Surveying
the citizen science landscape: an exploration of the design, delivery
and impact of citizen science through the lens of the Open Air
Laboratories (OPAL) programme
This paper provides a short introduction
to the topic of citizen science (CS) identifying the shift from the
knowledge deficit model to more inclusive, participatory science. It
acknowledges the benefits of new technology and the opportunities it
brings for mass participation and data manipulation. It focuses on the
increase in interest in CS in recent years and draws on experience
gained from the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) programme launched in
England in 2007.
Methods
The drivers and objectives for OPAL are
presented together with background information on the partnership,
methods and scales. The approaches used by researchers ranged from
direct public participation in mass data collection through field
surveys to research with minimal public engagement. The supporting
services focused on education, particularly to support participants new
to science, a media strategy and data services.
Results
Examples from OPAL are used to
illustrate the different approaches to the design and delivery of CS
that have emerged over recent years and the breadth of opportunities for
public participation the current landscape provides. Qualitative and
quantitative data from OPAL are used as evidence of the impact of CS.
Conclusion
While OPAL was conceived ahead of the
more recent formalisation of approaches to the design, delivery and
analysis of CS projects and their impact, it nevertheless provides a
range of examples against which to assess the various benefits and
challenges emerging in this fast developing field.
Background
The
term ‘citizen science’ is a broad term used to encapsulate a range of
different activities, but in its essence, it partners professional
scientists with volunteers in shared endeavour to study the physical and
biological world. In this paper, we present an introduction to the
historical context of citizen science (CS), and provide an overview of
one programme cited as such, the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) network,
from concept through delivery and impact. We use OPAL as a framework
against which to review the multifarious forms that citizen science
activities may take. We compare current thinking on the design, delivery
and impact of CS projects with experience gained from the OPAL
programme and consider the contribution CS can make to broader
scientific endeavour and societal concerns.
Historical context of citizen science
The advent of ‘citizen science’
The
contribution by members of the public to the collection, analysis and
dissemination of scientific data is not a new occurrence. Volunteers,
with no formal qualifications or affiliations, have contributed
substantially to scientific discovery. The voluntary efforts of the
‘gentleman scientists’, such as Benjamin Franklin and Charles Darwin,
made significant contributions to the advancement of scientific
knowledge across a range of domains while making their living from other
or private means [1].
Alongside
individual enthusiasts, amateur societies, which have a long and rich
history, have also provided mechanisms for public participation in
science. Many societies provide forums to bring together professional
and amateur members for fieldwork, education, promotion and
conservation, while also actively encouraging and supporting involvement
from the wider population. These opportunities have spanned a range of
disciplines, with particular success in astronomy and environmental
studies [2, 3].
While
citizen-involved scientific activities continued throughout the
twentieth century, there remained a division between the general public
and those with high levels of expertise. That level of expertise could
be acquired by citizens through the accredited training provided by the
professionalised scientific realm or through the expenditure of
considerable amounts of time, money and effort in self-directed study.
Scientific expertise therefore remained the purview of a minority and
those that gained it stood apart from the mass of society [4].
In
this paradigm, the public generally had been conceived of as the
passive beneficiary of scientific advancement and knowledge, without
themselves having a particular voice in either the science itself or its
policy applications because, being a lay audience, they lacked the
necessary expertise to contribute. This “cognitive deficit” model is a
term coined by Wynne [5]
as a means of criticising this attitude towards the public (lack of)
understanding of science and now is in widespread usage to refer
somewhat disparagingly to old-style science communication. It diagnoses a
deficiency in public knowledge and understanding of science and
proscribes filling this deficit through processes where the public
remains the recipient of scientific knowledge (with the process being
one directional and educational in nature). Over time this view was
challenged by studies that demonstrated the value of local and amateur
knowledge to science [6, 7, 8]
and the important contribution this can make to science policy. In
parallel it was increasingly recognised that greater public science
literacy does not automatically translate into more deferential support
of expert opinion, nor a generally more enthusiastic public towards
science [9].
The emergence of the term ‘citizen science’
The
term “citizen science” was applied independently at about the same time
in the United Kingdom and the United States (mid-1990s). Building on
the developments outlined previously, citizen science was promoted by
Irwin in the UK who, coming from a background of sociological research,
envisioned a new strain of science where the professionals interact with
the public to jointly formulate new knowledge and make informed
decisions [9].
This tradition advocated a move away from the “deficit” model and
instead emphasised that the public should engage with science rather
than merely understand it, and also that scientists and experts need to
be attentive towards the arguments and contributions the public can make
towards science and scientifically informed policy. All this signalling
that the communication between public and science should go both ways.
As a result and alongside increasing recognition that society could and
should play a more active role in the scientific process, new innovative
science communication and other public engagement activities, such as
science shops [10] and citizen juries [11],
foreground democratic and active participation with experts developed.
The aim was a critical two-way exchange rather than the mere transfer of
knowledge from expert to public.
Independently of Irwin, however, the term “citizen science” was applied in the U.S. by Rick Bonney [12]
to refer to a type of public engagement project that he and his
colleagues were pioneering at the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.
They aimed to combine the substantive tradition of amateur participation
in ornithology research with an element of science communication and
education targetted at those participating. This combination proved to
be very successful and became an inspiration for the set-up of many
similar projects both within the U.S. and abroad. Contemporary concepts
of citizen science to an extent combine the aspirations of both, and
citizen science activities arising from the tradition of Bonney can be
seen as a possible way in which aspirations for Irwin’s citizen
scientists can, in part, be realised.
Technological advancements supporting the growth of citizen science
Alongside
changes in perceptions regarding the value to society of a more
engaged, scientifically literate citizenship, technological advancements
have transformed the public’s capability to contribute to scientific
activities.
More
powerful and internet-connected home computers have greatly increased
the capacity of citizens to receive, collect and analyse data [1, 13].
The advent of the internet has improved communications, facilitated the
development of new cultural processes, such as the crowdsourcing and
sharing of data, and supported the growth of online networks of
enthusiastic and interested participants [14].
The increasing sophistication of smartphones has turned every device
into a potential mobile sensing station, with capabilities to record,
interrogate and transmit global positioning system (GPS) location, time,
images, acoustic information and other data [15, 16, 17, 18].
Alongside increasing the capability of citizens to collect data,
technology can also greatly improve confidence in those data. Sensors
record data with known margins for error, while novel applications of
existing technology can support data validation (for example, the
submission of high resolution digital photographs for verification by
experts) [19, 20].
While
many new technologies supporting citizen science are ubiquitous in the
developed world, technology can also promote participation in citizen
science by citizens in less prosperous parts of the world. Sapelli [21],
a mobile platform for data collection and sharing, was designed
primarily for non-literate and illiterate users with little or no
previous experience with computing technologies, supporting
environmental monitoring by indigenous communities, which includes
vulnerable groups with little involvement in the management of land on
which they live [22].
The OPAL programme
Open
Air Laboratories (OPAL) was designed as an environmental education and
research programme delivered through a national network of partners
based originally in England (2007–2013) [23] and extended across the United Kingdom (2014-current).
Research and outreach drivers
The
main scientific drivers behind OPAL were: (a) the objectives for
sustainable development defined at the Rio Summit through the
Conventions on Biological Diversity and Climate Change, and Agenda 21 [24]; (b) the UK crisis in taxonomy [25]; and (c) the decline in outdoor learning in the UK [26]. The unprecedented loss of global ecosystems [27]
provided further evidence of the urgency of addressing these issues.
Following the Rio Summit sustainable development was incorporated into
the heart of UK government policy [28].
It was acknowledged then that government alone could not secure a more
sustainable future and that everyone had a role to play. Community
groups and the voluntary sector inter alia were identified as important
participants in this endeavour. As sustainable development became more
widely recognised so did the urgency of both the task ahead and the need
for greater public awareness and engagement.
In the UK the National Lottery’s Big Lottery Fund [29]
is recognised as a leading supporter of programmes that improve social
well-being and address relevant policy areas. In 2005 they established a
major new funding initiative, Changing Spaces, calling for
environmental projects that would educate and engage local communities
in sustainable development. Emphasis was placed on supporting
disadvantaged communities in their local environment but the programme
was designed to reach all sectors of society. OPAL was therefore
conceived in response to a recognised policy need (sustainable
development and the environment) and funded by a national public body.
Concept
In
response to this call in 2005, Imperial College London (ICL) proposed a
very simple concept: take scientists out of their institutions and into
the heart of the community to share knowledge and engage local
communities in field-based research.
The
three research topics relevant to the identified research and outreach
drivers were: pollution (air, water and soil), loss of biodiversity and
climate.
The
majority of OPAL-England partners were research scientists who were
used to meeting regularly to share knowledge and develop collaborative
research. They were joined by representatives from local and national
government and their agencies and leading environmental organisations,
such as the Natural History Museum (NHM), as well as community
organisations affected by environmental issues such as the impact of air
pollution and loss of biodiversity (parks and conservation managers).
These meetings were initially funded through a network grant provided to
ICL by the Engineering and Research Council [30] for the Air Pollution Research in London (APRIL) network in 1999 [31].
Davies established the APRIL Natural Environment Group from which the
OPAL proposal emerged (APRIL is now managed by the Greater London
Authority). The OPAL partnership was therefore largely already
established as a collaborative research network familiar with research
and policy needs (drivers).
Reflecting
the aims and objectives of the Big Lottery Fund, the programme sought
to engage a wide audience, particularly people from disadvantaged
sectors of society, people not previously engaged with nature, as well
as the general public. All partners recognised and supported these aims
although for many it was their first experience of working directly with
the public.
Funding
ICL
was initially awarded £11.8m by Big Lottery Fund to direct and manage
the OPAL programme, with additional funds (£1.3m 2010; £1.4m 2012)
awarded in subsequent years as the impact of the public participation
activities was recognised. In 2014 further funding (£3.0m) was awarded
to extend the community engagement work across the UK (OPAL-UK). An
overall goal was agreed initially of one million beneficiaries
comprising 500,000 through field studies and 500,000 online (with a
further 100,000 in-field beneficiaries to be delivered through the
OPAL-UK programme). Other targets were agreed and a range of
quantitative data was gathered throughout the programme, for example
demographic data (i.e. percentage of disadvantaged communities reached
and age ranges of participants), media circulation data, web visitors
etc., whilst qualitative data were gathered through comment boxes on the
website, online and in-field questionnaires, and by social scientists
employed to work on the programme.
Goals
There were five key objectives:
1.
Supporting a change of lifestyle, a purpose to spend time outdoors, observing and recording the local environment;
2.
Developing an exciting and innovative educational programme that can be accessed and enjoyed by all ages and abilities;
3.
Inspiring a new generation of environmentalists;
4.
Gaining a much greater understanding of the state of the natural environment for research and policy purposes;
5.
Building stronger partnerships between the community, voluntary and statutory sectors.
Programme design and structure
The OPAL network is illustrated in Fig. 1.
ICL directed and managed the programme guided by an external Advisory
Board and supported by a series of regional and (under OPAL-UK) national
committees that sought to coordinate activities and, in doing so,
maximise programme impacts and support the OPAL objective to promote
stronger partnerships between the community, voluntary and statutory
sectors.
Fig. 1
Funded partners
in the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) network. Geographic locations of
regional partners with engagement staff (Community Scientists) are
displayed on the map and partners leading national research centres and
providing essential supporting services are listed to the left. The period during which partners were active in the OPAL network is indicated
Under
the original programme, OPAL established nine regional teams. Each was
based in a university and worked directly with local people on research
and educational projects of relevance to their region. Community
Scientists, a new role created for the programme, worked under the
direction of the regional lead scientist and, together with the schools
programme [led by the Field Studies Council (FSC)] and public parks
programme (led by the Royal Parks), were the main public engagement
mechanisms, motivating and engaging local people. Under OPAL-UK, new
partners extended public engagement activities to Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland.
OPAL initially set up research and educational centres (Fig. 1)
to provide scientific expertise, carry out research with varying
degrees of public engagement (science workshops, public demonstrations,
training days, publications in plain English, online progress reports,
blogs and attending local and national fairs and events), and deliver
research and educational tools. They also led the design and analysis of
the OPAL field surveys, OPAL’s primary citizen science activities. A
large support service underpinned the programme including a national
media strategy, web services, data management, and publications.
Engaging participants outdoors
It
was recognised that deprived communities and people from disadvantaged
sectors of society were less likely to engage through mainstream media
or traditional approaches to public engagement in science so a
significant proportion of staff time was spent working to engage these
groups. The Index of Multiple Deprivation [32]
helped to identify areas to target work and guidance from local
authorities and local voluntary sector representatives, including those
represented on OPAL regional and national committees, also helped
Community Scientists to make contact with minority groups. These and
many other innovative approaches were used to build relationships of
trust with local communities through repeated face-to-face contact.
Engaging participants through digital tools and media
In
addition to the significant staff resources (the original programme
comprised fifteen organisations and over 100 staff employed in either
full, part-time or in voluntary capacities) used to achieve OPAL’s
direct participation objectives, digital tools and traditional media
services were used to reach the general public.
The OPAL website [33]
provides the main interface for all participants. It houses the OPAL
database where all public data are initially submitted, provides instant
feedback through interactive visualisations and mapping, as well as
presenting research findings in plain English. It also contains all of
the educational materials OPAL has developed (free to download), blog
posts on community achievements, scientist profiles, and topical news.
Further digital projects, such as iSpot and Indicia, were also developed
as part of the programme (see below).
A
media strategy was designed and led by OPAL partner, the NHM, with
their extensive experience of public engagement and all partners, staff
and students were encouraged, trained and supported to contribute.
Classifying citizen science
Citizen
science has grown to the extent whereby an understanding of the breadth
of projects classified as CS can be helpful to drive the field forward.
While elements of volunteer involvement in science have been practiced
for centuries, Silvertown [1]
notes that the modern use of the term citizen science has only been
recognised relatively recently. For example, in January 2009 only 56
articles in the search engine ISI Web of Knowledge were explicitly
tagged with the term ‘citizen science’; by January 2016 this had risen
to over 11,000. Academic publications are not the only indication of the
rise of citizen science; the discipline has now reached a maturity
where there have been various conferences [34, 35], interest groups [36] and, membership organisations [37, 38, 39],
seeking to share best practice among practitioners. As the concept of
CS has developed a number of classification models have been proposed to
understand the diversity of the practice.
At the broadest conceptual scale, Dickinson and Bonney [40]
proposed four axes along which environmental CS varies: initiator of
projects (academics or public), scale and duration (global/local, short
term/long term); types of questions (pattern detection to hypothesis
led); and goals (research, education and stewardship).
Reflecting a number of these axes, Prainsack [41],
working mainly from the perspective of medical citizen science
projects, distinguished them along a number of different dimensions.
These include, for example, who has the ability to set the agenda, how
the project affects local communities and how open it is with the
resulting data and scientific research. Haklay et al. [42]
propose a classification framework based on the level of participation
from citizens: those requiring the least involvement as (i)
‘Crowdsourcing’, whereby citizens volunteer computing power or provide
and maintain sensors; next (ii) ‘Distributed intelligence’, whereby the
cognitive abilities of participants is utilised to collect or interpret
basic data, sometimes with more limited, prior training; next (iii)
‘Participatory sensing’, where citizens are involved in problem
definition and work with scientists to design a data collection
methodology; and finally (iv) ‘Extreme citizen science’, where the
relationship between scientist and citizen is collaborative, with
opportunities for citizen involvement at all stages of the scientific
process, with professional scientists acting “as facilitators, in
addition to their role as experts” (p. 12). Wiggins and Crowston [43]
identified five types of citizen science projects, including action
projects (instigated by the local community to address matters of civic
concern), virtual projects (based on internet contributions),
investigation projects (driven by scientific aims requiring data
collection from the physical world), conservation projects (promoting
stewardship of natural resources), and education projects (focusing on
education and outreach through formal and informal learning
opportunities). For example, some celebrated internet-based and science
led projects such as Galaxy Zoo [44] would in this classification fall under both virtual and investigation type.
OPAL,
conceived in 2005, can be considered a pioneer in the application of
large-scale CS even though it was not explicitly designed to any
established framework of criteria for CS. We utilise the aforementioned
broad conceptual framework of Dickinson and Bonney [40]
(which encapsulates many other more detailed classification systems)
and draw on examples from OPAL to investigate the breadth of citizen
science in this section.
Initiator of project
Along one of Dickinson and Bonney’s four axes—initiator—the Centre for the Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) [45]
propose three categories for citizen science projects based on the
amount of control that participants have over the different steps of the
activity: (i) Contributory projects, where the activity has been
designed by professional scientists and to which citizens are invited to
contribute data as per the specified methodology; (ii) Collaborative
projects, where scientists still lead the project but citizens are
invited to refine the design of activities, analyse data, or disseminate
findings; and (iii) Co-created projects, where the activities are
designed by scientists and citizens working together and “public
participants are actively involved in most or all steps of the
scientific process” [45].
OPAL
is policy driven and the majority of research questions were formulated
by academics, their students, or collaborating organisations, and
therefore citizens, in the main, acted in a contributory fashion,
providing data they collected to answer research questions and using
methodologies as defined and developed by professional scientists.
OPAL’s main mechanism for engaging the public occurs when public
participation is intrinsic to research methodology (although not the
research questions), namely the national field survey series (the OPAL
surveys). The OPAL surveys allow people to work independently at a time,
place and pace of their choosing, or directly in the field with OPAL
Community Scientists (or other groups trained by OPAL) providing
guidance and support. OPAL has developed seven surveys to date (and
several mini surveys), each focusing on a different environmental topic
(Table 1). The surveys often use biomonitoring within their methodologies, an approach long used [46]
whereby selected biological organisms can provide information on the
state of their environment. OPAL surveys include equipment such as
strips for pH measurements and tape measures as well as laminated,
illustrated, instruction cards (with policy links and health and safety
advice). In terms of their intended audience, the surveys were designed
with an educated 13–14 year old in mind or adults new to environmental
issues, however younger or less able participants can take part with
appropriate support or with materials suitably adapted. Survey data are
entered directly by participants to the OPAL database via the OPAL
website and analysed by the lead scientist for that topic. When the
first OPAL survey was launched (OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey, 2009)
lack of access to a computer proved a problem so a free post address was
introduced.
Table 1
The OPAL national citizen science surveys
Survey name
Launch date
Aim
Approach
Output examples
OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey
2009
Which species of earthworm are found in which soil and habitat types
The
OPAL surveys were designed to provide a low technology approach to
citizen science (and thus reducing barriers to participation,
particularly for groups from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, a focus
for OPAL’s engagement); the opportunity to exploit new technologies and
develop digital communities was, however, recognised as an important
mechanism for OPAL to deliver its objectives. Some activities were
undertaken in response to social and technological developments; for
example, the arrival and increased public ownership of smartphones led
to developing OPAL survey data submission via mobile phones (first used
in 2011 for the OPAL Climate Survey) and a first app (in 2012 for the
OPAL Bugs Count Survey). However, an integrated series of digital
projects that sought to exploit crowdsourcing capabilities while
building a new digital community was built into the OPAL programme by
design.
iSpot [47]
an online, interactive social network aimed to help the public to
correctly identify wildlife and to build and reward the development of
taxonomic skills. Participants share photographs of wildlife on the
website and a community of amateur experts and professional scientists
then provide participants with either verification of their
identification or propose new identifications. The online experts
providing support were initially OPAL-funded staff members but natural
history societies very quickly became interested in the data being
submitted by the public and, increasingly, as non-expert users developed
their taxonomic skills, they also contributed to verification of
records submitted by other users; in so doing iSpot could be considered a
CS project that can span both of the CAISE classifications of
contributory and collaborative CS. iSpot to January 2016 had >55,000
registered users who supported the identification of >700,000 records
(personal communication, Janice Ansine). More than half of the
submissions were identified within an hour (and >80 % were named to
species level) [48].
While
the majority of OPAL’s CS activities would fall into contributory or,
perhaps, collaborative classifications, there are examples where
co-created or entirely citizen-led CS has occurred, often developing
organically from OPAL activities. For example, staff members at the OPAL
Yorkshire and Humber regional project (University of York), together
with a local ranger, were interested in working with local people to
monitor the colonisation of flora and fauna onto an ex-coalfield site in
Wakefield. This work identified that the pond on the site was infested
with invasive crayfish. The local Anglers Association who managed the
site were keen to find a way to manage the invasive species and
contribute to furthering understanding of this species (as well as
others on the site) and so with OPAL staff they applied for a scientific
trapping license from the Environment Agency. Another example is La
Sainte Union Catholic School, which first used the OPAL Air Survey packs
to study local air quality and lichens. The school then contacted the
British Lichen Society (BLS) through OPAL and worked with them to
develop a project that was awarded a partnership grant by the Royal
Society to investigate the relationship between air quality and lichen
distribution. Using diffusion tubes they measured levels of nitrogen
dioxide as a means of validating the OPAL pollution index based on
lichen indicator species employed by the OPAL Air Survey [49].
Project scale and duration
Revisiting Dickinson and Bonney [40]
we look now at spatial and temporal scales and how they can vary
between citizen science projects. Some projects may last just one field
season (e.g. the Big Bumblebee Discovery [50]) whereas others have continued for decades (e.g. the Christmas Bird Count [51]); some may encourage citizens to examine their local area (e.g. the Hackney Wick Community Map [52] which allowed communities around Hackney Marsh, London to map a site less than 2 km2) while others provide platforms for citizen scientists to work across continents (e.g. iNaturalist [53]).
As
part of the OPAL-UK programme, and following testing with local
communities for cultural variation and the relevance of indicator
species, the seven OPAL surveys were adapted and extended across the UK
(including translation of materials into Welsh language) in 2015.
However, before this funding was awarded data had already been received
from these countries (nearly 800 sites had previously been surveyed).
Furthermore OPAL survey data have been received from many other European
countries and further afield. Not all survey methodology is
transposable to these areas although some data may remain valid (e.g.
physical or chemical conditions) and regardless of the research value,
participants may receive educational and stewardship benefits. After
almost 10 years in operation public participation in OPAL remains high.
Efforts to sustain OPAL core activities are ongoing and remain
challenging.
Types of research
Just
as the research objectives underpinning citizen science activities can
vary from hypothesis-led investigations (Conker Tree Science [54]) to pattern recognition exercises (Galaxy Zoo [55]); the approaches and types of scientific questions underpinning each of the OPAL surveys varied considerably.
Table 1
summarises the main type of research questions posed by the OPAL
national surveys. These span the range of question types identified by
Dickinson and Bonney [40].
For example, the OPAL Air Survey involved elements of hypothesis-led
work, investigating whether fungi could be used as a bio-indicator of
air pollution [56].
The study partly seeks to understand whether Tar spot fungus appears
less frequently on sycamore trees in urban areas than in rural areas
where air pollution levels and leaf litter management practices differ.
Other studies used publicly collected data for validating computer model
predictions: for instance, in the OPAL Climate Survey participants
submitted observations of aircraft contrails which were then compared
against model predictions of humidity levels at aircraft height [57].
The OPAL Bugs Count Survey placed more emphasis on monitoring species
distribution change in urban and rural environments. In addition to
scientific questions, environmental policy drivers directly shaped the
design of surveys: the OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey was developed in
part to examine whether citizens could contribute data to support soil
condition assessments and the OPAL Tree Health Survey supported official
government monitoring of tree pests and diseases [58].
To
ensure that the quality of data collected was of a usable standard,
each OPAL survey was developed through a working group chaired by a
scientific lead, supported by other scientists, representatives from
natural history societies, government agencies, and other stakeholders.
The process involved experts in graphic design, education,
communication, web design, social science and public engagement. Drafts
were regularly circulated to all OPAL staff for comments and tested with
the community before final publication. Mechanisms to minimise error
and to help validate records were introduced throughout the programme
and ranged from collecting photographic evidence of observations from
participants to online quizzes to determine the level of skill of the
participant and weighting of data at the analysis stage [59, 60].
The
development and delivery of citizen science does not occur in isolation
from the social, political and economic conditions surrounding its
goals of outreach and research. OPAL contained discrete supporting
projects that did not necessarily constitute citizen science of
themselves, but were considered to be essential to the processes of
enabling citizen science. In response to the acknowledged ‘crisis’
caused by the then shortage of skilled taxonomists [25],
OPAL sought to raise awareness and to increase the profile of natural
history societies and conservation groups (voluntary sector) who play a
critical role in biological recording and education. The OPAL programme
included a dedicated funding scheme, led by the NHM, to help these
groups to modernise, recruit new members and raise the profile of their
societies with the public. Seventy organisations were awarded grants and
a new web interface and database [61]
was designed detailing their expertise and their contact details. Many
of these organisations provided support to OPAL, particularly to the
Community Scientists. At that time no natural history society existed
dedicated to the study of earthworms, the biological element within the
OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey, so the Earthworm Society of Great
Britain was established in 2009 through an OPAL grant. The society has
the aims of (i) conducting research into earthworms; (ii) promoting
knowledge and appreciation of earthworms within the non-scientific
community; and (iii) educating the non-scientific community in earthworm
biology and ecology. The organisation has now established the National
Earthworm Recording Scheme and is in the process of developing
distribution maps for the 27 species of earthworm; it has also run
public events, provided identification training courses and has also
developed its own citizen science survey (the Earthworm Compost Survey [62]),
thereby continuing to support and foster the conditions for public
participation in earthworm ecology research (personal communication,
Kerry Calloway).
New software was developed to encourage and facilitate biological recording. The National Biodiversity Network (NBN) [63]
manages the national database for biological records in the UK. Through
OPAL funding, free, open-source biological recording software known as
Indicia was developed [64]
and is used by more than 80 societies in the UK and abroad. Indicia
required a level of skill beyond that of most OPAL participants and so
an easier to use version of Indicia known as Instant Indicia was
developed, and also an implementation of Indicia known as iRecord [65],
which was designed to allow any member of the public to create their
own biological recording account and begin submitting observations of
nature. Uptake of iRecord has been extremely positive, with the
millionth record submitted in September 2015 [66].
Setting and achieving goals
Defining
objectives and monitoring progress against them are important
components of any CS programme and are the final classification of
Dickinson and Bonney [40]. The OPAL Community Environment Report [67]
prepared for the funding body and participants alike summarises OPAL’s
achievements over the first 4 years of operation covering preliminary
research findings, unexpected outcomes, lessons learned and tools and
materials designed. All targets agreed with the funder at the outset of
the original programme were achieved or exceeded (separate but related
outcomes were agreed for the OPAL-UK programme to be delivered by the
end of the programme in December 2016). Table 2
provides a summary of the programme’s delivery against its targets,
updated since publication of the Community Environment Report, with data
following completion of the first 6 year programme.
Table 2
OPAL original programme (2007-2013) impact data
Objectives
Target impact
Delivered impact
Source
1. Spending time outdoors, observing and recording
a. Engagement with 500,000 participants at field events
b. Engagement with 500,000 online visitors
a. >850,000 participants at field events (>20 % of regional project engagement with disadvantaged beneficiaries)
b. >540,000 visitors to the OPAL website;
>1.1 m visitors to iSpot;
>520,000 visitors to Indicia sites or iRecord
a. Data provided monthly by OPAL staff
b. Web generated data (NHM/ICL; OU; NBN)
2. Creating an educational programme
240,000 survey packs to be designed, printed and distributed
>275,000 survey packs designed printed and distributed;
c50,000 educational resources downloaded
Print run data (FSC) and distribution data (OPAL partners);
Web generated data (NHM/ICL)
3. Inspiring a new generation of environmentalists
a. Increasing access to natural history societies (membership at 10 societies increased by 10 %)
b. working with schools
a. 32 (46 %) of societies monitored >10 % increase in membership
b. working with 3100 schools
a. Data collected by NHM through monitoring associated with OPAL grants programme
b. Data provided monthly by OPAL staff
4. Supporting a greater understanding of the state of the environment
No numerical target
>30,000 field surveys submitted (>22,000 further observations of contrail observation sub-activity)
>20 research manuscripts citing OPAL methods, using OPAL data or supported by OPAL funding
OPAL website survey entries
Publications
5. Building stronger partnerships between voluntary, community and statutory sectors
a. Raising awareness through media engagement > 500,000
b. Engaging with community groups (no numerical target)
a. National coverage by >180 radio, TV and print media hits; >100 websites; total circulation figures exceeded 100 million
b. Working with >2400 organisations
a. Media cutting service managed by OPAL Communications Project (NHM)
b. Data provided monthly by OPAL staff
Below,
we summarise further examples of impact across the goals for research
and outreach. Looking at the interface between these goals,
Lakeman-Fraser et al. [68]
assimilate the quantitative and qualitative evaluation throughout the
original 5 year programme drawing out trade-offs associated with
multiple aim projects and identifying key considerations to tackle these
challenges when planning and delivering a citizen science project.
Research
Research outputs span environmental and social science fields [69]. Taking an ecological approach Rose et al. [59],
for example, analysed the data collected from the OPAL Water Survey
yielding a national assessment of water quality and clarity in England,
whereas Gosling et al. [70]
investigated the OPAL Biodiversity Survey finding that urban hedges as
well as rural hedges can be important habitats for wildlife. A host of
other manuscripts have been produced on the scientific outputs of the
OPAL programme [56, 59, 60, 71] and the methodological considerations when monitoring data quality [57, 60, 72].
Exploring the societal impacts of citizen science Everett and Geoghegan [73],
for example, investigated the motivations and barriers that people face
initially engaging with a programme and maintaining enthusiasm for that
programme. Other research into this area focused on people from
socio-economically deprived backgrounds getting involved for the first
time [74], issues that scientists are faced with when getting involved in citizen science [75, 76] and the education and behavioural impact of citizen science involvement [67].
Through
OPAL more people have now engaged in activities related to
environmental policy and sustainable development objectives (OPAL
drivers), particularly with regard to Agenda 21 and the Convention on
Biological Diversity (Articles 7,12,13) which promote monitoring,
research, education and public awareness [77].
By working together scientists and the public have gathered a wealth of
new data about wildlife, its distribution across England and the
condition of their habitats. Some of these data are from sites that have
previously been difficult for scientists to access such as gardens and
inner city areas, allotments and playing fields.
Outreach
The
OPAL mantra is ‘Explore Nature’ and is all about encouraging people to
get outside and learn about the environment on their doorstep. OPAL
sought to engage all parts of society through a range of different
approaches. For example, media coverage spanned national and local
newspapers, television, radio, and online news sources: for example, the
OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey was reported on by, amongst others, the
BBC One Show (estimated viewing figures of 4.8 million), BBC Radio 4
(estimated listening figures of 3.3 million), and the Daily Mail
(estimated circulation figures of 2.2 million) [78].
Reflecting its funder’s mission to focus on “communities and people most in need” [29],
particular effort was placed on engaging communities without a large
tradition of participation in scientific research, such as those from
deprived, low-social capital areas. Traditionally, such groups tend to
have fewer cultural resources to fully participate in local
environmental decision making, or the social capital to make their
voices heard above those of the experts, compounded by a lower access to
high level education. Evidence also suggests that groups from lower
socio-economic backgrounds tend to live in areas of lower environmental
quality (e.g. [79])
and therefore may have greater need to participate in environmental
decision making. Citizen science therefore presents a powerful mechanism
through which to raise awareness and engage local people in local
issues.
Social data taken from the OPAL Community Environment Report [67]
indicate that: Half of all participants submitting survey data to the
website (8450 from a sample of 16,766 people) state that this was the
first time they had carried out a survey; just eight percent (695 from a
sample of 9261) said they would not carry out another survey; almost
half (43 %) of people interviewed (254 from a sample of 593) said taking
part had changed the way they thought about the environment; more than a
third of this groups (37 %) said they would change their behaviour
towards it; 90 % of participants (13,142 from a sample of 14,621) said
they had learnt something new; 83 % of these respondents said they had
developed new skills. Approximately 20 % of engagement delivered by OPAL
Community Scientists has been with individuals who classify as deprived
or in some way hard-to-reach.
A
wide range of materials have been developed across all topics for all
ages and abilities and are stored on the OPAL website. They are widely
used by schools, universities and other educational organisations such
as the British Science Association. OPAL has worked with >3100
educational establishments (54 % secondary schools; 43 % primary
schools; 2 % universities; and 1 % special schools) and school children
contributed survey data relating to c15,000 sites (50 % total
submissions). 10 % of the primary schools involved were located in the
most deprived 10 % of England (6 % of survey results came from these
areas). iSpot continues to be widely used and has been incorporated
within the Open University’s OpenScience Laboratory initiative that
seeks to make practical science available to any student with a
connection to the internet [80].
Contributing
to a national research programme was a key motivating factor for many
participants. OPAL’s high quality science programme was said to give
confidence to both teachers and students to carry out more fieldwork.
Unplanned positive impacts on health and well-being were reported by
many group leaders and participants during the programme. The high level
of interest from schools was another unexpected outcome with many
citing the outdoor learning programme and the opportunity for pupils to
contribute to real research and to work with scientists as important
factors.
Conclusions
The
OPAL programme provides an encompassing case study that spans a range
of approaches within the citizen science landscape. OPAL can be viewed
retrospectively as contributing to the democratic ideal of participatory
decision-making argued for by Irwin, Wynne and others, through
facilitating participatory knowledge production. At the same time,
following the ideas of Bonney and his colleagues, OPAL activities also
deliver against more explicitly formulated science and education goals.
In
the broadest sense, although conceived ahead of the recent upsurge of
interest in the classification of citizen science, OPAL does closely
follow the key design steps identified by Dickinson and Bonney [40]
who proposed the following topics for consideration: choosing a
scientific question; forming a project team; developing and refining
project materials; recruiting and training participants; accepting,
editing and displaying data; analysing and interpreting data,
disseminating results, measuring impacts. Whereas in OPAL to date, the
research questions and analysis of results have been almost exclusively
the province of professional scientists, the national survey series was
explicitly designed to engage the widest possible audience in data
gathering.
Despite
the manifold faces of citizen science, the ever evolving discipline
unites academics, educators, community members and policy makers and
delivers a raft of benefits for both research and outreach. As we have
seen, the approach taken when establishing, designing and delivering
citizen science projects can be diverse and deliver a host of different
outcomes.This field is evolving rapidly, driven by new technology and
experience gained from professional scientists and the public alike as
they participate in and contribute to our understanding of CS through
projects such as OPAL.
Abbreviations
apps:
applications
APRIL:
Air Pollution Research in London
CS:
citizen science
FSC:
Field Studies Council
GPS:
Global Positioning System
ICL:
Imperial College London
NBN:
National Biodiversity Network
NHM:
Natural History Museum
OPAL:
Open Air Laboratories
OU:
Open University
Declarations
Authors’ contributions
LD
developed the concept and directed the OPAL programme from 2005 to
2013. She prepared the first draft covering these aspects of the paper.
RF contributed to all aspects of the paper and drafted the sections on
new technologies and data. PLF is responsible for new developments in CS
and their relevance to OPAL. HR developed the section on the public
understanding of science and the discussion on CS. All authors read and
approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Big Lottery
Fund for financing this research through the OPAL and OPAL-UK programme
grants , Defra for supporting the publication of this paper, Dr. D.
Slawson (OPAL-UK), who has provided guidance throughout the development
of this manuscript and Laurence Evans for provision of summary
statistics and maps. Lastly, we are grateful to the OPAL participants,
without whom this citizen science programme would not be possible.
Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) network, (England, 2007-2013)
Led by Imperial College London, Dr. L. Davies (Director) involving nine
regional partners: University of Central Lancashire, Dr. M. Toogood,
(North West region); Newcastle University, Dr. A. Borland (North East
region); University of York, Professor M. Ashmore (Yorkshire and Humber
region); University of Nottingham, Dr. P. Crittenden (East Midlands
region); University of Birmingham, Dr. J. Sadler (West Midlands region);
University of Hertfordshire, Dr. M. Burton (East of England region);
Imperial College London, Professor R. Toumi, (London region); Imperial
College London, Dr. S. Power, (South East region); Plymouth University,
Dr. M. Donkin (South West region): Research and education centres:
Imperial College London, Dr. N. Voulvoulis (Soil); Imperial College
London, Dr. S. Power (Air); University College London, Dr. N. Rose
(Water); Open University, Professor J. Silvertown (Biodiversity) Natural
History Museum, Dr. G. Stevens and Dr. J. Tweddle (Biodiversity) and
Meteorological Office, Dr. G. Jenkins (Climate). Essential support
services: Natural History Museum, Dr. G. Stevens and Dr. J. Tweddle;
National Biodiversity Network, Dr. J. Munford; Royal Parks, Dr. N. Reeve
and T. Assarati; Field Studies Council, Dr. R. Farley and Dr. S.
Tilling.
OPAL-UK (United Kingdom, 2014-current)
Imperial College London, Dr. D. Slawson (Director), involving twelve
partners across the United Kingdom: The Conservation Volunteers (TCV),
K. Riddell and D. Hall (Scotland); University of Aberdeen, Professor R.
van der Wal (Scotland); Glasgow City of Science (Glasgow Science
Centre), Dr. S. Breslin and Professor T. Howe (Scotland); Field Studies
Council, Dr. S. Tilling, D. Moncrieff and N. Elliot (Scotland and
Northern Ireland); Queens University Belfast, Dr. K. Kerr (Northern
Ireland); Cofnod, R. Tapping (Wales); North Wales Wildlife Trust, F.
Cattanach and N. Hâf Jones (Wales); National Museum of Wales, Dr. R.
Bevins and Dr. M. Wilson (Wales); Newcastle University, Dr. A. Borland
(England); University of York, Professor M. Ashmore (England);
University of Nottingham, Dr. P. Crittenden and Dr. S. Goodacre
(England); Plymouth University, Dr. M. Donkin (England).
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Declarations
This article has been published as part of BMC Ecology
Volume 16 Supplement 1, 2016: Citizen science through the OPAL lens.
The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://bmcecol.biomedcentral.com/articles/supplements/volume-16-supplement-1. Publication of this supplement was supported by Defra.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Dickinson
JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN. Citizen science as an ecological research
tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2010;41:149–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Fortson
L, Masters K, Nichol R, Borne K, Edmondson E, Lintott C, Raddick J,
Schawinski K, Wallin J: Galaxy Zoo. Morphological classification and
citizen science. In: Adv Mach Learn data Min Astron. 2011(Sandage
1961):1–11.
Shapin
S. Science and the public. In: Olby RC, Cantor GN, Christie J, Hodge
MJ, editors. Companion to Hist Mod Sci. London and New York: Routledge;
1990. p. 990–1007.Google Scholar
Epstein S. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the politics of knowledge. California: University of California Press; 1996.
Irwin
A, Wynne B, editors. Misunderstanding Science?: the public
reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
Turney J. To Know Science Is to Love It? observations from public understanding of science research. Vol 17. 1973.
Irwin A. Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. New York: Routledge; 1995.Google Scholar
Leydesdorff
L, Ward J. Science shops: a kaleidoscope of science-society
collaborations in Europe. Public Underst Sci. 2005;14:353–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Lezaun
J, Soneryd L. Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the
mobility of publics. Public Underst Sci. 2007;16:279–97.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Bonney R. Citizen science: a lab tradition. Living Bird. 1996;15:7–15.Google Scholar
Ferdoush
S, Li X. Wireless Sensor Network System Design using Raspberry Pi and
Arduino for environmental monitoring applications. Procedia Comput Sci.
2014;34:103–10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Burke
J, Estrin D, Hansen M, Ramanathan N, Reddy S, Srivastava MB:
Participatory sensing. In: Work World-Sensor-Web Mob Device Centric Sens
Networks Appl. 2006:117–134.
Van
der Wal R, Anderson H, Robinson A, Sharma N, Mellish C, Roberts S,
Darvill B, Siddharthan A: Mapping species distributions: comparing the
spread of UK bumblebees as recorded by the national depository and a
citizen science approach. AMBIO Spec Issue- Digit Conserv 2015:in press.
Adriaens
T, Sutton-croft M, Owen K, Brosens D, Van Valkenburg J, Kilbey D, Groom
Q, Ehmig C, Thürkow F, Van Hende P, Schneider K. Trying to engage the
crowd in recording invasive alien species in Europe: experiences from
two smartphone applications in northwest Europe. Manag Biol Invasions.
2015;6:215–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
August
T, Harvey M, Lightfoot P, Kilbey D, Papadopoulos T, Jepson P. Emerging
technologies for biological recording. Biol J Linn Soc. 2015;115:731–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Teacher
AGF, Griffiths DJ, Hodgson DJ, Inger R. Smartphones in ecology and
evolution: a guide for the app-rehensive. Ecol Evol. 2013;3:5268–78.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
Graham EA. Using mobile phones to engage citizen scientists in research. Eos (Washington DC). 2011:92.
Bell S, Cornford D, Bastin L. The state of automated amateur weather observations. Weather. 2013;68:36–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Stevens
M, Vitos M, Altenbuchner J, Conquest G, Lewis J, Haklay M. Introducing
Sapelli: a mobile data collection platform for non-literate users. In:
Proc 4th Annu Symp Comput Dev. 2013:17.
Davies
L, Bell JNB, Bone J, Head M, Hill L, Howard C, Hobbs SJ, Jones DT,
Power SA, Rose N, Ryder C, Seed L, Stevens G, Toumi R, Voulvoulis N,
White PCL. Open Air Laboratories (OPAL): a community-driven research
programme. Environ Pollut. 2011;159:2203–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
United Nations General Assembly. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Resolution. 1994.
Hopkins
GW, Freckleton RP. Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional
taxonomists: implications for conservation. Anim Conserv. 2002;5:245–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
UK
Parliament House of Commons. Select committee on education and skills
second report. The Stationery Office by Order of the House. 2005.
The Royal Society. Measuring biodiversity for conservation. London. 2003.
UK Government. A better quality of life-strategy for sustainable development for the United Kingdom-1999. 2003.
Dickinson
J, Bonney R, editors. Citizen Science: public participation in
environmental research. Ithaca: Cornell University. 2012.
Prainsack
B. Understanding participation: the “citizen science” of genetics. In:
Prainsack B, Werner- Felmayer G, Schicktanz G. Farnham. Genet as Soc
Pract. Farnham: Ashgate. 2014:1–27.
Haklay
M. Citizen Science and volunteered geographic information—overview and
typology of participation. In: Sui DZ, Elwood S, Goodchild MF.
Crowdsourcing Geogr Knowl Volunt Geogr Inf Theory Pract. Berlin:
Springer; 2013:105–122.
Wiggins
A, Crowston K. From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of
citizen science. In Proc Annu Hawaii Int Conf: Syst Sci; 2011. p.
2764–73.Google Scholar
Bonney
R, Ballard H, Jordan R, McCallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, Wilderman CC.
Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and
assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry
Group Rep. Washington, D.C.: Center for advancement of informal science
education (CAISE). 2009.
De
Temmerman L, Bell JNB, Garrec JP, Klumpp A, Krause GHM, Tonneijck K.
Biomonitoring of air pollutants with plants—considerations for the
future. In: Klumpp A, Ansel W, Klumpp G, editiors. Urban Air Pollut
Bio-Indic Environ Aware; 2004.
Silvertown
J, Harvey M, Greenwood R, Dodd M, Rosewell J, Rebelo T, Ansine J,
Mcconway K. Crowdsourcing the identification of organisms: a case-study
of iSpot. Zookeys. 2015;146:125–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Pocock
MJO, Evans DM. The success of the horse-chestnut leaf-miner, Cameraria
ohridella, in the UK revealed with hypothesis-led citizen science. PLoS
One. 2014;9:1–9.Google Scholar
Lintott
C, Schawinski K, Bamford S, Slosar A, Land K, Thomas D, Edmondson E,
Masters K, Nichol RC, Raddick MJ, Szalay A, Andreescu D, Murray P,
Vandenberg J. Galaxy Zoo 1: data release of morphological
classifications for nearly 900,000 galaxies. Mon Not R Astron Soc.
2011;410:166–78.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Seed
L, Wolseley P, Gosling L, Davies L, Power SA. Modelling relationships
between lichen bioindicators, air quality and climate on a national
scale: results from the UK OPAL air survey. Environ Pollut.
2013;182:437–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Fowler
A, Whyatt JD, Davies G, Ellis R. How reliable are citizen-derived
scientific data? Assessing the quality of contrail observations made by
the general public. Trans GIS. 2013;17:488–506.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs: Chalara Management Plan. 2013(March).
Rose
NL, Turner SD, Goldsmith B, Gosling L, Davidson T. Quality control in
public participation assessments of water quality: The OPAL Water
Survey. BMC Ecol 2015, TBC:TBC.
Bates
AJ, Lakeman Fraser P, Robinson L, Tweddle JC, Sadler JP, West SE,
Norman S, Batson M, Davies L. The OPAL bugs count survey: exploring the
effects of urbanisation and habitat characteristics using citizen
science. Urban Ecosyst 2015, in press.
Davies L, Gosling L, Bachariou C, Fradera R, Manomaiudom N, Robins S. OPAL Community Environment Report. 2013.
Lakeman-Fraser
P, Gosling L, Moffat AJ, West SE, Fradera R, Davies L, Ayamba MA, Wal R
van der: To have your citizen science cake and eat it? Delivering
research and outreach through Open Air Laboratories (OPAL). BMC Ecol
2015, TBC:TBC.
Gosling
L, Sparks TH, Araya Y, Harvey M, Ansine J: Differences between urban
and rural hedges in England revealed by a citizen science project. BMC
Ecol 2015, TBC:TBC.
Bone
J, Archer M, Barraclough D, Eggleton P, Flight D, Head M, Jones DT,
Scheib C, Voulvoulis N. Public participation in soil surveys: lessons
from a pilot study in England. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46:3687–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Tregidgo
DJ, West SE, Ashmore MR. Can citizen science produce good science?
Testing the OPAL Air Survey methodology, using lichens as indicators of
nitrogenous pollution. Environ Pollut. 2013;182:448–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Everett G, Geoghegan H: Motivating participation in citizen science for natural history. BMC Ecol 2015, TBC:TBC.
Hobbs
SJ, White PCL. Motivations and barriers in relation to community
participation in biodiversity recording. J Nat Conserv. 2012;20:364–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
Riesch
H, Potter C. Citizen science as seen by scientists: methodological,
epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Underst Sci.
2014;23:107–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
Riesch
H, Potter C, Davies L. Combining citizen science and public engagement:
the Open AirLaboratories Programme. J Sci Commun. 2013;12.
UNEP: Rio Conference Declaration on Environment and Development, United Nations Environment Programme. 1992.
Fecht
D, Fischer P, Fortunato L, Hoek G, de Hoogh K, Marra M, Kruize H,
Vienneau D, Beelen R, Hansell A. Associations between air pollution and
socioeconomic characteristics, ethnicity and age profile of
neighbourhoods in England and the Netherlands. Environ Pollut.
2015;198:201–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
