Abstract
Citizen science, where the general public is engaged with and participates in a scientific project, is increasingly being recognised as an effective tool for science education, developing knowledge and science skills, promoting guardianship, democratising science and reducing the costs of long-term data collection compared to normal scientific research. However, there is reluctance by environmental managers to use it as a scientific method for monitoring due to concern regarding the quality of data collected by volunteers.
The robustness of data collected by citizen scientists, in this case students (aged between five and fifteen), was assessed during a facilitated citizen science project that monitored the impacts of a dredging programme on the rocky intertidal shore of Otago Harbour in Dunedin, New Zealand. Students assessed biodiversity and percentage cover of substrate at two shore heights across six locations over three years (2016-2018) using transect/quadrat methods. In one year, trained scientists (minimum three years of tertiary education in marine science and experienced with the local marine environment) collected data in the same manner as students and the two datasets were compared to assess the quality of the student-collected data. Comparisons indicated that students and scientists showed similar ability to quantify species presence and abundance in a specific area. Multivariate analysis showed there were dissimilarities between the two datasets which was attributed to estimated densities of Austrominius modestus (beaked barnacle).
Scientists and students estimated substrate cover using three different techniques (printed out photographs, volumetric measurements of sediment and visual percentage cover estimates) were assessed for their practicality for a citizen science project and agreeability of estimations between the two surveyors. It was found that using a combination of photographs and visual surveys was the most appropriate method for monitoring sediment on the rocky intertidal.
Mind maps and identification tests were used to assess the development of science skills and knowledge during the project. Pre- and post-tests showed that students’ identification skills improved after participating in the project. There was also an increase in the number of students achieving 100% correct identification. Mind maps showed a shift in thinking from planning out their own scientific investigation (asking additional questions, gathering background information and predicting outcomes) to thinking about the methods and equipment required to carry out an investigation in the marine environment and future implications of the dredging. This research validated the data collected by citizen scientists as part of a facilitated marine monitoring project. It also provided valuable insight into Otago Harbour ecosystems and demonstrated an opportunity to engage students in collecting useful environmental data on a relevant issue.
Long-term monitoring of coastal areas is greatly needed and the collaboration between scientists and the general public could be utilised to fill in the gaps in current monitoring schemes. Citizen science has the ability to improve environmental management by providing useful data sets that can be used to inform managers when making management decisions whilst increasing public environmental awareness. However, citizen science is not applicable for all forms of monitoring and should be only considered where appropriate levels of support are available, when science outcomes align with the goals of the community involved (which should be clarified prior to commencement of projects) and information gathered can be relayed on to the community. In order for citizen science to make a valuable contribution to scientific research, funding is essential for engaging scientists, volunteers and managers who each provide important roles ensuring citizen science projects collect quality data in an efficient manner.