Can Volunteers Collect Data that are Comparable to Professional Scientists? A Study of Variables Used in Monitoring the Outcomes of Ecosystem Rehabilitation

Abstract

Having volunteers collect data can be a cost-effective strategy to complement or replace those collected by scientists. The quality of these data is essential where field-collected data are used to monitor progress against predetermined standards because they provide decision makers with confidence that choices they make will not cause more harm than good. The integrity of volunteer-collected data is often doubted. In this study, we made estimates of seven vegetation attributes and a composite measure of six of those seven, to simulate benchmark values. These attributes are routinely recorded as part of rehabilitation projects in Australia and elsewhere in the world. The degree of agreement in data collected by volunteers was compared with those recorded by professional scientists. Combined results showed that scientists collected data that was in closer agreement with benchmarks than those of volunteers, but when data collected by individuals were analyzed, some volunteers collected data that were in similar or closer agreement, than scientists. Both groups' estimates were in closer agreement for particular attributes than others, suggesting that some attributes are more difficult to estimate than others, or that some are more subjective than others. There are a number of ways in which higher degrees of agreement could be achieved and introducing these will no doubt result in better, more effective programs, to monitor rehabilitation activities. Alternatively, less subjective measures should be sought when developing monitoring protocols. Quality assurance should be part of developing monitoring methods and explicitly budgeted for in project planning to prevent misleading declarations of rehabilitation success.

Citizen Science with GIS&T

“…Whereas in the past science was practiced by untrained amateurs, it is now largely the preserve of professionals; the work of amateur scientists may be viewed as substandard or of doubtful quality (Gollan et al, 2012). Herein lies the first and perhaps biggest challenge facing citizen science: gaining the acceptance and recognition of the scientific community and potential end-users of volunteer-gathered data.…”

“…In one study examining the integrity of volunteer data, Gollan et al (2012) compared scientist and volunteer efforts to collect data assessing the effectiveness of a rehabilitation project. The project had focused on reintroducing native plants to an area previously used for farming and industry in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, Australia.…”

“…Gollan et al (2012) suggest citizen science has the potential to bring society closer to science and to nature, bringing about a sense of ownership and helping create the kind of society that works to protect its natural environment. However, while many projects have recorded measurable improvements in scientific literacy, changes in attitude are notoriously difficult to measure.…”

“…• Gaining skills, increasing employability or changing career paths (Gollan et al, 2012) • Visiting attractive surroundings -if this is a major motivating factor for involvement, it can lead to problems sourcing volunteers for less attractive study sites (Van Swaay and Warren, 2012) • Social groups and connections (Grey, 2009;Grove-White et al, 2007) • Pre-existing knowledge or even expertise in area being investigated -in large-scale projects, especially citizen cyberscience projects, it will often be unknown how many amateurs are actually experts (Wiggins and Crowston, 2011) After a volunteer has begun contributing, other factors also come into play, such as attribution and recognition, and the perceived value of contributions. For example, in Old Weather (see Section 1.1), participants can gain the rank of 'lieutenant' or 'captain' after transcribing a certain number of ships' logs online (Gura, 2013).…”

“…org) for examples). Online training tools and video-sharing websites could also be put to better use in supporting training for field studies, as a way to revisit content and reach remote participants (Gollan et al, 2012).…”