Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: insights from Bumble Bee Watch

Abstract

Bumble Bee Watch is a community science program where participants submit photos of bumble bees from across Canada and the United States for expert verification. The data can be used to help better understand bumble bee biology and aid in their conservation. Yet for community science programs like this to be successful and sustainable, it is important to understand the participant demographics, what motivates them, and the outcomes of their participation, as well as areas that are working well or could be improved. It is also important to understand who verifies the submissions, who uses the data and their views on the program. Of the surveyed users, most participate to contribute to scientific data collection (88%), because of a worry about bees and a desire to help save them (80%), to learn more about species in their property (63%) or region (56%), and because of a personal interest (59%). About 77% report increased awareness of species diversity, while 84% report improvement in their identification skills. We found that 81% had at least one college or university degree. There were more respondents from suburban and rural areas than urban areas, but area did not affect numbers of submissions. While half were between 45 and 64 years of age, age did not influence motivation or number of submissions. Respondents were happy with the program, particularly the website resources, the contribution to knowledge and conservation efforts, the educational values, and the ability to get identifications. Areas for improvement included app and website functionality, faster and more detailed feedback, localized resources, and more communication. Most respondents participate rarely and have submitted fewer than ten records, although about five percent are super users who participate often and submit more than fifty records. Suggested improvements to the program may increase this participation rate. Indeed, increased recruitment and retention of users in general is important, and advertising should promote the outcomes of participation. Fifteen experts responded to a separate survey and were favorable of the program although there were suggestions on how to improve the verification process and the quality of the submitted data. Suggested research questions that could be asked or answered from the data included filling knowledge gaps (species diversity, ranges, habitat, phenology, floral associations, etc.), supporting species status assessments, effecting policy and legislation, encouraging habitat restoration and management efforts, and guiding further research. However, only about half have used data from the project to date. Further promotion of Bumble Bee Watch and community science programs in general should occur amongst academia, conservationists, policy makers, and the general public. This would help to increase the number and scope of submissions, knowledge of these species, interest in conserving them, and the overall program impact.

Using Bumble Bee Watch to investigate the accuracy and perception of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) identification by community scientists

“…This may be because experts have a lot more experience and training, look for features that users do not, and know more "exceptions" to the typical or standard appearance, and thus have less confusion or hesitation over identifications than users may have. The respondents to the user survey were not entirely representative of contributors to Bumble Bee Watch overall, with the respondents tending to submit more records than users overall (MacPhail, Gibson & Colla, 2020). It is possible that the rankings would be different than that given by a truly representative sample of contributors, particularly those who only submitted one record.…”

“…Users (members of the public who participate in this program) submit photo observations of bumble bees with known dates and geographic locations throughout Canada and the United States. Users are not required to have any prior experience with or training in bumble bee identification to participate in the program, and can range in age, ability and location (MacPhail, Gibson & Colla, 2020). Photo documentation reduces the need for traditional monitoring protocols and equipment, including physical collection and curation of collected specimens (Silvertown, 2009;Lye et al, 2011;Lebuhn et al, 2012;Kobori et al, 2016), although photos are not always sufficient to identify some bumble bee species due to either the photo quality or the physical features of the specimen that need to be examined (Lye et al, 2011;Suzuki-Ohno et al, 2017;Falk et al, 2019).…”

“…As the users who participate in the Bumble Bee Watch program have a range of bumble bee identification experience ranging from complete novice (majority of users) to expert (small number of users) (MacPhail, Gibson & Colla, 2020), there could be user bias or influence in the percent agreement between the user submitted name and expert verified one for some species. For example, if one user submitted most of the data for a specific species, and they are an individual with high identification accuracy, this could skew the percent agreement results as compared to species with identifications contributed by users with an average skill level.…”

“…A total of 342 individuals responded to the Bumble Bee Watch user survey, representing 5.4% of all Bumble Bee Watch participants (individuals who had submitted records to the program as of the survey close date) (MacPhail, Gibson & Colla, 2020). Fifteen of the 32 experts (46.9%) invited responded to the expert survey, with 8 selecting the Eastern Region as the area they were most familiar with and 7 selecting the Western Region.…”

“…Fifteen of the 32 experts (46.9%) invited responded to the expert survey, with 8 selecting the Eastern Region as the area they were most familiar with and 7 selecting the Western Region. Nine of the 15 responding experts (60%) had previously verified records on Bumble Bee Watch (MacPhail, Gibson & Colla, 2020). As respondents could skip questions, the total number of respondents (both users and experts) providing their ranked perception of ease of identification varied from two to 13 per species.…”