Using Citizen Heritage Science to monitor remote sites; a comparison of two methods

Abstract

For large heritage organisations the monitoring and documentation of sites in their care presents considerable challenges; continual monitoring of the smaller, unstaffed and more remote sites is often not practical. Long-term trends, one off events or seasonal variations can sometimes go unnoticed or undocumented. However, heritage sites are often popular tourist destinations and can receive a high level of footfall from visitors who carry increasingly sophisticated mobile phones. It seems a logical conclusion that heritage organisations capitalize on using visitors’ images to record and monitor remote heritage sites. This research proposes Citizen Heritage Science as an effective method to gather reliable data for heritage sites. We compare two methods for data collection: a ‘guided’ approach, in which on-site signage prompts visitors to submit photographs of specific areas of a site; and an ‘open’ approach, in which the public is asked to send any photographs they have of the site in question. At the study sites in Scotland, Machrie Moor and Clava Cairns, the guided approach provided enough images to monitor specific risks to the site (erosion and flooding). Visitors conformed to the instruction provided and the majority of submitted images could be included in the analysis. The open approach was successful in gathering a large number of submissions during the national lockdown in the spring of 2020 in which access was restricted to heritage sites. Notably, the open approach led to more diverse images which was ultimately beneficial, resulting in a multi-faceted understanding of long-term changes in site interpretation and management. Finally, we found great benefit in storing the data in an accessible database; this meant research data was easily accessible for heritage managers in real time, requiring no specialist knowledge for access or analysis. This allowed for rapid responses to urgent one-off events, such as heritage crime. In summary, both approaches have potential to inform monitoring of heritage sites which would otherwise require significant resources to be more frequently monitored by staff. In presenting both methodologies we hope heritage institutions will be able to set up similar projects and continue research in the field of Citizen Heritage Science.