The OPAL bugs count survey: exploring the effects of urbanisation and habitat characteristics using citizen science

Abstract

39Citizen science projects can gather datasets with observation counts and spatiotemporal 40 coverage far in excess of what can easily be achieved using only professional scientists. area. Data samples were weighted according to identification experience and participant age 52 and analysed using canonical correspondence analysis, and tests of observation homogeneity. 53Species Quest species showed species-specific relationships with urbanisation, but broad 54 taxonomic groups did not show significant relationships with urbanisation. The latter were 55 instead influenced by habitat type and microhabitat availability. The approach used 56 demonstrates that citizen science projects with few barriers to entry can gather viable datasets 57 for scoping broad trends, providing that the projects are carefully designed and analysed to 58 ensure data quality. 59 60

To have your citizen science cake and eat it? Delivering research and outreach through Open Air Laboratories (OPAL)

“…The aim was to send all appropriate species level data to the National Biodiversity Network with the eventual target to make all data open access. In addition, academic journal papers were produced reporting on ecological results from the national surveys [ 19 , 32 – 35 ], specific regional research [ 36 – 39 ], methodological research [ 19 , 32 , 34 , 40 – 42 ], effective working practices [ 43 , 44 ], and perceptions of citizen science amongst scientists [ 11 ]. All outreach targets were reached and in many cases exceeded with a total of over 850,000 direct beneficiaries (i.e.…”

“…Data with a high level of inaccuracy were excluded from analysis and “this, together with the high level of participation makes it likely that results are a good reflection of spatial patterns [of pollution] and abundances [of lichens] at a national [England-wide] scale” [ 32 ]. For the Bugs Count Survey, information on the accuracy of different groups of participants was built into the analysis as a weight, so that data from groups (age and experience) that were on average more accurate, contributed more towards the statistical model [ 19 ]. This exemplifies that if data quality is being tracked, and sampling is well understood, then a decision can be made by the end user about which datasets are suitable for which purpose.…”

“…Some suggest [ 14 ] that citizen science “must place equal emphasis on scientific outcomes and learning outcomes” (p. 313) and many see striving to obtain both goals as a ‘win–win’ situation [ 18 , 19 ], where increased participation in science yields enhanced learning opportunities and advanced research outcomes [ 14 ]. Trade-offs can however be experienced.…”

Citizen science in schools: Engaging students in research on urban habitat for pollinators

“…Citizen science activities can be organized to match current school programmes, as activities can have greater impact if they are built into current curricula to enhance learning, rather than being treated as an extra‐curricular activity to fit in around core programmes (Bates et al . ). In addition, the research process should be at the forefront of activities, to ensure students appreciate they are contributing to ‘real’ science and scientific understanding (Bonney et al .…”

Species identification by conservation practitioners using online images: accuracy and agreement between experts

“…A good example of this is the submission of photographs from people who wish to identify a species or validate their observation. Whether as part of a citizen science project, through a local recording group, or simply ad-hoc observations, the process involves images being uploaded electronically for identification or verification by enthusiasts of varying expertise, for example, using iSpot ( http://www.ispotnature.org ), iNaturalist ( http://www.inaturalist.org ), iRecord ( http://www.brc.ac.uk/irecord/ ) and reddit ( http://www.reddit.com/r/species ) ( Bates et al, 2015 ; Silvertown et al, 2015 ; Daume & Galaz, 2016 ; Leighton et al, 2016 ; Burgess et al, 2017 ). These online communities conduct and collaborate in species identification, but cannot always do so with certainty.…”