Researchers examine the expanding use of participatory science data by state agencies

As researchers increasingly rely on data collected by citizen scientists via platforms such as iNaturalist and eBird, scientists at the University of Florida are looking to codify best practices for using those platforms. 

The scientists are developing a paper, which has yet to be published, that aims to provide guidance on citing and attributing iNaturalist data. They are also seeking to focus on ensuring reproducibility. 

“With apps like iNaturalist and eBird, there are filters and quality control steps that researchers can take that are baked into those apps to help maximize data quality,” said Corey T. Callaghan, assistant professor at the University of Florida. Callaghan leads research on citizen science with the University of Florida’s Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center.

Developing best practices for using these apps may help state and federal governments that rely on data collected by citizen scientists, because everyday people can cover much more ground than scientists can.

Callaghan says his research focuses on how participatory and citizen science data are used in natural resource management ecology. For instance, Florida requires a management plan for all state parks, which includes a requirement to maintain a species list. The state recruits citizen scientists to help with that maintenance.

While professional data is geared at understanding what is there, participatory and citizen science data are really useful because “you can get more eyes out there looking,” Callaghan told Civic Science Observer. 

Professional data might also be geared toward what is required for funding purposes, such as data on threatened species. But citizen science data, such as what’s collected on iNaturalist, can be geared towards anything.

“There are people who specialize and are interested in just about anything,” and data from iNaturalist can help support that research, Callaghan explained.

While Callaghan urges researchers not to be afraid to use data collected by citizen scientists, he also wants to ensure they know how to obtain what they need.

“I know that’s a bit jargony and sciency, but it’s important to think that critically and conceptually as you design your project because data quality might be an issue,” Callaghan said. One of the researchers’ main objectives should be to ensure that the data fit the project so that researchers can draw what they need.

For instance, one project might require only 10 observers to achieve its objective. Those observers will likely undergo advanced training and be highly specialized. But at the other end of the spectrum is a project that wants 10,000 observers, ranging from very skilled to not that skilled, because that many participants and that much data help fulfill the research project’s objective, Callaghan said.

Ultimately, researchers should also make sure that the data is good for the objectives they want answered, according to Callaghan, because “citizen science data is actually really good at documenting presence, but it’s not all that good at documenting absence.”

Callaghan and others at the University of Florida have been steadily publishing research on citizen science over the last year and a half, including a BioScience paper that the New York Times covered. That paper, titled “iNaturalist accelerates biodiversity research,” shows that roughly four papers a day are being published using data that came from iNaturalist.

“It just shows the breadth of scientific literature that is using iNaturalist data. It’s revolutionizing how we do ecology and biodiversity research,” Callaghan said.

Another paper examined participatory science from a policy perspective and studied the increasing incorporation of data from iNaturalist, and especially eBird, into documents submitted for review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), such as environmental impact statements.

Indeed, one of the benefits of data from iNaturalist or eBird is its interdisciplinary potential. “The BioScience paper really shows how many fields are using the data,” Callaghan said. Scientists, computer scientists, and education specialists, he added, “are using the data, so it has quite broad usage and speaks to this interdisciplinary notion.”

A third paper examines the value of biodiversity data that is collected during bioblitzes, which are events that aim to document as many species as possible over a predefined period. The paper examined this issue through the DeLuca Bioblitz. 

As the participatory science field continues to expand, one avenue that Callaghan thinks should be explored is the idea of human and nature interactions: “Every time somebody uploads a photo to iNaturalist or another citizen science project, it is an observation of biodiversity, but it’s also an observation of how someone interacted with the natural world. And I think there’s a lot to unlock there about understanding how society at large values, pursues and interacts with and enjoys biodiversity. And so that’s something that we might be starting to scratch the surface of, maybe.”

It allows anybody to participate. It really does allow anybody to participate in the scientific process.

“And coming back to what I am interested in research-wise, one of the things I really am motivated by is closing the loop, meaning, demonstrating and illustrating how people’s observations, including my own, contribute to the greater scientific good.”

What follow-on actions did the insights above spark for you?

Document them in this 1-minute survey → + Add CSML on Google

Joanna Marsh

Joanna Marsh is a freelance writer and journalist based in Washington, D.C. For The Civic Science Observer, she reports on new developments across the citizen science landscape, covering both new research and on-the-ground practice. Her work highlights how local communities are engaging with scientists to contribute to ongoing scientific research and lessons being learned by the involved stakeholders.