German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Institute of Biodiversity, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Dornburger Str. 159, 07743, Jena, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2022 Jun 30;12(1):11069. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-15218-2.
Citizen scientists play an increasingly important role in biodiversity monitoring. Most of the data, however, are unstructured-collected by diverse methods that are not documented with the data. Insufficient understanding of the data collection processes presents a major barrier to the use of citizen science data in biodiversity research. We developed a questionnaire to ask citizen scientists about their decision-making before, during and after collecting and reporting species observations, using Germany as a case study. We quantified the greatest sources of variability among respondents and assessed whether motivations and experience related to any aspect of data collection. Our questionnaire was answered by almost 900 people, with varying taxonomic foci and expertise. Respondents were most often motivated by improving species knowledge and supporting conservation, but there were no linkages between motivations and data collection methods. By contrast, variables related to experience and knowledge, such as membership of a natural history society, were linked with a greater propensity to conduct planned searches, during which typically all species were reported. Our findings have implications for how citizen science data are analysed in statistical models; highlight the importance of natural history societies and provide pointers to where citizen science projects might be further developed.
公民科学家在生物多样性监测中发挥着越来越重要的作用。然而,大多数数据都是非结构化的,是通过各种没有记录数据的方法收集的。对数据收集过程的理解不足,是公民科学数据在生物多样性研究中应用的主要障碍。我们开发了一份问卷,要求公民科学家在收集和报告物种观察之前、期间和之后的决策,以德国为例进行研究。我们量化了受访者之间最大的变异来源,并评估了动机和经验是否与数据收集的任何方面有关。我们的问卷得到了近 900 人的回答,他们的分类重点和专业知识各不相同。受访者的动机通常是提高物种知识和支持保护,但动机和数据收集方法之间没有联系。相比之下,与经验和知识相关的变量,如是否是自然历史学会的成员,与更倾向于进行有计划的搜索有关,在这种搜索中,通常会报告所有物种。我们的研究结果对如何在统计模型中分析公民科学数据具有启示意义;强调了自然历史学会的重要性,并为公民科学项目的进一步发展指明了方向。