investing in citizen science can improve natural …esa published by the ecological society of...

esa

Published by the Ecological Society of America

esa

Investing in Citizen Science Can ImproveNatural Resource Management and

Environmental ProtectionDuncan C. McKinley, Abraham J. Miller-Rushing, Heidi L. Ballard, Rick Bonney, Hutch Brown,

Daniel M. Evans, Rebecca A. French, Julia K. Parrish, Tina B. Phillips, Sean F. Ryan, Lea A. Shanley,Jennifer L. Shirk, Kristine F. Stepenuck, Jake F. Weltzin, Andrea Wiggins, Owen D. Boyle,

Russell D. Briggs, Stuart F. Chapin III, David A. Hewitt, Peter W. Preuss, and Michael A. Soukup

Fall 2015 Report Number 19

Investing in Citizen Science Can ImproveNatural Resource Management and

Environmental Protection

Issues in EcologyIssues in Ecology

© The Ecological Society of America • [email protected] esa 1

ISSUES IN ECOLOGY NUMBER NINETEEN FALL 2015

Investing in Citizen Science Can Improve Natural ResourceManagement and Environmental Protection

Duncan C. McKinley, Abraham J. Miller-Rushing, Heidi L. Ballard, Rick Bonney, Hutch Brown, Daniel M. Evans,Rebecca A. French, Julia K. Parrish, Tina B. Phillips, Sean F. Ryan, Lea A. Shanley, Jennifer L. Shirk, Kristine F. Stepenuck,

Jake F. Weltzin, Andrea Wiggins, Owen D. Boyle, Russell D. Briggs, Stuart F. Chapin III, David A. Hewitt,Peter W. Preuss, and Michael A. Soukup

SUMMARY

Citizen science has made substantive contributions to science for hundreds of years. More recently, it has contributedto many articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has influenced natural resource management and environ-

mental protection decisions and policies across the nation. Over the last 10 years, citizen science—participation by thepublic in a scientific project—has seen explosive growth in the United States and many other countries, particularly inecology, the environmental sciences, and related fields of inquiry.

The goal of this report is to help government agencies and other organizations involved in natural resource manage-ment, environmental protection, and policymaking related to both to make informed decisions about investing in citi-zen science. In this report, we explore the current use of citizen science in natural resource and environmental scienceand decisionmaking in the United States and describe the investments organizations might make to benefit from citizenscience. We find that:

• Many people are interested in participating in citizen science.

• Citizen science already contributes to natural resource and environmental science, natural resourcemanagement, and environmental protection and policymaking.

• Citizen science is a rigorous process of scientific discovery, indistinguishable from conventional scienceapart from the participation of volunteers, and should be treated as such in its design, implementation,and evaluation. When properly designed and used, citizen science can help an organization meet itsneeds for sound science.

• Citizen science can contribute to natural resource and environmental organizations’ goals for publicinput and engagement.

• Many types of projects can benefit from citizen science. When planning to utilize citizen science, orga-nizations need to match their needs and goals for science and public input and engagement to thestrengths of particular citizen science projects and the ways in which the public can participate.Depending on the organization’s needs and goals, citizen science can efficiently generate high-qualitydata or help solve problems while fostering public input and engagement.

• Organizational leadership is needed to provide realistic expectations for citizen science, including itslimitations as well as its benefits. Leadership is also sometimes needed to lessen administrative hurdlesand to create a safe space for learning from project inefficiencies and failures.

Citizen science requires strategic investments. Beyond project-specific investments, organizations should considerdeveloping or modifying policies and technologies designed to facilitate the field of citizen science as a whole.

Cover photos: Clockwise starting on the upper left: a) COASST program volunteers collecting information on a seabird carcass b) National Park Service staff and vol-unteers recording phenology of various plants and animals c) Volunteers sorting and identifying specimens for a biodiversity survey d) A Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources botanist training volunteers on survey methods for the Wisconsin Rare Plant Monitoring Program.

Photos credits: a) Liz Mack, COASST b) Carolyn A. F. Enquist c) Zach Kobrinsky d) Corey Raimond.

© The Ecological Society of America • [email protected] esa

Introduction

Red-cockaded woodpecker, Florida manatee,Gulf sturgeon … all are native to Wolf Bay, anestuary on the Gulf coast of Alabama, wherefreshwater streams mix with saltwater from theocean to support habitat for a variety of nativefish and wildlife. The region’s marshes, forests,and waters also support a thriving touristindustry and a rich commercial and recre-ational fishery.

The area around Wolf Bay has growntremendously. Baldwin County, home to WolfBay, has nearly doubled its population in thepast two decades, with development encroach-ing on fragile ecosystems. Local systems andhabitats depend on the delivery of clean waterfrom coastal streams, and development hasplaced local water quality at risk.

In 1996, Auburn University staff, workingwith local citizens, launched Alabama WaterWatch, a program to engage citizens in moni-toring local water quality. A network of local

water-monitoring groups emerged across thestate, including Wolf Bay Watershed Watch, anonprofit organization formed in 1998. Withtraining and guidance from Alabama WaterWatch, Wolf Bay Watershed Watch currentlymonitors almost 60 stream, bay, and bayousites and has sampled water quality more than8,000 times since its inception.

In 2007, the Alabama Department ofEnvironmental Management designated WolfBay as an Outstanding Alabama Water, pro-viding stronger protections for the area’s waterquality and wildlife habitat. This designationlimits pollutant discharges and requires man-aging for higher levels of dissolved oxygen andlower amounts of bacteria in the bay. This out-come is largely due to the efforts of the WolfBay Watershed Watch and the volunteers whosolicited support from local officials, devel-oped a management plan for the Wolf Baywatershed, and helped residents learn aboutthe importance of protecting the bay.

The story of Wolf Bay features what is gen-erally called “citizen science,” in this case byinvolving the public in water quality monitor-ing on a watershed scale. Citizen science trig-gered successful local efforts to help theAlabama Department of EnvironmentalManagement reach its conservation goals.Does citizen science have broader applicabilityfor natural resource management and environ-mental protection organizations across thenation in fulfilling their missions?

In making their decisions, natural resourceand environmental managers and other deci-sionmakers often lack both the full scientificinformation and the full public support andinvolvement they need. In this report, weaddress the following questions:

• Can citizen science help? • Can it deliver more of the science needed

for sustainable natural resource managementand environmental protection?

Investing in Citizen Science Can Improve Natural ResourceManagement and Environmental Protection

Duncan C. McKinley, Abraham J. Miller-Rushing, Heidi L. Ballard, Rick Bonney, Hutch Brown, Daniel M. Evans,Rebecca A. French, Julia K. Parrish, Tina B. Phillips, Sean F. Ryan, Lea A. Shanley, Jennifer L. Shirk, Kristine F. Stepenuck,

Jake F. Weltzin, Andrea Wiggins, Owen D. Boyle, Russell D. Briggs, Stuart F. Chapin III, David A. Hewitt,Peter W. Preuss, and Michael A. Soukup


Photo 1. Wolf Bay, a Gulf coastestuary in Alabama.

Photo credit: Eric Reutebuch,Alabama Water Watch.



• Can it foster more public input and engage-ment in natural resource management andenvironmental protection and decisionmak-ing?

• And, if so, how do natural resource andenvironmental managers and decisionmak-ers best invest in citizen science to improveoutcomes?

Our goal in this report is to help govern-ment agencies and other organizationsinvolved in natural resource management,environmental protection, and policymakingrelated to both to answer these questions andmake informed decisions about investing incitizen science. We aim to provide a balancedassessment of whether, when, and how organi-zations can employ citizen science to helpmeet the information and public engagementneeds of natural resource and environmentalmanagers and other decisionmakers.

What Is Citizen Science?

Citizen science means different things to dif-ferent people, causing confusion about itsnature and utility. We use the term to refer tothe practice of engaging the public in a scien-tific project—a project that produces reliabledata and information usable by scientists,

decisionmakers, or the public and that is opento the same system of peer review that appliesto conventional science. The term citizen sci-ence is sometimes used differently—for exam-ple, to describe only projects where volunteerscollect data, only projects that involve profes-sional scientists, or the engagement of nonsci-entists in policy discussions. However, ourmeaning is gaining general acceptance, andwe use it throughout this paper. Citizen sci-ence, as we define it, is indistinguishable fromconventional science, apart from the partici-pation of volunteers—both can use a varietyof methods and can achieve a variety of goals,including basic research, management, andeducation. Citizen science is science (with theaddition of volunteers) and should be treatedas such in its design, implementation, andevaluation.

Citizen science is not new. Before sciencefirst emerged as a profession, most scientificresearch was conducted by the “citizen scien-tists” of their day—keen amateurs who con-ducted or carried out scientific research. Overthe centuries, amateur scientists and volun-teers made key contributions to the under-standing of climate, evolution, geologicalprocesses, electricity, astronomy, and otherphenomena. In the United States, for exam-ple, farmers, weather observers, and naturalists

Box 1. Definitions

Adaptive management – A systematic approach for improving resource management by learning from management outcomes.Adaptive management focuses on learning and adapting through an iterative process of planning, taking actions, monitoring, learning,and adjusting and through partnerships among managers, scientists, and other stakeholders working and learning together.

Citizen science – Participation by the public in a scientific project. Projects can involve public participation in any or all stages of thescientific process. Projects can involve professional scientists or be entirely designed and implemented by volunteers. However, citizenscience is science and should be treated as such in its design, implementation, and evaluation.

Conventional science – A professional-based approach to science led by paid scientists at academic, government, nonprofit, or com-mercial organizations and carried out by a mix of professional scientists and paid technicians or students. We use the term “conven-tional science” to contrast a professionals-only approach with a citizen-based approach to science, although the two approaches havelong been intertwined and need not be separated in practice.

Decisionmakers – Individuals or groups of people in the public or private sector who choose among a number of alternatives that aretypically delimited by internal policies, laws, or rules. In the public sector, decisionmakers include people who make routine decisionson implementing public policy as well as people who can give content and direction to public policy by enacting statutes, issuing exec-utive orders, promoting administrative rules, or making judicial interpretation of laws. As used in this paper, the term can sometimesinclude policymakers.

Policymakers – Individuals or groups of people, typically within a legislature, an executive office, a judiciary, or administrative agen-cies, who set public policy through a range of processes and mechanisms. Policymakers can decide to adopt a particular law or makea certain rule and then decide how to implement the law or rule.

Public engagement – Officials, specialists, and other employees of natural resource and environmental organizations interacting withthe public to exchange ideas about a problem or proposed solution or other management action or goal. This is frequently donethrough education and extension programs, public outreach, and town hall meetings.

Public input – Feedback from the public in response to a call from government or other organizations for input. Examples include pub-lic comment periods following the release of environmental impact statements and meetings of advisory committees.


documented the daily weather, the timing ofharvests and pest outbreaks, and the abun-dance and behaviors of wildlife. Early citizenscientists in North America famously includedBenjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Lesswell known are the data collected by natural-ists, such as Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau’spainstaking records from the 1850s of the firstflowers, leaves, and bird arrivals each springare now being used by scientists to identify theimpacts of climate change in Concord and atWalden Pond in Massachusetts. In the 1930sand 1940s, Aldo Leopold learned from hisown form of citizen science, banding birds andrecording the timing of spring events. Notinga range of discoveries made by contemporarycitizen science volunteers, Leopold concludedthat “the sport-value of amateur research isjust beginning to be realized.” In fact, many ofLeopold’s research projects are being contin-ued today by citizen science volunteers.

More recently, researchers have benefitedfrom the information technology revolutionand the advent of the Internet and location-aware mobile technologies equipped withcameras and other sensors. Such technologieshave made it easier for professionals and non-professionals alike to access, store, manage,

analyze, and share vast amounts of data and tocommunicate information quickly and easily.Central to the rapid evolution of citizen sci-ence, technological advances have driven itsgrowth. Now, for example, citizen science pro-jects can deploy large numbers of volunteersand record huge volumes of observations incentralized databases that can be analyzed innear-real time. Increased capacity has spurredrecent rapid growth in citizen science, leadingto the rising use of citizen science data in peer-reviewed publications (Figure 1). Powered bypublic interest, today’s citizen science can helpanswer the most challenging ecological andenvironmental questions, addressing issuesthat affect everyday lives.

Citizen science projects can pursue basic orapplied science, with purposes that includebaseline ecological or environmental monitor-ing as well as crisis response and taking man-agement actions, such as habitat restoration.Citizen science can tackle local questions, suchas identifying the source of pollution in asingle stream; it can also provide insights intocontinental or global processes, such as climatechange or the world’s great animal migrations.Volunteers can participate in a little or a lot ofthe scientific process. For instance, they mightformulate a scientific question and then con-tract with professional scientists to conduct theresearch; or they might collaborate closely withprofessional scientists to jointly develop a pro-ject, collect and analyze data, and report theresults. Private citizens, alone or in groups, caneven pursue scientific research wholly on theirown, independent of professional scientists.However, volunteers usually contribute by col-lecting data in projects designed by profes-sional scientists.

Converging Citizen Science“Pathways”

Resource and environmental managementorganizations generally invest in citizen sci-ence for two reasons: (1) to do science thatmight not otherwise be feasible because ofscale or for other practical reasons, and (2) tobetter engage the public in helping to makedecisions through generating new scientificknowledge and through learning gained fromparticipating in the scientific process. Thesegoals reflect the two primary ways that citizenscience can inform and assist managers andother decisionmakers (Figure 2). The path-ways converge and can be mutually reinforc-ing; a citizen science project can lead volun-


Photo 2. A researcher comparesmodern-day observations offlowering plants with written

records and specimens left byHenry David Thoreau in the

1850s.Photo courtesy ofRichard Primack.

Photo 3. A participant iniNaturalist (a citizen science

program) uses a smartphonewith a clip-on macrolens to

photograph a specimen.Photo credit: Yurong He.



teers down both pathways at once, generatingsynergies between science and public inputand engagement. We separate the pathwayshere only to describe them.

One pathway is the same one followed byconventional research. Volunteers help gener-ate scientific information for natural resourceand environmental managers and other deci-sionmakers, who take the information intoaccount in making decisions.

The other pathway involves the public inscientific research while stimulating publicinput and engagement in natural resource andenvironmental management and policymak-ing. Volunteers can directly provide input—for example, they might comment on a pro-posed government action on the basis of whatthey learned in a citizen science project. Theirinput and engagement can also be indirect—for example, they might share informationwithin their communities, motivating othersto get involved in natural resource and envi-ronmental management and policy discussionsand decisions.

Although most citizen science projectsinvolve both pathways (often at the sametime), projects can vary, and the design of aproject influences the type of scientific infor-mation it provides and the quality and methodof public engagement it facilitates.

Organizations that use citizen science carefullychoose project designs that match their needsand goals. Alternatively, community membersor other stakeholders might initiate, design, orimplement projects themselves, filling rolesunmet by agencies or other organizations.

Together, the two pathways can help organi-zations meet their goals by contributing at var-ious points in a typical policy cycle (Figure 2).Citizen science can make valuable systematicobservations and identify problems or issues;help in formulating public policy, along withcontributions by industry, environmentalgroups, and other stakeholders; strengthenpublic input into policymaking by legislatorsand other decisionmakers; help government

Figure 1. Growth in the numberof scientific publications thathave used or studied citizenscience since 1995. Data arebased on a search of the Web ofScience for the keyword "citizenscience" and likely represent afraction of all scientificpublications using or studyingcitizen science because manypublications fail to acknowledgewhen they include contributionsfrom citizen science.

Figure 2. Pathways that citizenscience can take to influencenatural resource managementand environmental protection by(1) generating scientificinformation, and (2) facilitatingdirect (green arrows) andindirect (red arrows) public inputand engagement. Direct publicinput and engagement include,for example, comments onproposed government actions;indirect input and engagementinclude communication withpeers that might stimulatecommunity engagement innatural resource management,environmental protection, andpolicy decisions. Text in blackrefers to the policy cycle:problem or issue identificationproduces a need; optionformulation addresses the issue;policy adoption points to a wayof resolving the issue; policyimplementation entails takingaction; and outcome evaluationassesses policy effectiveness,initiating the next policy cycle.



publications with the most robust designs andinferences; rather, it is the best scientific infor-mation available to answer a specific question.Organizations can acquire this informationthrough a variety of means, including originalreports or publications, summaries or memos,expert testimony or briefings, and conversa-tions with experts. Some organizations con-duct research in-house or solicit research, andsometimes the research is conducted indepen-dently by other organizations or individual sci-entists. Wherever the science comes from, itsrelevance, credibility, and accuracy are key.

Can Citizen Science Meet CoreInformation Needs?

Natural resource managers and environmentalprotection organizations need scientific infor-mation to meet a wide variety of goals. Likeconventional science, citizen science is flexi-ble and can take a wide variety of approaches.Citizen science can be used in a variety ofways, including:

• Monitoring studies assessing patterns, inspace and/or time, of one or more ecosystemcomponents (e.g., is this species here now?How many individuals of this species are herenow?) or functions (e.g., is this process hap-pening now?). Data collection is standardized(the same for all sampling locations) andeffort-controlled (data are recorded even ifnone are found—i.e., zeroes “count”).

• Process studies assessing the impacts of fac-tors (e.g., hazardous fuels reduction treat-ments or pollution) on ecosystem compo-nents or functions (e.g., nutrient and water

agencies and other organizations implementthe corresponding policies; help evaluate theimpact of a policy or decision; and help inenforcing laws and regulations pertaining tonatural resources and the environment.

In what follows, we explain the two path-ways. Then we discuss the pathway synergiesthat strengthen both the capacity for scientificdiscovery and the ability to effectively use sci-ence in natural resource management andenvironmental protection. Lastly, we evaluatethe opportunity to use citizen science toachieve natural resource management andenvironmental protection goals and meetrelated challenges.

Acquiring Science

To make decisions, organizations rely on sci-entific information that is relevant, credible,and accurate (Figure 3) – the “best availablescience.” The best science does not necessarilycome from the best peer-reviewed scientific

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3. a) The beginning of thescience pathway in citizen

science (see Figure 2). b) A teamof participants selects a site for

biodiversity data collection usinga cubic foot sampling frame.

Photo credit: Zach Kobrinsky. c)Participants in Biocubes (a

citizen science program) usesmartphones to help identify

species and submit data. Photocredit: Andrea Wiggins.



cycling). The researchers control the leveland duration of the exposure, and there is acontrol (which might be the status quo).

• Opportunistic and observational studies thatdo not follow a strict design but are oftendeliberate in the subject and timing ofobservation. These studies can be usefulbecause of the scale of the data collection,the rarity of the phenomena observed (e.g.,a rare species or infrequent weather event),or the timeliness of the observations (e.g.,collecting information for crisis response,such as after earthquakes or oil spills).

Citizen science projects already tackle majorchallenges for managing natural resources andthe environment, such as species management,ecosystem services management, climate changeadaptation, invasive species control, and pollu-tion detection and regulation (table 1).

What Scientific Value Does CitizenScience Add?

Understanding the relative strengths of citizenscience can help determine when it can pro-vide advantages over conventional science:

• Citizen science can often operate at greatergeographic scales and over longer periodsof time than conventional science—andsometimes at greater resolutions. Only vol-

unteers can cost-effectively collect sometypes of data, such as observations of breed-ing birds and other physical and biologicalphenomena, in sufficiently large areas andover long enough periods of time to be sci-entifically reliable and meaningful. TheNorth American Breeding Bird Survey, forexample, has relied on volunteers to trackthe abundance of bird populations across thecontinent (Case Study 1). Other projects,such as Nature’s Notebook, encourage vol-unteers and professional scientists to regu-larly submit observations of plant and ani-mal occurrences, behaviors, and seasonalevents such as tree leafout and the timing ofanimal breeding. In some cases, projects havebenefited greatly from volunteers collectingdata when scientists are not typically present,such as during the Arctic autumn and winter.Organizations use online applications such asIveGot1 and Bugwood to track the presenceor absence of invasive species and otherattributes, to better understand how invasivespecies spread, and to collect other vitalinformation. In addition, hundreds of air andwater quality monitoring programs across thecountry depend largely on data and samplescollected by citizen science volunteers (CaseStudy 2). The resulting observations are usedby professional scientists, government agen-cies, nongovernmental organizations, andother decisionmakers.

Table 1. Sample citizen science projects/programs used to meet needs for science and public input/engagementcommon to many natural resource and environmental organizations.

Management goal Science needs Public input and engagement needs Sample projectsa

Species Providing information on Public support for and involvement in North American Breedingmanagement species abundance, management decisions Bird Survey;a Monarch Watch;

distribution, phenology, eBird;a Grunion Greetersand behavior

Ecosystem services Providing resource valuation; Public appreciation for ecosystem services USGS’s Social Values for management mapping ecosystem services Ecosystem Services (SoLVES)

Climate change, Assessing the status, rates, Stakeholder engagement in program Nature’s Notebook;impact assessment, and trends of key physical, development, implementation, and evaluation Community Collaborative adaptation ecological, and societal Rain, Hail and Snow Network

variables and values

Invasive species Providing real-time Public support for and involvement in IveGot1 app; Bugwood appcontrol monitoring (an early-alert management decisions

system)

Pollution detection Providing information on Stakeholder engagement in identifying Bucket Brigade; Global and enforcement water and air quality problems and solutions; public support Community Monitor; Clean Air

for and involvement in management decisions Coalition;a Alabama Water Watch Programa

a. Different citizen science projects can take different approaches and engage volunteers in different ways to achieve the science and public input and engagement needs associated with each management goal.



• Citizen science can speed up and improvefield detection. Having many eyes on theground can help detect environmentalchanges (e.g., detecting changes in the onsetof spring through plant phenology), identifyphenomena that require managementresponses (e.g., population declines, inci-dences of pollution, and introduction of aninvasive species), and monitor the effective-ness of management practices. Volunteershave filled data gaps and detected unusualoccurrences that might have eluded conven-tional science and monitoring. For example,the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’sFeederWatch program was able to trackrapidly spreading disease in house finches andother wild birds across 33 states based oninformation that volunteers collected at birdfeeders. Citizen science data combined withlaboratory studies gave critical new insightsinto how to slow or prevent future epidemicsamong wildlife and humans.

• Citizen science can improve data andimage analysis. People are able to recognizepatterns and interpret large amounts of dataas well as to distinguish subtle differencesamong characteristics. Volunteers with nospecialized training (such as high school stu-dents) have performed as well as or betterthan highly trained scientists and state-of-the-art algorithms in certain analyticaltasks, for example in “protein folding” tohelp scientists better understand proteins

(through the Foldit computer game).Volunteers can also extract informationfrom digitally collected primary data (suchas images or audio) by identifying andrecording secondary information (e.g.,species identity; the presence or absence of aspecies; and the abundance, behavior, andfrequency or duration of various phenom-ena), tasks that are often difficult for com-puters. In some cases, highly trained volun-teers such as retired professionals might beable to contribute to higher level dataanalysis. Finally, volunteers can use local ortraditional knowledge to help professionalscientists interpret results, particularly inexplaining unusual data and in research pro-jects that explore how people interact withecological processes.

• Citizen science can help refine researchquestions. Participants in citizen science areaffected by and observe local naturalresources and the environment in their dailylives, so they can help improve the relevancyof location-specific research questions andmake them more useful to managers and localcommunities. For example, people inWashington state harvest salal, a culturallyand economically important forest shrub usedin floral arrangements and also important forwildlife habitat. Concerned about the declineof salal, scientists worked with people whoharvest the shrub to formulate research ques-tions about sustainable use of the plant. Theresults helped everyone involved understandwhy salal might decline and how to harvest itwithout diminishing the resource. A fullunderstanding of natural resource and envi-ronmental issues often requires a holistic per-spective, including human dimensions; citi-zen science can help provide this perspectiveand improve research.

• Citizen science can help researchers betteridentify and study connections betweenhumans and their environment. Citizen sci-ence is well suited for interdisciplinary col-laboration, particularly for projects thatinclude both natural and social dimensions.Natural resource and environmental man-agers increasingly address the social aspectsof difficult ecological issues, such as manag-ing wildfires in the wildland-urban interface.By engaging local community members, citi-zen science can facilitate an understandingamong managers, scientists, regulators, deci-sionmakers, volunteers, and others of thesocial dimensions of the natural systemswhere people live.

Photo 4. Volunteers preparingbutterfly specimens for iDigBio.

Photo: courtesy of the FloridaMuseum of Natural History.



What Are the Limitations of CitizenScience for Achieving Science Goals?

Many scientific projects are not appropriatefor citizen science. The most common factorlimiting volunteer participation in a scientificproject is the ability of trained volunteers tomeaningfully contribute to the science.Questions, methods, and analyses sometimesrequire specialized knowledge, training, equip-ment, and time commitments that make citi-zen science inefficient or impractical as anapproach.

Additionally, not all citizen science projectsstimulate widespread public interest, whetherdriven by curiosity or concern. Because inter-ests vary, people are selective about participat-ing in citizen science. For example, charis-matic species such as wolves, bears, andcertain birds receive more public attention(and support for public funding) than otherspecies, including most plants. Similarly, waterbodies near tourist destinations and collegecampuses tend to receive more attention thando those in urban and industrial areas. In addi-tion, studies in small or remote communitiesmight be of great local interest, yet the pool ofpotential participants in a citizen science pro-ject might be small. For certain taxa and eco-logical processes and for some biogeographicregions or geographic locations, it is difficultto sustainably do many types of citizen scienceprojects.

For field work, potentially hazardous condi-tions or the need for frequent sampling canlimit the feasibility of citizen science. Few vol-unteers are able to devote extended periods oftime to scientific projects. Extremely frequent(e.g., daily) sampling needs therefore mightdiscourage participation and increaseturnover. There can also be a mismatchbetween the availability of volunteers and theavailability of managers or their staffs; forexample, participants might be available pri-marily on weekends, when staff is unavailable.As a result, it might be difficult to recruit citi-zen science volunteers for certain projects.

At the other extreme, infrequent (e.g.,annual) sampling might make it harder to sus-tain collection of high-quality data, becauseparticipants might have to relearn even basicprotocols. A successful sampling design forvolunteers lies in between, where samplingfrequency is just enough to keep participantswell practiced and able to gather consistentdata, but not so high as to become onerousand discourage participation.

Citizen science projects that simultaneouslyengage volunteers in scientific research and inpublic input into decisionmaking processesmust be careful to guard against bias. But pro-fessional scientists must also guard againstbias, especially those who are involved in bothconducting research and informing decision-makers. Similar quality controls can be usedfor both citizen science and conventional sci-ence; they can include training, collection ofduplicate samples, and postdata collectionanalyses designed to identify outliers andbiases in the data. Quality controls should beused in most citizen science projects, evenwhen volunteers are not involved in decision-making. There is nothing particularly specialabout quality controls in citizen science thatscience does not already have the tools tohandle.

Public Input and Engagement

For federal, state, and municipal agencies aswell as many nongovernmental organizations,public input and engagement are essential informulating and achieving natural resourcemanagement and environmental protectiongoals (Figure 4). Federal law requires federalagencies to disclose the impacts of their majoractivities and to solicit public input or partici-pation at important stages in the land man-agement and policy development process. Wedefine “public input” as feedback from thepublic in response to a call from governmentor other organizations for input. Examplesinclude public comment periods following therelease of environmental impact statementsand meetings of advisory committees, such asthose set up under the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act.

Government agencies and other organiza-tions also foster public engagement in naturalresource and environmental management andpolicymaking. Accordingly, we define “publicengagement” as officials, specialists, and otheremployees interacting with the public toexchange ideas about a problem or a proposedsolution or other management action or goal.This is typically done through education pro-grams, public outreach, and town hall meet-ings. Public participation was originallyintended to prevent special interest groupsfrom unduly influencing federal decisionmak-ing. Now, public input and collaboration areincreasingly viewed as essential in crafting sus-tainable management activities and policies(Case Study 3).



How Can Citizen Science PromoteParticipation in Decisionmaking andEnvironment Stewardship?

Citizen science projects can enhance a bi-directional flow of information between thepublic and natural resource managers andenvironmental policy organizations.Volunteers, through the training they receivefor a citizen science project, can come to bet-ter understand the ability (or inability) of sci-ence to answer a question of interest. Theycan also learn from a project’s science out-comes, particularly if the project advancesknowledge or sheds light on an issue of con-cern. In turn, natural resource managers andenvironmental organizations receive inputfrom volunteers, providing them with a betterunderstanding of public priorities and socialcontexts and thereby contributing to a richer,more productive public dialogue.

Under the right circumstances, citizen sci-ence projects can have the following benefits:

• Citizen science can engage people in deci-sionmaking processes. Participation in a citi-zen science project can increase firsthandunderstanding of conservation or environ-

mental issues and encourage participants tobe more responsive to the issues they careabout. Participants might become more likelyto appear at public meetings and to provideconstructive comment on proposed actions.For example, members of Golden GateAudubon participate in bird monitoring andinvasive species removal projects and presenttheir findings to local agencies. They alsorecognize that science is important forachieving other local conservation goals andform committees to recommend and imple-ment additional citizen science projects.

• Citizen science can promote collaboration.Citizen science is inherently collaborative. Itcan bring people to work together with orga-nizations in collaborative ways, creating syn-ergies and improving outcomes. Some fed-eral agencies engage the public in multipartymonitoring, a collaborative form of citizenscience in which people with diverse inter-ests work together to understand a problem,conduct monitoring, and evaluate projectresults. Multiparty monitoring often enlistsvolunteers. For example, the UncompahgrePlateau Project in western Colorado specifi-cally calls for citizen science volunteers in itsmonitoring strategy (Case Study 4).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 4. a) The beginning of thepublic input and engagement

pathway in citizen science (seeFigure 2). b) Collecting stream

arthropods with children. c) andd) Discussing the science ofpotential impacts of climate

change on forest processes withvolunteers. e) Volunteers training

children on bird identification.Photo credits: b) Kristine

Stepenuck, c) Gerald Bauer,USDA Forest Service,

International Institute of TropicalForestry, d) Eli Sagor,

Sustainable Forest EducationCooperative, e) Susan S. Pear,courtesy of the Cornell Lab of

Ornithology.



• Citizen science can bring fresh perspec-tives into decisionmaking. In solicitingpublic input, natural resource managers andenvironmental organizations seek a range ofperspectives and stakeholder participationin crafting sustainable solutions to the prob-lems they face. The participatory nature ofcitizen science can facilitate the inclusion ofdiverse perspectives in decisionmaking.Volunteers might represent a different con-stituency than participants in other types ofpublic engagement. Fuller public representa-tion can better ensure that outcomes meetthe needs of more people. In some cases, cit-izen science can shorten the time from datacollection to decisionmaking. For example,the Coastal Observation and Seabird SurveyTeam (COASST) collects information onbeached birds on almost 300 beaches span-ning northern California, Oregon,Washington, and Alaska. Thanks in part tothe program’s extensive network of about850 volunteers, its robust protocol, and itssound reputation, COASST has providednear-real-time information to decisionmak-ers on the impacts of such events as oil spillsand avian diseases on coastal sea birds, evenas an event unfolds.

• Citizen science can foster environmentalstewardship. Collecting environmental datacan prompt volunteers to care more aboutthe environment and develop a sense ofplace. After participating in citizen science,people might make different personalchoices, changing their own managementpractices. Engaging in Monarch Watch, forexample, has changed the behavior of vol-unteers in their own backyards. Sponsoredby the Kansas Biological Survey and theUniversity of Kansas, Monarch Watch vol-unteers across the United States andCanada tag individual monarch butterfliesto help scientists study monarch populationsand migrations. After learning how habitatfor monarchs is vanishing, many volunteershave planted pollinator gardens in their ownbackyards (for example, with milkweed tosupport monarch caterpillars).

• Citizen science can spread knowledge.Citizen science is an inherently socialendeavor. Participants routinely communi-cate with friends, family, and colleagues,spreading information about their citizenscience activities and about the issues theycare about through a wide range of socialnetworks. The information they impart andthe example they set can motivate others to

get involved or to change their own behav-ior. In general, people are more likely tochange their behavior in response to exam-ples set by their friends and neighbors thanin response to public information cam-paigns.

• Citizen science can answer local commu-nity questions of concern. Some questionsthat are important for local managementand policy might go unaddressed by profes-sional science. Such questions might be tooscientifically novel or not novel enough;they might not be a priority for funding byfederal or state agencies; and local organiza-tions might not have enough scientificcapacity to address them. As a result, manycitizen science projects have sprung from

Photo 5. COASST programvolunteers identifying a seabirdcarcass and collecting data onwhat might have killed the bird.Photo credit: Liz Mack, courtesyof COASST.

Photo 6. iDigBio volunteerstagging Monarch Butterflies forrelease. Photo courtesy of theFlorida Museum of NaturalHistory.



local community concerns impossible toaddress in any other way. In one study inTonawanda, NY, for example, communitymembers undertook an air quality investiga-tion in their heavily industrialized town,leading to law enforcement actions (CaseStudy 5). In such cases, the public con-tributes local perspectives that professionalscientists might otherwise miss. Involvinglocal volunteers in a project can bring outquestions, ideas, and techniques that mightnot otherwise surface, with professional sci-entists furnishing support, training, andadvice. The Environmental ProtectionAgency office that serves the people of NewYork State has launched a website(http://www.epa.gov/citizenscience/) provid-ing resources for citizen science, includingdata collection guidelines, case studies, andinformation about funding.

• Citizen science can incorporate local andtraditional knowledge into science andmanagement. Local and traditional knowl-edge can be helpful in interpreting researchresults, setting science and management pri-orities, and crafting management activities.For example, the Wallowa-WhitmanNational Forest in Oregon worked with thenongovernmental organization WallowaResources to include ranchers and others ina collaborative watershed assessment (a ver-sion of multiparty monitoring). The partnersmonitored how livestock interacted withwater resources in the national forest andcontributed information about the history ofgrazing practices across the forest. ForestService managers used the information todecide on management actions to relievelivestock pressure around lakes and riverswhile improving animal production and dis-tribution, a measure supported by localranchers.

• Citizen science can build awareness of anorganization’s mission. Engaging volunteersin citizen science projects allows an organi-zation to relate the project to its mission,raising its public profile. Citizen science pro-jects can build bridges, connecting grass-roots interest in natural resource and envi-ronmental science and management issueswith the missions of government and non-governmental organizations.

• Citizen science can improve science liter-acy and build expertise. Citizen science canincrease public understanding of a particularissue by helping volunteers better access andunderstand scientific information. Well-

designed citizen science projects can buildscience literacy and even steer volunteerstoward science- or management-relatedcareers. Professional scientists are findingthat some citizen science volunteers, partic-ularly young adults, show enthusiasm andaptitude for scientific research. Citizen sci-ence can increase and diversify the pool ofcandidates available for jobs in science,management, and environmental protec-tion.

What Are the Limitations of CitizenScience for Public Input andEngagement?

Citizen science projects can sometimes be lessefficient and effective than direct public out-reach at encouraging public input and engage-ment, particularly when the connectionbetween the science and management or pol-icy decisions is weak or not obvious. Citizenscience is only one of many ways of engagingthe public in decisionmaking processes andenvironmental stewardship. If scientificknowledge is already adequate, for example,then citizen science is not needed—theknowledge can be communicated and inputand engagement can be sought through con-ventional means such as newsletters, sciencecafés, or public meetings.

Moreover, designing a citizen science pro-ject in ways that will change personal choices,such as discussing topics with friends, submit-ting formal comments on proposed policies, orimproving personal stewardship behaviors, isdifficult, and evidence for actual change inbehavior is limited and largely anecdotal.Successful projects are usually designed toencourage particular behaviors, whetherplanting butterfly gardens or attending publicmeetings. The goals must be reasonable—forexample, encouraging gardeners to switch tonative or wildlife-friendly plants is likely easierto achieve than getting nongardeners to plantnative gardens. Achieving goals for publicinput and engagement requires planning andexpertise, and many citizen science projects donot have the resources to reach such goals.This is an active area of research, and morework is needed.

Synergy between Pathways

Citizen science is most valuable for naturalresource management and environmental pro-tection when it generates science and



increases substantive public input and engage-ment. Few people have the opportunity toengage in scientific research, and most neverparticipate in natural resource managementand environmental decisionmaking. Throughcitizen science, participants can learn how sci-ence is done and how it contributes to naturalresource management and environmentaldecisionmaking, which can be a powerful andtransformative experience.

Most examples of citizen science highlightedin this report capitalize on synergies betweenscience acquisition and public input andengagement. For example, volunteers helpmonitor birds at scales impossible to do other-wise and also promote bird conservation (CaseStudies 1 and 7); through their observations,and sometimes action, volunteers take onlocal problems that scientists and officials hadoverlooked, contributing to both science anddecisionmaking (Case Studies 2 and 5); and afederal agency encourages diverse stakeholdersto engage in identifying science and manage-ment goals and then participate in the moni-toring and adaptive management process(Case Studies 3 and 4).

Perhaps the greatest potential for synergiesis when citizen science contributes to an adap-tive management process, which often engagesa variety of stakeholders and the public. Inadaptive management, problems are assessed;management actions are designed and imple-mented; and management outcomes are moni-tored, evaluated, and adjusted as necessary inan iterative cycle. The success of adaptivemanagement is measured by how well itincreases scientific knowledge, helps meetmanagement goals, and reduces conflictamong stakeholders.

Despite the utility of adaptive management,it can be difficult to implement because oftime constraints, lack of funding, and otherlimitations. Citizen science can facilitateadaptive management, especially when themonitoring is appropriate for volunteers andwhen the management issue in question is oflocal interest. For example, the National ParkService is working with local organizationsand volunteers in and around Acadia NationalPark in Maine to use citizen science as part ofan adaptive management approach to main-taining and improving the resilience of ecosys-tems facing rapid environmental change, par-ticularly climate change, invasive species, andair and water pollution. Without volunteers,the park staff and professional scientists wouldnot be able to accomplish the necessary moni-

toring of wildlife, invasive plants, and waterquality. Many of the same volunteers andorganizations are also engaged in decisionmak-ing processes regarding park management.

The Effects of Federal Policyon the Feasibility of UsingCitizen Science

Many citizen science projects involving fed-eral agencies are done in partnership withnongovernmental organizations and academicinstitutions. Depending on the federal role ina citizen science project, federal policy consid-erations might apply. Such policy considera-tions include intellectual property, privacy,and the special obligations of federal agenciesunder the law. Intellectual property concernsinclude data ownership and access.Organizations can deal with such concerns bycrafting terms of use and user agreements. Theagreements specify the roles and responsibili-ties of the organizations and participants withrespect to citizen-generated data.

Privacy concerns revolve around personaland location-based information as well as pho-tographs, videos, and audio files, all of whichare governed by the Privacy Act. Federalagencies that implement citizen science pro-jects have two options for complying with thePrivacy Act: (1) they can avoid collecting per-sonally identifiable information about volun-teers and avoid using databases that retrievedata based on personally identifiable informa-tion; or (2) they can set up a process for han-dling personally identifiable information andhave it reviewed and approved by the Office

Photo 7. Volunteers identifyingplants during a species richnesssurvey at Acadia National Park.Photo credit: Abraham Miller-Rushing.



of Management and Budget (OMB). Somecitizen science programs have found techno-logical ways of eliminating personally identifi-able information from their databases.

Federal agencies are required to meet specialobligations under the law. Most citizen scienceprojects ask volunteers to record standardizedobservations and submit them on data sheetsor online forms. Projects involving federalagencies can trigger the Paperwork ReductionAct, intended to reduce the burden of paper-work for the public. The act applies to feder-ally sponsored or conducted work, includingscientific research. It requires federal agenciesto examine what information volunteers areasked to provide and to issue a request for pub-lic comment relating to the justifications forand estimates of the burden. The process typi-cally takes from several months to more than ayear to complete. Agencies generally antici-pate this “cost of doing business” and plan pro-ject timelines accordingly. However, long leadtimes might limit an organization’s ability touse citizen science for certain activities, suchas rapid response to oil spills, volcanic erup-tions, wildfires, and other events. For suchactivities, federal agencies might need to relyon existing OMB-approved projects, projectsthat can be fast-tracked through the clearanceprocess, or projects that do not require OMBapproval.

Under the Data Quality Act (sometimescalled the Information Quality Act), federalagencies are required to ensure that the datathey disseminate meet standards for quality,utility, objectivity, and integrity. The OMBand the agencies themselves write the corre-sponding guidelines, which apply to both citi-zen science and conventional science.

When to Choose Citizen Science

In the case of environmental monitoring, citi-zen science is often initiated at the grassrootslevel in response to local environmental con-cerns. When a federal agency or other conser-vation organization is considering investing ina citizen science project, it should carefullyconsider what it wants to achieve. Otherchoices might be preferable, such as fundingconventional science or soliciting public com-ment and holding public meetings to obtainpublic input. In deciding whether to use citi-zen science, it might help to ask a fundamen-tal question: Can it improve the scientificprocess and elicit the most useful public inputand engagement?

Citizen science might be most advantageouswhen:

• Volunteers can collect high-quality data.Sometimes, volunteers need only minimaltraining. For example, collecting insects andmaking simple measurements, such as treecircumference, are easy to do without exten-sive instruction or instrumentation.Volunteers can also collect data that requirefollowing elaborate protocols or developingcertain specialized skills, such as in manywater quality monitoring programs.Research has shown that volunteers withproper training and guidance can accuratelyidentify specimens at various taxonomic lev-els and accurately assess important popula-tion attributes, such as species abundanceand distribution. However, volunteersshould not be expected to use sophisticatedanalytical instruments or participate inactivities that require extensive training orcertification. Generally speaking, the sim-pler the methods, the easier it is to engagevolunteers in the collection of high-qualitydata; simple tasks also make it feasible toincrease the number of contributors andmake it easier to sustain collection of high-quality data. Organizations should also usedata quality controls to identify question-able data and correct or discard them. Theuse of quality controls is relevant for alltypes of survey and assessment, whetherimplemented by volunteers or by profes-sional scientists.

• Participation by volunteers makes it possi-ble to address questions that would beunanswerable in any other way. Public par-ticipation can be integral to the ability tocollect, analyze, and interpret certain data.A major strength of citizen science is itsability to collect fine-grained informationover broad areas and long periods of timeand to process large amounts of data (suchas images) simply because the number ofvolunteers exceeds the number of profes-sionals (including researchers, faculty, andstudents) by as much as several orders ofmagnitude. In some cases, volunteers canobtain data inaccessible to governmentemployees, such as data on private lands oron hunting impacts on a species. When arapid response is needed, such as to environ-mental disasters or sudden large-scale bird orfish dieoffs, research efforts can benefit fromthe ability to swiftly mobilize large numbersof volunteers.



• Public participation in the scientificprocess serves the organization’s goals forpublic input and engagement and helps indecisionmaking through the generation ofboth scientific knowledge and learning.Public input can help identify the most rele-vant questions that a scientific study isdesigned to answer and the best methods tocarry out the study, particularly if theresearch is focused on an issue that affects orinvolves local people. If research is intendedto affect natural resource management orenvironmental policymaking decisions, thenpublic participation might aid in developinglocally appropriate research questions andmethods, particularly if the management orpolicymaking question requires understand-ing how human behavior interacts with eco-logical processes. For example, local or tradi-tional knowledge, such as harvesting orhunting practices in a given area, can helpscientists understand human behaviors,local ecology, and threats to species,enabling them to formulate research ques-tions and methods that can best help man-agers and other decisionmakers.

What Investments Does CitizenScience Require?

The Internet and mobile devices have furtherexpanded opportunities for volunteers tomake real-time observations in the field (e.g.,eBird and Project Budburst’s smartphoneapps) and for organizations to recruit andtrain volunteers (e.g., Trout UnlimitedYouTube water quality monitoring videos).The Internet has also made it possible toengage millions of volunteers in online pro-cessing and analysis of images and other datafor environmental protection and naturalresource management applications (e.g.,SkyTruth.org and Snapshot Serengeti).

Investing in citizen science requires timeand money. Although citizen science relieson volunteers, it is not free; an organizationmust invest in the capacity for a citizen sci-ence project to succeed. Capacity buildingincludes investing in personnel (both staffand volunteers) and in all the tools and otherresources that volunteers need to successfullycarry out the project. Additionally, organiza-tions must create a culture and policy envi-ronment conducive to citizen science.

In many cases, organizations can rely onexisting projects or tools, either as theyalready are or as modified for a specialized

use—for example, asking volunteers to useeBird to monitor bird populations (CaseStudy 7). In other cases, organizations mightneed to develop entirely new projects andtools and the supporting infrastructure. Forexample, they might need to designate staffto research appropriate data collection meth-ods; to develop a database for accessing,archiving, and analyzing data; and to recruitand train volunteers.

Initial investment in citizen science cansave on overall costs to an organization.Federal, state, and local agencies and non-governmental organizations already dependheavily on volunteers for various types of ser-vices; some organizations have three or morevolunteers for every paid employee. The edu-cational system in the United States at boththe high school and college levels stressescommunity service, creating a large pool ofpotential volunteers for citizen science.Organizations can take advantage of suchopportunities (Case Study 6), enlisting vol-unteers to accomplish tasks that would beimpossible for staff alone. For example, PaleoQuest, a citizen science program where vol-unteers scour various landscapes for fossils,found that having volunteers assist in fieldwork increased its scientific productivity andreduced its cost per scientific paper from tensor hundreds of thousands of dollars to some-times less than a thousand dollars.

Investments in Specific Projects

The precise investments an organizationmakes to implement a citizen science projectdepend on the particular goals, scale, andscope of the project. Many citizen science pro-jects are small, so little or no organizationalinvestment is needed. A project led by a singleinvestigator might use a small team of volun-teers to collect samples; or a single citizen sci-ence volunteer might have the knowhow andresources to conduct and publish researchalone. Larger projects and projects with multi-ple goals often require thoughtful investmentby organizations.

Organizations often underestimate therequirements of citizen science projects. To beeffective, a project must have a sound scien-tific design and a method for recruiting, train-ing, and retaining volunteers. The projectmust also gather, store, and analyze data andcommunicate the results. A citizen scienceproject must do everything a conventional sci-ence project does while also engaging volun-

16 esa © The Ecological Society of America • [email protected]


techniques for designing projects in ways thatfacilitate their evaluation (see FurtherReading for examples).

Investments in Data Management

Considering how to best manage data is animportant investment decision to ensure dataquality, access, and transparency. The amountof data available to the public is still a smallfraction of the data that exists, and althoughdata repositories are beginning to change thelandscape, scientific data are scattered far andwide. Standardizing data collection is criticalwhen organizations want to share informationto make more robust inferences or increasescale of observations over time and space.When data are shared or published, they areoften not publicly accessible because they areshielded by publishers or need to be translatedinto digital formats for redistribution andbroader use. Even when “open” data can beeasily downloaded, they rarely come with ade-quate documentation of data collection andanalysis methods, information on importantcaveats (e.g., appropriate level of inferenceand presence of questionable data), or instruc-tions for appropriate use and citation.

Citizen science is a notable exception inthat data are often more readily shared, butthey still fall prey to many of the same prob-lems as conventional research data. Data thatare not well documented can be impossible tointerpret appropriately and use responsibly.For example, without information about thecontext of data collection and details aboutdata quality processes, data users might judgethe data to be useless or make inappropriateassumptions. DataONE is developingresources for citizen science project organizersand professional scientists alike to help thembetter manage, document, and share theirdata. Practitioner guides to data managementand data policies are a first step to improvingaccess to citizen science data and increasingpotential for reuse. The first of these guideshas been published (see Further Reading), butmore resources are being developed and pub-lished all the time (see DataONE.org andCitizenScience.org).

Investments in Citizen Scienceas a Whole

In addition to investments that individualorganizations can make to specific citizen sci-ence projects, broader investment in the field

teers, which can require special expertise andalways takes time and resources. Some citizenscience projects require fewer resources than acomparable conventional science project, butsome require more. In large projects andthrough partnerships, organizations can takeadvantage of economies of scale.

Professional scientists usually play key rolesin citizen science projects. Because credibilityis essential, scientists help ensure rigorousexperimental design, quality control and assur-ance, and use of accepted standard analyticaland statistical techniques. Sometimes, organi-zations need to develop a skilled multidiscipli-nary team, furnish tools necessary to imple-ment a project, and provide a system forevaluating the quality of the project.

Having a skilled multidisciplinary team isoften critical for reaching a project’s goals forgenerating science as well as public input andengagement. In general, no one person knowsenough about every aspect of a citizen scienceproject or has the time to run the projectalone. Having both social and biophysical sci-entists and specialists working together on thesame team can improve research outcomes forboth science and management while alsoimproving the design of future projects. Suchmultidisciplinary teams are often built throughpartnerships among multiple organizations.

Furnishing tools for citizen science projectsis also important, whether new tools areneeded or existing ones can be used oradapted. The tools needed to support partici-pation depend on a project’s goals, technology,information management systems, data poli-cies and guidelines, and communication sys-tems. CitizenScience.org lists many of thetools available and the steps that should beconsidered when planning a citizen scienceproject.

Citizen science projects also require invest-ments in systems for evaluating the quality ofprocesses and outcomes. Is the process engag-ing the right people and generating the rightdata? Are volunteers engaged and remaininginvolved? Are the goals for science and publicinput and engagement being met? The evalua-tion systems can be internal or external to aproject or organization. They should be part ofan adaptive management system, with mecha-nisms in place for improving a project’s imple-mentation based on the results of ongoingmonitoring and evaluation. An expandingsuite of reports, peer-reviewed papers, andother resources describes methods for evaluat-ing projects and their outcomes and provides

of citizen science as a whole is needed to spurinnovation and the development and adop-tion of best practices. Investments are neededin shared resources, particularly tools for plan-ning and implementing citizen science pro-jects, and in platforms for fostering communi-cation across projects and disciplines. Suchinvestments will cut costs, reduce the time ittakes to generate results, and facilitate growthand maturity in the field of citizen science.Some major areas to consider are:

Standard Protocols. Developing a sharedprotocol library (such as the NationalEnvironmental Methods Index) and encourag-ing the use of common data standards (such asfor water quality monitoring) will enable stan-dardization of protocols and datasets, maximiz-ing the value and durability of the data col-lected. The North American Breeding BirdSurvey is a prime example of using standard-ized protocols and datasets (Case Study 1).Making sample budgets available would helporganizations anticipate project startup andoperational costs.

Technology. Investing in the developmentof sensor technology will improve the qualityand lower the cost of data produced throughcitizen science projects. For example, lack ofreadily available low-cost air quality monitor-ing technology has made community air qual-ity monitoring lag behind volunteer monitor-ing in other areas, such as water quality. Inresponse, the Environmental ProtectionAgency has launched the Next-Generation ofAir Monitoring initiative to promote thedevelopment and use of low-cost portable airsensors for air quality monitoring.

Data Collection and Analysis. Developingtechniques to share and analyze large quanti-ties of data collected by different projectsacross large areas will further improve thevalue of citizen science in tackling major chal-lenges, such as tracking great migrations ordocumenting changes in species ranges. Whatfeatures should generalized tools for citizen sci-ence have? Assessments are underway to iden-tify the corresponding needs and developstrategies for meeting them. For example,CitSci.org is assessing needs, piloting techni-cal solutions, and evaluating and refining theresulting tools in an effort to develop a cus-tomizable, reusable plug-and-play package thatprovides much of the software needed todevelop and run a citizen science project fornatural resource management. Other organiza-tions are pursuing similar projects. Such effortswill minimize the need to develop indepen-

dent software for each new citizen science pro-ject.

Communication. Citizen science—and sci-ence in general—depend on collaboration forthe smooth flow of information.Corresponding social and organizational struc-tures and policies improve the communicationof data, facilitating awareness of best practicesand innovation as ideas are exchanged acrossprojects, disciplines, and organizations. A con-sortium of universities, government groups,and nongovernmental organizations thatinvest in citizen science has worked with thebroad community of citizen scienceresearchers, educators, and practitioners toform the international Citizen ScienceAssociation. Various agencies are developingcomplementary internal and external coordi-nation networks across and within disciplinesand geographic regions (Case Study 8). Theassociation and its complementary networkswill help meet communication needs; providepoints of entry for people new to the field; andpromote best practices and professional devel-opment while providing project evaluationand other supporting services. The associationaims to help the field of citizen science set andattain high standards of scientific rigor andprovide opportunities for professional develop-ment. Most of the coordination networks arevery new and need more funding and othersupport. Federal, state, and municipal agenciesmight consider investing in the activities ofthe Citizen Science Association.

Centers. Citizen science centers focused onvarious disciplines, such as conservation, pub-lic health, and biochemistry, will promote citi-zen science standards, technology, data collec-tion and analysis, and communication. Acenter (virtual or physical) for citizen scienceon natural resource management and environ-mental protection, for example, could bringtogether leaders operating at different scales(from global to individual protected areas) todevelop solutions to shared and complex chal-lenges. Challenges could include integratingdata from across projects; creating visualiza-tions and other data products that are useful tomanagers, policymakers, and the public; evalu-ations or systematic reviews of techniques tomaximize positive science, management, orengagement outcomes; and efficient methodsfor planning, implementing, and sustainingprojects that involve multiple organizations.The USA National Phenology Network (CaseStudy 8) is a successful model that is relativelyfocused.



Conclusions

Citizen science is already contributing to sci-ence and natural resource and environmentalmanagement and policymaking. Every year,tens of thousands of volunteers take to theforests, grasslands, wetlands, coasts, lakes,streams, and even their own backyards to pro-vide high-quality, usable scientific information.Many large and longstanding projects wouldnot be possible without volunteers; they pro-duce long-term datasets, collect data over largegeographic areas, detect rare events and species,and address areas of research that would other-wise be neglected. Citizen science has madeclear contributions to science, contributing tomany peer-reviewed publications and extensivedatasets that natural resource and environmen-tal managers need. Citizen science increases thepotential for serendipitous knowledge discoveryand creates information that goes into policyformulation, planning, and management activi-ties at various levels of government.

Citizen science also provides benefitsbeyond science, offering the opportunity foran open discourse based on scientific knowl-edge that more people can access, understand,and trust. Through citizen science, organiza-tions benefit from partnerships and from broadpublic perspectives, including local and tradi-

tional knowledge. Citizen science can increasescientific and environmental literacy andextend public involvement with naturalresource and environmental managers andother decisionmakers in decisionmaking.Through citizen science, organizations canbetter see patterns and gaps, helping them setpriorities and allocate resources. By spreadingscientific knowledge and engaging more peo-ple in policy formulation, citizen science canhelp organizations make choices that lead tobetter environmental and social outcomes andavoid unnecessary conflict.

However, citizen science is not a panacea.Although it offers many advantages, it is notalways the right instrument to meet an organi-zation’s needs for scientific information orpublic input and engagement. Before begin-ning a citizen science project, an organizationshould weigh its needs against the strengthsand weaknesses of possible citizen sciencedesigns. If an organization chooses to proceedwith citizen science, then it should set clearexpectations for what citizen science can andcannot do. Further research is needed to betterunderstand the extent to which engaging thepublic through citizen science can buildunderstanding and deliver other benefits fornatural resource management and environ-mental protection and policymaking.




Case Study 1. North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS)

Spatial range: Temporal range: Level of training:local to national long term (> 10 years) basic, but engages experienced birders

History: Established in 1966, the BBS is a cooperativeeffort between the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS’s)Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and EnvironmentCanada’s Canadian Wildlife Service (ECCWS) to monitorthe status and trends of North American bird populations.

Management goals: The main goal of the program isspecies management by monitoring changes in bird popu-lations and distributions across North America and inform-ing researchers and wildlife managers of significantchanges.

Level of volunteer participation in scientific process:Volunteers conduct bird surveys and enter the informationcollected into a professionally managed online database,but they do not formally participate in project design or inanalysis and interpretation of the data.

Level of volunteer participation in public involvement:Public engagement is not a central focus, although theproject might stimulate public action.

Sustainability: Professional managers, coordinators, researchers, and statisticians compile, curate, analyze, and deliver volunteer-col-lected information to policymakers, managers, and the general public. Researchers and the general public have free access toprocessed data in perpetuity.

Science: Data generated by the BBS have contributed to over 500 peer-reviewed papers.Public input and engagement: Educators use BBS data for basic instruction in a number of scientific disciplines.

Investment: The project has long-term funding through the USGS and ECCWS. Additional funding from other sources supportsresearchers’ use of data for publication.

Outcomes/outputs/benefits: An analysis of BBS citations in the Federal Register (the daily journal that records and documents fed-eral actions) shows that BBS data are used in many policy decisions, including in the implementation of far-reaching legislation such asthe Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. For example, the FederalRegister cited the BBS in a Petition to List Two Populations of Black-Backed Woodpecker as Endangered or Threatened (April 2013), aproposal for endangered status for the Gunnison sage-grouse (January 2013), and a proposal to list the streaked horned lark as threat-ened and to designate critical lark habitat (October 2012) (can be accessed at www.regulations.gov).

The following quotes reflect the value of the BBS to decisionmakers:We conclude that, while the BBS is the only long-term trend information available for the mountain plover on its breedingrange, it is an imprecise indicator of mountain plover population trends. … Even so, we acknowledge that this is the bestavailable information on trends for this species and BBS survey results suggest a recent (1999 through 2009) moderated rateof decline. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from the withdrawal of the petition to list the mountain plover as threatened, May2011)

[L]ong-term estimates of Sprague’s pipit abundance have come from the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), a long-term, large-scale survey of North American birds that began in 1966. The BBS is generally conducted by observers driving along setroutes. … Since there is some evidence that Sprague’s pipits avoid roads (Sutter et al. 2000, p. 114), roadside surveys maynot be the best measure of abundance of Sprague’s pipits, for example. Nonetheless, the methods of the BBS have beenconsistent through time, and the BBS provides the best available trend information at this time. (U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, from the 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s pipit as Threatened or Endangered, December 2009)

Bird counting group.Photo credit: Joan Condon. Courtesy of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.



Case Study 2. Volunteer Water Monitoring: Natural Resource and Environmental Policy Outcomes

Program coordinators of U.S. volunteer water monitoring pro-grams were surveyed in 2013, with the survey covering 345programs supporting more than 1,300 subprograms. Fifty-one percent of the 296 respondents indicated that one of theirprogram objectives was to obtain data for use in effectingchange to natural resource and environmental policy (see thefirst graphic below), and a third reported having used the datacollected for just this purpose. Most used the data to affectoutcomes at the state and local levels (see the secondgraphic below). The scope of volunteer water monitoring pro-grams varies: about 40 percent monitor a single water bodyor watershed, and about half operate statewide or acrossmultiple watersheds. Fewer programs operate across statelines or nationally. Programs were initiated between 1965 and2012. Nearly half have been collecting data for more than 16years.

About three-quarters of the survey respondents indicatedusing data collected by volunteers to develop, change, orenforce a policy or regulation. Examples include the develop-ment of ordinances to: stop shoreline waterfowl feeding; cre-ate oyster sanctuaries; require mandatory pet waste cleanupin specified areas; expand ultraviolet disinfection periods at awastewater treatment plant; and require slow zones or no-wake zones for boats to minimize the spread of invasivespecies. The programs also used data to identify faulty septic systems, improper wastewater treatment plant discharges, illegal con-

nections in municipal stormwater systems, and (in an impressive 67 percentof all cases) failure to meet water quality standards. These data also con-tributed to listings of impaired waters and to definitions of total maximumdaily loads (TMDLs) for state reporting to EPA under the Clean Water Act(TMDLs describe allocation limits for pollutants in water bodies). Dam own-ers, city and county stormwater districts, wastewater treatment plants, andindividuals required to comply with forestry best management practices havehad permits altered based on results of volunteer monitoring. Moreover,additional monitoring has been required by permittees. Among other factors,program age was significantly related to increased natural resources policyand management outcomes at larger geographic scales. In one instance,volunteer data from a 32-year-old program became the sole source of waterquality data for the natural resources agency due to budget cuts. Theseexamples clearly show that citizen science can contribute to natural resourceand environmental policy and management.

A volunteer collects a water sample in a stream.Photo credit: Kristine Stepenuck.

a) Survey responses on program objectives, b) level of government at which data have been used to develop, change, or enforce a policy orregulation, c) geographic scope of monitoring programs, d) distribution of program ages. Data source: Stepenuck, K.F. 2013. Improvingunderstanding of outcomes and credibility of volunteer environmental monitoring programs. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Wisconsin,Madison. Available at: http://aquadoc.typepad.com/files/stepenuck_dissertation-final.pdf

(a)

(b) (c) (d)


100

80

60

40

20

0Per

cent

age

of p

rogr

ams

Objective

Involv

e the

commun

ity

Educate

the p

ublic

Create

long-

term data

set

Address l

ack o

f data

Identify

polluti

on prob

lems

Educate

youth

Create

cons

isten

cy in

meth

ods

Obtain d

ata to

affec

t NR poli

cy

Study r

estor

ation

outco

mes

Provide d

ata fo

r stat

e/

tribal

WQ re

ports

Address e

nviro

nmen

tal cr

isis

Answer

a res

earch

questi

on

n = 296

Geographic Scope of Programs Program Age

Local waterbody or single watershedMulti-watershedStatewideMulti-state or RegionalNationalOther

1 to 8 years8 to 16 years17 to 24 years25 to 32 years33 to 40 years41 to 48 years

41%

29%

18%

7%4%1%

23%

31%

31%

11%

2%2%n = 293 n = 227

Level of Governmentn = 98

Level of Government at Which Volunteer Water Monitoring Data HaveBeen Used to Develop, Change, or Enforce a Policy or Regulation

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Town or Country Tribal State Federal Other

City


Case Study 3. The U.S. Forest Service’s New Planning Rule

Spatial range: Temporal range: Level of training:local to national long term (>10 years) basic to extensive

History: The U.S. Forest Service manages 193 million acres of forest, grass-land, and other ecosystems. The National Forest Management Act requireseach national forest or grassland to adopt a long-term management plandesigned to guide projects and other management activities over a 10- to15-year period. An agencywide planning rule is used to guide developmentof resource management plans. In 2012, the Forest Service adopted a newrule for land management planning. The new rule recognizes that scientificknowledge, though essential, is not the exclusive basis for effective man-agement of the National Forest System. The rule calls on Forest Serviceunits to utilize local and traditional knowledge. It also directs each unit toengage the public at the beginning of its planning process for maximumtransparency.

Management goals: The Forest Service’s fundamental goal is maintainingand restoring ecosystem and watershed health and resilience in order toprotect water, air, soil, and other resources. The planning rule calls for mon-itoring species diversity and viability, activities that are particularly wellsuited to citizen science. Satisfying such robust science needs in support ofmanagement proposals might only be possible with volunteers.

Level of volunteer participation in science: The public and volunteers associated with nongovernmental organizations provide sub-stantial input on what to monitor. Volunteers monitor a wide range of ecological, social, and economic indicators in order to providefeedback that natural resource managers can use in the planning process.

Science: Because the planning rule is new and only now being implemented, volunteers are still collecting the data required for thescience outcomes that land managers need. The type of monitoring has expanded to include effectiveness (management goals) andvalidation monitoring (test hypothesis) in addition to the implementation monitoring (projects/targets) that the agency has been doingfor decades.

Public input and engagement: The 2012 planning rule calls on Forest Service units to utilize local and traditional knowledge in addi-tion to the best available science in planning their management activities. The planning rule directs each unit to engage the public atthe beginning of its planning process for maximum transparency. In addition, it calls for collaboration with the public in identifying whatto monitor, and it encourages public participation in the monitoring process to assess the ecological, economic, and social impacts ofmanagement actions.

Investment: Funding for the Forest Service’s land and resource management planning and forest plan implementation is provided bythe federal appropriations process on an annual basis. In some cases, partnerships with other organizations are important, includingwith nongovernmental organizations and industry groups.

Outcomes/outputs/benefits: The planning rule presents new opportunities to engage the public beyond existing requirements forpublic notices and formal processes. In addition, by encouraging citizen engagement early on in the planning process, the new rulecreates direct opportunities for knowledge gained through citizen science to affect land management and public policy discussions.Citizen science (mainly through monitoring) can provide continuous information to meet science needs and possibly more capacity torespond to unplanned events, such as catastrophic wildfires and insect epidemics.

Forest Service employees gathering public inputduring a planning process. Photo credit: USDA Forest Service National Collaboration Cadre.



Case Study 4. The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program: Uncompahgre Plateau Project

Spatial range: Temporal range: Level of training:regional long term (> 10 years) basic

History: The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) encouragesthe collaborative, science-based restoration of high-priority forested landscapes man-aged by the U.S. Forest Service and its partners. The program addresses the uncertain-ties of managing landscapes exposed to damaging wildfires. To minimize conflicts overmanagement activities, the CFLRP involves a wide variety of local, state, and federal part-ners, as well as numerous private organizations, including environmental nongovernmen-tal organizations. The program has implemented 23 projects across the country using anadaptive management approach, with an emphasis on multiparty monitoring. A numberof CFLRP projects use citizen science.

Management goals: The primary goal of the CFLRP is to reduce wildfire managementcosts by reestablishing natural fire regimes and to reduce the risk of uncharacteristicallysevere wildfires. For example, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project in Colorado calls for pre-scribed burning and reestablishing native vegetation in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre,and Gunnison National Forests. Citizen science volunteers are measuring key vegetationand wildlife variables before and after treatment and will continue to do so at specifiedintervals.

Level of volunteer participation in scientific process: Forest Service personnel typi-cally conduct field measurements as part of normal operations, with help from outsideexperts (such as academic researchers) and citizen science volunteers. Partners(including local residents) are helping to formulate research questions and experimen-tal design as part of adaptive management. Citizen science volunteers are organizedby the Uncompahgre Partnership, a collaborative group that includes the Forest Service and other partners and guides projectimplementation.

Level of volunteer participation in public involvement: The project emphasizes collaborative decisionmaking, with multiple opportu-nities for public input. At monitoring meetings held at least twice a year, partners discuss monitoring priorities. By project design, citi-zen science is a major tool for public engagement.

Sustainability: The program’s funding authority expires in 2019. The project’s many partners contribute to project funding.

Science: Citizen science volunteers measure various ecological indicators, including ground cover, plant composition and height, andthe presence of various plant and animal species. Science outcomes are used directly by the forest managers. Data are archived andpublished in technical reports and peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Public input and engagement: Public input is solicited early and often. The Forest Service and its partners engage the public through-out the adaptive management cycle, from issue identification, to decisionmaking, to monitoring of project outcomes. Public input alsocomes from the usual formal processes, such public comment periods.

Investment: Total funding for the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, including partner funds, was about $1.7 million in fiscal year 2012,with about $165,000 allocated for monitoring activities. Monitoring is required during the project and for 15 years after its completion.

Outcomes/outputs/benefits: In 2012, the Uncompaghre project improved, restored, or enhanced 8,202 acres of wildlife habitat,improved 1,205 acres of forest vegetation, managed noxious and invasive plants on 222 acres, sold over 500,000 cubic feet of timber,decommissioned about 30 miles of roads, and reduced hazardous fuels on 771 acres in the wildland-urban interface, just to name afew accomplishments.

A professional trains volunteers on how tomeasure tree cover for lynx habitat. Photo credit: Pam Motley, Uncompahgre Partnership.



Case Study 6. Strategic Investment in Citizen Science: The Wisconsin Citizen-Based MonitoringNetwork

The community of professionals and volunteers engaged in monitor-ing natural resources and the environment in Wisconsin formed theWisconsin Citizen-Based Monitoring (CBM) Network, a comprehen-sive group of stakeholders who are collaborating to improve the effi-ciency and effectiveness of monitoring throughout the state. Thenetwork is made up of CBM practitioners from over 150 programsrepresenting an array of organizations, including primary and sec-ondary schools; county, state, and federal agencies; nature centers;conservation clubs; land trusts; and other nongovernmental organi-zations.

The network is coordinated and supported by the WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources (WDNR). A WDNR employeeserves as full-time network coordinator, and the department invests$100,000 each year in small ($5,000) competitive contracts for CBMprojects that meet high-priority needs for data. In addition, 10 to 20department scientists lead individual projects or provide advice, andthe department supports an advisory council drawn from volunteergroups. The council works with the department to identify monitor-ing priorities, help evaluate the effectiveness of the network, andensure agency responsiveness to network needs.

Through these investments, the state is able to meet its dataneeds over much larger areas and timespans than could be coveredby staff scientists alone. Financial support for the network allows thestate to stretch its limited conservation dollars; for every $1 spent onCBM contracts, the state receives more than $3 worth of volunteer time. Wisconsin’s state-supported network for citizen science helpsengage and inform thousands of students and citizens every year, broadening public support for the state’s conservation goals.

Volunteers wait for dusk to count bats emerging from roost boxesat Yellowstone Lake State Park. Data they collect helps theWisconsin Department of Natural Resources monitor native batpopulations. Photo credit: Heather Kaarakka.

Case Study 5. Clean Air Coalition of Western New York: Tonawanda Air Quality Study

Spatial range: Temporal range: Level of training:Local short term (1-3 years) basic

History: Tonawanda, NY, is an urban area in western New York with some of the state’s largest industrial facilities.

Management goals: Concerned about smells and smoke, citizens suspected a connection to chronic health problems in their com-munity. The goal was to identify the cause of the health problems with the hopes of ultimately mitigating them.

Level of volunteer participation in science: Volunteers collected air samples using the bucket method to find out what was in the air.

Level of volunteer participation in public involvement: Volunteers, organized as the Clean Air Coalition of Western New York, pre-sented their data to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Sustainability: The coalition has moved on to other projects. According to its website, “The Clean Air Coalition builds power by devel-oping grassroots leaders who organize their communities to run and win environmental justice and public health campaigns in westernNew York.”

Science: Following standard protocol, the bucket takes a 3-minute “grab sample”—a single sample of air, at one point in time, with noother information collected. The study included such factors as wind speed and direction. Elevated levels of benzene, a known car-cinogen, were found to be above the DEC’s health-based annual guideline concentrations.

Public input and engagement: Citizens articulated community concerns and presented air quality data to state and federal regulatoryagencies. The evidence collected by the citizens and subsequent public input to the DEC were compelling enough to warrant the atten-tion of the agencies.

Investment: The initial volunteer-led project did not require any agency investment. Based on results from the citizen science project,the New York DEC used funding from an EPA Community-Scale Air Toxics Ambient Monitoring Grant to undertake a year-long study ofthe air quality in Tonawanda using EPA air monitors.

Outcomes/outputs/benefits: Spurred by what the citizens initially found, the DEC used air monitors at four locations to measure 56air toxins. Its year-long investigation formed the basis for compliance monitoring and regulatory actions by EPA and the New York DEC.As a result, the Tonawanda Coke Corporation agreed to improve operations, monitor for leaks, and upgrade pollution controls,decreasing benzene levels in the air by 86 percent.



Case Study 7. Using Existing Citizen Science Tools: eBird and iNaturalist

Spatial range: Temporal range: Level of training:local to national long term (> 10 years) basic, online, or workshop training

History: Many citizen science programs facilitate collection of data important for natural resource management and environmental pro-tection organizations. In recent years, the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have encouraged volunteers to useeBird and iNaturalist to record observations of birds and other species in national parks and wildlife refuges. These programs haveonline interfaces that volunteers can use to submit data, and they provide data storage, curation, and quality control services. Theyhelp parks and refuges solve one of their most basic science and management problems: tracking the identity and abundance ofspecies.

Management goals: Parks and refuges use these programs to keep up-to-date information on the species that occur on their landsand to monitor changes in their abundance and life cycles.

Level of volunteer participation in scientific process: Participants in both eBird and iNaturalist primarily record observations ofspecies in the field. Participants can also explore online visualization and analysis tools.

Level of volunteer participation in public involvement: Many parks and refuges use these programs to develop relationships withlocal volunteers who already have or will develop expert knowledge on local biodiversity. Park and refuge staff can later turn to thesevolunteers for information and input related to management decisions.

Sustainability: The projects are generally sustainable as long as the park or refuge is able to train, coordinate, and retain volunteers.By using existing online infrastructures, the parks and refuges greatly reduce project costs.

Science: eBird and iNaturalist have been utilized in dozens of peer-reviewed papers and national assessments, such as reports on thestate of birds on public and private lands.

Public input and engagement: Parks and refuges use these programs to encourage public input and engagement in managementdecisions, as appropriate. For example, a refuge might ask its most active eBird volunteers to comment on management decisions thataffect bird habitat.

Investment: Parks and refuges train and coordinate volunteers. They also invest in other activities, such as national training for parkand refuge staff; the deployment of kiosks or displays to facilitate volunteer recruitment, data entry, and education; and developmentof techniques to integrate citizen science data into agency data management structures, such as NPSpecies, the system that nationalparks use to track species within their borders.

Outcomes/outputs/benefits: By using citizen science programs, refuges and parks can affordably meet some of their most basicmonitoring needs. Programs like eBird and iNaturalist already engage tens of thousands of volunteers and generate hundreds of mil-lions of observations. They provide data that park and refuge staff can use in making a variety of management decisions. Volunteerscan also become important resources for park and refuge managers as sources of expertise on local biodiversity.

Heat maps show the northward migration of the chimney swift as modeled by the eBird network. Darker colors indicate higher probabilitiesof finding the species.



Case Study 8. Investing in Capacity: The USA National Phenology Network

Spatial range: Temporal range: Level of training:local to national long term (> 10 years) basic, online, or workshop training

History: Changes in the timing of seasonal events, such as flow-ering, migrations, and breeding, amount to some of the mostsensitive biological responses to climate change. Such changesin timing can affect ecosystems, causing mismatches betweenplants and their pollinators or disruptions in predator-prey inter-actions, and they can alter the timing of management actions,such as invasive species control. Until recently, however, therehave been few monitoring or research programs focused on thetopic. The USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN) is anationwide science and monitoring initiative focused on phenol-ogy (the study of events in the life cycles of plants and animalsand changes in their timing). Stakeholders include researchers,resource managers, educators, and the public. The networkrelies on both conventional and citizen science.

Management goals: The USA-NPN seeks to enhance scientificunderstanding of phenology, improve decisionmaking using phe-nological data and information, support adaptive naturalresource management and environmental protection, facilitatesocietal adaptation to environmental variation and change, andimprove public understanding of climate change and the sci-ence of phenology.

Level of volunteer participation in scientific process:Participants in Nature’s Notebook, the multitaxa phenology-observing program run by the network to collect data observedon the ground, include both volunteers and professional scien-tists and managers. Participants record phenology of plants andanimals according to standardized published protocols andenter the data into a professionally managed database. Other governmental and nongovernmental organizations use Nature’sNotebook for information while contributing their own data to the broader effort. In early 2014, network staff estimated that about halfof the data in Nature’s Notebook came from professionals and professionally trained participants and the other half from individuals orsmall volunteer groups participating in the project. The professionals and volunteers use the same protocols for monitoring.

Level of volunteer participation in public involvement: Public engagement in data collection is key to the network, as are educationand outreach. Public involvement in resource management and policymaking, though of secondary importance, does happen as a partof partner projects, for example where phenology monitoring is part of local conservation projects.

Sustainability: The network’s national coordinating office, operated in cooperation with University of Arizona, is almost entirely feder-ally funded. The project has long-term funding from the U.S. Geological Survey. Additional funding from other sources, both govern-mental and nongovernmental, supports expansion of operations; the production of tools (such as mobile applications and customwebsites); and research, development, and delivery of products for a variety of purposes. Researchers and the general public have freeand easy access to raw and processed data in perpetuity.

Science: Data and data products generated by the USA-NPN have been used in seventeen peer-reviewed publications to date. TheUSA-NPN facilitates a community of practice among phenology researchers, identifies the needs of resource managers and environ-mental protection specialists for data and decision support tools, and communicates new insights.

Public input and engagement: The USA-NPN does not directly seek public input and engagement in management decisions, butmany partner projects do. The USA-NPN infrastructure establishes science methods and tools and lets local organizations focus onconservation applications and engagement.

Investment: The U.S. Geological Survey and other organizations provide about $1 million per year to the network. Many local, regional,and national partners leverage the network’s central infrastructure and make their own investments for research, management, andeducation applications.

Outcomes/outputs/benefits: To maximize limited resources, the network was designed as a national framework for phenology sci-ence and monitoring. Other governmental and nongovernmental organizations leverage its capacity for their own applications whilecontributing to the national dataset. Applications include identification of wildlife species vulnerable to climate change, parameteriza-tion and validation of models of carbon sequestration and water cycling, management of invasive species, planning of seasonal culturalactivities, forecasting seasonal allergens, managing agricultural production on working farms and ranches, and tracking disease vec-tors between continents and in human population centers.

Modeled onset of spring across the nation for 2014; color rampillustrates date when enough warmth has accumulated to initiateleafout of temperature-sensitive native and cultivated plants. Themodel links gridded meteorological data with observations of plantleafout date collected by citizen scientists since 1956; citizen sciencedata are now being used to validate the model as part of a“springcasting” campaign being conducted by the USA NationalPhenology Network.Image: T. Ault, Cornell University.


For Further ReadingAceves-Bueno, E., A.S. Adeleye, D. Bradley,

W.T. Brandt, P. Callery, M. Feraud, K.L.Garner, R. Gentry, Y. Huang, I.McCullough, I. Pearlman, S.A. Sutherland,W. Wilkinson, Y. Yang, T. Zink, S.E.Anderson, and C. Tague. 2015. Citizen sci-ence as an approach for overcoming insuffi-cient monitoring and inadequate stake-holder buy-in in adaptive management:Criteria and evidence. Ecosystems 18: 493-506. DOI: 10.1007/s10021-015-9842-4

Ballard, H.L., M.E. Fernandez-Gimenez, andV.E. Sturtevant. 2008. Integration of localecological knowledge and conventional sci-ence: a study of seven community-basedforestry organizations in the USA. Ecologyand Society 13: 37.

Bowser, A., and L. Shanley. 2013. New VisionsIn Citizen Science. Woodrow WilsonInternational Center for Scholars. Wash-ington, DC. Available at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/NewVisionsInCitizenScience.pdf

Bowser, A., and A. Wiggins. 2013. DataPolicies for Public Participation in Sci-entific Research: A Primer. DataONE:Albuquerque, NM. Available at:http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/toolkit/policy/

Danielsen, F., M.M. Mendoza, A. Tagtag, P.A.Alviola, D.S. Balete, A.E. Jensen, M. Eng-hoff, and M.K. Poulsen. 2007. Increasingconservation management action byinvolving local people in natural resourcemonitoring. AMBIO: A Journal of theHuman Environment 36: 566-570.

Danielsen, F., K. Pirhofer-Walzl, T.P. Adrian,D.R. Kapijimpanga, N.D. Burgess, P.M.Jensen, R. Bonney, M. Funder, A. Landa,N. Levermann, and J. Mad. 2013. Linkingpublic participation in scientific research tothe indicators and needs of internationalenvironmental agreements. ConservationLetters 7: 12-24. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12024

Dickinson, J.L. and R. Bonney (eds.). 2012.Citizen Science: Public Participation inEnvironmental Research. Cornell Univer-sity Press, Ithaca.

Ecological Society of America. 2012. Citizenscience (special issue). Frontiers in Ecologyand the Environment 10: 283-335.

Shirk, J.L., H.L. Ballard, C.C. Wilderman, T.Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E. Mc-Callie, M. Minarchek, B.V. Lewenstein,M.E. Krasny, and R. Bonney. 2012. Publicparticipation in scientific research: Aframework for deliberate design. Ecologyand Society 17: 29.

Silvertown, J. 2009. A new dawn for citizenscience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24:467-471.

Theobald, E.J., A.K. Ettinger, H.K. Burgess,L.B. DeBey, N.R. Schmidt, H.E. Froehlich,C. Wagner, J. HilleRisLambers, J. Tewks-bury, M.A. Harsch, and J.K. Parrish. 2015.Global change and local solutions: Tappingthe unrealized potential of citizen sciencefor biodiversity research. Biological Con-servation 181: 236-244.

Wieler, C. 2007. Delivery of ecological moni-toring information to decisionmakers. Areport for the Ecological Monitoring andAssessment Network, Environment Can-ada. International Institute for SustainableDevelopment. Available at http://www.csinrcid.ca/downloads/delivering_onitoring_info.pdf.

Relevant WebsitesCitizenScience.orgDataONE.orgCitSci.orghttp://www.scientificamerican.com/citizen-science/

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided byCooperative Agreement 12-CA-11221633-096 between the U.S. ForestService and the Ecological Society ofAmerica (ESA). Other funding and ser-vices were provided by the National ParkService and the Schoodic Institute atAcadia National Park. We would like tothank Kevin Bryant at the MeridianInstitute for facilitating the workshops.We also thank Cliff Duke, Jennifer Riem,and Jill Parsons at ESA for logistical sup-port. The views expressed in this paperdo not necessarily represent the views ofthe U.S. government or any of its depart-ments. Any use of trade, product, or firmnames is for descriptive purposes onlyand does not imply endorsement by theU.S. government.

About the Scientists

Heidi Ballard, School of Education,University of California, Davis, CA 95616Rick Bonney, Cornell Lab of Ornithology,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14850Owen Boyle, Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources, Madison, WI 53707Russell Briggs, Division of EnvironmentalScience and Forestry, State University of NewYork, Syracuse, NY 13210



Hutch Brown, Research and Development,USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC20250Stuart Chapin III, Department of Biology andWildlife Institute of Artic Biology, Universityof Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775Daniel M. Evans, AAAS Science &Technology Policy Fellow, Research andDevelopment, USDA Forest Service,Washington, DC 20250Rebecca French, AAAS Science &Technology Policy Fellow, Office of Researchand Development, US EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC 20460 David Hewitt, Academy of Natural Sciences,Philadelphia, PA 19103 and EvidentialPlanning and Management, LLC,Philadelphia, PA 19128Abraham J. Miller-Rushing, SchoodicEducation and Research Center, AcadiaNational Park, National Park Service, BarHarbor, ME 04609Duncan McKinley, Research andDevelopment, USDA Forest Service,Washington, DC 20250Julia Parrish, School of Aquatic and FisheriesSciences, University of Washington, Seattle,WA 98105Tina Phillips, Cornell Lab of Ornithology,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850 Peter Preuss, Office of Research andDevelopment, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC 20460 Sean Ryan, Department of BiologicalSciences, University of Notre Dame, NotreDame, IN 46556 Lea Shanley, Commons Lab of the Scienceand Technology Innovation Program,Woodrow Wilson International Center forScholars, Washington, DC 20004 Jennifer Shirk, Cornell Lab of Ornithology,Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850 Michael Soukup, Schoodic Institute atAcadia National Park, Winter Harbor, ME04693Kristine Stepenuck, University of WisconsinExtension, University of Wisconsin, Madison,WI 53706 Jake Weltzin, National Coordinating Officeof USA National Phenology Network, U.S.Geological Survey, Tucson, AZ 85721Andrea Wiggins, College of InformationStudies, University of Maryland College Park,College Park, MD 20742

Layout

Bernie Taylor, Design and layout

About Issues in Ecology

Issues in Ecology uses commonly understoodlanguage to report the consensus of a panel of sci-entific experts on issues related to the environ-ment. The text for Issues in Ecology is reviewedfor technical content by external expert review-ers, and all reports must be approved by theEditor-in-Chief before publication. This report isa publication of the Ecological Society ofAmerica. No responsibility for the viewsexpressed by the authors in ESA publications isassumed by the editors or the publisher.

Editor-in-Chief

Serita Frey, Department of Natural Resources& the Environment, University of NewHampshire, [email protected]

Advisory Board of Issues inEcology

Jessica Fox, Electric Power Research InstituteNoel P. Gurwick, SmithsonianEnvironmental Research CenterClarisse Hart, Harvard ForestDuncan McKinley, USDA Forest ServiceSasha Reed, U.S. Geological SurveyAmanda D. Rodewald, Cornell Lab ofOrnithologyThomas Sisk, Northern Arizona University

Ex-Officio Advisors

Valerie Eviner, University of California, DavisRichard Pouyat, USDA Forest Service

ESA Staff

Clifford S. Duke, Director of ScienceProgramsJennifer Riem, Science Programs Coordinator

Additional Copies

This report and all previous Issues in Ecologyare available electronically for free at

www.esa.org/issues.

Print copies may be ordered online or bycontacting ESA:

Ecological Society of America1990 M Street NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20036(202) 833-8773, [email protected]



investing in citizen science can improve natural …esa published by the ecological society of...

Documents