The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2017, Pages

  Pocock, Michael J O ^a   Tweddle, John C ^b   Savage, Joanna ^a   Robinson, Lucy D ^b   Roy, Helen E ^a  

^a CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY   (United Kingdom)

^b DEPARTMENT OF LIFE SCIENCES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECOLOGY; FACTOR ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERNET; LANDSCAPE; MONITORING; SAMPLING; VOLUNTEER; INFORMATION PROCESSING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS;

DATA COLLECTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; ECOLOGY; HUMANS; INTERNET; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; VOLUNTEERS;

EID: 85016751428     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172579     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. 1. Pocock MJO, Roy HE, Preston CD, Roy DB. The Biological Records Centre: a pioneer of citizen science. Biol J Linn Soc. 2015; 115: 475-493.
2. Silvertown J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009; 24: 467-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 PMID: 19586682
3. Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, et al. Citizen science. Next steps for citizen science. Science. 2014; 343: 1436-7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251554 PMID: 24675940
4. Bonney R, Cooper C, Ballard H. The theory and practice of Citizen Science: Launching a new journal. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2016; 1.
5. Parliamentary Office of Science And Technology (POST). Environmental Citizen Science. London, UK: Houses of Parliament, Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology; 2014.
6. The Open Government Partnership. Second Open Government National Action Plan for the United States of America [Internet]. 2013 [cited 9 Jul 2015]. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/us-national-action-plan-6p.pdf
7. Socientize Consortium. White Paper on Citizen Science for Europe. Zaragoza, Spain: University of Zaragoza; 2014.
8. Federal Community of Practice on Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science. Federal Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Toolkit [Internet]. 2015 [cited 5 Oct 2015]. http://crowdsourcing-toolkit.sites.usa.gov/
9. Blaney RJP, Jones GD, Philippe ACV, Pocock MJO. Citizen Science and Environmental Monitoring: Towards a Methodology for Evaluating Opportunities, Costs and Benefits. Final Report on behalf of UKEOF. 2016. www.ukeof.org.uk
10. Tulloch AIT, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG. Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol Conserv. 2013; 165: 128-138.
11. Theobald EJ, Ettinger AK, Burgess HK, Debey LB, Schmidt NR, Froehlich HE, et al. Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biol Conserv. 2015;
12. Dickinson JL, Shirk J, Bonter D, Bonney R, L Crain R, Martin J, et al. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front Ecol Environ. 2012; 10: 291-297.
13. Miller-Rushing A, Primack R, Bonney R. The history of public participation in ecological research. Front Ecol Environ. 2012; 10: 285-290.
14. Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A, Simmons B. Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front Ecol Environ. 2016; 14: 551-560.
15. Hochachka WM, Fink D, Hutchinson RA, Sheldon D, Wong W-K, Kelling S. Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012; 27: 130-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.006 PMID: 22192976
16. Danielsen F, Pirhofer-Walzl K, Adrian TP, Kapijimpanga DR, Burgess ND, Jensen PM, et al. Linking public participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of international environmental agreements. Conserv Lett. 2014; 7: 12-24.
17. McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL, Bonney RE, Brown H, Evans DA, et al. Investing in citizen science can improve natural resource management and environmental protection. Issues in Ecology. 2015; 19.
18. Bonney R, Phillips TB, Ballard HL, Enck JW. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst Sci. 2016; 25: 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406 PMID: 26445860
19. The Royal Society. Excellence in Science: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. London, UK; 2006.
20. Sauermann H, Franzoni C. Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015; 112: 679-684. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408907112 PMID: 25561529
21. Cooper S, Khatib F, Treuille A, Barbero J, Lee J, Beenen M, et al. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature. 2010; 466: 756-760. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09304 PMID: 20686574
22. Rallapalli G, Saunders DG, Yoshida K, Edwards A, Lugo CA, Collin S, et al. Lessons from Fraxinus, a crowd-sourced citizen science game in genomics. Elife. 2015; 4.
23. Bonney R, Ballard H, Jordan R, Mccallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, et al. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), Washington, D.C.; 2009.
24. Wiggins A, Crowston K. Goals and tasks: Two typologies of citizen science projects. Proceedings of the Fourty-fifth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS-45). Wailea, HI; 2012. http://rails-test.floss.syr.edu/system/files/hicss-45-final.pdf
25. Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg K V, et al. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience. 2009; 59: 977-984.
26. Haklay M. Citizen Science and Policy: A European Perspective. Washington, DC; 2015. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/citizen-science-and-policy-european-perspective
27. Jordan R, Crall A, Gray S, Phillips T, Mellor D. Citizen science as a distinct field of inquiry. Bioscience. 2015; 65: 208-211.
28. Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, et al. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc. 2012; 17: 29-48.
29. Haklay M. Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: overview and typology of participation. In: Sui DZ, Elwood S, Goodchild MF, editors. Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Springer; 2013. pp. 105-122.
30. Pocock MJO, Chapman DS, Sheppard LJ, Roy HE. Choosing and Using Citizen Science: a guide to when and how to use citizen science to monitor biodiversity and the environment. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; 2014. http://www.ceh.ac.uk/citizen-science-best-practice-guide
31. Wiggins A, Crowston K. From Conservation to Crowdsourcing: A Typology of Citizen Science. Proceedings of the Forty-fourth Hawai'i International Conference on System Science (HICSS-44). Koloa, HI; 2011.
32. Wiggins A, Crowston K. Surveying the citizen science landscape. First Monday. 2015; 20.
33. Roy HE, Pocock MJO, Preston CD, Roy DB, Savage J, Tweddle JC, et al. Understanding Citizen Science & Environmental Monitoring. Final Report on behalf of UK-EOF. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire; 2012.
34. Muggeo VMR. Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Stat Med. 2003; 22: 3055-3071. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1545 PMID: 12973787
35. Muggeo VMR. segmented: an R Package to Fit Regression Models with Broken-Line Relationships. R News. 2008; 8/1: 20-25. http://cran.r-project.org/doc/Rnews/
36. Husson F, Josse J, Le S, Mazet J. FactoMineR: Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Mining with R. R package version 1.25. [Internet]. 2013. http://cran.r-project.org/package=FactoMineR
37. Borcard D, Gillet F, Legendre P. Numerical Ecology with R. New York: Springer; 2011.
38. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Third edition. New York: HarperCollins; 1996.
39. McKelvey B. Organizational systematics: taxonomic lessons from biology. Management Science. 1978; 24: 1428-1440.
40. Ruhlen M. On the Origin of Languages: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press; 1994.
41. John OP. Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In: Buss DM, Cantor NE, editors. Personality Psychology. New York: Springer; 1989.
42. Worton BJ. Kernel methods for estimating the utilization distribution in home-range studies. Ecology. 1989; 70: 164-168.
43. Calenge C. The package "adehabitat" for the R software: A tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Modell. 2006; 197: 516-519.
44. Jammalamadaka SR, SenGupta A. Topics in Circular Statistics. Singapore: World Scientific Press; 2001.
45. Agostinelli C, Lund U. R package "circular": Circular Statistics (version 0.4-7). 2013. https://r-forge.rproject. org/projects/circular/
46. Fieberg J, Kochanny CO. Quantifying home-range overlap: The importance of the utilization distribution. J Wildl Manage. 2005; 69: 1346-1359.
47. Zar JH. Biostatistical Analysis. Fifth edition. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall; 2010.
48. Freitag A, Pfeffer MJ. Process, not product: Investigating recommendations for improving citizen science "success". Nardini C, editor. PLoS One. 2013; 8: e64079. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0064079 PMID: 23691154
49. Schluter D. The Ecology of Adaptive Radiation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
50. Dorward LJ, Mittermeier JC, Sandbrook C, Spooner F. Pokémon Go: Benefits, Costs, and Lessons for the Conservation Movement. Conserv Lett. 2016; 10: 160-165.
51. Isaac NJB, van Strien AJ, August TA, de Zeeuw MP, Roy DB. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014; 5: 1052-1060.
52. Danielsen F, Skutsch M, Burgess ND, Jensen PM, Andrianandrasana H, Karky B, et al. At the heart of REDD+: a role for local people in monitoring forests? Conserv Lett. 2011; 4: 158-167.
53. Mant R, Swan S, Bertzky M, Miles L. Participatory biodiversity monitoring: Considerations for national REDD+ programmes. Prepared by UNEP-WCMC Cambridge, UK; and SNV REDD+, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.; 2013.
54. Shennan C. Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008; 363: 717-739.
55. Simberloff D, Dayan T. The guild concept and the structure of ecological communities. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1991; 22: 115-143.
56. European Commission. Digital science in Horizon 2020. 2013. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-singlemarket/open-science
57. Newman G, Wiggins A, Crall A, Graham E, Newman S, Crowston K. The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front Ecol Environ. 2012; 10: 298-304.
58. Groom Q, Weatherdon L, Geijzendorffer IR. Is citizen science an open science in the case of biodiversity observations? J Appl Ecol. 2016;
59. Reed J, Raddick MJ, Lardner A, Carney K. An exploratory factor analysis of motivations for participating in Zooniverse, a collection of virtual citizen science projects. 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE; 2013. pp. 610-619.
60. Jordan RC, Ballard HL, Phillips TB. Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen-science learning outcomes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2012. pp. 307-309.
61. Zeileis A, Hornik K, Murrell P. Escaping RGBland: Selecting colors for statistical graphics. Comput Stat Data Anal. 2009; 53: 3259-3270.