A framework for evaluating and designing citizen science programs for natural resources monitoring

Abstract

We present a framework of resource characteristics critical to the design and assessment of citizen science programs that monitor natural resources. To develop the framework we reviewed 52 citizen science programs that monitored a wide range of resources and provided insights into what resource characteristics are most conducive to developing citizen science programs and how resource characteristics may constrain the use or growth of these programs. We focused on 4 types of resource characteristics: biophysical and geographical, management and monitoring, public awareness and knowledge, and social and cultural characteristics. We applied the framework to 2 programs, the Tucson (U.S.A.) Bird Count and the Maui (U.S.A.) Great Whale Count. We found that resource characteristics such as accessibility, diverse institutional involvement in resource management, and social or cultural importance of the resource affected program endurance and success. However, the relative influence of each characteristic was in turn affected by goals of the citizen science programs. Although the goals of public engagement and education sometimes complimented the goal of collecting reliable data, in many cases trade-offs must be made between these 2 goals. Program goals and priorities ultimately dictate the design of citizen science programs, but for a program to endure and successfully meet its goals, program managers must consider the diverse ways that the nature of the resource being monitored influences public participation in monitoring.

Using citizen science butterfly counts to predict species population trends

“…Despite relatively simplistic modeling and only a few years of available data, and contrary to the scepticism with which mass‐participation citizen science is sometimes viewed, we found that BBC can produce population change estimates for common butterflies comparable to standardized monitoring data collected by skilled recorders. These results establish BBC as an example of a citizen science win win (Chase & Levine ; Lakeman‐Fraser et al. ); a project focused on outreach and public engagement that generates meaningful scientific output.…”

Implementing and evaluating a citizen‐science program to support wildlife management: MI‐MAST

“…The design phase of citizen‐science programs is arguably the key variable to successful implementation and participation (Hall et al , Wald et al ). In designing MI‐MAST we were primarily guided by recommendations from the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and were able to achieve multiple elements that characterize successful programs such as 1) multiple coordinating institutions, 2) diverse partnerships in program management, and 3) monitoring a phenomenon that is easily accessible by the public and has ecological or social importance (Bonney et al , Chase and Levine ).…”

“…Citizen‐science programs can be structured using a variety of organizational models, 2 of which are bottom‐up and top‐down participation (Chase and Levine ). Bottom‐up models are used when stakeholders identify an issue and enlist experts to help guide them through the scientific process (Lawrence ).…”

“…A common strategy in operating a citizen‐science monitoring program is to create a semi‐independent organization that is operated by personnel from multiple organizations (Bonney et al , Silvertown , Shirk et al , Chase and Levine ). For MI‐MAST, we a priori recognized the value of 3 organizations, each with a specific role in MI‐MAST.…”

“…Extensive sampling is thus required to monitor mast production, but these monitoring requirements often exceed the logistic and financial capabilities of wildlife management agencies. To our knowledge no mast‐focused citizen‐science programs exists, but broader programs tracking plant phenology were available (Chase and Levine ).…”