Toward an international definition of citizen science

Heigl, Florian; Kieslinger, Barbara; Paul, Katharina T.; Uhlik, Julia; Dörler, Daniel

doi:10.1073/pnas.1903393116

Cited by 160 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(11 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Applying such a perspective to a recent discussion about an international definition of CS one might, for instance, note how arguments making reference to different governance modes coexist without aligning. Heigl et al (2019) argue that defining minimum quality criteria for CS (mode 2) are essential for making CS a more acceptable source of data for decision-making (mode 1) as well as a more legitimate recipient of funding through grants (mode 3). In contrast, the response by Auerbach et al (2019) can be read as a claim not to delineate the methodological approaches and research designs that shall be considered part of CS (mode 2) based on criteria for showcasing CS projects on online platforms for attracting attention and participants (mode 4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Does Citizen Science “Do” Governance? Reflections from the DITOs Project

Göbel¹,

Nold

Berditchevskaia³

et al. 2019

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Citizen Science (CS) is intertwined with public policy in multiple ways, and the question of how CS can be a resource for decision-making is increasingly debated among those who organise projects as well as among politicians. Around the world, CS is considered relevant at various levels of governance from multilateral programmes, such as the United Nations Environment Programme, to supra-national institutions (the European Union) and individual member states exploring the value of CS for environmental reporting, education, and decision-making (POST 2014; Science Communication Unit 2013). Environmental protection agencies are recognising CS by issuing recommendations, cost-benefit analyses, and decision support for when to use CS to support implementation of regulatory environmental policy (NACEPT 2016; Pocock et al. 2014; Vohland et al. 2016). Increasing openness towards CS is also spreading beyond environmental and biodiversity monitoring to include health and food security, disaster response, and research policy (Schade et al. 2017). Policy publications that mention CS typically highlight its potential for multiple fields and implementations (McElfish, Pendergrass, and Fox 2016) as well as data management (Schade and Tsinaraki 2016). State-sponsored capacity building projects or consultations to develop national strategies for CS have been run in Germany (Bonn et al. 2016), France (Houllier and Merilhou-Goudard 2016), and Spain (Fundacion Ibercivis 2017). Finally, the CS practitioner community is starting to connect with decision makers to demonstrate the validity and benefits of CS (Hecker et al. 2018). Existing studies focus on how CS supports policy development, barriers, and regulatory support (e.g., Chapman and Hodges 2016). Haklay (2015) points out that policy dimensions of CS arise from geography, policy application area, and type of engagement. Existing empirical studies analyse CS projects along dimensions such as standards (Ottinger 2010), place (Newman et al. 2017), participation of stakeholders (Gobel, Martin, and Ramirez-Andreotta 2017), and data practices (Gabrys, Pritchard, and Barratt 2016). The literature typically identifies two roles for CS in policy contexts: As a data source for the development, implementation, or monitoring of regulation and as one of the targets for science policy. This idea rests on a set of basic assumptions: Politicians and formal political institutions are considered as central actors. "Science" and "politics" are understood as separate spheres, and policymaking is seen as a linear process where policy makers determine rules that CS feeds into.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Does Citizen Science “Do” Governance? Reflections from the DITOs Project

Göbel¹,

Nold

Berditchevskaia³

et al. 2019

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Citizen science (CS) is the practice of public participation and collaboration in scientific research to increase scientific knowledge. Through citizen science, people share and contribute to data monitoring and collection programs [92].…”

Section: Brief Description Of the Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Can Odors Be Measured? An Overview of Methods and Their Applications

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, citizens' attention towards air quality and pollution has increased significantly, and nowadays, odor pollution related to different industrial activities is recognized as a well-known environmental issue. For this reason, odors are subjected to control and regulation in many countries, and specific methods for odor measurement have been developed and standardized over the years. This paper, conceived within the H2020 D-NOSES project, summarizes odor measurement techniques, highlighting their applicability, advantages, and limits, with the aim of providing experienced as well as non-experienced users a useful tool that can be consulted in the management of specific odor problems for evaluating and identifying the most suitable approach. The paper also presents relevant examples of the application of the different methods discussed, thereby mainly referring to scientific articles published over the last 10 years.Atmosphere 2020, 11, 92 2 of 27 •Citizen science.Dynamic olfactometry and field inspection are the only methods specifically developed for odor measurement, which have been standardized at the European level [5][6][7].Other techniques, involving chemical characterization, are consolidated analytical techniques, commonly adopted to provide information about the odor properties of gaseous mixtures.Conversely, methods based on citizen science are quite new. Those techniques, based on the active involvement of citizens, have been proposed in recent years to address socio-environmental conflicts within the impacted communities [8,9]. In particular, these programs consist of the active involvement of citizens in the mapping and management of odor pollution problems, thereby allowing co-creation of local solutions together with industries, regional and local authorities, and odor experts [10,11]. With the aim to develop such innovative approaches based on so-called "extreme citizen science", in 2018, the Distributed Network for Odor Sensing, Empowerment, and Sustainability (D-NOSES) project was presented and has received funding from the European's Union Horizon 2020 Science with and for Society Call (SwafS) under grant agreement No. 789315. This project proposes a holistic approach, based on the cooperation of key stakeholders (citizens, regional and local authorities, industries, and odor experts) for the mapping and co-design of solutions, to researching, building, and suggesting an appropriate regulatory framework. Recognizing the lack of information about odor pollution and management as a limit for the successful adoption of citizen science for the management of odor problems, this review paper was conceived within the H2020 D-NOSES project with the purpose of raising awareness about odor pollution and providing a scientific background concerning odor impact assessment methods, which can be used by experienced as well as non-experienced users.This paper presents an overview of the methods that can be used for odor measurement, thereby excluding odor impact assessment techniques based on mat...

show abstract

“…The ACSC 2018, was also a milestone in the history of Österreich forscht, because the quality criteria for CS projects on Österreich forscht were presented and have become effective then (Heigl, Dörler, Bartar, et al, 2018). With this process, Österreich forscht was the first CS platform, which installed such rigorous and transparent criteria for listed projects (Heigl et al, 2019).…”

Section: "Generation Citizen Science"mentioning

confidence: 99%