Designing Citizen Science in Thailand: A Process Evaluation of a Program in a Contested Mining Context

Frontiers Events is a rapidly growing calendar management system dedicated to the scheduling of academic events. This includes announcements and invitations, participant listings and search functionality, abstract handling and publication, related events and post-event exchanges. Whether an organizer or participant, make your event a Frontiers Event!

Citizen science is an increasingly acknowledged approach applied in many scientific domains, and particularly within the environmental and ecological sciences, in which non-professional participants contribute to data collection to advance scientific research. We present contributory citizen science as a valuable method to scientists and practitioners within the environmental and ecological sciences, focusing on the full life cycle of citizen science practice, from design to implementation, evaluation and data management. We highlight key issues in citizen science and how to address them, such as participant engagement and retention, data quality assurance and bias correction, as well as ethical considerations regarding data sharing. We also provide a range of examples to illustrate the diversity of applications, from biodiversity research and land cover assessment to forest health monitoring and marine pollution. The aspects of reproducibility and data sharing are considered, placing citizen science within an encompassing open science perspective. Finally, we discuss its limitations and challenges and present an outlook for the application of citizen science in multiple science domains. Contributory citizen science is a method in which non-professional participants contribute to data collection in whole or in part to advance scientific research. This Primer outlines the use of citizen science in the environmental and ecological sciences, discussing participant engagement, data quality assurance and bias correction.

Citizen science has a problem with engaging diverse participants, with a growing number of studies showing those most marginalised in society, who could benefit most from citizen science activities, are the least likely to participate. The full implications of this lack of diversity for what citizen science can achieve remains unexplored. To do this, we reviewed the literature to create a comprehensive list of 70 proposed benefits, outcomes, and impacts of citizen science. We used this list to construct 9 pathways to impact, showing how short-term project outcomes under the themes of data, participant engagement and collaboration lead to a suite of medium- and long-term outcomes. We then explored how a lack of diversity in citizen science participants can cascade through these pathways, affecting the overall ability of citizen science to achieve its myriad potential impacts and further entrenching disparities in society. We advocate for project leaders to use a pathways to impact approach to explore how who they recruit will affect what their projects can achieve. We also call for greater imagination in exploring, testing, and sharing ways in which barriers to participation can be understood and overcome to open citizen science up to all and to achieve its potential.

Simple SummaryCitizen science offers an excellent opportunity to engage the public in scientific data collection, educational opportunities, and applied management. However, the practicalities of developing a citizen science program, from generating ideas to developing tools, implementing programming, and evaluating outcomes, are complex and challenging. To address challenges and provide a foundation for practitioners, scientists, and the public, the Government of Alberta developed a set of citizen science principles. Here, we use these principles as an evaluative framework to assess the outcomes of the GrizzTracker program, which was developed to help inform provincial species-at-risk recovery efforts. While the program experienced some successes, we identified challenges, including skepticism from the scientific community about the utility of citizen science and a lack of program leadership, staff capacity, and funding needs for long-term implementation. Reflecting on the principles, we provide policy recommendations that future citizen science programs can consider.Citizen science offers an excellent opportunity to engage the public in scientific data collection, educational opportunities, and applied management. However, the practicalities of developing and implementing citizen science programming are often more complex than considered. Some challenges to effective citizen science include scientists’ skepticism about the ability of public participants to rigorously collect quality data; a lack of clarity on or confidence in the utility of data; scientists’ hesitancy in engaging the public in projects; limited financial commitments; and challenges associated with the temporal and geographic scales of projects. To address these challenges, and provide a foundation upon which practitioners, scientists, and the public can credibly engage in citizen science, the Government of Alberta developed a set of citizen science principles. These principles offer a framework for planning, designing, implementing, and evaluating citizen science projects that extend beyond Alberta. Here, we present a case study using these principles to evaluate GrizzTracker, a citizen science program developed to help inform provincial species-at-risk recovery efforts. While we found that GrizzTracker applied each of the six principles in some way, including successful public engagement, strengthened relationships, and raising public awareness about northwest Alberta’s grizzly bears, we also identified a number of challenges. These included ongoing skepticism from the traditional scientific community about the utility of citizen science and governance challenges related to program leadership, staff capacity, and funding. By using the principles as a guideline, we provide policy recommendations for future citizen science efforts, including considerations for program design, implementation, and evaluation.

Citizen science has a long history in the ecological sciences and has made substantial contributions to science, education, and society. Developments in information technology during the last few decades have created new opportunities for citizen science to engage ever larger audiences of volunteers to help address some of ecology's most pressing issues, such as global environmental change. Using online tools, volunteers can find projects that match their interests and learn the skills and protocols required to develop questions, collect data, submit data, and help process and analyze data online. Citizen science has become increasingly important for its ability to engage large numbers of volunteers to generate observations at scales or resolutions unattainable by individual researchers. As a coupled natural and human approach, citizen science can also help researchers access local knowledge and implement conservation projects that might be impossible otherwise. In Japan, however, the value of citizen science to science and society is still underappreciated. Here we present case studies of citizen science in Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and describe how citizen science is used to tackle key questions in ecology and conservation, including spatial and macro‐ecology, management of threatened and invasive species, and monitoring of biodiversity. We also discuss the importance of data quality, volunteer recruitment, program evaluation, and the integration of science and human systems in citizen science projects. Finally, we outline some of the primary challenges facing citizen science and its future.

Citizen science can play an important role in bat research and conservation, providing valuable ecological data while engaging the public in bat research and monitoring efforts. We conducted a scoping review of peer‐reviewed literature to assess: who is studying or using citizen science for bat research and where; what methods are used in citizen science research for bats; and whether research on bat citizen science has demonstrated impact on participant engagement and scientific outcomes. Fifty‐one bat citizen science projects were published between 2014 and 2025. University‐led research constitutes 68% ( n = 26), underscoring the increasing recognition of citizen science within academic research. However, significant geographical gaps persist, with 67% ( n = 35) of studies conducted in Europe, 19% ( n = 10) in North America, and limited representation from Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania. Acoustic surveys dominate bat citizen science, accounting for 63% ( n = 32) of studies. A lack of region‐specific automated acoustic classifiers potentially hinders expansion into biodiversity‐rich regions. Studies also varied in their evaluation of participant engagement and conservation outcomes, highlighting a need for more consistent reporting and stronger links between research and conservation action. Practical implications . Addressing geographic and methodological gaps requires broader institutional collaboration, including partnerships with not‐for‐profit organisations, museums and government agencies. Such collaborations can strengthen links between public participation, scientific outcomes and conservation action, and in turn, increase support for bat conservation, habitat protection and biodiversity policy objectives.

BackgroundWhile the health risks of air pollution attract considerable attention, both scholarly and within the general population, citizens are rarely involved in environmental health research, beyond participating as data subjects. Co-created citizen science is an approach that fosters collaboration between scientists and lay people to engage the latter in all phases of research. Currently, this approach is rare in environmental epidemiology and when co-creation processes do take place, they are often not documented. This paper describes the first stages of an ongoing co-created citizen science epidemiological project in Barcelona (Spain), that included identifying topics that citizens wish to investigate as regards air pollution and health, formulating their concerns into research questions and co-designing the study protocol. This paper also reflects key trade-offs between scientific rigor and public engagement and provides suggestions to consider when applying citizen science to environmental health studies.MethodsExperts created an online survey and analyzed responses with descriptive statistics and qualitative coding. A pop-up intervention was held to discuss with citizens their concerns about air pollution and health. Later on, a community meeting was organized to narrow down the research topics and list potential research questions. In an online survey, citizens were asked to vote for the research question they would like to investigate with the experts. A workshop was held to choose a study design in which citizens would like to partake to answer their preferred research question.ResultsAccording to 488 respondents from the first survey, cognitive and mental health were the main priorities of investigation. Based on the second survey, with 27% of the votes from 556 citizens, the most popular research question was, “How does air pollution together with noise and green/blue spaces affect mental health?”. The study design selected was an observational study in which citizens provide daily repeated measures of different cognitive and mental health outcomes and relate them to the air pollution concentrations.ConclusionsBased on the co-creation activities and the results obtained, we conclude that applying citizen science in an environmental health project is valuable for researchers despite some challenges such as engaging citizens and maximizing representativity.

BackgroundCitizen science and models for public participation in health research share normative ideals of participation, inclusion, and public and patient engagement. Academic researchers collaborate in research with members of the public involved in an issue, maximizing all involved assets, competencies, and knowledge. In citizen science new ethical issues arise, such as who decides, who participates, who is excluded, what it means to share power equally, or whose knowledge counts. This article aims to present an ethics framework that offers a lens of understanding and heuristic guidelines to deal with ethical issues in citizen science.MethodsWe conducted seven case studies between 2015 and 2021 to attune and validate the ethics framework for the context of citizen science. The cases related to studies with older adults, people with a psychiatric vulnerability, people dependent on community care, people who are unemployed or living in poverty or both, and young adults with respiratory disease.ResultsEthics in citizen science reaches beyond the ethical issues in traditional biomedical and health research. It entails more than following procedures about informed consent and privacy and submitting a proposal to a Medical Research Ethics Committee. Ethics in citizen science relates to everyday ethical issues during the study, including relational and moral complexities concerning collaboration, sharing power, and democratic decision-making. Dealing with these issues requires ethics work of researchers. This entails seeing ethically salient issues and reflecting on everyday ethical issues. Ethics work consists of seven features: framing work, role work, emotion work, identity work, reason work, relationship work, and performance work. All are relevant for researchers in citizen science.ConclusionsEthical issues in citizen science often relate to power differentials, partnership, and collaboration between academics and non-academics. The ethics framework prepares researchers for the work needed in citizen science to act responsibly and offers a heuristic guide to reflect on ethics. Reflection on ethics is a pathway towards ethical citizen science, especially if researchers collaboratively reflect in partnership with non-academics who are subject to the moral issue.

In this article the authors share their experiences, results, and lessons learned during the creation of a coastal biodiversity participatory monitoring initiative. Throughout 2019, we delivered five training workshops to 51 citizen scientists. Data collected by the citizens scientists were validated by checking its similarities against that gathered by specialists. High similarity values were found, indicating that, if proper training is provided, there is a great potential for citizen scientists to contribute biodiversity data with high value. During this process a certain level of variation in data produced by specialists was found, drawing attention to the need for prior alignment among specialists who may offer training for citizens. In addition, despite overall similar results between specialists and participants, some differences emerged in particular parts of the habitat; for example, the bivalve zones presented higher complexity and hence greater challenge. Identifying key challenges for participants is key to developing appropriate citizen science protocols. Here it is provided preliminary evidence that supports the use of the monitoring protocol to obtain biodiversity data gathered by citizen scientists, assuring its scientific quality. Enhancing participation by the community and specialists is key to further validate the approach and to effectively expand such protocols, enhancing the level of biodiversity data collection. In order to promote participation, and maintain citizen scientist engagement in the initiative, it is recommended the development of new investigations that assess the interests and motivations of the public to take part. It is also fundamentally important to have an effective strategy to communicate the results of participants’ monitoring and their applicability to local and global issues, thus maximizing the continuity of engagement of citizen scientists.

Gold-mining activities have been demonstrated to result in significant environmental pollution by Hg, Pb, and Mn, causing serious concerns regarding the potential threat to the public health of neighboring populations around the world. The present study focused on heavy-metal contamination in the eggs, blood, feed, soil, and drinking water on chicken farms, duck farms, and free-grazing duck farms located in areas <25 km and >25 km away from a gold mine in northern Thailand. In an area <25 km away, Hg, Pb, and Mn concentrations in the eggs of free-grazing ducks were significantly higher than >25 km away (p < 0.05). In blood, Hg concentration in free-grazing ducks was also significantly higher than those in an area >25 km away (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the Pb concentration in the blood of farm ducks was significantly higher than in an area >25 km away (p < 0.05). The concentration of Cd in drinking water on chicken farms was significantly higher for farms located within 25 km of the gold mine (p < 0.05). Furthermore, a high correlation was shown between the Pb (r2 = 0.84) and Cd (r2 = 0.42) found between drinking water and blood in free-grazing ducks in the area <25 km away. Therefore, health risk from heavy-metal contamination was inevitably avoided in free-grazing activity near the gold mine. The incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR) in the population of both Pb and Cd exceeded the cancer limit (10−4) for all age groups in both areas, which was particularly high in the area <25 km for chicken-egg consumption, especially among people aged 13–18 and 18–35 years old. Based on these findings, long-term surveillance regarding human and animal health risk must be strictly operated through food chains and an appropriate control plan for poultry businesses roaming around the gold mine.

Living in an area with high levels of child poverty predisposes children to poorer mental and physical health. ActEarly is a 5-year research programme that comprises a large number of interventions (>20) with citizen science and co-production embedded. It aims to improve the health and well-being of children and families living in two areas of the UK with high levels of deprivation; Bradford in West Yorkshire, and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. This protocol outlines the meta-evaluation (an evaluation of evaluations) of the ActEarly programme from a systems perspective, where individual interventions are viewed as events in the wider policy system across the two geographical areas. It includes investigating the programme's impact on early life health and well-being outcomes, interdisciplinary prevention research collaboration and capacity building, and local and national decision making. The ActEarly meta-evaluation will follow and adapt the five iterative stages of the 'Evaluation of Programmes in Complex Adaptive Systems' (ENCOMPASS) framework for evaluation of public health programmes in complex adaptive systems. Theory-based and mixed-methods approaches will be used to investigate the fidelity of the ActEarly research programme, and whether, why and how ActEarly contributes to changes in the policy system, and whether alternative explanations can be ruled out. Ripple effects and systems mapping will be used to explore the relationships between interventions and their outcomes, and the degree to which the ActEarly programme encouraged interdisciplinary and prevention research collaboration as intended. A computer simulation model ("LifeSim") will also be used to evaluate the scale of the potential long-term benefits of cross-sectoral action to tackle the financial, educational and health disadvantages faced by children in Bradford and Tower Hamlets. Together, these approaches will be used to evaluate ActEarly's dynamic programme outputs at different system levels and measure the programme's system changes on early life health and well-being. This meta-evaluation protocol presents our plans for using and adapting the ENCOMPASS framework to evaluate the system-wide impact of the early life health and well-being programme, ActEarly. Due to the collaborative and non-linear nature of the work, we reserve the option to change and query some of our evaluation choices based on the feedback we receive from stakeholders to ensure that our evaluation remains relevant and fit for purpose.

Citizen science has become a mainstream approach for collecting data on biodiversity. However, not all biodiversity monitoring programs achieve the goal of collecting datasets that can be used in robust scientific inquiries. Data quality and the capacity to engage participants in the long-term are the most challenging issues. We compared two methodologies of citizen science programs dedicated to pollinators monitoring in France (Spipoll) and South Korea (K-Spipoll). These programs aimed to launch long-term monitoring at a community-level to better understand environmental effects on the composition and stability of pollinator communities. We assessed, through different metrics, how the two approaches influenced (1) data quality (assessed by “Accuracy in data collection,” “Consistency in protocol relative to volume of sessions contributed by an individual,” “Spatial representation of data,” and “Sample size”), and (2) participant engagement (assessed by “the number of connected days,” “the number of active days,” “the proportion of participant contributing a single session,” “the average number of sessions per participant,” and “the distribution of numbers of contributions per participant in each program.”). On one hand, participants in the Spipoll program abided by the standard protocol more often and provided identification for the photographed insects, leading to efficient ecological analyses. On the other hand, the K-Spipoll program provided more sessions per participant and a lower rate of single participation, with a full session demanding less effort in terms of data input, providing critical data where baseline data have otherwise been unavailable. These differences have emerged through methodology choices: For the Spipoll, the dedicated website favored the emergence of a social network that facilitated identification and increased data quality; for the K-Spipoll, the development of a cell phone application facilitated participation, and regular on-field education sessions motivated participants. We conclude by providing suggestions for the implementations of future citizen science programs to improve both data quality and participant engagement.

The article aims to provide an overview of designing a citizen science project in ecological learning, focusing on the case of gold mining pollution in the Batanghari River area. This research employed a qualitative method, non-interactive type with the approach used being concept analytical. The design of the citizen science project is conducted through a sequential cycle with its main components including: identifying the need or problem, determining if citizen science is the right approach, designing the project, building the community, managing the data, and evaluating the project. This project design illustrates an organized method of citizen science in ecological learning that is customized to the gold mining area. The contribution of participants is very important to emphasise at every activity in the project design, therefore the development of activities in this project refers to the logic model. The type of project relevant to the issue raised is to assess the potential or ecological status of the Batanghari River through the measurement of biological quality elements, physico-chemical elements, and hydromorphological quality elements, referring to the European Environment Agency standards. The design incorporates two distinct components: a collaborative project model and a framework based on research, both of which are arranged into mini-project activities. As a result, the project will contribute to improving students' skills in monitoring and collaborating with communities, as well as accommodating ecological learning activities intended as actions to help mitigate the problem of pollution due to gold mining in the Batanghari River.

This chapter explores the transdisciplinary potential of citizen science as a transformative practice for all those involved. Drawing on a comparison, and an understanding, of the similarities between transdisciplinarity and citizen science as transformative ethical practices that integrate knowledge and also integrate people in science, the chapter includes three innovative case studies to illustrate what we mean by transformative ethical practices. The chapter presents a framework to help explain the transdisciplinary potential of citizen science using four different categories of citizen science: Crowdsourcing; distributed intelligence; co-created citizen science; and community-led citizen science. The chapter maps the practices of knowledge production and participant integration across disciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary interactions. The chapter concludes by articulating the crucial importance of catalysing the potential impact of citizen science by focussing on transdisciplinary approaches. As the field continues to develop, citizen science can move towards transdisciplinarity, since this is where it has the potential to truly have societal impact and to challenge the status quo.

Stroke is a major cause of disability globally, with high recurrence rates despite the implementation of secondary prevention strategies. Promoting physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour are critical to mitigate these risks. Collaborative research approaches, including citizen science, offer promising methods for developing more effective and sustainable interventions by leveraging patient insights and lived experiences across different research stages. This scoping review explored the application of citizen science approaches in developing interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour for people with stroke. Following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the PRISMA-ScR checklist, five databases were searched. We included empirical studies involving stroke patients in research on physical activity or sedentary behaviour interventions. Data was extracted on terminology, collaboration methods, and participant roles and analysed using the Participation Matrix framework. Methodological rigor was assessed using the CASP qualitative checklist. Fourteen studies were included, most published after 2020 and originating from diverse countries. Terms like "co-design," "co-creation," and "patient and public involvement" were prevalent, but "citizen science" was not explicitly mentioned. Methods for active involvement of stroke patients included focus groups, workshops, and advisory panels. Stroke patients primarily participated as advisors or partners during intervention design, with minimal involvement in early research stages, data analysis, or dissemination. Researchers predominantly held decision-making roles. Citizen science in stroke research is still developing, with limited patient involvement across research phases. Expanding the depth and scope of patient involvement could enhance the relevance and long-term impact of interventions.