaire, which gauges observers’ preferences and behavior throughout the decision-making steps, and (c) illustrate the questionnaire’s ability to capture the factors driving observer-based biases by employing data from a local project on the iNaturalist platform. Our discussion highlights the paper’s theoretical contributions and proposes ways in which our approach for semi-structuring unstructured citizen science data could be used to mitigate observer-based biases, potentially making the collected biodiversity data usable for scientific and regulatory purposes.

scholarly journals The use of biodiversity data in spatial planning and impact assessment in Europe

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. e28045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Underwood ◽  
Katie Taylor ◽  
Graham Tucker
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Data Access ◽  
Individual Development ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Existing Data ◽  
The Eu

This review identifies successful approaches to collating and using biodiversity data in spatial planning and impact assessment, the barriers to obtaining and using existing data sources, and the key data gaps that hinder effective implementation. The analysis is a contribution to the EU BON project funded by the European Commission FP7 research programme, which aimed to identify and pilot new approaches to overcome gaps in biodiversity data in conservation policy at European and national levels. The consideration of biodiversity in impact assessments and spatial planning requires spatially explicit biodiversity data of various types. Where spatial plans take account of biodiversity, there are opportunities through Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of development plans and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of individual development proposals to ensure that consented activities are consistent with no net loss of biodiversity or even a net gain, and help to maintain or develop coherent ecological networks. However, biodiversity components of SEAs and EIAs have often been found to be of insufficient quality due to the lack of data or the inadequate use of existing data. Key obstacles to providing access to biodiversity data include the need for data standardisation and data quality governance and systems, licensing approaches to increase data access, and lack of resources to target gaps in data coverage and to develop and advertise policy-relevant data products. Existing data platforms differ in the degree to which they successfully provide a service to spatial planners and impact assessment practitioners. Some local governments, for example Somerset County Council in the UK and the Bremen federal state in Germany, have invested in integrated data collection and management systems that now provide intensively used tools for spatial planning and impact assessment informed by local data collection and monitoring. The EU BON biodiversity data portal aims to provide a platform that is an access point to datasets relevant to essential biodiversity variables on species, habitats and ecosystems. The EU BON taxonomic backbone provides an integrated search function for species and taxa according to different classifications, and also provides a range of tools for data analysis and decision-support. This will increase the accessibility of the vast range of biodiversity data available in different sources and allow the targeting of future data collection to address current gaps.

Three Frontiers for the Future of Biodiversity Research Using Citizen Science Data

BioScience ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey T Callaghan ◽  
Alistair G B Poore ◽  
Thomas Mesaglio ◽  
Angela T Moles ◽  
Shinichi Nakagawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Science ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Single Species ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Biodiversity Data ◽  
Science Data ◽  
Biodiversity Research ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
The Future

Abstract Citizen science is fundamentally shifting the future of biodiversity research. But although citizen science observations are contributing an increasingly large proportion of biodiversity data, they only feature in a relatively small percentage of research papers on biodiversity. We provide our perspective on three frontiers of citizen science research, areas that we feel to date have had minimal scientific exploration but that we believe deserve greater attention as they present substantial opportunities for the future of biodiversity research: sampling the undersampled, capitalizing on citizen science's unique ability to sample poorly sampled taxa and regions of the world, reducing taxonomic and spatial biases in global biodiversity data sets; estimating abundance and density in space and time, develop techniques to derive taxon-specific densities from presence or absence and presence-only data; and capitalizing on secondary data collection, moving beyond data on the occurrence of single species and gain further understanding of ecological interactions among species or habitats. The contribution of citizen science to understanding the important biodiversity questions of our time should be more fully realized.

Co-Designing Mobile Applications for Data Collection in Citizen Science Projects – Challenges and Lessons Learned within the Nachtlicht-BüHNE Project

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Friederike Klan ◽  
Christopher C.M. Kyba ◽  
Nona Schulte-Römer ◽  
Helga U. Kuechly ◽  
Jürgen Oberst ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Mobile Applications ◽  
Mobile Application ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Smartphone Apps ◽  
Science Project ◽  
Science Projects ◽  
Citizen Science Project

<p>Data contributed by citizen scientists raise increasing interest in many areas of scientific research. Increasingly, projects rely on information technology such as mobile applications (apps) to facilitate data collection activities by lay people. When developing such smartphone apps, it is essential to account for both the requirements of the scientists interested in acquiring data and the needs of the citizen scientists contributing data. Citizens and participating scientists should therefore ideally work together during the conception, design and testing of mobile applications used in a citizen science project. This will benefit both sides, as both scientists and citizens can bring in their expectations, desires, knowledge, and commitment early on, thereby making better use of the potential of citizen science. Such processes of app co-design are highly transdisciplinary, and thus pose challenges in terms of the diversity of interests, skills, and background knowledge involved.</p><p>Our “Nachtlicht-BüHNE” citizen science project addresses these issues. Its major goal is the development of a co-design process enabling scientists and citizens to jointly develop citizen science projects based on smartphone apps. This includes (1) the conception and development of a mobile application for a specific scientific purpose, (2) the design, planning and organization of field campaigns using the mobile application, and (3) the evaluation of the approach. In Nachtlicht-BüHNE, the co-design approach is developed within the scope of two parallel pilot studies in the environmental and space sciences. Case study 1 deals with the problem of light pollution. Currently, little is known about how much different light source types contribute to emissions from Earth. Within the project, citizens and researchers will develop and use an app to capture information about all types of light sources visible from public streets. Case study 2 focuses on meteors. They are of great scientific interest because their pathways and traces of light can be used to derive dynamic and physical properties of comets and asteroids. Since the surveillance of the sky with cameras is usually incomplete, reports of fireball sightings are important. Within the project, citizens and scientists will create and use the first German-language app that allows reporting meteor sightings.</p><p>We will share our experiences on how researchers and communities of citizen scientists with backgrounds in the geosciences, space research, the social sciences, computer science and other disciplines work together in the Nachtlicht-BüHNE project to co-design mobile applications. We highlight challenges that arose and present different strategies for co-design that evolved within the project accounting for the specific needs and interests of the communities involved.</p>

Design of Microplastics Citizen Science Kit

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael Hughson-Gill
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Freshwater Ecosystems ◽  
Freshwater Systems ◽  
The Public ◽  
Plastic Bags ◽  
The Impact

<p>Microplastics are an ever-increasing problem. Every river that was tested in a recent study found the presence of microplastics, with 80% of all plastic in the ocean coming from upstream. Despite this, there is little understanding into the abundance of plastic, its characteristics and the full impact that is it having on marine, freshwater ecosystems and wider ecological systems.</p><p> </p><p>Current fresh water monitoring does not consider the fluid dynamics of rivers, is difficult to use and is inaccessible to the wider public. My project will focus on creating a product that allows for the large-scale data collection of microplastic through citizen science. Allowing groups of people to analyse their local natural environment for the presence and abundance of microplastics within the water. This method of data collection could provide information on a scale that is not possible with traditional methods and would allow for the comparison between freshwater systems. This comparison is fundamental to begin to fill the knowledge gaps around the understanding of microplastics.</p><p> </p><p>Inaccessibility of monitoring to the public is not just through tools but also through the current communication of data with research rarely breaking into the public domain. Citizen science offers not just an improvement in understanding but also offers an opportunity for engagement with the public body. Increasing awareness of the impact of habits round plastic through the sharing of monitoring data can generate the much-needed change on both an individual and policy level to address the problem from the source. This method of change through public opinion can be seen to have an effect on freshwater systems through microbeads ban, plastic bags, plastic straws and industrial pollution regulation.</p><p> </p><p>Through the creation of this product a multidisciplinary approach that blends engineering and design practices is implemented. The wholistic approach to creation is something that is fundamental in the success of tools and therefore the success of the research that is implemented through them. A tool such as this whose function is within the public engagement of its use - increased awareness, as well as the outcome of its use - microplastics data, is required to have an engaging user experience as well as data integrity implemented through engineering design.</p><p> </p><p>This project offers an opportunity to show the importance of the design process within research tools to aid the research process and the positive impact that can come from it.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document