The High Seas at Your Fingertips: A Case Study of the Living Sailor Leveraging Community Science to Answer Decades Old Questions in High Seas Biogeography

Nearly half the surface of the Earth consists of the high seas, the ocean 200 nautical miles beyond a nation’s coastline, with a recent 2023 UN international agreement (BBNJ Treaty) requiring renewed political efforts to protect this vast area. Unique to this agreement, when ratified, will be its ability to create marine protected areas on the high seas. With various organizations and institutions beginning the race to champion their chosen biodiversity hotspot, two unique high seas oceanographic features have emerged: the Costa Rica Thermal Dome and the Sargasso Sea. In these high seas case studies, we investigate the fishing intensity, the corporate actors benefitting from the fishing effort, and shipping traffic to understand the current anthropogenic stress in both regions. We find anthropogenic activity is deeply intertwined with the biogeochemistry in these contrasting oceanographic high seas features. The Sargasso Sea is a sub-tropical gyre and is thus highly oligotrophic, while the Costa Rica thermal dome is a seasonal upwelling that brings nutrient-rich water to the euphotic zone, attracting highly migratory species and the corporate actors that aim to extract them. Understanding that the greatest current impact from anthropogenic activity on the high seas is industrialized fishing, the high seas case studies analyzed here pose the question, should we protect marine life and high seas habitat from current activity (such as in the Costa Rica thermal dome), or areas with very little anthropogenic activity that have endemic species and intrinsic natural value (the Sargasso Sea)? With the implementation of the BBNJ treaty on the horizon and limited tools to keep pace with industrial corporations who work to overexploit the high seas, it will be essential to identify the values behind the models we create to identify and champion high seas areas’ and if they are protecting marine life from harm or not.

Citizen science has expanded ecological and environmental sciences by actualizing studies across greater spatial and temporal scales while incorporating local expertise and interests that might otherwise be overlooked. Broadly, citizen science involves the public in the process of science. However, it continues to struggle to engage diverse participants. Citizen science project coordinators are increasingly trying to promote inclusivity by rebranding as community science to avoid the term citizen. Although well intentioned, rebranding efforts are uninformed by research because an evidence‐based understanding of these terms is lacking. On the basis of results from a survey distributed to participants in citizen and community science, we found differences in how well known and accepted the terms are, who is perceived as initiating and benefiting from the projects, and associated levels of inclusivity. Our findings have important implications for those involved in citizen and community science seeking to better describe projects in the future.

What is the countercultural potential of citizen science? As a participant in the wider citizen science movement, I can attest that contemporary citizen science initiatives rarely characterise themselves as countercultural. Rather, the goal of most citizen science projects is to be seen as producing orthodox scientific knowledge: the ethos is respectability rather than rebellion (NERC). I will suggest instead that there are resonances with the counterculture that emerged in the 1960s, most visibly through an emphasis on participatory experimentation and the principles of environmental sustainability and social justice. This will be illustrated by example, through two citizen science projects that have a commitment to combining social values with scientific practice. I will then describe the explicitly countercultural organisation, Science for the People, which arose from within the scientific community itself, out of opposition to the Vietnam War. Methodological and conceptual weaknesses in the authoritative model of science are explored, suggesting that there is an opportunity for citizen science to become anti-hegemonic by challenging the hegemony of science itself. This reformulation will be expressed through Deleuze and Guattari's notion of nomadic science, the means through which citizen science could become countercultural. Counterculture Before examining the countercultural potential of citizen science, I set out some of the grounds for identifying a counterculture drawing on the ideas of Theodore Roszak, who invented the term counterculture to describe the new forms of youth movements that emerged in the 1960s (Roszak). This was a perspective that allowed the carnivalesque procession of beatniks, hippies and the New Left to be seen as a single paradigm shift combining psychic and social revolution. But just as striking and more often forgotten is the way Roszak characterised the role of the counterculture as mobilising a vital critique of the scientific worldview (Roszak 273-274). The concept of counterculture has been taken up in diverse ways since its original formation. We can draw, for example, on Lawrence Grossberg's more contemporary analysis of counterculture (Grossberg) to clarify the main concepts and contrast them with a scientific approach. Firstly, a counterculture works on and through cultural formations. This positions it as something the scientific community would see as the other, as the opposite to the objective, repeatable and quantitative truth-seeking of science. Secondly, a counterculture is a diverse and hybrid space without a unitary identity. Again, scientists would often see science as a singular activity applied in modulated forms depending on the context, although in practice the different sciences can experience each other as different tribes. Thirdly, a counterculture is lived as a transformative experience where the participant is fundamentally changed at a psychic level through participation in unique events. Contrast this with the scientific idea of the separation of observer and observed, and the objective repeatability of the experiment irrespective of the experimenter. Fourthly, a counterculture is associated with a unique moment in time, a point of shift from the old to the new. For the counterculture of the 1960s this was the Age of Aquarius. In general, the aim of science and scientists is to contribute to a form of truth that is essentially timeless, in that a physical law is assumed to hold across all time (and space), although science also has moments of radical change with regard to scientific paradigms. Finally, and significantly for the conclusions of this paper, according to Roszak a counterculture stands against the mainstream. It offers a challenge not at the level of detail but, to the fundamental assumptions of the status quo. This is what “science” cannot do, in as much as science itself has become the mainstream. It was the character of science as the bedrock of all values that Roszak himself opposed and for which he named and welcomed the counterculture. Although critical of some of the more shallow aspects of its psychedelic experimentation or political militancy, he shared its criticism of the technocratic society (the technocracy) and the egocentric mode of consciousness. His hope was that the counterculture could help restore a visionary imagination along with a more human sense of community. What Is Citizen Science? In recent years the concept of citizen science has grown massively in popularity, but is still an open and unstable term with many variants. Current moves towards institutionalisation (Citizen Science Association) are attempting to marry growth and stabilisation, with the first Annual General Meeting of the European Citizen Science Association securing a tentative agreement on the common principles of citizen science (Haklay, "European"). Key papers and presentations in the mainstream of the movement emphasise that citizen science is not a new activity (Bonney et al.) with much being made of the fact that the National Audubon Society started its annual Christmas Bird Count in 1900 (National Audubon Society). However, this elides the key role of the Internet in the current surge, which takes two distinct forms; the organisation of distributed fieldwork, and the online crowdsourcing of data analysis. To scientists, the appeal of citizen science fieldwork follows from its distributed character; they can research patterns over large scales and across latitudes in ways that would be impossible for a researcher at a single study site (Toomey). Gathering together the volunteer, observations are made possible by an infrastructure of web tools. The role of the citizen in this is to be a careful observer; the eyes and ears of the scientist in cyberspace. In online crowdsourcing, the internet is used to present pattern recognition tasks; enrolling users in searching images for signs of new planets or the jets of material from black holes. The growth of science crowdsourcing is exponential; one of the largest sites facilitating this kind of citizen science now has well in excess of a million registered users (Zooniverse). Such is the force of the technological aura around crowdsourced science that mainstream publications often conflate it with the whole of citizen science (Parr). There are projects within citizen science which share core values with the counterculture as originally defined by Roszak, in particular open participation and social justice. These projects also show characteristics from Grossberg's analysis of counterculture; they are diverse and hybrid spaces, carry a sense of moving from an old era to a new one, and have cultural forms of their own. They open up the full range of the scientific method to participation, including problem definition, research design, analysis and action. Citizen science projects that aim for participation in all these areas include the Extreme Citizen Science research group (ExCiteS) at University College London (UCL), the associated social enterprise Mapping for Change (Mapping for Change), and the Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science (Public Lab). ExCiteS sees its version of citizen science as "a situated, bottom-up practice" that "takes into account local needs, practices and culture". Public Lab, meanwhile, argue that many citizen science projects only offer non-scientists token forms of participation in scientific inquiry that rarely amount to more that data collection and record keeping. They counter this through an open process which tries to involve communities all the way from framing the research questions, to prototyping tools, to collating and interpreting the measurements. ExCiteS and Public Lab also share an implicit commitment to social justice through scientific activity. The Public Lab mission is to "put scientific inquiry at the heart of civic life" and the UCL research group strive for "new devices and knowledge creation processes that can transform the world". All of their work is framed by environmental sustainability and care for the planet, whether it's enabling environmental monitoring by indigenous communities in the Congo (ExCiteS) or developing do-it-yourself spectrometry kits to detect crude oil pollution (Public Lab, "Homebrew"). Having provided a case for elements of countercultural DNA being present in bottom-up and problem-driven citizen science, we can contrast this with Science for the People, a scientific movement that was born out of the counterculture. Countercultural Science from the 1970s: Science for the People Science for the People (SftP) was a scientific movement seeded by a rebellion of young physicists against the role of US science in the Vietnam War. Young members of the American Physical Society (APS) lobbied for it to take a position against the war but were heavily criticised by other members, whose written complaints in the communications of the APS focused on the importance of scientific neutrality and the need to maintain the association's purely scientific nature rather than allowing science to become contaminated by politics (Sarah Bridger, in Plenary 2, 0:46 to 1:04). The counter-narrative from the dissidents argued that science is not neutral, invoking the example of Nazi science as a justification for taking a stand. After losing the internal vote the young radicals left to form Scientists and Engineers for Social and Political Action (SESPA), which later became Science for the People (SftP). As well as opposition to the Vietnam War, SftP embodied from the start other key themes of the counterculture, such as civil rights and feminism. For example, the first edition of Science for the People magazine (appearing as Vol. 2, No. 2 of the SESPA Newsletter) included an article about leading Black Panther, Bobby Seale, alongside a piece entitled “Women Demand Equality in Science.” The final articles

Over the last decade or so, the rate of growth of academic publications involving discussion of ‘citizen science’ and ‘community science’, and similar variants, has risen exponentially. These fluid terms, with no fixed definition, cover a continuum of public participation within a range of scientific activities. It is, therefore, apposite and timely to examine the evolving typologies of citizen science and community science and to ask how particular disciplinary actors are shaping content and usage. Do certain approaches to citizen science and community science activity remain siloed within specific disciplines or do some approaches resonate more widely? In this study, we use mixed methods—bibliometric and textual analysis—to chart the changing academic interpretations of this scientific activity over time. We then ask what these analyses mean for the future direction of academic research into citizen science and community science. The results suggest that, while certain disciplinary-based interpretations have been particularly influential in the past, a more epistemically mixed array of academic interests than was previously evident are currently determining expectations of what citizen science and community science should look like and what they can be expected to deliver.

A recurrent complaint of members who attend ESA Annual Meetings is that the large number of concurrent sessions make it impossible to attend all the ones of interest. Symposium Reports from the ESA Annual Meeting is one response to this dilemma. They provide, for those who could not attend, an overview of the symposium presentations and the resulting discussion, as well as a convenient means to identify the presenters. And attendees can review the session! The Editor hopes these Reports are useful, and encourages future Symposium organizers to write Reports for the Bulletin when the presentations are given. For detailed instruction for contributions see: 〈http://esapubs.org/esapubs/journals/Bulletin.htm#Typ〉. Until recently if one were to ask "who is a scientist?" a common response would be, someone who works at a university or a government agency or in a laboratory. In other words, many of us tend to think of scientists as professionals who have been academically trained and conduct research through the auspices of a research institution, agency, nonprofit organization, or academic institution. Historically, though, individuals from outside this circle of professionals have been instrumental in shaping and contributing to science. In fact, some of the most renowned scientists and ecologists could be considered citizen scientists (e.g., Charles Darwin, Harold Mayfield, Alexander Skutch). But the view that the public could actively contribute to science faded greatly over the course of the 20th century (particularly in the United States) to such an extent that we were left with the view that only someone who was professionally trained could be a scientist. Recently, however, we have witnessed an increase in the extent and acceptability of public participation and engagement in science. In particular, over the past decade we have seen a marked increase in such "citizen science" (Fig. 1). Although explanations of citizen science vary slightly, they converge on this definition: the involvement of citizens from the nonscientific community in academic research (Trumbull et al. 2000, Lee et al. 2006). Historical trend of citizen science articles. Data represent peer-reviewed articles as identified in ISI Web of Science using the search term "citizen science" from 1980 through 2008. The number of unique articles (n = 55) published is indicated by "articles," and the number of unique citations (n = 353) is indicated by "citations." Because citizen science has seen a dramatic increase in recent years, both in terms of the number of participants and its spread into new disciplines, a symposium was held at the 2008 Ecological Society of America Annual Meeting to address the role of such activity in ecology. Eleven speakers from around the world converged in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to share their work in "Citizen Science in Ecology: The Intersection of Research and Education," a symposium organized by Christopher Lepczyk, Owen Boyle, and Timothy Vargo. The goals of the symposium were to explore the following questions: (1) Is citizen science a new discipline, sub-discipline, or tool, relative to ecology? (2) Are data collected by citizen scientists valid, and if so, comparable to data collected by professional ecologists or their assistants? (3) Can citizen science be an effective tool to help bridge the gap between ecological research, communities, and education, both for the public and students? (4) Is citizen science the same as or different from ecological monitoring, or is one a subset of the other? (5) Are citizen scientists actively participating in the scientific process as ecologists, thus increasing their ecological literacy? To address these questions, speakers discussed citizen science both in general conceptual terms and in case-specific contexts from around the world. Rick Bonney of Cornell University opened the symposium with an overview of the history and evolution of citizen science in academic research. He explained that citizen science began as a series of monitoring projects designed to put the findings of hobbyists, such as bird watchers and star gazers, to meaningful scientific use. Following these early monitoring projects were ones designed with educational goals and even some set up as experiments. Eventually citizen science started to become an accepted technique for data collection in several scientific disciplines. Today, new citizen science efforts are involving participants in data analysis as well as data collection, and some are even starting to collect data from online images such as nestcams (readouts from recorders aimed at birds' nests). Following on the heels of the history of citizen science was a series of four case studies describing ecological research and monitoring projects that rely upon volunteers for their success. These case studies were arranged along a continuum from large-scale national projects with thousands of volunteers to regional and local projects. In addition, each case study represented varying degrees of interaction between researchers and volunteers. Leading off the case studies was David Ziolkowski of Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, who discussed how citizens drive the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). Specifically, the BBS protocol conducts annual bird surveys along >4000 routes (Fig. 2) across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, using a highly skilled volunteer workforce. Part of the success of the BBS program has been its relatively straightforward field protocol and standardized design. Moreover, the BBS program has resulted in over 400 bird species being surveyed annually at a cost of less than $900 per species per year. Without citizen scientists, such accomplishments could not be achieved. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, a long-running insect monitoring project has been led by citizen scientists in conjunction with Rothamsted Research, the oldest agricultural research station in the world. Philip Gould highlighted how the Rothamsted Insect Survey has used light traps (Fig. 3) to capture insects across 460 sites in the UK for the past 50 years. This survey takes about five minutes each day to collect insects, which are then sent to Rothamsted Research for sorting and identification of the macro-moth fraction of the catch. To ensure a robust monitoring project, volunteers are reimbursed for any trap maintenance and provided with annual summaries of the moths collected from their trap. The success of the program has been built upon: (1) keeping the monitoring system simple; (2) ensuring that the volunteers are trained; (3) knowing when to discontinue sites; and (4) providing all volunteers with feedback on their work. The value of the insect survey was demonstrated in recent findings that two-thirds of common moth species across the UK have declined over the last 35 years, with 20% declining so fast that they should be considered threatened. As a result, several more species have now been added to Biodiversity Action Plans in the UK. Both the BBS and the Rothamsted Insect Survey demonstrate how large-scale monitoring can be used to denote changes in diversity and abundance over time. Furthermore, they both use protocols to filter data, thereby allowing for robust data set production. Locations of breeding bird survey routes. Figure credit: Curtis Flahter and Mike Knowles. Examples of (A) a light trap station in use, and (B) placement in a back yard. Photo credits: (A) Syd Wright MBE, and (B) Philip Gould. At the regional scale, Susanne Masi, manager of Chicago Botanic Garden's Plants of Concern Program, presented an overview and findings from the garden's rare plant monitoring project. The Chicago Botanic Garden established this program to monitor listed and rare plants in the greater Chicago metropolitan area. Initiated in 2001, the program involves ~250 trained volunteers each year in collecting plant data (Fig. 4), and has now accumulated 8+ years of standardized data on 205 plant species at 245 sites. Aside from simply monitoring rare plants, the program has demonstrated several key findings related to using citizen scientists. First, a two-year volunteer data validation study comparing randomly selected volunteer data to professional data showed a high degree of correlation between the two groups. For example, there was >80% correspondence between the two groups in critical data fields such as population numbers and presence of threats. Second, the results of a Plants of Concern citizen science focus group showed that volunteers participated actively in, and understood critical elements of, the scientific process. Furthermore, participants unanimously experienced an increase of their involvement in stewardship and conservation activities as a result of the program, and reported sharing this scientific understanding and enhanced conservation commitment with the broader public. Volunteers (A) determining plot locations and conducting rare and listed plant inventories (B–D) as part of the Chicago Botanic Garden's Plants of Concern Program. Photo credits: (A) Peter Jacobs, (B) Robin Carlson, (C) Emily Kapler, and (D) Dani Drekich. Capping off the case studies was a presentation by Bill Mueller, who introduced the Milwaukee County Avian Migration Monitoring Partnership (MCAMMP), an avian monitoring study focused on migratory bird stopover ecology in the urban parks of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. To date the project has utilized the assistance of >140 citizen scientists over six migrations (three years) to help address the major goals of assessing habitat use and quality in both riparian and upland sites, and quantifying habitat use by migratory birds. Citizen science volunteers involvement includes training for transect counts, assistance with bird-banding operations, vegetation sampling and analysis, and recording of data. One major aim of training the citizen scientists is that they will be able to establish a long-term, urban avian monitoring project that can expand in the future. The second main portion of the symposium was devoted to a set of talks on the issues of the philosophy, policy, and technology of citizen science. Rebecca Jordan began this second portion with a discussion of a framework for promoting ecological literacy within the context of citizen science programs. She stressed that program design must balance both the scientific goals, which include ensuring data accuracy, and educational goals. Together these goals promote conceptual knowledge about the system of study, epistemological knowledge about science processes, and behavioral change with respect to environmental and civic action. While there is much evidence to support the promotion of conceptual knowledge, the latter two areas warrant further investigation. Integrating cognitive and environmental action theory will likely prove useful as practitioners seek to broaden program impact. David Bonter of Cornell's Laboratory of Ornithology next discussed the issue of data validation processes for large citizen science databases, such as Project FeederWatch. Currently, Project FeederWatch receives >100,000 checklists from >14,000 citizen scientists annually, yielding over 5,000,000 bird observations of ~500 individual species. Thus, it is critical that such large volumes of data be inspected for any problems; this requirement has led to the development of a quality control and quality assurance protocol. This protocol uses a review system, whereby unusual observations or potential errors are flagged and sent to experts for follow-up with the citizen scientists. Unverified reports remain flagged and are excluded from data analyses and web-based data output. The system also allows researchers to identify volunteers who are in need of support and to focus educational efforts accordingly, ultimately improving data quality and integrity. Moving from data editing to data collecting, Louis Liebenberg, founder of CyberTracker Conservation, presented a talk on how technology can be used to get people back in touch with nature. Specifically, Louis has developed the free software program CyberTracker (available at 〈http://www.cybertracker.org/〉), which enables volunteers of all ages to collect biodiversity data on simple portable devices, such as smartphones and PDAs (Fig. 5). CyberTracker is already in active use for both citizen science projects and environmental education around the world. For instance, in the United States, NatureMapping, BioKIDS, and BioBlitz are using PDAs with CyberTracker software to enable volunteers of all ages to collect biodiversity data. Similarly, in South Africa, the NaturalWorld web site allows participants to share and view bird sightings, and in the Kalahari trackers from local communities are being employed to survey wildlife conservation corridors. Finally, the WhaleForce project involves yachtsmen around the world using CyberTracker to monitor whales. Ultimately, the software allows for easy data collection by citizen scientists and helps to promote people who engage the outdoors by collecting field data. Bushmen in Africa using CyberTracker. Photo credit: Louis Liebenberg. Michelle Prysby next discussed more efficient ways for interested citizens to find a project, and for projects to find interested volunteers. One partnership for scientists and educators interested in reaching trained citizen scientists consists of the Master Naturalist programs. These programs are volunteer training and service programs that involve the public in natural resource education, citizen science, and stewardship. Currently there are >25 Master Naturalist programs in the United States that represent a ready pool of volunteers who have been trained in core citizen science skills, such as recording field observations and using taxonomic keys to identify organisms. These volunteers are well connected to their local environments, and are part of an existing infrastructure that can support their citizen science volunteer activities. (For more information on natural resource education and stewardship programs such as Master Naturalists, Watershed Stewards, and Conservation Stewards, please see the Alliance of Natural Resource Outreach and Service Programs 〈http://www.anrosp.org〉). The final presentation of the morning was by Hague Vaughan, of Canada's Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network (EMAN), who wove together the themes of the morning's talks. He described how citizen science fosters a desperately needed means to better link ecological monitoring to policy development and decision-making. His argument was that the emphasis on certainty in ecological monitoring leaves decision-makers lacking sentinel and feedback information where timeliness is a key factor. If focused on outcomes, complementary citizen science can be a means of enhancing effectiveness. To illustrate how to integrate citizen science into policy, Vaughan discussed a project that combined citizen data with targeted research and air quality monitoring stations in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada to identify pollution and lichen hot-spots that was used to deliver feedback on municipal and industrial choices (Fig. 6). A map of arboreal lichens in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, based upon citizen science data. Darker green locations represent greater numbers of lichens, and points represent sampling locations. The symposium concluded with a round table discussion of the morning's talks. Following the symposium, an additional workshop on citizen science was held over the weekend at the Urban Ecology Center of Milwaukee. At this workshop many of the symposium speakers gave an additional talk during the morning portion, with an afternoon of hands-on activities designed to train and educate citizen scientists. Overall, the symposium sought to address five major goals related to citizen science. In reflecting upon these five goals it is clear that there was progress made on all, but not necessarily agreement. For instance, the general view was that citizen science has new elements to offer ecology, but there was no definitive agreement among the speakers that it was a new discipline or subdiscipline. Whether or not this will change remains to be seen; citizen science is still very much an area of new ideas and growth. On the other hand, several speakers presented data from their research illustrating that the quality of data collected by citizen scientists is of the same or better quality than that collected by professional ecologists. Such quality is enhanced further with the aid of both software (e.g., Project FeederWatch and CyberTracker) and expert assistance. Similarly, there was strong evidence that citizen science can be an effective tool to help bridge the gap between ecologists and the public. In terms of the overlap with monitoring, it is clear that they share a number of similarities and will likely continue to do so in the future. However, many of the citizen science projects were much broader than monitoring alone, because they engaged the public in the scientific process or served to enhance ecological literacy. Based upon the talks and concluding discussions, citizen science is an increasing part of ecology, and has great promise for contributing knowledge, improving ecological literacy, training scientists to work with the public, and providing information for policy-makers.

Factors Influencing Data Quality in Citizen Science Roadkill Projects

Line breakage events have been experienced on moored structures during recent years. These are often occurring in heavy weather and overload is one of the reasons pointed out. The present paper identifies posible physical phenomena that may lead to wave forces higher than predicted by state-of-the-art hydrodynamic tools and procedures, and thereby higher mooring line loads, in high and steep waves. In particular, a need to re-explore wave-group induced slowly varying, low-frequency (LF) drift forces has been identified. Both mobile offshore units (MODU's) and permanently moored floaters are considered, semisubmersibles and FPSOs. Empirical corrections are sometimes being applied in design of mooring lines, while not in general, and there is no established common industry practice on such corrections. More advanced tools and knowledge do exist in research communities, while they still need further development for robust engineering use. A brief overview is given of state-of-the-art methods and tools in modelling of the hydrodynamic forces on large-volume floaters, with particular focus on slowly varying wave forces. Full scale experiences from real sea events and from a variety of earlier case studies including model tests are reviewed. It is found that several items may be critical in the proper prediction of LF wave forces in high seas and combined current and should be investigated further, in particular: –Wave-current interaction–Viscous wave drift forces–Large and nonlinear wave-frequency vessel motions. Based upon these preliminary investigations, the paper gives recommendations for actions and further developments for improved predictions in industry practice.

Minimizing Data Waste: Conservation in the Big Data Era

The human history of the waters surrounding the Salas y Gómez and Nazca ridges is rich and culturally diverse. This ranges from indigenous cultures who first ventured to this remote region close to a thousand years ago to the period of European colonial exploration, as well as the rise of the modern global economy. Voyaging, fishing, and the transportation of commodities across these remote waters left signs of the human history of exploration and exploitation. A deep understanding of this rich history is critical to effectively managing its marine resources, since natural and cultural resources are intrinsically intertwined in many cultures. While most of the Salas y Gómez and Nazca ridges are located in areas beyond national jurisdiction, there has been recent interest to protect this remote region by governments, intergovernmental organizations, and the scientific community. This study provides a synthesis of the maritime heritage and cultural resources of the Salas y Gómez and Nazca ridges in order to guide future conservation, management, scientific, and public outreach efforts in this region. While uninhabited, several communities have profound connections to these remote waters, particularly communities on the islands of Rapa Nui, Juan Fernández, as well as the Peruvian and Chilean continental coasts. These communities in particular should be appropriately engaged during all development phases of the proposed protected area, as these relationships are critical to not only building interest and support, but also to developing conservation strategies that are socially responsible and equitable. While this review summarizes what we know about the maritime heritage and cultural resources of the Salas y Gómez and Nazca ridges, several knowledge gaps remain. Activities addressing those knowledge gaps should be incorporated in the design and eventual management of the proposed protected area, including research, education and outreach aimed at better understanding and appreciating the cultural significance of the region. The Salas y Gómez and Nazca ridges provide a rare opportunity to protect and study a globally significant area on the high seas, while also providing a window into the profound relationships between people and the sea.

Citizen science projects present a distinctive opportunity for professional and volunteer scientists to coordinate their efforts to gather unique sets of data that can benefit the scientific and local communities. These projects are assumed to be an effective educational tool to teach nature of science (NOS) to participants (Brossard, Lewenstein, Bonney, 2005). This case study evaluates the effectiveness of participation in a citizen science project as a way to learn about NOS. Through enhancement of the Tryon Creek Owl Monitoring Project the researcher reviewed the characteristics of a citizen science project that were thought to be necessary to impact the volunteers' knowledge of NOS. The study also explored the benefits and limitations to organizing the citizen science protect using the principles of action research. Analysis of participants' knowledge and the effectiveness of active research theory, was evaluated through pre- and post- questionnaires and interviews. Although volunteers were able to explore the core themes of NOS through actively engaging in the scientific process, they did not experience a statistically significant change in their demonstration of understanding. For a multitude of reasons, participants had a positive experience with the presence of an embedded researcher within the project. This case study supports the use of active research as a guide to ensure that within each project the needs of both the scientific community and the volunteer scientists are met.

Citizen or community science (CS) projects in the marine environment rarely consider carbon footprint and sustainability. In this case study, we assessed the effectiveness of ten CS methods used by tourists in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) and Coral Sea Marine Park (CSMP) who participated in the 2023 Citizen Science of the Great Barrier Reef expedition and the carbon footprint associated with these field methods. We also assessed the baseline coral reef knowledge of the tourists, observations of marine species, and the communication of our results to the public. Specifically, the tourists utilised up to ten methods: iNaturalist, CoralWatch, Great Barrier Reef Census, Eye on the Reef (EoR), environmental DNA (eDNA) testing kits, photogrammetry, social surveys, and Red Map, as well as marine debris and marine vegetation collections. A total of 10,421 data points were collected across 14 days, including 5390 records (52% of the total) uploaded to iNaturalist, comprising 640 plant and animal species. Public awareness of the CS expedition reached over 700,000 people based on estimates from advertising, media, social media, family and friends, and conference presentations. We estimated the total carbon footprint for the expedition as 268.7 tonnes of CO2 or 4.47 tonnes of CO2 per person, equivalent to AUD 112 needed to offset this input. Based on these results, our recommendations to leverage CS methods include governmental review strategies, temporal replication to allow for the measurement of changes through time, integrating sustainability into CS ecotourism platforms, and encouraging broad participation.

Data Quality in Citizen Science Projects: Challenges and Solutions

Biological diversity is one of the most important measures for marine conservation in the high seas. However, data and tools to assess and quantify biodiversity in the high seas are still not well developed. This hinders the development of the open-access tools necessary to assess biodiversity across space and time. Here, we examine prototype online mapping and visualization tools we developed within the OBIS-SEAMAP data center, a thematic node of the Ocean Biogeo- graphic Information System (OBIS) specializing in marine mammal, seabird and sea turtle obser- vations, to facilitate spatiotemporal assessments of biodiversity in the high seas. Our aims are to (1) summarize basic data needs for assessing biodiversity issues in the high seas; (2) discuss tech- nical challenges to address such needs and establish a publicly accessible framework for biodiver- sity assessments; and (3) demonstrate how our prototype framework facilitates these assessments using a preliminary case study. We anticipate that this will serve as a model for marine researchers and managers to develop similar frameworks or improve the existing ones for ecological assess- ments. Of special importance is the application of these assessment tools to emerging high seas biodiversity identification processes such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Ecologi- cally or Biologically Significant Marine Areas.

Stop the global slaughter of sharks

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.