Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas

P. Dimopoulos,M. Panitsa,A. S. Kallimanis

doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09316-9

P. Dimopoulos, M. Panitsa + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09316-9

Copy DOI

Journal: Scientific Reports	Publication Date: Aug 21, 2017
Citations: 23	License type: open-access

Affiliation: University of Patras

Abstract

EU biodiversity conservation policy is based on the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC), which aims that habitat types and species of Community interest should reach ‘favourable conservation status’. To this end, Member States are obliged to perform periodic assessment of species and habitat conservation status through biodiversity monitoring, which, in almost all cases, was performed by experts implementing standardized field protocols. Here, we examine the quality of data collected in the field by non-experts (citizen scientists) for the conservation status assessment of habitat types, and specifically for the criteria ‘typical species’, ‘specific structures and functions’, and ‘pressures and threats’. This task is complicated and demands different types of field data. We visited two Natura 2000 sites and investigated four habitat types (two in each site) with non-experts and compared their data to the data collected by experts for accuracy, completeness and spatial arrangement. The majority of the non-expert data were accurate (i.e. non-experts recorded information they observed in the field), but they were incomplete (i.e. non-experts detected less information than the experts). Also, non-experts chose their sampling locations closer to the edge of the habitat, i.e. in more marginal conditions and thus in potentially more degraded conditions, than experts.

Highlights

The biodiversity conservation policy of EU is primarily based on the Natura 2000 network of protected areas
The conservation status of a habitat type is favourable when the habitats natural range and the area of occupancy are stable or increasing, and the specific structures and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance are present and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future (Directive 92/43/EC Article 1e)
In the case of habitat types, the most crucial part of the conservation status assessment that relies on fieldwork is the assessment of the structures and functions and the future prospects[4]

Summary

Introduction

The biodiversity conservation policy of EU is primarily based on the Natura 2000 network of protected areas. The conservation status of a habitat type is favourable when the habitats natural range and the area of occupancy are stable or increasing, and the specific structures and functions which are necessary for its long-term maintenance are present and are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future (Directive 92/43/EC Article 1e). Different Member States assessed conservation status using different methodologies to quantify the four criteria and different thresholds to classify the scores to conservation status classes Two of these criteria (range and area) could be estimated only at the national level, using different methods (e.g. mapping, modelling) and different data sources (e.g. remote sensing data and/or other geographic information)[5, 6]. In the case of habitat types, the most crucial part of the conservation status assessment that relies on fieldwork is the assessment of the structures and functions (i.e. information on the specific structures and functions of each habitat type including the presence, abundance and vitality of typical species) and the future prospects (which relies on the pressures and threats operating on the habitat types and how they are likely to affect the habitat in the foreseeable future)[4]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion