The use and value of citizen science data in New Zealand

Peters, MA; Eames, Chris; Hamilton, David P.

doi:10.1080/03036758.2015.1051549

Cited by 28 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The past 20 years have seen a global increase in citizen science projects and interest in their facilitation (Bonney et al 2014;Peters et al 2015). The definition of citizen science used here aligns with Roy et al's (2012) description of "involvement of volunteers in science" (p. 5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Social Media as a Platform for a Citizen Science Community of Practice

Liberatore

Bowkett

MacLeod

et al. 2018

CSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Social Media as a Platform for a Citizen Science Community of Practice

Liberatore

Bowkett

MacLeod

et al. 2018

CSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This lack of integration is due to several factors, in particular, doubts about the reliability of volunteer-collected data , Hunsberger 2004, Gollan et al 2012, Bonney et al 2014. In New Zealand, such doubts among decision makers result in a lack of council support to maximize data quality and lend credibility to community monitoring, while doubts among volunteers reduce their motivation to continue collecting data (Peters et al 2015b). Providing evidence that community-based monitoring data can be reliable, therefore, would address a critical barrier to successful integration of community-based monitoring in decision making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most have concluded that, with appropriate resourcing and robust protocols, volunteer data agree closely enough with professional data for use in government http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss4/art32/ Involving community members in monitoring increases not only their ability to contribute data, but also their ability to discuss their knowledge with experts (described as "interactional expertise" by Carolan 2006). Community members participating in environmental monitoring also commonly show increased scientific literacy, greater awareness of local ecosystems and wider environmental issues, stronger social networks including relationships with local government, and greater interest in freshwater planning (Bliss et al 2001, Savan et al 2003, Overdevest et al 2004, Pollock and Whitelaw 2005, Stepenuck and Green 2015, Peters et al 2015b. All of these benefits may lead to more effective community engagement with government in freshwater decision making.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In New Zealand, although a majority of community environmental groups report sharing their monitoring data with project partners in government or science institutes (Peters et al 2015b), institutional systems for using volunteer data are lacking (Peters et al 2015b). This lack of integration is due to several factors, in particular, doubts about the reliability of volunteer-collected data , Hunsberger 2004, Gollan et al 2012, Bonney et al 2014.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Volunteer stream monitoring: Do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making?

Storey¹,

Wright‐Stow²,

Kin³

et al. 2016

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Recent freshwater policy reforms in New Zealand promote increased community involvement in freshwater decision making and management. Involving community members in scientific monitoring increases both their knowledge and their ability to discuss this knowledge with professionals, potentially increasing their influence in decision-making processes. However, these interactions rarely occur because, in particular, of perceptions that volunteer-collected data are unreliable. We assessed the agreement between volunteer (community group) and local government (regional council) data at nine stream sites across New Zealand. Over 18 months, community groups and regional council staff monitored, in parallel, a common set of water quality variables, physical habitat, periphyton and benthic macroinvertebrates that are routinely used by regional councils for statutory state of environment reporting. Community groups achieved close agreement (correlations ≥ 0.89, bias < 1%) with regional councils for temperature, electrical conductivity, visual water clarity, and Escherichia coli. For dissolved oxygen, nitrate, and pH, correlations were weaker (0.2, 0.53, and 0.4, respectively). Volunteer assessments of physical habitat were as consistent over time as those of councils. For visual assessments of thick periphyton growths (% streambed cover), volunteers achieved a correlation of 0.93 and bias of 0.1% relative to councils. And for a macroinvertebrate biotic index that indicates water and habitat quality, correlation was 0.88, bias was < 5%, and the average difference was 12% of the index score. Volunteers showed increased awareness of local freshwaters, understanding of stream ecosystems, and attentiveness to local and national freshwater issues. Most volunteers had shared their knowledge and interest with others in their community. Most groups had developed relationships with their regional council, and some volunteers became more interested in engaging in freshwater decision making. Given adequate professional support, community-based water monitoring can provide data reliable enough to augment professionally collected data, and increase the opportunities, confidence, and skills of community members to engage in freshwater decision making.

show abstract

“…Although groups' data are primarily used in situ, e.g. for managing their own projects (Peters et al 2015a), providing more cohesive evidence that outcomes from CBEM activities across community groups demonstrate improvements in biodiversity may strengthen the case for more secure, longer-term funding.…”

Section: Monitoring Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The current state of community-based environmental monitoring in New Zealand

Peters¹,

Hamilton²,

Eames³

et al. 2016

NZ J Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Volunteers engaged in community-based environmental monitoring (CBEM; a form of citizen science) can track changes in species abundance and distribution, measure ecosystem health, and provide data for local, regional and national environmental decision-making. A total of 296 environmental restoration-focused community groups throughout New Zealand responded to an online questionnaire, the objective of which was to investigate the current state of CBEM and contextual factors shaping groups' monitoring activities. Over one-half of groups reported using photo points and 5-Minute Bird Counts (5MBC), with just over one-third (35%; n=218) able to quantify their restoration project objectives through management outcome monitoring (e.g. 5MBC + predator control). Ecosystem monitoring toolkits specifically designed for community users were not widely used (19%; n=157). Groups managing larger areas (e.g. >8 ha), with medium to high partner support and working on Department of Conservation (DOC) or private land were more likely to be conducting their own monitoring. The number of active members in the group and average age of active members did not significantly influence monitoring activity. 'Random Forest' modelling showed that total project area had the strongest independent influence on whether and how groups undertook environmental monitoring. Major challenges for establishing new monitoring programmes were reported as a lack of funding, people (both 45%; n=98), and technical skills (31%). Overall, our results show that significant gains in CBEM could be made by targeting support towards groups managing small areas. The significant positive effect of partner support and constraints imposed by resourcing and technical skills on monitoring activity show that government agencies and science professionals could play a critical role in growing CBEM. Prioritising these collaborative partnerships to design and implement monitoring programmes will maximise the value of monitoring, by meeting groups' and potentially partners' information needs.

show abstract

The use and value of citizen science data in New Zealand

Cited by 28 publications

References 21 publications

Social Media as a Platform for a Citizen Science Community of Practice

Social Media as a Platform for a Citizen Science Community of Practice

Volunteer stream monitoring: Do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making?

The current state of community-based environmental monitoring in New Zealand

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About