Literature DB >> 25800171

Influence of volunteer and project characteristics on data quality of biological surveys.

Eva Lewandowski1, Hannah Specht2.   

Abstract

Volunteer involvement in biological surveys is becoming common in conservation and ecology, prompting questions on the quality of data collected in such surveys. In a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on the quality of data collected by volunteers, we examined the characteristics of volunteers (e.g., age, prior knowledge) and projects (e.g., systematic vs. opportunistic monitoring schemes) that affect data quality with regards to standardization of sampling, accuracy and precision of data collection, spatial and temporal representation of data, and sample size. Most studies (70%, n = 71) focused on the act of data collection. The majority of assessments of volunteer characteristics (58%, n = 93) examined the effect of prior knowledge and experience on quality of the data collected, often by comparing volunteers with experts or professionals, who were usually assumed to collect higher quality data. However, when both groups' data were compared with the same accuracy standard, professional data were more accurate in only 4 of 7 cases. The few studies that measured precision of volunteer and professional data did not conclusively show that professional data were less variable than volunteer data. To improve data quality, studies recommended changes to survey protocols, volunteer training, statistical analyses, and project structure (e.g., volunteer recruitment and retention).
© 2015, Society for Conservation Biology.

Keywords:  ciencia ciudadana; citizen science; entrenamiento; experience; experiencia; motivación; motivation; reclutamiento; recruitment; retención; retention; training

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25800171     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12481

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  14 in total

1.  The accuracy of volunteer surveyors for obtaining tree measurements in tropical forests.

Authors:  Barnabas Harrison; Thomas Edward Martin; Abdul Haris Mustari
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 5.129

2.  Beliefs about the Potential Impacts of Exploiting Non-Timber Forest Products Predict Voluntary Participation in Monitoring.

Authors:  Alice Dantas Brites; Carla Morsello
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Stakeholder Participation in Freshwater Monitoring and Evaluation Programs: Applying Thresholds of Potential Concern within Environmental Flows.

Authors:  John Conallin; Craig A McLoughlin; Josh Campbell; Roger Knight; Troy Bright; Ian Fisher
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 3.266

4.  How Do Young Community and Citizen Science Volunteers Support Scientific Research on Biodiversity? The Case of iNaturalist.

Authors:  Maria Aristeidou; Christothea Herodotou; Heidi L Ballard; Lila Higgins; Rebecca F Johnson; Annie E Miller; Alison N Young; Lucy D Robinson
Journal:  Diversity (Basel)       Date:  2021-07-13

5.  Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas.

Authors:  A S Kallimanis; M Panitsa; P Dimopoulos
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-08-21       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Fox sightings in a city are related to certain land use classes and sociodemographics: results from a citizen science project.

Authors:  Theresa Walter; Richard Zink; Gregor Laaha; Johann G Zaller; Florian Heigl
Journal:  BMC Ecol       Date:  2018-11-29       Impact factor: 2.964

7.  The design, launch and assessment of a new volunteer-based plant monitoring scheme for the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Oliver L Pescott; Kevin J Walker; Felicity Harris; Hayley New; Christine M Cheffings; Niki Newton; Mark Jitlal; John Redhead; Simon M Smart; David B Roy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-04-26       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The feasibility of using citizens to segment anatomy from medical images: Accuracy and motivation.

Authors:  Judith R Meakin; Ryan M Ames; J Charles G Jeynes; Jo Welsman; Michael Gundry; Karen Knapp; Richard Everson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: insights from Bumble Bee Watch.

Authors:  Victoria J MacPhail; Shelby D Gibson; Sheila R Colla
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Accuracy of long-term volunteer water monitoring data: A multiscale analysis from a statewide citizen science program.

Authors:  Kelly Hibbeler Albus; Ruthanne Thompson; Forrest Mitchell; James Kennedy; Alexandra G Ponette-González
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.