125
© The Ecological Society of America •esahq@esa.org
esa
9
I
SSUESIN
E
COLOGY
N
UMBER
N
INETEEN
F
ALL
2015
What Are the Limitations of Citizen
Science for Achieving Science Goals?
Many scientific projects are not appropriate
for citizen science. The most common factor
limiting volunteer participation in a scientific
project is the ability of trained volunteers to
meaningfully contribute to the science.
Questions, methods, and analyses sometimes
require specialized knowledge, training, equip-
ment, and time commitments that make citi-
zen science inefficient or impractical as an
approach.
Additionally, not all citizen science projects
stimulate widespread public interest, whether
driven by curiosity or concern. Because inter-
ests vary, people are selective about participat-
ing in citizen science. For example, charis-
matic species such as wolves, bears, and
certain birds receive more public attention
(and support for public funding) than other
species, including most plants. Similarly, water
bodies near tourist destinations and college
campuses tend to receive more attention than
do those in urban and industrial areas. In addi-
tion, studies in small or remote communities
might be of great local interest, yet the pool of
potential participants in a citizen science pro-
ject might be small. For certain taxa and eco-
logical processes and for some biogeographic
regions or geographic locations, it is difficult
to sustainably do many types of citizen science
projects.
For field work, potentially hazardous condi-
tions or the need for frequent sampling can
limit the feasibility of citizen science. Few vol-
unteers are able to devote extended periods of
time to scientific projects. Extremely frequent
(e.g., daily) sampling needs therefore might
discourage participation and increase
turnover. There can also be a mismatch
between the availability of volunteers and the
availability of managers or their staffs; for
example, participants might be available pri-
marily on weekends, when staff is unavailable.
As a result, it might be difficult to recruit citi-
zen science volunteers for certain projects.
At the other extreme, infrequent (e.g.,
annual) sampling might make it harder to sus-
tain collection of high-quality data, because
participants might have to relearn even basic
protocols. A successful sampling design for
volunteers lies in between, where sampling
frequency is just enough to keep participants
well practiced and able to gather consistent
data, but not so high as to become onerous
and discourage participation.
Citizen science projects that simultaneously
engage volunteers in scientific research and in
public input into decisionmaking processes
must be careful to guard against bias. But pro-
fessional scientists must also guard against
bias, especially those who are involved in both
conducting research and informing decision-
makers. Similar quality controls can be used
for both citizen science and conventional sci-
ence; they can include training, collection of
duplicate samples, and postdata collection
analyses designed to identify outliers and
biases in the data. Quality controls should be
used in most citizen science projects, even
when volunteers are not involved in decision-
making. There is nothing particularly special
about quality controls in citizen science that
science does not already have the tools to
handle.
Public Input and Engagement
For federal, state, and municipal agencies as
well as many nongovernmental organizations,
public input and engagement are essential in
formulating and achieving natural resource
management and environmental protection
goals (Figure 4). Federal law requires federal
agencies to disclose the impacts of their major
activities and to solicit public input or partici-
pation at important stages in the land man-
agement and policy development process. We
define “public input” as feedback from the
public in response to a call from government
or other organizations for input. Examples
include public comment periods following the
release of environmental impact statements
and meetings of advisory committees, such as
those set upunder the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
Government agencies and other organiza-
tions also foster public engagement in natural
resource and environmental management and
policymaking. Accordingly, we define “public
engagement” as officials, specialists, and other
employees interacting with the public to
exchange ideas about a problem or a proposed
solution or other management action or goal.
This is typically done through education pro-
grams, public outreach, and town hall meet-
ings. Public participation was originally
intended to prevent special interest groups
from unduly influencing federal decisionmak-
ing. Now, public input and collaboration are
increasingly viewed as essential in crafting sus-
tainable management activities and policies
(Case Study 3).
