Citizen science 

(CS; also known as community science, crowd science, crowd-sourced

science, civic science, or volunteer monitoring) is scientific research conducted, in whole or
in part, by amateur (or nonprofessional) scientists.[1] Citizen science is sometimes described as
"public participation in scientific research," participatory monitoring, and participatory action
research whose outcomes are often advancements in scientific research by improving the
scientific communities capacity, as well as increasing the public's understanding of science.[2][3][4]

Scanning the cliffs near Logan Pass for mountain goats as part of the Glacier National Park Citizen
Science Program

Contents

 1Definition

o 1.1Alternative definitions

o 1.2Related fields

o 1.3Benefits and limitations

 2Ethics

 3Economic worth

 4Relations with education and academia

 5History

o 5.1Amateur astronomy

o 5.2Butterfly counts

o 5.3Ornithology

o 5.4Citizen oceanography

o 5.5Coral reefs

o 5.6Freshwater fish

o 5.7Rocky reefs

o 5.8Agriculture

o 5.9Art history

o 5.10Biodiversity

o 5.11Health and welfare

 6Modern technology

o 6.1Internet
 o 6.2Smartphone

o 6.3Seismology

o 6.4Hydrology

o 6.5Plastics and pollution

o 6.6Citizen sensing

o 6.7Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic

 7Around the world

o 7.1Africa

o 7.2Asia

o 7.3Latin America

 8Conferences

 9See also

 10References

 11Further reading

 12External links

o 12.1National and regional portals

o 12.2Other

Definition[edit]
The term CS has multiple origins, as well as differing concepts.[5] It was first defined
independently in the mid-1990s by Rick Bonney in the United States and Alan Irwin in the United
Kingdom.[5][6][7] Alan Irwin, a British sociologist, defines CS as "developing concepts of scientific
citizenship which foregrounds the necessity of opening up science and science policy processes
to the public".[5] Irwin sought to reclaim two dimensions of the relationship between citizens and
science: 1) that science should be responsive to citizens' concerns and needs; and 2) that
citizens themselves could produce reliable scientific knowledge.[8] The American ornithologist
Rick Bonney, unaware of Irwin's work, defined CS as projects in which nonscientists, such as
amateur birdwatchers, voluntarily contributed scientific data. This describes a more limited role
for citizens in scientific research than Irwin's conception of the term.[8]
The terms citizen science and citizen scientists entered the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in
June 2014.[9][10] "Citizen science" is defined as "scientific work undertaken by members of the
general public, often in collaboration with or under the direction of professional scientists and
scientific institutions".[10] "Citizen scientist" is defined as: (a) "a scientist whose work is
characterized by a sense of responsibility to serve the best interests of the wider community
(now rare)"; or (b) "a member of the general public who engages in scientific work, often in
collaboration with or under the direction of professional scientists and scientific institutions; an
amateur scientist".[10] The first use of the term "citizen scientist" can be found in the
magazine New Scientist in an article about ufology from October 1979.[11]
Muki Haklay cites, from a policy report for the Wilson Center entitled "Citizen Science and Policy:
A European Perspective", an alternate first use of the term "citizen science" by R. Kerson in the
magazine MIT Technology Review from January 1989.[12][13] Quoting from the Wilson Center
report: "The new form of engagement in science received the name 'citizen science'. The first
recorded example of the use of the term is from 1989, describing how 225 volunteers across the
US collected rain samples to assist the Audubon Society in an acid-rain awareness raising
campaign."[12][13]
A "Green Paper on Citizen Science" was published in 2013 by the European Commission's
Digital Science Unit and Socientize.eu, which included a definition for CS, referring to "the
general public engagement in scientific research activities when citizens actively contribute to
science either with their intellectual effort or surrounding knowledge or with their tools and
resources. Participants provide experimental data and facilities for researchers, raise new
questions and co-create a new scientific culture."[14][15]
Citizen science may be performed by individuals, teams, or networks of volunteers. Citizen
scientists often partner with professional scientists to achieve common goals. Large volunteer
networks often allow scientists to accomplish tasks that would be too expensive or time-
consuming to accomplish through other means.[16]
Many citizen-science projects serve education and outreach goals.[17][18][19] These projects may be
designed for a formal classroom environment or an informal education environment such as
museums.
Citizen science has evolved over the past four decades. Recent projects place more emphasis
on scientifically sound practices and measurable goals for public education.[20] Modern citizen
science differs from its historical forms primarily in the access for, and subsequent scale of,
public participation; technology is credited as one of the main drivers of the recent explosion of
citizen science activity.[21]
In March 2015, the Office of Science and Technology Policy published a factsheet entitled
"Empowering Students and Others through Citizen Science and Crowdsourcing".[22] Quoting:
"Citizen science and crowdsourcing projects are powerful tools for providing students with skills
needed to excel in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Volunteers in citizen
science, for example, gain hands-on experience doing real science, and in many cases take that
learning outside of the traditional classroom setting".[22] The National Academies of Science
cites SciStarter as a platform offering access to more than 2,700 citizen science projects and
events, as well as helping interested parties access tools that facilitate project participation.[23]

Members of the Cascades Butterfly Citizen Science Team pictured on Sauk mountain

In May 2016, a new open-access journal was started by the Citizen Science Association along
with Ubiquity Press called Citizen Science: Theory and Practice (CS:T&P).[24][25] Quoting from the
editorial article titled "The Theory and Practice of Citizen Science: Launching a New Journal",
"CS:T&P provides the space to enhance the quality and impact of citizen science efforts by
deeply exploring the citizen science concept in all its forms and across disciplines. By examining,
critiquing, and sharing findings across a variety of citizen science endeavors, we can dig into the
underpinnings and assumptions of citizen science and critically analyze its practice and
outcomes."[25]
In February 2020, Timber Press, an imprint of Workman Publishing Company, published "The
Field Guide to Citizen Science" as a practical guide for anyone interested in getting started with
CS.[26]

Alternative definitions[edit]
Other definitions for citizen science have also been proposed. For example, Bruce Lewenstein
of Cornell University's Communication and S&TS departments describes 3 possible definitions:[27]

 The participation of nonscientists in the process of gathering data according to

specific scientific protocols and in the process of using and interpreting that data.[27]
 The engagement of nonscientists in true decision-making about policy issues that
have technical or scientific components.[27]
 The engagement of research scientists in the democratic and policy process.[27]
Scientists and scholars who have used other definitions include Frank N. von Hippel, Stephen
Schneider, Neal Lane and Jon Beckwith.[28][29][30] Other alternative terminologies proposed are
"civic science" and "civic scientist".[31]
Further, Muki Haklay offers an overview of the typologies of the level of citizen participation in
citizen science, which range from "crowdsourcing" (level 1), where the citizen acts as a sensor,
to "distributed intelligence" (level 2), where the citizen acts as a basic interpreter, to "participatory
science", where citizens contribute to problem definition and data collection (level 3), to "extreme
citizen science", which involves collaboration between the citizen and scientists in problem
definition, collection and data analysis.[32]
A 2014 Mashable article defines a citizen scientist as: "Anybody who voluntarily contributes his
or her time and resources toward scientific research in partnership with professional scientists."[33]
In 2016 the Australian Citizen Science Association released their definition which states "Citizen
science involves public participation and collaboration in scientific research with the aim to
increase scientific knowledge."[34][35]
In 2016, the book "Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research" defined citizen
science as "work undertaken by civic educators together with citizen communities to advance
science, foster a broad scientific mentality, and/or encourage democratic engagement, which
allows society to deal rationally with complex modern problems".[36]

Related fields[edit]
In a Smart City era, Citizen Science relays on various web-based tools (eg.WebGIS) and
becomes Cyber Citizen Science.[37] Some projects, such as SETI@home, use the Internet to take
advantage of distributed computing. These projects are generally passive. Computation tasks are
performed by volunteers' computers and require little involvement beyond initial setup. There is
disagreement as to whether these projects should be classified as citizen science.
The astrophysicist and Galaxy Zoo co-founder Kevin Schawinski stated: "We prefer to call this
[Galaxy Zoo] citizen science because it's a better description of what you're doing; you're a
regular citizen but you're doing science. Crowd sourcing sounds a bit like, well, you're just a
member of the crowd and you're not; you're our collaborator. You're pro-actively involved in the
process of science by participating."[38]
Compared to SETI@home, "Galaxy Zoo volunteers do real work. They're not just passively
running something on their computer and hoping that they'll be the first person to find aliens.
They have a stake in science that comes out of it, which means that they are now interested in
what we do with it, and what we find."[38]
Citizen policy may be another result of citizen science initiatives. Bethany Brookshire (pen name
SciCurious) writes: "If citizens are going to live with the benefits or potential consequences of
science (as the vast majority of them will), it's incredibly important to make sure that they are not
only well informed about changes and advances in science and technology, but that they also ...
are able to ... influence the science policy decisions that could impact their lives."[39] In The
Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science, editors Darlene Cavalier and Eric Kennedy, highlight
emerging connections between citizen science, civic science, and participatory technology
assessment.[40]

Benefits and limitations[edit]

Citizen involvement in scientific projects has become a means of encouraging curiosity and
greater understanding of science whilst providing an unprecedented engagement between
professional scientists and the general public.[4] In a research report published by the National
Park Service in 2008, Brett Amy Thelen and Rachel K. Thiet mention the following concerns,
previously reported in the literature, about the validity of volunteer-generated data:[41][42]

 Some projects may not be suitable for volunteers, for instance, when they use
complex research methods or require a lot of (often repetitive) work.[41]
 If volunteers lack proper training in research and monitoring protocols, they are at
risk of introducing bias into the data.[41]
The question of data accuracy, in particular, remains open.[43] John Losey, who created the Lost
Ladybug citizen science project, has argued that the cost-effectiveness of citizen science data
can outweigh data quality issues, if properly managed.[44]
In December 2016, authors M. Kosmala, A. Wiggins, A. Swanson and B. Simmons published a
study in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment called "Assessing Data Quality in
Citizen Science".[45] The abstract describes how ecological and environmental CS projects have
enormous potential to advance science. Also, CS projects can influence policy and guide
resource management by producing datasets that are otherwise infeasible to generate.[45] In the
section "In a Nutshell" (pg3), four condensed conclusions are stated. They are:[45]

1. Datasets produced by volunteer CSs can have reliably high quality, on par with those
produced by professionals.
2. Individual volunteer accuracy varies, depending on task difficulty and volunteer
experience. Multiple methods exist for boosting accuracy to required levels for a
given project.
3. Most types of bias found in CS datasets are also found in professionally produced
datasets and can be accommodated using existing statistical tools.
4. Reviewers of CS projects should look for iterated project design, standardization and
appropriateness of volunteer protocols and data analyses, capture of metadata, and
accuracy assessment.
They conclude that as CS continues to grow and mature, a key metric of project success they
expect to see will be a growing awareness of data quality. They also conclude that CS will
emerge as a general tool helping "to collect otherwise unobtainable high-quality data in support
of policy and resource management, conservation monitoring, and basic science."[45]
A study of Canadian lepidoptera datasets published in 2018 compared the use of a
professionally curated dataset of butterfly specimen records with four years of data from a CS
program, eButterfly.[46][47] The eButterfly dataset was used as it was determined to be of high
quality because of the expert vetting process used on the site, and there existed a historic
dataset covering the same geographic area consisting of specimen data, much of it institutional.
The authors note that, in this case, CS data provides both novel and complementary information
to the specimen data. Five new species were reported from the CS data, and geographic
distribution information was improved for over 80% of species in the combined dataset when CS
data was included.