What's the point in a point?

I thought I’d explore why the citizen science initiatives we are working on for the Atlas of Living Australia are a “good thing”.  Or, to paraphrase the title, what’s the value in an observational record from someone?

Citizen science is something that I am quite passionate about personally, because I am a citizen scientist.  Many people who would read this blog would already know I’m a birdwatcher – when my busy schedule allows me to get out there and do some birding.  My previous experience in participating in science as a citizen - by providing data or helping with observations - was frustrating and put me off the societies I had joined to participate with.  I had offered my records but were always told “no, you’re not experienced enough”, or “there’s no way you could have seen one of those” (which was probably right, but still, how about constructive feedback?).

I undertook an interesting project a few years ago on the older version of this web site, by taking my bird records and putting them on-line in a simple database I developed with PHP and mySQL.  All of a sudden, I had strangers and even government agencies asking me for copies of this information for their own work.  However, my experience in observing birds had not changed – the only difference was the delivery method.  It really made me wonder about what was going on, and why there was this sudden shift in view.

Addendum: The old “digital birding database” was taken offline when we shifted to this new web site. My records have not been lost – they’ve been loaded into Earth 2.0, but I can’t say much more about that as I’ll steal Tom’s thunder in an upcoming post.  Stay tuned for an update on that.

After a hiatus from citizen science projects, we’re now heavily involved again in this space with the ALA.  I have been speaking to a lot of people about citizen science – specifically in relation to biological data and citizen science - over the last few months, in my role as the team leader for the ALA Citizen Science component.  Depending on who I speak to and, more interestingly, their profession, I have been getting a wide range of responses.  Some people seem to think that citizen science is a complete waste of time, and others think it is the best thing since… well, the invention of the Internet.

Thinking that this is a waste of time does a disservice to the “citizens” and to the “environmental industries” (e.g. taxonomy, conservation, etc).  The biggest problem I see with this is that it sends a strong message that the inputs from citizens are not useful.  This (from experience) leads the “citizens” to think that they should not take an interest in their environment.  This is an extraordinarily short-sighted point of view.  The more people interested in the environment, the more they will be involved in our work, and the more they will create pressure on politicians and funding bodies to fund work in this space.

Accuracy is a known issue we have to face up to.  To be honest, I’m not convinced that this accuracy issue is only limited to citizen science projects, but is an issue with data from just about every source.  We need to find ways to get around these sorts of accuracy issues – be it descriptive metadata that says “this is a citizen science data point, be careful”, or be it algorithms to determine levels of “trust” in datasets (that are being investigated by Masters students I am working with at the University of WA), or geospatial tools to check geocoding (as are being developed separately in the ALA).  We need to find ways of validating records that is sustainable and ongoing – and that’s not going to be a short term solution.

We are currently developing a web application (with mobile components) that will be the end result of the ALA citizen science project.  Will this do the same thing to citizen science data as my own PHP/mySQL project – suddenly promote the records to the same quality as voucher-backed specimen data in the eyes of some?  My hope is that it will not do that, but instead will at least make these records more visible, and provide enough information to allow people to choose to use them.

My point for this whole blog post is pretty simple, really.  I think that citizen science has a lot to offer the environmental industries.  The biggest thing I think it does offer is participation – and hopefully that will lead to a better future.

4 comments
owen May 7th, 2010
Piers well said! believe you glossed over a key point though - that with the steady decline of funding the only way to get the necessary volumes of occurence data for the scientific community bioinformatics projects is cit sci and the only way to get the quality needed for the data to be useful is to provide simple, robust tools that maximise accuracy, completeness and overall quality. this ties in with your desire to foster community and both economic and personal value. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the comment Owen! It's a valid point, that citizens can actually be a great source of data for scientists to undertake research. Certainly there will be "noise" in the data, but quantity will help. I am positive that good design and good tools - that match what the "users" want - are the key to success for citizen science. A good web site will garner more support and then will develop over time with a good community. I'm hoping that we will post a couple of articles over the coming months about the design work we've been doing with you guys, and some success stories from the coming implementations... Thanks again for the comment - it's great to see that this blog is becoming more interactive! Piers
Hi Piers! Long time reader, first time commenter. :) The accuracy (or supposed lack thereof) of citizen science records is always going to be a major point of contention. But, working as a professional ecologist, I see plenty of data that are inaccurate, coming from sources such as government agencies, museums, other consulting ecologists and (dare I admit it!?) even my workmates and me. I think these spurious data points will be easier to flag as the volume of data increases, but we obviously need to be mindful that it's easy to mistake new and important information for a spurious data point (range extensions of species being an obvious example). I see automated or community tools that assess the 'trustworthiness' of a contributor's data, tools to flag potentially erroneous data, and good old fashioned manual investigation by 'experts' (be they professionals or otherwise) as being the key ways to ensure the integrity of citizen science data.
Hey Stewart, Great to see your comment (shame I got sidetracked by medical stuff and have only just responded!). I agree with you totally. Automated tools, flagging of records and manual reviews are very important - I know this is being seriously covered in the Atlas of Living Australia bigger project. I've got a few of my own ideas on this area, which we're playing with here... more on that later! What I'm really hoping will happen from our ALA work is that we can get more people interested in the environment! Thanks again for your comment. Piers

Let us know what you think

Recent Blogs

By Piers Higgs - 1 month, 2 weeks ago
By Piers Higgs - 1 month, 2 weeks ago
By Kehan Harman - 2 months ago
By Piers Higgs - 2 months, 1 week ago
By Piers Higgs - 2 months, 2 weeks ago
By Anthony Jones - 2 months, 3 weeks ago
By Andrew Dennison - 3 months ago
By Piers Higgs - 3 months, 2 weeks ago
By Piers Higgs - 3 months, 3 weeks ago
By Piers Higgs - 4 months ago
By Ben Khoo - 4 months, 1 week ago
By Piers Higgs - 4 months, 1 week ago
By Grit Schuster - 4 months, 2 weeks ago
By Aaron Low - 4 months, 3 weeks ago
By Piers Higgs - 5 months ago