Abstract

Citizen science is mainstream: millions of people contribute data to a growing array of citizen science projects annually, forming massive datasets that will drive research for years to come. Many citizen science projects implement a “leaderboard” framework, ranking the contributions based on number of records or species, encouraging further participation. But is every data point equally “valuable?” Citizen scientists collect data with distinct spatial and temporal biases, leading to unfortunate gaps and redundancies, which create statistical and informational problems for downstream analyses. Up to this point, the haphazard structure of the data has been seen as an unfortunate but unchangeable aspect of citizen science data. However, we argue here that this issue can actually be addressed: we provide a very simple, tractable framework that could be adapted by broadscale citizen science projects to allow citizen scientists to optimize the marginal value of their efforts, increasing the overall collective knowledge.

Highlights

  • In October 2018, Corey traveled to Malaita, Solomon Islands, with the Australian Museum to conduct a biodiversity assessment with the local Kwaio people

  • What is the difference between submitting an eBird checklist from a remote part of the world and submitting an eBird checklist while walking the dog near his home in Sydney, as Corey does most days? Is one inherently more “valuable” to the database than the other? In this paper, we examine this question, highlighting that not all citizen science observations are created equal

  • We focus on citizen science projects in which the main intent is to collect broadscale biodiversity data, but the arguments apply to any citizen science projects that sample in space and time

Read more

Summary

OPEN ACCESS

Citation: Callaghan CT, Rowley JJL, Cornwell WK, Poore AGB, Major RE (2019) Improving big citizen science data: Moving beyond haphazard sampling. PLoS Biol 17(6): e3000357. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000357 Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Provenance: Peer reviewed; not commissioned.

Introduction
Citizen science is mainstream
Characterizing the value of biodiversity sampling events
Optimal sampling of biodiversity in space and time?
Spatial resolution
Temporal resolution
Spatial and temporal resolution
Forecasting the value of future BSEs
Conclusions
Findings
Supporting information
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call