Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519 DOI 10.1007/s10661-016-5513-y

A typology for strategies to connect citizen science and management Amy Freitag

Received: 18 April 2016 / Accepted: 26 July 2016 # Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Abstract One of the often cited benefits of citizen science is better connecting citizens and their science to adaptive management outcomes. However, there is no consensus as to whether this is a reasonable expectation, and if so, how best to approach creating a successful link to management. This review finds cases where the citizen science–management link is explicitly discussed and places each case into a meta-analysis framework that will help define some general successful approaches to forming such a link. We categorize the types of linkages between citizen science and management along two main axes: cooperative to adversarial and deliberate to serendipitous. Cooperative and deliberate types of linkages are the most common, likely due to a mix of causes: that such links are the most commonly written about in the scientific literature, because such links tend to exist for longer amounts of time, and because other types of links tend to drift toward the cooperative/deliberate approach over time.

Introduction Citizen science balances many priorities, such as education, environmental stewardship, research, and social justice (Freitag and Pfeffer, 2013). One goal that is often invoked, but which has received relatively little focused attention, is that of informing resource management. This literature review and meta-analysis draw together documented links between citizen science and management to help define the landscape of possible relationships between citizen science groups and management partners. Before presenting this typology, which will help characterize successful strategies and how those relationships may change over time, we review some basics of why this link is important and how it fits into larger conversations on the science–policy boundary. We present cases from the literature within our analytical framework. Specifying broad terms

Keywords Adaptive management . Citizen science . Policy outcomes . Program development . Science– policy boundary

A. Freitag (*) Virginia Sea Grant/NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 1208 Greate Rd, Gloucester Point, VA 23062, USA e-mail: [email protected]

We use the term Bcitizen science^ to describe a wide array of activities that partner community members and professional scientists in scientific inquiry. Though there are many synonyms, we use the term citizen science to capture this range of activities, as it is the most widely used of these terms but understand the term is sometimes problematic (Wilderman, 2007). Similarly, the term Bcommunity^ varies for each of these citizen science programs depending on their main mode of communication and ties to a specific geographic location. We use the term to refer to these potential audiences in

519

Page 2 of 14

the collective, understanding that for each case, it will refer to a different context and situation. Management refers to the people and institutions that might steward natural resources, including federal government mandates, state agency programs, municipal planning, and grassroots initiatives. We use the term management to encompass the wide community of people who make rules and norms around environmental subjects (Ostrom, 2005). We also recognize that citizen science groups are composed of program leaders, designers, and volunteers, each of whom have a different relationship or desired relationship with managers. These relationships are sometimes mediated by scientific expertise, which can be held by managers, program leaders/designers, volunteers, or any combination of these. Connecting all science to management In thinking through the challenges of linking citizen science with natural resource management, it is important to remember that many aspects of this problem are not limited to citizen science. Scholarship in this area has consistently found that new knowledge, even if highly relevant, is unlikely to be used without a concerted effort to build the appropriate connections with users and careful attention to the dynamics of both production and use of scientific information (for useful reviews of this general problem, see Cash et al., 2003; Sarewitz & Pielke, 2007; McNie, 2007; and Lemos et al., 2012). Important considerations in addressing the disconnect between producers and users of knowledge include qualities of the knowledge itself (e.g., is it credible, salient, and legitimate?; Cash et al. 2003), incentives created by funding systems (Clark and Holliday, 2006; Matso, 2012; Meyer, 2011), designing co-production of knowledge (Cash et al., 2003; NRC, 1996), and the institutional capacity needed for sustaining interactions between producers and users (Guston, 2001; Lemos et al., 2012; Parker & Crona, 2012). These topics all arise in our specific discussion of the links between citizen science and management and should refer to these broader discussions in seeking solutions. Benefits for management to partner with citizen science groups There are a number of direct, tangible benefits that involving volunteers in research can bring to

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

management efforts; this review is meant to serve as a reminder of why managers might be motivated to become partners with citizen science groups. Volunteers can provide more comprehensive monitoring across time and space and may be the only viable approach under resource constraints of many management contexts (Carr, 2004). They also defray monitoring costs through reliance on local resources, skills, and social capital, which considered a more sustainable approach to monitoring than an outside agency or university monitoring and balancing needs for many different regions (Danielsen et al., 2013). In addition to providing more information for managers to work from, citizen science can create a more informed and engaged public (Wiederhold, 2011) who are more likely to accept resulting decisions (Burgman et al., 2011). Involvement of citizens in priority research areas also increases public awareness of management challenges and needs, which can increase opportunities for funding from higher levels of government, foundations, and other interests to support those needs (Gouveia et al., 2004). For example, through this kind of leverage, European monitoring schemes involving stakeholders result in management action in less than a year as opposed to 3–9 years for scientist-executed processes (Danielsen et al., 2010). There are also less direct benefits rooted in the ability of citizen science Bto recognize and value the multiple voices and forms of knowledge that can bear on environmental management^ (Carr, 2004). These knowledges link better than academic science to adaptive management schemes because of their focus on feedback learning and environmental processes (Berkes et al., 2000) and because they are embedded in the context where the policy will be implemented (Scott, 1998). In many cases, traditional knowledge directly encompasses adaptive management, mediated through social norms and cultural practices (Berkes et al., 2000). For example, watershed-based management practices on Pacific islands reflect a family identity, where residents are socially incentivized to monitor and take action to better their slice of the watershed (Berkes et al., 2000). In another example, a program in China known as Bcollective monitoring, collective defense^ leveraged cultural records of seismic-related changes to create an effective earthquake prediction system directly linked to emergency responders (Fan, 2012). In these cases, diverse knowledges provide diverse opportunities to connect to management.

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

When science involves close collaboration, it brings together multiple knowledges to form a Bcollective intelligence^ through social learning (Shirk et al., 2012) that corrects biases of an individual working alone (Erickson et al., 2012). Group interactions can bring the types of knowledges usually furthest apart—managers and stakeholders—to negotiate and create blended knowledge that is more powerful in determining policy (Robbins, 2000). While important social learning can occur in any team-based scientific undertaking, citizen science offers a particularly powerful potential by representing multiple epistemologies of nature in research and management (Robbins, 2000). This collaboration can reduce bias present in the institutions of management, science, or community working alone (Poteete et al., 2010), though potentially create conflicts of interest among participants who stand to be affected by management decisions affecting their community. Monitoring activities needed for management are chronically undersupplied because their public benefits are dispersed yet they rely on the sacrifice of time and money from a small group of government or industry actors (Biber, 2013). Also, certain types of data collection fall between different agencies’ missions and are most easily performed by still other agencies. For example, data on land use changes are most easily acquired from Department of Defense satellite imagery, but land use issues are managed by a number of other agencies (Biber, 2013). Citizen science has the potential to address these perennial issues through lowering operating costs, crossing institutional boundaries, and broadening of both the benefits and constituencies of monitoring. Benefits for the citizen science programs and their volunteers Benefits also accrue for citizen science groups; this review is intended as a reminder of why citizen science leaders and/or their volunteers might be motivated to cultivate partnerships with managers. An established connection between a citizen science program and an effective management provides individual benefits in the form of volunteer satisfaction and group benefits helping recruitment and retention. In a survey of volunteer motivations, Rotman et al. (2012) found that two management-related motivations are critical for volunteers: positive community impacts and linked advocacy for related environmental policies.

Page 3 of 14 519

When the information collected by citizen science programs directly relates to management decisions, participants gain personal insight into the process of science-based decision making and ways to get involved, such as informing the local officials best placed to take direct action on local issues (Carr, 2004). Bonney et al. (2009) also found that citizen scientists gain confidence in asking for a place at the table in community planning and local politics. Volunteers gain a better understanding of related decisions, such as who to vote for, what to donate money to, and what to spend time on (Brossard et al., 2005). Moving up in scale, volunteers can invoke their right to participate in agenda setting for which science gets publicly funded (Carr, 2004) and leverage their collective participation in science to gain better access to and influence on policymakers (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011). Armed with an understanding of local knowledge, citizen science programs can tailor both research and management recommendations to social norms and cultural sensitivities of the region (Danielsen et al., 2009). As a result, local support for the science underpinning management processes may increase. In addition, the confidence fostered by participating in citizen science can increase trust in and understanding of science-based policymaking (Kay et al., 2012). Increased trust translates into increased support for publicly funded science more broadly. For example, public participation in US Forest Service research designed around concrete management goals increased the reputation of the research as well as momentum and confidence in the program (Dietz & Stern, 2008). Reasons citizen science programs may not choose to engage with management Citizen science participants and leaders may not choose to dedicate time and effort to informing management. They may feel, as do many professional scientists, that data should speak for themselves or that not all science needs to be applied (Kates, 2010). Yet, citizen science programs have unique reasons, such as the conscious balancing of program priorities that may conflict. For example, objective scientific credibility is the top priority of the Global Community Monitor’s air monitoring program. To avoid accusations of bias, they provide scientific services to community groups who can then go and engage with management (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011).

519

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

Page 4 of 14

Program coordinators and volunteers may not know how best to connect to management or have personal relationships established to do so (Lawrence & Turnhout, 2010). Without trusted contacts, engaging with management may not be viewed as a worthwhile time investment. In some cases, lack of trust turns into fear that managers will take over program direction without strengthening local capacity and institutions (Mulrennan et al., 2012). Sometimes participants only want to collect data and not donate time to auxiliary activities or relationship building (Dietz and Stern, 2008), even if their program leaders push them to become more involved.

How many citizen science programs engage with management? The benefits of connecting to management are only part of a program’s strategic goals. Roy et al. (2012) found that only 60 % of citizen science programs even had an established mission statement, making estimation at how many groups prioritize informing management difficult. The few surveys that attempt to estimate activity at the interface of citizen science and management yield a wide range of estimates. Table 1 shows some published estimates from parts of the citizen science community. Perhaps more importantly, Danielsen and his team (Danielsen et al., 2013) suggest the considerable potential for citizen science applications in monitoring and management is largely unmet. Assessing which indicators as part of international agreements like the Convention on Biological Diversity might be measured by citizen groups, they determined that 63 % could be collected and 44 % could benefit from stakeholders’

analysis, suggesting higher potential for citizen science to play a role in international management. More complex forms of participation in citizen science are associated with stronger applications in management. Bonney et al. (2009) found that projects in which citizens are involved in more than data collection increased participant knowledge of environmental regulation. These types of programs are also more likely to apply their data to influencing legislation and similar activities (Conrad & Hilchey, 2011). However, programs which require more intense participation are relatively uncommon. In an international survey of programs contributing monitoring data to Convention on Biological Diversity indicators, 27 of 107 programs incorporated higher levels of participation. These programs tended to be new (less than 10 years old), located in the tropics, and developed as part of adaptive management schemes (Danielsen et al., 2013).

Types of links connecting citizen science to management Meta-analysis methodology We located articles addressing the connection between citizen science and management through a Google Scholar and Web of Science (ISI) search for citizen science and Bmanagement^ as well as alternative terms such as Bparticipatory science^ and Bpolicymakers.^ We then asked citizen science practitioner colleagues if they had any good references on the matter as a means of making sure we had collected all relevant references, as shown in Table 2. This search was completed in February of 2014 and turned up a total of 34 strategies

Table 1 Published estimates for how many citizen science groups attempt a management outcome Study

% of groups w/ Location goal of management

Freitag & Pfeffer (2013)

39 %

USA

19

Interviews—recommendations for success

Freitag & Pfeffer (2013)

45 %

USA

67

Literature review—recommendations for success

Roy et al. (2012)

37 %

UK

234

Case studies—program goal of informing policy

18

Case studies—program goal of providing feedback for management

Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008) 61 %

USA—community forestry

Number Method and metric measured

Using standard, government approved methods

Performing conservation practice while collecting data High diversity of knowledge types represented in management Co-created projects with regular communication built-in Trust and credibility in organization built through personal relationships Large-scale coordinated database (i.e., GIS data portal) Comparison to federal agency data as part of effort to build trust BToo many cooks in the kitchen^ for project design Data users involved in project design Regular meetings with volunteers, scientists, and policymakers Comparison to academic data sources, adaptive evaluation Increased civic participation and capacitybuilding within citizen science Strong social network between volunteers

Monitoring for the sake of monitoring Using data to advocate

Community-based forestry in western USA Isaac Walton League of America Tribes and other residents of the Salish Sea

Regional Management Council NOAA, USGS, and National Park Service US Forest Service US Forest Service Maryland Department of Natural Resources EPA CA Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation restoration efforts Local land management

Danielsen et al. (2009) Delaney et al. (2008) Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008) Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008) Firehock & West (1995) Fraser et al. (2006) Gillett et al. (2012) Measham (2007) Nerbonne & Nelson (2008) Ottinger (2010)

Air quality management

Community-based monitoring of protected areas, Philippines Marine Invasive Species Monitoring Organization Community-based forestry in western USA

Agency wildlife technicians

BBucket brigades^

Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring

Residents of Gippsland Red Gum Plains, Australia

Reef Check CA

Residents of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia Participatory wetland monitoring in Madagascar

North Carolina Sea Turtle Volunteer Program

US National Biological Survey Review of ‘inadvertent advocacy’

Review of expert judgment State Water Resources Control Board—Clean Water Team

Citizens’ Network for the Observation of Marine Biodiversity Marine Life Information Network eBird Cornell Lab of Ornithology bird programs Avian Knowledge Network Global Community Monitor in Richmond, CA

Citizen science program

Cornwell & Campbell (2012) Cullen-Unsworth et al. (2012) Danielsen et al. (2009)

Federal agencies with wildlife jurisdiction Deciding between proposed regulatory changes NC Department of Wildlife Resources, conservation NGO Many Australian management agencies

Legal cases State water managers

Burgman et al. (2011) Burres, E. (2006). Basic elements to a citizen monitoring program Conrad & Hilchey (2011) Cooper (2012)

Baker et al. (2012) Bonney et al. (2009) Bonney et al. (2009) Bonney et al. (2009) Brown et al. (2012)

Virtual Biodiversity Research and Access Network for Taxonomy Many UK agencies, targeted by topic Wildlife population management Land managers Policymakers and land managers Air quality management, zoning planners

Arvanitidis et al. (2011)

Database directs observations to managementrelevance Regular face-to-face workshops for feedback Publish in scientific literature Free online visualization tools Online decision-support tools Data used in lawsuits, zoning, impact assessments Citizen scientists providing expert judgment Send raw data to policymakers

Manager

Study

Type of linkage

Table 2 Strategies citizen science groups have used to connect to management

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519 Page 5 of 14 519

Smith et al. (2007) Taylor & de Loë (2012) Tulloch et al. (2013) Tulloch et al. (2013) Walker et al. (2002)

Tools to validate data like sensitivity analyses

Early attention to language use, agree on terms Long-term and large spatial extent data sets Narrow focus on Bcompleteness^ of data set Volunteers help define ecosystem indicators

Water management institutions Conservation agencies Conservation agencies Decision analytic frameworks in many agencies

Ministry of the Environment, development of new water agency Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service

Climate change and other data-intense management EU invasive species response USDA

Regional biodiversity conservation efforts

UNEP

Manager

Each paper is discussed in further detail in the text and can be best referenced in this table alphabetically by author name

Roy et al. (2012) Schwartz et al. (2012)

Roy et al. (2012)

Sharpe & Conrad (2006)

Pattengill-Semmens & Semmens (2003) Reed (2008)

Agencies contract groups for data collection

Involve skilled facilitator to bridge citizen scientists and data users Measures to promote value and credibility like tracked citations and use of data Timely data to instigate policy action (new issues) Transparent data and information sharing policies that solicit feedback Structured quality assurance/quality control

Study

Type of linkage

Table 2 (continued)

Atlantic Coastal Action Program and other community water quality monitoring groups Participatory fire management program in Queensland, Australia Water monitoring networks in Australia Breeding Bird Surveys and Atlas Breeding Bird Surveys and Atlas Fire management feedback from Australia

Participatory ladybug surveys National Phenology Network

Review of citizen science in the UK

Kalahari pastoralists

REEF

Citizen science program

519 Page 6 of 14 Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

in 29 articles—fewer than expected, and an area likely to increase rapidly in the future with the new Citizen Science: Theory and Practice journal. A few references were reviews themselves, for which we either found the original reference or utilized the program description in the review, depending on where the description of the link between citizen science and management was most detailed. We organized the wide variety of case studies that describe linkages between citizen science and management on two spectra. The first is whether the strategy was deliberately designed or instead happened serendipitously, as described for general information-seeking behavior by Foster & Ford (2003). The second is whether the relationship reflected cooperation or took an adversarial approach (see Weible & Sabatier 2009). These spectra together create a typology of strategies citizen science groups might use to connect to management. We plotted each link between citizen science and management based on the information in the paper (listed in Table 1) and are therefore locked in a particular program context and time. The descriptions were always detailed enough to place a program in a particular cluster and sometimes relative to each other on each axis. However, since not all program descriptions had enough details for discrete points, we display the typology as clusters from here out. We then named each cluster and a zone with no programs, creating five major strategy types, which help in conceptually organizing cases from the literature (Fig. 1). Deliberate–cooperative: structured collaboration The most common type of linkage is deliberate and cooperative. One of the most basic approaches of this type is for citizen science groups to simply send their data (either raw or summarized) directly to managers. A water quality group, the California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), recommended this strategy in order to maintain a working relationship with managers (Burres, E. (2006). Basic elements to a citizen monitoring program). In this case, water quality managers generally expressed a need for data on which to base decisions about restoration action and SWAMP responded (Burres, E. (2006). Basic elements to a citizen monitoring program). Data deliberately given to managers may be motivated by a more adversarial impetus, but in this case, because the interaction was part of a long-term relationship and fulfilled an expressed need, the strategy was cooperative.

Page 7 of 14 519

Fig. 1 Typology of cases along the spectra of cooperative–adversarial and deliberate–serendipitous. Each box depicts a very short characterization of the kinds of programs in that cluster along with a handful of examples

In other cases, citizen science data get to managers through published scientific literature. For example, managers who routinely comb scientific journals to inform wildlife management decisions sometimes find citizen science data (Bonney et al., 2009). While this strategy is not entirely cooperative as the parties do not know one another, Bonney’s review quoted one manager who needed stock assessment data in order to make decisions saying he knew a search of scientific literature would provide that information. Citizen science groups who know relevant managers who look at the scientific literature can take advantage of this established pathway in a deliberate and cooperative way. Management agencies may also contract citizen science groups directly to fill in their data gaps. The United Nations Environment Program did this with REEF fish counts, offering support for training opportunities, data summaries, and annual reports in return for data (Pattengill-Semmens & Semmens, 2003). And the European Union created a citizen marine biodiversity group as part of a larger project to support virtual research communities, allowing volunteers to simultaneously record, validate, and integrate observations in an EU database that solicits observations of management-relevant information (Arvanitidis et al., 2011). Other documented types of linkages suggest that deliberate, cooperative approaches find success through long-term relationships. These cases help to illustrate a general principle–potential users of the data should be

519

Page 8 of 14

included in planning from the beginning of a project. Firehock & West (1995) defined this general principle as looking at the development of biological water quality monitoring through history, finding the most successful programs that included water managers in program development. In his review of participatory environmental management, Reed (2008) stresses the importance of a skilled facilitator dedicated to directing the trajectory of program relationships over time. As demonstrated in the history of the National Phenology Network, the strength of monitoring efforts often waxes and wanes based on the strength of this facilitator (Schwartz et al., 2012). Ongoing communication among volunteers, scientists, and policymakers along with transparent data and information sharing policies also helps guide the relationships among phenology network volunteers and their federal government partners to keep group activities relevant to community and management needs (Schwartz et al., 2012). Such a dynamic was also demonstrated during a workshop for the UK scientists, policymakers, and marine volunteer monitoring groups, who recommended continued regular workshops to maintain communication around how monitoring data can meet science and management needs (Baker et al., 2012). In community forestry, building trust between users and producers of data is often an explicit program goal. Programs achieve this by establishing regular communication with management but especially by verifying citizen-generated data in comparison with Forest Service data (Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2008). Similarly, Reef Check California first designed their program in partnership with state managers. They then compared their volunteer diver monitoring data with parallel professional data and revealed volunteers tend to bias sampling towards more complicated habitat. Once this bias was realized, Reef Check easily tweaked their methods so that combined data sets could contribute to management models (Gillett et al., 2012). Both examples point to regular communication with management and credibility-building data comparisons as a means of building trustworthy data sets for managers. Since in these cases both groups utilized strong relationships with managers, they fall on the deliberate, cooperative sides of our heuristic; comparisons with academic science do not have to include managers, however, so the strategy as a whole is not necessarily cooperative. The relationships needed to facilitate deliberate, cooperative links with management form in a variety of ways. Connections to policymakers, scientific advisors,

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

and others can start at meetings like a Btransboundary regional research meeting^ that offers opportunities for cooperation and growth across institutions, scales, and other boundaries (Fraser et al., 2006). The effectiveness of these meetings in fostering meaningful connections will depend on who attends and how the meeting is structured and facilitated. BToo many cooks in the kitchen^ can lead to chaos rather than productive interactions, as occurred in community forestry programs even when professional facilitators were brought in (Fernandez-gimenez et al., 2008). Relationships between program leaders and managers are especially important for long-term collegiality, and these can be started or strengthened at such transboundary meetings. While many case studies focus on how data inform management, citizen scientists can also use their expertise to play a role in management. Just like professional scientists who testify before legislative bodies or participate in expert assessments that inform decision making, leaders and/or members of citizen science groups may participate in expert judgment processes (Burgman et al., 2011). Decision makers must evaluate and balance knowledge claims (Burgman et al., 2011), ultimately deciding how and when to trust both the data and the individuals presenting the data (passing judgment on the amateur–expert divide, and in some cases, closing it). Expert judgment processes are deliberate in connecting data to policy but could be put to use either in a cooperative (e.g., expert judgment) or adversarial (e.g., public testimony) setting. Deliberate–adversarial: sometimes you must throw stones Citizen scientists can serve as an early warning system for environmental changes and can bring issues to the attention of managers, influencing the political agenda. For instance, citizen scientists were the first to notice honeybee decline in the UK and used their data to prove to managers that they needed to act (Roy et al., 2012). In another example, citizen-collected data investigating local health issues surrounding oil refineries in Richmond, CA became a major platform issue in a mayoral election and helped a group of residents successfully win a zoning lawsuit once the data was distributed to residents (Brown et al., 2012). While the relationship may not be adversarial with protests, etc., citizen science groups are lobbying for a specific action. When agenda items arise in this manner, citizen

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

involvement helps collectively frame the issue and ensures that everyone is explicit about which issues are of concern, and which data best informs policy action (Walker et al., 2002). In some cases, the line between knowledge generation and management is blurred— such as when volunteer sea turtle monitors collect data and simultaneously Bco-produce^ conservation practice with state turtle biologists (Cornwell and Campbell, 2012). While these relationships sometimes evolve into a more cooperative arrangement (as with the turtles), they start as advocating for a particular conservation practice. Managers in the relationship also tend to be those who can nimbly respond to activism, such as policymakers, as opposed to agency managers that have more restrictions on their activities. One commonly expected outcome of citizen science is increased stewardship activity of volunteers, yet one component—advocacy—can detract from the credibility of citizen scientists as objective data collectors. In her review of citizen science publications, Cooper (2012) documented that citizen scientists sometimes blur the line between values and science, eroding the credibility and legitimacy of otherwise rigorous scientific research. She recommends that groups plan explicit activities to harness energy behind values and science separately. In the sea turtle example, depending on the time period of data used, either moving or not moving the nests in advance of a storm can be supported, so data interpretation is a critical step in which value judgments play a large role (Cornwell and Campbell, 2012). Since citizen science already struggles for credibility (Freitag et al., 2016), walking the line between science and advocacy requires finesse. Serendipitous–cooperative: relying on friends To build the trust and personal relationships needed to bring citizen science and management together, a set of barriers must be crossed first, ideally at the beginning of program development, such as a need for common language. In one Australian example, the Bepistemological anxiety^ felt by scientists and resource managers toward local knowledge holders obscured the fact that local knowledge holders supported technical investigations and developing science-based water management. Later reflections on the water management scheme suggested that early attention to wording used during meetings might have ameliorated tensions and realize common goals (Taylor and deLoë, 2012). The serendipitous

Page 9 of 14 519

use of language can cause a negative outcome of a linkage to policymakers, but cooperation in determining language can help make the outcome successful. Program designers and scientists can help bridge the different languages used and serve this coordination role. Projects in which both citizen scientists and managers have equal roles in project creation and planning are positively associated with increased manager engagement. In contrast, programs under complete local control are difficult to integrate as part of monitoring schemes because they often do not have the necessary relationships or capacity (Danielsen et al., 2009). The strongest management outcomes require at least a small amount of regular, structured communication to build trust and credibility between the citizen scientists and the managers. This is critical to making the data useable, sometimes to the point where a group is respected enough to influence policy with no data interpretation or advocacy needed (Danielsen et al., 2009). In these cases, early groundwork toward a working relationship helped later make a successful management application of citizen science data. Relationship building may come at the cost of other efforts because of the time investment needed. In the Breeding Bird Atlas, volunteers spent their time working toward a Bcomplete^ data set at the expense of time for finding policy applications for the resource they were building (Tulloch et al., 2013). Since they have few policy contacts, much of that data is not used in a management context. Conversely, there can be some less personal relationships built through standard practice. Citizen science that draws on standard professional methods can achieve credibility more readily by virtue of the fact that the method is already widely recognized (like air and water quality groups that adopt Environmental Protection Agency protocols). Standard methods may serve as a threshold of legitimacy (Ottinger, 2010) and create the level of understanding a personal relationship would lend. Serendipitous–neither activist nor cooperative: happy accidents A cluster of cases in which links with management was not formed with any sort of intentional direction started off as neither activist nor cooperative. Once the link is formed, it often takes on activist or cooperative properties. Because there is not deliberate guidance of the link,

519

Page 10 of 14

whether the strategy leans toward activist or cooperative depends largely on the operating culture and existing relationships between citizen science groups and managers. Providing unique, easy-to-understand data makes it easier for managers to make use of citizen science data. A survey of the use of several British bird citizen science data sets found that monitoring programs which cover the same sites over the long-term and cover a high spatial extent while maintaining resolution seem to be most useful to managers (Tulloch et al., 2013). A largescale coordinated database, such as a GIS data portal with standard data entry and global access, can serve as a space to connect to data users. Such a database ensures that data collection is directed toward the desired application, which is often management. State-level supervision by agency staff or someone with a bird’s eye view of this database may play an important role as coordinator here (Delaney et al., 2008). These programs lean toward the cooperative end of the spectrum when utilizing management agency staff. If citizen science data form part of the information base for management decisions, trust in the data’s rigor must be established. A survey of citizen science in the UK showed that measures promoting the value and credibility of citizen science data sets, such as tracked citations and use, also promote uptake of citizen science data by management (Roy et al., 2012). For subjects without widely accepted standard protocols, tools to validate data alongside Bgold standard data^ are similarly useful for gaining credibility (Swanson et al., 2015). For fire management in Queensland, Australia, Bayesian Belief Network exercises served as scaffolding to piece together citizen science data sets and allow managers to perform dynamic sensitivity and scenario analyses on which to base their decisions (Smith et al., 2007). Structured quality assurance/quality control is also helpful, either written with guidance from government (e.g., the EPA guidelines for water quality monitoring) or by the citizen science groups themselves (e.g., CABIN protocols for Canadian water monitoring) (Sharpe & Conrad, 2006). These strategies help establish credibility with any potential data user, so are serendipitous. Sometimes tools meant to aid volunteers in understanding conclusions drawn from their data also aid policymakers who stumble upon the tool, even if they were not designed for this purpose. For instance, free online data visualization tools associated with eBird are

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

used by managers and conservationists as well as citizen scientists (Bonney et al., 2009). Some groups realizing the success of this strategy go on to foster cooperation, hosting online decision-support tools that facilitate guided inquiry, like the Avian Knowledge Network that uses eBird data to guide managers and decision makers through data analysis for their particular needs (Bonney et al., 2009). In this case, a happy accident turned into a cooperative strategy that strengthens communication between citizen scientists and managers concerned about birds. Organizational structure within management also affects how citizen science is perceived. Cooperative research projects initiated as a means to incorporate indigenous ecological knowledge into landscape management in Australia revealed that a more diverse agency staff led to increased uptake of collaborative research results. Many factors determine how well diverse personnel can utilize cooperative research data, all of which speak to how well agency staff appreciates its diversity and integrates it into daily business (Cullen-Unsworth et al., 2012). This strategy suggests that cooperation can emerge when both the citizen science groups and the managerial staff happen to have the right foundation to exhibit and appreciate diverse perspectives. Setting the foundation for relationships can also happen from outside events. For example, key individuals may meet by chance at workshops or regional meetings. Nerbonne & Nelson (2008) found more managers use citizen science data when the citizen scientists feel connected to a network of engaged citizens and professionals created through these types of meetings. Citizen science can also provide the foundation for later civic engagement. As part of a community-based management initiative, asking landholders to survey tree health improved landholder understanding of the problem and increased participation in efforts to revegetate needed areas (Measham, 2007). Landholders were initially asked to help to gain an understanding of tree dynamics on private land, with the added bonus of making those landholders participate in management as well. Some serendipitous strategies assume that useful data will speak for themselves and that managers will seek data, but the lack of direction means connections between citizen scientists and managers never form. One group warns against Bmonitoring for the sake of monitoring^ or assuming that monitoring data will be useful to managers without asking them first (Conrad &

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519

Hilchey, 2011). In another example, water quality groups monitoring the Sackville River in Canada watched a fish kill come and go while management agencies argued over jurisdiction because the data had no previously dedicated place to go and instigate a response (Sharpe & Conrad, 2006). Understanding managers’ scientific needs and jurisdictional structure prior to collecting data is key to fruitfully using that data. This is certainly not unique to citizen science. Serendipitous–adversarial: no adversaries by accident The serendipitous–adversarial region of our linkage landscape holds no cases. This makes sense, as the negative outcome of attempted linkages between citizen science and management is in most cases due to the fact that the two sides continue operating in their own spheres. Therefore, it seems logical that it would be difficult or impossible to create an adversarial relationship by accident.

Concluding discussion The success or failure of a particular strategy cannot entirely be stripped of the complexity from which it arose, but we can draw some important lessons and advice from our look across the individual strategies. Most links in the literature we reviewed tout success. There is probably a selection bias in this regard. Citizen science groups may be hesitant to publish accounts of failure nor are they likely to invite external researchers to do so. But there are a few documented examples of failure, which might have been or were successes in a different set of circumstances. The reverse may be true for some of the documented successes—that they would not work in a different context. Therefore it is important to think about each strategy and what may have contributed to its success or failure. Context aside, the typology that we have created to organize the types of links between citizen science and management can help programs to think about emergent properties or consciously choose their place on the landscape. For example, the cooperative linkages all rely on some form of trusting relationship, whether that relationship was cultivated expressly to form a link or whether the link formed as part of an existing relationship. Deliberate strategies all rely on some forms of structured communication—be that a data visualization

Page 11 of 14 519

tool or judicial process—that take the conclusions from citizen science data and put them to use in a management setting. Sometimes, especially when the management agenda is moving quickly, these actions will be more adversarial, like through demanding a development injunction based on the presence of an endangered species. In other cases, the communication serves to maintain relationships to meet a shared management goal. Our heuristic can help people wanting to forge a new link figure out where they best fit in the world of existing experience and where to best take lessons and ideas from. There are many more cooperative–deliberate links than other types, suggested by Weible & Sabatier (2009) to be best type of linkage, building on shared knowledge. As a result, these types of programs are likely more frequently written about, as partners decide to publish the important facets of their relationship and offer advice as wizened elders in the citizen science community (Sullivan et al., 2014). There is also evidence that other types of linkages drift in the direction of cooperative–deliberate over time. Many of the serendipitous examples were institutionalized after realization of their success as cooperative–deliberate programs. When starting a new type of linkage, one might plan to end up in a cooperative–deliberate relationship in the long-term. The second-largest cluster of strategies is purely serendipitous, suggesting that a wide variety of activities can and do connect citizen science to management, even when not intended for that purpose. Many of these are tools that proved helpful to creating a link between managers and citizen scientists. Others are specifics about the context that facilitated a link between managers and citizen scientists, strengthening the potential for connection through strong communication and networking opportunities. There is no clear Bbest^ strategy for connecting to management, and many of the cases suggest that programs can shift their strategies as programs develop to best fit current needs, with many ending in the cooperative–deliberate side of the typology. Yet, recognizing that many relationships start or are maintained through serendipity will hopefully help programs take advantage of some benefits paralleling the main program mission. In addition, the divide between cooperative and adversarial approaches to management is not as fluid as the other groups and should be carefully attended to in order to make sure a program is where it wants to be in its professional network of relationships.

519

Page 12 of 14

Acknowledgments A.F. developed this review to help the California Citizen Science Initiative (CCSI) which investigated how citizen science can contribute to marine protected area management. BWe^ in this paper refers to the whole CCSI team and their hard work is much appreciated: R. Meyer, H. Ballard, F. Shilling, O. Boyle, M. Hall-Arber, J. Freiwald, and L. Fortmann. The CCSI was supported by the Packard Foundation.

References Arvanitidis, C., Faulwetter, S., Chatzigeorgiou, G., Penev, L., Bánki, O., Dailianis, T., et al. (2011). Engaging the broader community in biodiversity research: the concept of the COMBER pilot project for divers in ViBRANT. ZooKeys, 150(0). doi:10.3897/zookeys.150.2149. Baker, G. J., Parr, J., & Sewell, J. (2012). Citizen science : engaging with change in the marine environment. Plymouth, UK. Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecological Applications, 10(October), 1251–1262. Biber, E. (2013). The challenge of collecting and using environmental monitoring data. Ecology and Society, 18(4). Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience, 59(11), 977–984. doi:10.1525 /bio.2009.59.11.9. Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change : the impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099–1121. doi:10.1080/09500690500069483. Brown, P., Brody, J. G., Morello-frosch, R., Tovar, J., Zota, A. R., & Rudel, R. A. (2012). Commentary Measuring the success of community science: the Northern California Household Exposure Study, 3, 326–331. Burgman, M., Carr, A., Godden, L., Gregory, R., McBride, M., Flander, L., & Maguire, L. (2011). Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conservation Letters, 4(2), 81–87. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263x.2011.00165.x. Carr, A. J. L. (2004). Policy reviews and essays: why do we all need community science? Society & Natural Resources, 17(9), 841–849. doi:10.1080/08941920490493846. Cash, D. W., Clark, W., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., et al. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 8086–8091. Clark, W., & Holliday, L. (2006). Linking knowledge with action for sustainable development: the role of program management—summary of a workshop. Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability. National Research Council. Conrad, C. C., & Hilchey, K. G. (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176(1–4), 273–291. doi:10.1007/s10661-0101582-5.

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519 Cooper, C. B. (2012). Links and distinctions among citizenship, science, and citizen science. A reponse to BThe future of citizen science,^ 1–4. Cornwell, M. L., & Campbell, L. M. (2012). Co-producing conservation and knowledge: citizen-based sea turtle monitoring in North Carolina, USA. Social Studies of Science, 42(1), 101–120. doi:10.1177/0306312711430440. Cullen-Unsworth, L. C., Hill, R., Butler, J. R. a., & Wallace, M. (2012). A research process for integrating indigenous and scientific knowledge in cultural landscapes: principles and determinants of success in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area, Australia. The Geographical Journal, 178(4), 351– 365. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00451.x. Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., Balmford, A., Donald, P. F., Funder, M., Jones, J. P. G., et al. (2009). Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 23(1), 31–42. doi:10.1111/j.15231739.2008.01063.x. Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., Jensen, P. M., & Pirhofer-Walzl, K. (2010). Environmental monitoring: the scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of peoples involvement. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(6), 1166– 1168. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01874.x. Danielsen, F., Pirhofer-Walzl, K., Adrian, T. P., Kapijimpanga, D. R., Burgess, N. D., Jensen, P. M., et al. (2013). Linking public participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of international environmental agreements. Conservation Letters. doi:10.1111/conl.12024. Delaney, D. G., Sperling, C. D., Adams, C. S., & Leung, B. (2008). Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biological Invasions, 10(1), 117–128. doi:10.1007/s10530007-9114-0. Dietz, T., & Stern, P. (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. http://books.google. com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6OS69ZzNGL8C&oi=fnd&pg= PA1&dq=Public+Participation+in+Environmental+ Assessment+and+Decision+Making&ots=a78cS5 iVTL&sig=l40RZHUQKQ44_eITGlOc368oGIM. Accessed 12 August 2013 Erickson, L. B., Petrick, I., & Trauth, E. M. (2012). Hanging with the right crowd : matching crowdsourcing need to crowd characteristics. In: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–9). Fan, F. (2012). BCollective monitoring, collective defense^: science, earthquakes, and politics in communist China. Science in Context, 25(01), 127–154. doi:10.1017/S0269889711000329. Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E., Ballard, H. L., & Sturtevant, V. E. (2008). Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring : a study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecology and Society, 13(2), 4. Firehock, K., & West, J. (1995). A brief history of volunteer biological water monitoring using macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 14(1), 197–202. Foster, A., & Ford, N. (2003). Serendipity and information seeking: an empirical study. Journal of Documentation, 59(3), 321–340. doi:10.1108/00220410310472518.

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519 Fraser, D. A., Gaydos, J. K., Karlsen, E., & Rylko, M. S. (2006). Collaborative science, policy development and program implementation in the transboundary Georgia Basin/Puget sound ecosystem. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 113(1–3), 49–69. doi:10.1007/s10661-0059096-2. Freitag, A., Meyer, R., & Whiteman, L. (2016). Strategies employed by citizen science programs to increase the credibility of their data. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1), 1–11. doi:10.5334/cstp.6. Freitag, A., & Pfeffer, M. J. (2013). Process, not product: investigating recommendations for improving citizen science Bsuccess^. PloS One, 8(5), e64079. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0064079. Gillett, D. J., Pondella, D. J., Freiwald, J., Schiff, K. C., Caselle, J. E., Shuman, C., & Weisberg, S. B. (2012). Comparing volunteer and professionally collected monitoring data from the rocky subtidal reefs of Southern California, USA. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184(5), 3239– 3257. doi:10.1007/s10661-011-2185-5. Gouveia, C., Fonseca, A., Câmara, A., & Ferreira, F. (2004). Promoting the use of environmental data collected by concerned citizens through information and communication technologies. Journal of Environmental Management, 71(2), 135–154. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.01.009. Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. http://links.jstor. org/sici?sici=0162-2439(200123)26:4<399:BOIEPA>2.0. CO;2-D Kates, R. W. (2010). Readings in Sustainability Science and Technology (No. 213). Science And Technology. Kay, M. C., Lenihan, H. S., Guenther, C. M., Wilson, J. R., Miller, C. J., & Shrout, S. W. (2012). Collaborative assessment of California spiny lobster population and fishery responses to a marine reserve network. Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 22(1), 322–335. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2247109310661_5513. docx Lawrence, A., & Turnhout, E. (2010). Personal meaning in the public sphere: the standardisation and rationalisation of biodiversity data in the UK and the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), 353–360. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.02.001. Lemos, M. C., Kirchhoff, C. J., & Ramprasad, V. (2012). Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nature Climate Change, 2(11), 789–794. doi:10.1038/nclimate1614. Matso, K. (2012). Challenge of integrating natural and social sciences to better inform decisions: a novel proposal review process. In H. A. Karl, L. Scarlett, J. C. Vargas-Moreno, & M. Flaxman (Eds.), Restoring lands-coordinating science, politics and action: complexities of climate and governance (pp. 129–161). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2549-2. McNie, E. C. (2007). Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: an analysis of the problem and review of the literature. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 17. http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu. edu/science/article/B6VP6-4MFTVYG-1/2/2f5651dbaa9 c27de1d6c7ef296640010 Measham, T. G. (2007). Building capacity for environmental management: local knowledge and rehabilitation on the

Page 13 of 14 519 Gippsland Red Gum Plains. Australian Geographer, 38(2), 145–159. doi:10.1080/00049180701392758. Meyer, R. M. (2011). Public values failures of climate science in the US. Minerva, 49, 47–70. doi:10.1007/s11024-011-9164-4. Mulrennan, M. E., Mark, R., & Scott, C. H. (2012). Revamping community-based conservation through participatory research. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 56(2), 243–259. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00415.x. Nerbonne, J. F., & Nelson, K. C. (2008). Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring: tensions among group goals, data quality, and outcomes. Environmental Management, 42(3), 470–479. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9103-9. NRC. (1996). Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. (C. on B. and S. S. and E. Committee on Risk Characterization, Ed.). Washington DC: National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5138 &page=R1 Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton Univ Pr. Ottinger, G. (2010). Buckets of resistance: standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Science, Technology & H u m a n Va l u e s , 3 5 ( 2 ) , 2 4 4 – 2 7 0 . d o i : 1 0 . 11 7 7 / 0162243909337121. Parker, J. N., & Crona, B. I. (2012). On being all things to all people: boundary organizations and the contemporary research university. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 262–289. Pattengill-Semmens, C., & Semmens, B. (2003). Conservation and management applications of the REEF volunteer fish monitoring program. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 43–50. Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice. Princeton: Princeton Univ Pr. Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation, 141(10), 2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014. Robbins, P. (2000). The practical politics of knowing: state environmental knowledge and local political economy*. Economic Geography, 76(2), 126–144. Rotman, D., Preece, J., Hammock, J., Procita, K., Hansen, D., Parr, C., et al. (2012). Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work—CSCW ‘12, 217. doi: 10.1145/ 2145204.2145238. Roy, H. E., Pocock, M. J. O., Preston, C. D., Roy, D. B., Savage, J., Tweddle, J. C., & Robinson, L. D. (2012). Understanding citizen science and environmental monitoring. Wallingford, Oxfordshire. Sarewitz, D., & Pielke Jr., R. A. (2007). The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(1), 5. http://www. sciencedirect.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/science/article/B6 VP6-4MC0TRT-1/2/1680344e874d6ecc8c7f5cb1a35bc4d1 Schwartz, M. D., Betancourt, J. L., & Weltzin, J. F. (2012). From Caprio’s lilacs to the USA National Phenology Network. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 324–327. doi:10.1890/110281. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale Univ Pr.

519

Page 14 of 14

Sharpe, A., & Conrad, C. (2006). Community based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: challenges and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 113(1–3), 395– 409. doi:10.1007/s10661-005-9091-7. Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., et al. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society, 17(2), 1–20. doi:10.5751/ES-04705-170229. Smith, C., Felderhof, L., & Bosch, O. J. H. (2007). Adaptive management : making it happen through participatory systems analysis. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 587, 567–587. doi:10.1002/sres. Sullivan, B. L., Aycrigg, J. L., Barry, J. H., Bonney, R. E., Bruns, N., Cooper, C. B., et al. (2014). The eBird enterprise: an integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, 169, 31–40. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003. Swanson, A., Kosmala, M., Lintott, C., Simpson, R., Smith, A., & Packer, C. (2015). Snapshot Serengeti, high-frequency annotated camera trap images of 40 mammalian species in an African savanna. Scientific Data, 1–14. doi: 10.1038/ sdata.2015.26

Environ Monit Assess (2016) 188:519 Taylor, B., & de Loë, R. C. (2012). Conceptualizations of local knowledge in collaborative environmental governance. Geoforum, 43(6), 1207–1217. doi:10.1016/j. geoforum.2012.03.007. Tulloch, A. I. T., Possingham, H. P., Joseph, L. N., Szabo, J., & Martin, T. G. (2013). Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation, 165, 128–138. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025. Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., et al. (2002). Resilience management in socialecological systems : a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Ecology and Society, 6(1), 14. Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. a. (2009). Coalitions, science, and belief change: comparing adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 37(2), 195–212. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2009.00310.x. Wiederhold, B. K. (2011). Citizen scientists generate benefits for researchers, educators, society, and themselves. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(12), 703–704. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.1534. Wilderman, C. C. (2007). Models of community science: design lessons from the field. Citizen Science Toolkit Conference, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, 20–23 June, 2007.