A typology of citizen science programs: How does the nature of the resource being monitored influence program methods and outcomes?

The term citizen science (CS) has been broadly defined as the involvement of volunteer non-professionals in the research process (Dickinson, Zuckerberg, & Bonter, 2010), representing a “nexus between science and education” (Newman et al., 2012). CS programs monitor a wide range of natural resources, spanning water quality, invasive species spread, monarch migrations, fishery populations, air quality, and urban bird populations (Conrad & Hilchey 2011). Such programs employ diverse techniques to engage citizens in science and monitoring (Dickinson, Zuckerberg, & Bonter 2010), using a variety of methods ranging from broad crowdsourced data collection, to self-funded volunteer data collection as a component of ecotourism, to outreach programs focused predominantly on public education, to community groups monitoring the condition of their local environment. Current typologies of this spectrum of CS programs focus predominantly on the structure of citizen participation or general project orientations and characteristics (Wiggins & Crowston 2011). To date, there has been no comprehensive review of CS programs to understand how the nature of the resource being studied influences the methods, outcomes, or appropriateness of participant engagement in CS.

This poster provides a comprehensive review of CS case studies and presents a typology of CS programs, exploring how critical characteristics of the resource being monitored, the type of information needed for scientific research and monitoring, and the ultimate goals of the program (research, monitoring, and/or education), influence the methods and approaches for public engagement in CS. The typology may be instructive for those wishing to incorporate CS into research and monitoring programs, providing insight regarding appropriate approaches for citizen engagement, as well as the strengths and limitations of CS for monitoring a range of natural resources. This improved understanding of the relationships between natural resource characteristics and program approaches and outcomes will inform the development of more effective CS programs.

References:

Brightsmith, D., Stronza, A., & Holle, K. (2008). Ecotourism, conservation biology, and volunteer tourism: A mutually beneficial triumvirate. Biological Conservation, 141(11), 2832-2842.

Conrad, C., & Hilchey, K. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental monitoring and assessment, 176(1-4), 273-291.

Dickinson, J., Zuckerberg, B., & Bonter, D. (2010). Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 41, 149-172.

Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., Newman, S., & Crowston, K. (2012). The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 298-304.

Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2011, January). From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Paper presented at the 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Koloa, HI.

2015 Conference

June 24–27, 2015

San Diego, CA

A typology of citizen science programs: How does the nature of the resource being monitored influence program methods and outcomes?

Type of Session

Abstract

Primary Contact

Sarah Chase, San Diego State University

Presenters

Sarah Chase, San Diego State University

E-mail address (preferred) or phone number

Title of paper

Co-Authors

Dr. Arielle Levine, PhD, San Diego State University

Chair, Facilitator, Or Moderators

Discussants

Workshop Leaders