Citizen science and sustainability transitions

Research Policy

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2020, Pages

  Sauermann, Henry ^a,b   Vohland, Katrin ^c   Antoniou, Vyron ^d   Balázs, Bálint ^e   Göbel, Claudia ^c,f   Karatzas, Kostas ^g   Mooney, Peter ^h   Perelló, Josep ⁱ   Ponti, Marisa ^j   Samson, Roeland ^k   Winter, Silvia ^l  

^a EUROPEAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^c LEIBNIZ INSTITUTE FOR EVOLUTION AND BIODIVERSITY SCIENCE   (Germany)

^d HAGS Papagou Headquarter Facilities   (Greece)

^e Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG)   (Hungary)

^f Institute for Higher Education Research at University Halle Wittenberg   (Germany)

^g ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

^h NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND   (Ireland)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^j UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^k UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

^l UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

more..

Author keywords

Citizen science; Co design; Crowd science; Science and innovation studies; Science education; Sustainability transitions

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING;

ACADEMIC LITERATURE; ACADEMIC SCIENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION; PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION; RENEWABLE ENERGIES; RESOURCE MOBILIZATION; SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION; SUSTAINABILITY TRANSITION;

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 85083393626     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2020.103978     Document Type: Article

References (151)

1. Aceves‐Bueno, E., Adeleye, A.S., Feraud, M., Huang, Y., et al. The accuracy of citizen science data: a quantitative review. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 98:4 (2017), 278–290.
2. Ball, M.P., Bobe, J.R., Chou, M.F., Clegg, T., et al. Harvard personal genome project: lessons from participatory public research. Genome Med., 6(2), 2014, 10.
3. Ballard, H.L., Dixon, C.G.H., Harris, E.M., Youth-focused citizen science: examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biol. Conserv., 2017, 20865–20875.
4. Beck, S., Brasseur, T.-.M., Poetz, M.K., Sauermann, H., 2019. What's the problem? Crowdsourcing research questions in science, Working Paper.
5. Bela, G., Peltola, T., Young, J., Balazs, B., et al. Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science. Conserv. Biol. 30:5 (2016), 990–999.
6. Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level. Org. Sci., 2008, 1969–1989.
7. Bio Innovation Service, 2018. Citizen science for environmental policy: development of an EU-wide inventory and analysis of selected practices.
8. Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., et al. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59:11 (2009), 977–984.
9. Bonney, R., Shirk, J.L., Phillips, T.B., Wiggins, A., et al. Next steps for citizen science. Science 343:6178 (2014), 1436–1437.
10. Boon, W.P., Moors, E.H., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R.E., Demand articulation in emerging technologies: intermediary user organisations as co-producers?. Res. Policy 40:2 (2011), 242–252.
11. Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., Bonney, R., Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. Int J. Sci. Educ. 27:9 (2005), 1099–1121.
12. Burgess, H., DeBey, L., Froehlich, H., Schmidt, N., et al. The science of citizen science: exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol. Conserv., 2017, 208113–208120.
13. Bush, V., Science - the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research., 1945, National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.
14. Callon, M., Rabeharisoa, V., The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life: lessons from the French association of neuromuscular disease patients. Sci. Technol. Human Values 33:2 (2008), 230–261.
15. Christian, C., Lintott, C., Smith, A., Fortson, L., et al., 2012. Citizen science: contributions to astronomy research, in: Heck, A. (Ed.), Organizations, People and Strategies in Astronomy I. Venngeist, pp. 183–197.
16. Cigarini, A., Vicens, J., Duch, J., Sánchez, A., et al. Quantitative account of social interactions in a mental health care ecosystem: cooperation, trust and collective action. Sci. Rep., 8(1), 2018, 3794.
17. Cohen, W.M., Sauermann H., Stephan P., Not in the job description: the commercial activities of academic scientists and engineers, Manag. Sci. forthcoming.
18. Collins, H.M., Pinch, T., The Golem: What You Should Know About Science. 2012, Cambridge University Press.
19. Couvet, D., Prevot, A.-.C., Citizen-science programs: towards transformative biodiversity governance. Envir. Develop. 13 (2015), 39–45.
20. Crain, R., Cooper, C., Dickinson, J.L., Citizen science: a tool for integrating studies of human and natural systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39 (2014), 641–665.
21. Crall, A.W., Jordan, R., Holfelder, K., Newman, G.J., et al. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Understand. Sci. 22:6 (2012), 745–764.
22. Cronje, R., Rohlinger, S., Crall, A., Newman, G., Does participation in citizen science improve scientific literacy? a study to compare assessment methods. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 10:3 (2011), 135–145.
23. Crowston, K., Fagnot, I., 2008. The motivational arc of massive virtual collaboration, Working Paper.
24. Davis, M., Laas, K., “Broader impacts” or “responsible research and innovation”? A comparison of two criteria for funding research in science and engineering. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 20:4 (2014), 963–983.
25. Dickinson, J., Bonney, R., Citizen Science. Public Participation in Environmental Research. 2012, Compstock Publishing Associtates, 1–279.
26. Dolgin, E., The hunt for the lesser-known funding source. Nature, 570(7759), 2019, 127.
27. Druschke, C.G., Seltzer, C.E., Failures of engagement: lessons learned from a citizen science pilot study. Appl. Environ. Edu. Commun. 11:3–4 (2012), 178–188.
28. Edmondson, D.L., Kern, F., Rogge, K.S., The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Res. Policy., 48(10), 2019, 103555.
29. English, P., Richardson, M., Garzón-Galvis, C., From crowdsourcing to extreme citizen science: participatory research for environmental health. Annu. Rev. Public Health, 2018, 39335–39350.
30. European Citizen Science Association, 2015. ECSA strategy.
31. European Commission, 2017. Horizon 2020. Work Programme 2018-2020., pp. 1–74.
32. European Science Foundation. Science In Society: Caring For Our Futures In Turbulent Times. 2013, European Science Foundation.
33. Eveleigh, A., Lynn, S., Cox, A., Jennett, C., I want to be a captain! gamification in the old weather citizen science project. Gamification '13: First International Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, 2013.
34. ExCiteS, 2019. Citizen science and botanic knowledge among herders and farmers in Kenya.
35. Fagerberg, J., Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: a comment on transformative innovation policy. Res. Policy 47:9 (2018), 1568–1576.
36. Felt, U., Fochler, M., The bottom-up meanings of the concept of public participation in science and technology. Sci. Public Policy 35:7 (2008), 489–499.
37. Follett, R., Strezov, V., An analysis of citizen science based research: usage and publication patterns. PLoS ONE, 10(11), 2015, e0143687.
38. Fortson, L., Masters, K., Nichol, R., Borne, K., et al. Galaxy Zoo: morphological classification and citizen science. Advances in Machine Learning and Data Mining For Astronomy, 2012, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 1–11.
39. Franzoni, C., Sauermann, H., Crowd science: the organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Res. Policy 43:1 (2014), 1–20.
40. Fritz, S., See, L., Carlson, T., Haklay, M.M., et al. Citizen science and the United Nations sustainable development goals. Nature Sustain. 2:10 (2019), 922–930.
41. Ganzevoort, W., Born, R.J.G.v.d., Halffman, W., Turnhout, S., 2017. Sharing biodiversity data: citizen scientists’ concerns and motivations. Biodivers ConservDOI10.1007/s10531-10017-11391-z.
42. Geels, F.W., Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31:8–9 (2002), 1257–1274.
43. Geels, F.W., The hygienic transition from cesspools to sewer systems (1840–1930): the dynamics of regime transformation. Res. Policy 35:7 (2006), 1069–1082.
44. Geels, F.W., Schot, J., Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy 36:3 (2007), 399–417.
45. Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S., et al. Understanding Motivations for Citizen Science. 2016, UK Environmental Observation Framework.
46. Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review781–795.
47. Golumbic, Y.N., Orr, D., Baram-Tsabari, A., Fishbain, B., Between vision and reality: a study of scientists’ views on citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2:1 (2017), 1–13.
48. Groom, Q., Weatherdon, L., Geijzendorffer, I.R., Is citizen science an open science in the case of biodiversity observations?. J. Appl. Ecol. 54:2 (2017), 612–617.
49. Groulx, M., Brisbois, M.C., Lemieux, C.J., Winegardner, A., et al. A role for nature-based citizen science in promoting individual and collective climate change action? a systematic review of learning outcomes. Sci. Commun. 39:1 (2017), 45–76.
50. Grundmann, R., “Climategate” and the scientific ethos. Sci. Technol. Human Values 38:1 (2013), 67–93.
51. Hackett, E.J., Science as a vocation in the 1990s. J. Higher Edu. 61:3 (1990), 241–279.
52. Hackman, J.R., Oldham, G.R., Motivation through the design of work - Test of a theory. Organ Behav. Hum. Perform, 16(2), 1976, 250.
53. Haklay, M., Scholars, W.W.I.C.f., (eds.), 2015 Washington DC.
54. Hallmann, C.A., Sorg, M., Jongejans, E., Siepel, H., et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE, 12(10), 2017, e0185809.
55. Head, B.W., Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy 3:2 (2008), 101–118.
56. Hecker, S., Garbe, L., Bonn, A., The European citizen science landscape – a snapshot. Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., Bonn, A., (eds.) Citizen science: Innovation in Open science, Society and Policy, 2018, UCL Press, London, 190–200.
57. Heiss, R., Matthes, J., Citizen science in the social sciences: a call for more evidence. GAIA-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 26:1 (2017), 22–26.
58. Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S., et al. Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74:4 (2007), 413–432.
59. Hielscher, S., Jaeger-Erben, M., Resisting obsolescence? the role of a “culture of repair” for product longevity. Nissen, N., M., J.-E., (eds.) PLATE Product Lifetimes and The Environment, 2019, TU Berlin University Press, Berlin.
60. Hölscher, K., Wittmayer, J.M., Loorbach, D., 2018. Transition versus transformation: what's the difference?Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions271–273.
61. Horwitz, S.K., Horwitz, I.B., The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: a meta-analytic review of team demography. J. Manage 33:6 (2007), 987–1015.
62. Hyder, K., Wright, S., Kirby, M., Brant, J., The role of citizen science in monitoring small-scale pollution events. Marine Pollut. Bull. 120:1–2 (2017), 51–57.
63. Innocentive, 2007. InnoCentive solver develops solution to help clean up remaining oil from the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster.
64. Irwin, A., Citizen science: a study of people. expertise and sustainable development, 1995, Routledge, London and New York.
65. Irwin, A., From deficit to democracy (re-visited). Public Understand. Sci. 23:1 (2014), 71–76.
66. Jackson, C., Østerlund, C., Maidel, V., Crowston, K., et al. Which way did they go? Newcomer movement through the Zooniverse. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 2016, ACM, 624–635.
67. Jasanoff, S., Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:3 (2003), 223–244.
68. Jeppesen, L.B., Lakhani, K.R., 2010. Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search organization science 21 (5), 1016–1033.
69. Jordan, R.C., Gray, S.A., Howe, D.V., Brooks, W.R., et al. Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen‐science programs. Conserv. Biol. 25:6 (2011), 1148–1154.
70. Jørgensen, U., Mapping and navigating transitions—The multi-level perspective compared with arenas of development. Res Policy 41:6 (2012), 996–1010.
71. Jury, W.A., Vaux, H., The role of science in solving the world's emerging water problems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102:44 (2005), 15715–15720.
72. Keshavan, A., Yeatman, J.D., Rokem, A., 2019. Combining citizen science and deep learning to amplify expertise in neuroimaging. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 1329.
73. Khatib, F., DiMaio, F. Foldit Contenders Group, Foldit Void Crushers Group. Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 18:10 (2011), 1175–1177.
74. Kline, S.J., Rosenberg, N., Innovation and the chain-linked model. Studies On Science And The Innovation Process: Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, 2010, World Scientific, 173–203.
75. Kolb, A.Y., Kolb, D.A., Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad. Manag. Learn. Edu. 4:2 (2005), 193–212.
76. Krainer, L., Winiwarter, V., Universities as actors in transformative science. Consequences for assessing transdisciplinary research quality. Gaia 25:2 (2016), 110–116.
77. Kuhlmann, S., Rip, A., Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges. Sci. Public Policy 45:4 (2018), 448–454.
78. Kullenberg, C., Kasperowski, D., What is citizen science? – A scientometric meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 2016, e0147152.
79. Kythreotis, A.P., Mantyka-Pringle, C., Mercer, T.G., Whitmarsh, L.E., et al., 2019. Citizen social science for more integrative and effective climate action: a science-policy perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science710.
80. Latour, B., Science In Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. 1987, Harvard Univ Press.
81. Lewandowsky, S., Mann, M.E., Brown, N.J., Friedman, H., Science and the public: debate, denial, and skepticism. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 4:2 (2016), 537–553.
82. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., Avelino, F., Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 2017, 42599–42626.
83. Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft, 2018. Crowdsourcing research questions in science.
84. Mahr, D., Citizen Science: partizipative Wissenschaft im späten 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert, 2014 Nomos. see https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2684966.
85. Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41:6 (2012), 955–967.
86. May, A.M., McGarvey, M.G., Whaples, R., Are disagreements among male and female economists marginal at best? A survey of AEA members and their views on economics and economic policy. Contemp. Econ. Policy 32:1 (2014), 111–132.
87. McCormick, S., Democratizing science movements: a new framework for mobilization and contestation. Soc. Stud. Sci. 37:4 (2007), 609–623.
88. McGrane, 2017. The German amateurs who discovered "Insect armageddon", The New York Times.
89. Merton, R.K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations., 1973, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
90. Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., Bonney, R., The history of public participation in ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10:6 (2012), 285–290.
91. Mowery, D.C., Nelson, R.R., Martin, B.R., Technology policy and global warming: why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won't work). Res. Policy 39:8 (2010), 1011–1023.
92. Mueller, M., Tippins, D., Bryan, L., The future of citizen science. Democ. Edu., 20(1), 2012 1-.
93. Nelson, R., The market economy, and the scientific commons. Res. Policy 33:3 (2004), 455–471.
94. Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., et al. The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10:6 (2012), 298–304.
95. Nielsen, M., Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science. 2011, Princeton University Press.
96. Nowotny, H., Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30:3 (2003), 151–156.
97. O'Carroll, C., Kamerlin, C., Brennan, N., Hyllseth, B., et al. Providing researchers with the skills and competencies they need to practise open science. W.G.o.E.a.S.u.O, (eds.) Science, 2017, Publications Office of the European Union.
98. Ottinger, G., Buckets of resistance: standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Sci. Technol. Human Values 35:2 (2010), 244–270.
99. Parrish, J.K., Jones, T., Burgess, H.K., He, Y., et al. Hoping for optimality or designing for inclusion: persistence, learning, and the social network of citizen science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116:6 (2019), 1894–1901.
100. Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., Van Der Hel, S., et al. Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 24 (2017), 1–16.
101. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., et al. Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Res. Policy 42:2 (2013), 423–442.
102. Petridis, P., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Singh, S.J., Noll, D., The role of science in sustainability transitions: citizen science, transformative research, and experiences from Samothraki island. Greece. Island Stud. J. 12:1 (2017), 115–134.
103. Pettibone, L., Blättel-Mink, B., Balázs, B., Giulio, A.D., et al. Transdisciplinary sustainability research and citizen science: options for mutual learning. Gaia 27:2 (2018), 222–225.
104. Poetz, M.K., Schreier, M., The value of crowdsourcing: can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas?. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 29:2 (2012), 245–256.
105. Potts, S.G., Ngo, H.T., Biesmeijer, J.C., Breeze, T.D., et al., 2016. The assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services on pollinators, pollination and food production.
106. Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., et al. A systematic study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth's Future 5:11 (2017), 1169–1179.
107. Raddick, M.J., Bracey, G., Gay, P.L., Lintott, C., et al. Galaxy zoo: motivations of citizen scientists. Astron. Educ. Rev., 12(1), 2013.
108. Ribeiro, B., Bengtsson, L., Benneworth, P., Bührer, S., et al. Introducing the dilemma of societal alignment for inclusive and responsible research and innovation. J. Respons. Innov. 5:3 (2018), 316–331.
109. Riesch, H., Potter, C., Citizen science as seen by scientists: methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understand. Sci. 23:1 (2014), 107–120.
110. Rip, A., Introduction of new technology: making use of recent insights from sociology and economics of technology. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 7:4 (1995), 417–432.
111. Rittel, H.W., Webber, M.M., Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4:2 (1973), 155–169.
112. Ruckart, P.Z., Ettinger, A.S., Hanna-Attisha, M., Jones, N., et al., 2019. The flint water crisis: a coordinated public health emergency response and recovery initiative. J. Public Health Manag. Pract.25S84.
113. Ruiz-Mallén, I., Riboli-Sasco, L., Ribrault, C., Heras, M., et al. Citizen science: toward transformative learning. Sci. Commun. 38:4 (2016), 523–534.
114. Sauermann, H., Franzoni, C., 2013. Participation dynamics in crowd-based knowledge production: the scope and sustainability of interest-based motivation, SSRN Working Paper.
115. Sauermann, H., Franzoni, C., Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112:3 (2015), 679–684.
116. Sauermann, H., Roach, M., Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs' preferences for publishing in industrial employment. Res. Policy 43:1 (2014), 32–47.
117. Sauermann, H., Shafi, K., Franzoni, C., 2019. Crowdfunding scientific research: descriptive insights and correlates of funding success. PLoS ONE.
118. Sauermann, H., Stephan, P., Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Org. Sci. 24:3 (2013), 889–909.
119. Science Europe, 2018. Science Europe briefing paper on citizen science.
120. Senabre, E., Ferran-Ferrer, N., Perelló, J., Participatory design of citizen science experiments. Revista Comunicar 54:26 (2018), 29–38.
121. Shapin, S., The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. 2008, University of Chicago Press.
122. Shirk, J.L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T., et al. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol. Soc., 17(2), 2012, 29.
123. Simis, M.J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M.A., Yeo, S.K., The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication?. Public Understand. Sci. 25:4 (2016), 400–414.
124. Simonton, D.K., Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: the integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 129:4 (2003), 475–494.
125. Siva, N., Crowdfunding for medical research picks up pace. Lancet North Am. Ed. 384:9948 (2014), 1085–1086.
126. Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res. Policy 34:10 (2005), 1491–1510.
127. Smith, A., Voß, J.-.P., Grin, J., Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res. Policy 39:4 (2010), 435–448.
128. Sparkes, A., Aubrey, W., Byrne, E., Clare, A., et al. Towards robot scientists for autonomous scientific discovery. Autom. Exp., 2(1), 2010, 1.
129. Stilgoe, J., Citizen Scientists: Reconnecting Science with Civil Society. 2009, Demos, London.
130. Stilgoe, J., Lock, S.J., Wilsdon, J., Why should we promote public engagement with science?. Public Understand. Sci. 23:1 (2014), 4–15.
131. Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42:9 (2013), 1568–1580.
132. Stokes, D., Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. 1997, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
133. Strasser, B.J., Collecting nature: practices, styles, and narratives. Osiris 27 (2012), 303–340.
134. Sullivan, B.L., Wood, C.L., Iliff, M.J., Bonney, R.E., et al. eBird: a citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biol. Conserv. 142:10 (2009), 2282–2292.
135. SwafS. Citizen science policies in the European Commission. Science with and for Society Policy Brief, 2017.
136. Toomey, A.H., Domroese, M.C., Can citizen science lead to positive conservation attitudes and behaviors?. Human Ecol. Rev. 20:1 (2013), 50–62.
137. Trisos, C.H., Alexander, S.M., Gephart, J.A., Gurung, R., et al. Mosquito net fishing exemplifies conflict among sustainable development goals. Nature Sustain., 2(1), 2019, 5.
138. Turrini, T., Dörler, D., Richter, A., Heigl, F., et al. The threefold potential of environmental citizen science-Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biol. Conserv., 2018, 225176–225186.
139. U.S. Federal Citizen Science Initiative, 2018.
140. United Nations, 1987. Report of the world commission on environment and development: our common future.
141. Van Brussel, S., Huyse, H., Citizen science on speed? Realising the triple objective of scientific rigour, policy influence and deep citizen engagement in a large-scale citizen science project on ambient air quality in Antwerp. J. Environ. Plann. Manage., 2018, 1–18.
142. Van de Poel, I., The transformation of technological regimes. Res. Policy 32:1 (2003), 49–68.
143. Van der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., Loorbach, D., The transition in Dutch water management. Reg. Environ. Change 5:4 (2005), 164–176.
144. Vohland, K., Göbel, C., Open science und citizen science als symbiotische beziehung?. TATuP Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 26:1–2 (2017), 18–24.
145. Von Hippel, E., Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Manage Sci 40:4 (1994), 429–439.
146. Von Schomberg, R., Chapter 3: A vision of responsible research and innovation. Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., (eds.) Responsible innovation, 2013, 51–74.
147. Weber, M., 1997. The methodology of social sciences. Free Press, New York.
148. West, S., Pateman, R., Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: what can be learned from the volunteering literature?. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 1:2 (2016), 1–10 see http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/114091/1/Recruiting_and_retaining_volunteers.pdf.
149. West, S., Pateman, R., How Could Citizen Science Support the Sustainable Development Goals?. 2017, Stockholm Environment Institute.
150. Wiggins, A., Crowston, K., From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science. 44th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS), 2011, IEEE, 1–10.
151. Woolley, J.P., McGowan, M.L., Teare, H.J., Coathup, V., et al. Citizen science or scientific citizenship? Disentangling the uses of public engagement rhetoric in national research initiatives. BMC Med. Ethics, 17(1), 2016, 33.