Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Power of the people: A review of citizen science programs for conservation

MacPhail, Victoria J., Colla, Sheila R.·2020·Biological Conservation
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108739
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108739

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 117

  1. Aceves-Bueno, 2017, The accuracy of citizen science data: a quantitative review, Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am., 98, 278, 10.1002/bes2.1336 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Acorn, 2017, Entomological citizen science in Canada, Can. Entomol., 785, 1
  3. Andow, 2016, Recruitment and retention of volunteers in a citizen science network to detect invasive species on private lands, Environ. Manag., 58, 606, 10.1007/s00267-016-0746-7 · DOI
  4. Auerbach, 2019, The problem with delineating narrow criteria for citizen science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 116, 15336, 10.1073/pnas.1909278116 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1909278116
  5. Austen, 2016, Species identification by experts and non-experts: comparing images from field guides, Sci. Rep., 6, 10.1038/srep33634 · doi:10.1038/srep33634
  6. Austen, 2018, Species identification by conservation practitioners using online images: accuracy and agreement between experts, PeerJ, 6, 10.7717/peerj.4157 · DOI
  7. Ballard, 2017, Youth-focused citizen science: examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation, Biol. Conserv., 208, 65, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.024 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bell, 2008, What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity, Biodivers. Conserv., 17, 3443, 10.1007/s10531-008-9357-9 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bickford, 2012, Science communication for biodiversity conservation, Biol. Conserv., 151, 74, 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.12.016 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Birkin, 2015, Using citizen science to monitor pollination services, Ecol. Entomol., 40, 3, 10.1111/een.12227 · DOI
  11. Bonney, 2009, Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy, Bioscience, 59, 977, 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Bonney, 2014, Citizen science: next steps for citizen science, Science (80-.)., 343, 1436, 10.1126/science.1251554 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Bonney, 2016, Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?, Public Underst. Sci., 25, 2, 10.1177/0963662515607406 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bozeman, 2007, Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry, Res. Policy, 36, 694, 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.007 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Bubela, 2009, Science communication reconsidered, Nat. Biotechnol., 27, 514, 10.1038/nbt0609-514 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Burgess, 2017, The science of citizen science: exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool, Biol. Conserv., 208, 113, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.014 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Ceccaroni, 2019, Opportunities and risks for citizen science in the age of artificial intelligence, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 4, 1
  18. Chandler, 2016, Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring, Biol. Conserv.
  19. Chandler, 2017, Contributions to publications and management plans from 7 years of citizen science: use of a novel evaluation tool on Earthwatch-supported projects, Biol. Conserv., 208, 163, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.024 · DOI
  20. Collins, 2002, The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience, Soc. Stud. Sci., 32, 235, 10.1177/0306312702032002003 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Collins, 2002, The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience, Soc. Stud. Sci., 32, 235, 10.1177/0306312702032002003 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Conrad, 2011, A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities, Environ. Monit. Assess., 176, 273, 10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Danielson, 2014, A multicountry assessment of tropical resource monitoring by local communities, Bioscience, 64, 236, 10.1093/biosci/biu001 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Daume, 2016, “Anyone know what species this is?” - Twitter conversations as embryonic citizen science communities, PLoS One, 11, 10.1371/journal.pone.0151387 · DOI
  25. Davies, 2011, UK national ecosystem assessment: technical report. United Nations Environ. Program. World Conserv. Monit, Cent., 361
  26. del Savio, 2016, Crowdsourcing the human gut. Is crowdsourcing also “citizen science”?, J. Sci. Commun., 15, 1, 10.22323/2.15030203 · DOI
  27. Den Broeder, 2018, Citizen science for public health, Health Promot. Int., 33, 505
  28. Dickinson, 2012, The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement, Ecol. Soc. Am., 10, 291
  29. Domroese, 2017, Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volunteers in the Great Pollinator Project, Biol. Conserv., 208, 40, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.020 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Eaton, 2017, Citizen scientists help unravel the nature of cattle impacts on native mammals and birds visiting fruiting trees in Brazil’s southern Pantanal, Biol. Conserv., 208, 29, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.010 · DOI
  31. Eitzel, 2017, Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 2
  32. Ellwood, 2017, Citizen science and conservation: recommendations for a rapidly moving field, Biol. Conserv., 208, 1, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.014 · DOI
  33. Falk, 2019, Evaluating the ability of citizen scientists to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species, PLoS One, 14, 10.1371/journal.pone.0218614 · DOI
  34. Firehock, 1995, A brief history of volunteer biological water monitoring using macroinvertebrates, J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 14, 197, 10.2307/1467734 · DOI
  35. Follett, 2015, An analysis of citizen science based research: usage and publication patterns, PLoS One, 10, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0143687 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Forrester, 2017, Creating advocates for mammal conservation through citizen science, Biol. Conserv., 208, 98, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.06.025 · DOI
  37. Freitag, 2016, Correction: strategies employed by citizen science programs to increase the credibility of their data, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 1, 12, 10.5334/cstp.91 · doi:10.5334/cstp.91
  38. Frigerio, 2018, Citizen science and wildlife biology: synergies and challenges, Ethology, 124, 365, 10.1111/eth.12746 · DOI · Paper page
  39. Gardiner, 2012, Lessons from lady beetles: accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizenscience programs, Front. Ecol. Environ., 10, 471, 10.1890/110185 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Gazdic, 2019, iNaturalist is an unexploited source of plant-insect interaction data, Biodivers. Inf. Sci. Stand., 3
  41. Godfray, 2015, A restatement of recent advances in the natural science evidence base concerning neonicotinoid insecticides and insect pollinators, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 282
  42. Gonsamo, 2013, Citizen science: linking the recent rapid advances of plant flowering in Canada with climate variability, Sci. Rep., 3, 10.1038/srep02239 · doi:10.1038/srep02239
  43. Gonzalez, 2011, Community-based participatory research and policy advocacy to reduce diesel exposure in West Oakland, California, Am. J. Public Health, 101, 166, 10.2105/AJPH.2010.196204 · DOI
  44. Hecker, 2018, Innovation in citizen science – perspectives on science-policy advances, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 3, 4, 10.5334/cstp.114 · DOI
  45. Hecker, 2019, How does policy conceptualise citizen science? A qualitative content analysis of international policy documents, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 4, 32, 10.5334/cstp.230 · DOI
  46. Heigl, 2019, Toward an international definition of citizen science, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 116, 8089, 10.1073/pnas.1903393116 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1903393116
  47. Hiller, 2019, A case of silent invasion: citizen science confirms the presence of Harmonia axyridis (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) in Central America, PLoS One, 14, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0220082 · DOI
  48. Hochachka, 2012, Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science, Trends Ecol. Evol., 27, 130, 10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.006 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Hoyer, 2012, A comparison between professionally (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) and volunteer (Florida LAKEWATCH) collected trophic state chemistry data in Florida, Lake Reserv. Manag., 28, 277, 10.1080/07438141.2012.736016 · doi:10.1080/07438141.2012.736016
  50. Irwin, 2018, Citizen science comes of age, Nature, 562, 480, 10.1038/d41586-018-07106-5 · DOI · Paper page
  51. Johnston, 2018, Estimates of observer expertise improve species distributions from citizen science data, Methods Ecol. Evol., 9, 88, 10.1111/2041-210X.12838 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Jordan, 2016, Studying citizen science through adaptive management and learning feedbacks as mechanisms for improving conservation, Conserv. Biol., 30, 487, 10.1111/cobi.12659 · DOI
  53. Kawrykow, 2012, Phylo: a citizen science approach for improving multiple sequence alignment, PLoS One, 7, 10.1371/journal.pone.0031362 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Kelling, 2015, Taking a “Big Data” approach to data quality in a citizen science project, Ambio, 44, S601, 10.1007/s13280-015-0710-4 · DOI · Paper page
  55. Kelling, 2015, Can observation skills of citizen scientists be estimated using species accumulation curves?, PLoS One, 10, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0139600 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Khatib, 2011, Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 18949, 10.1073/pnas.1115898108 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Kosmala, 2016, Assessing data quality in citizen science, Front. Ecol. Environ., 14, 551, 10.1002/fee.1436 · DOI · Paper page
  58. Kremen, 2011, Evaluating the quality of citizen-scientist data on pollinator communities, Conserv. Biol., 25, 607, 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01657.x · DOI · Paper page
  59. Le Féon, 2016, An expert-assisted citizen science program involving agricultural high schools provides national patterns on bee species assemblages, J. Insect Conserv., 20, 905, 10.1007/s10841-016-9927-1 · DOI
  60. Lewandowski, 2017, Butterfly citizen scientists in the United States increase their engagement in conservation, Biol. Conserv., 208, 106, 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.029 · DOI
  61. Lewandowski, 2015, Influence of volunteer and project characteristics on data quality of biological surveys, Conserv. Biol., 29, 713, 10.1111/cobi.12481 · DOI · Paper page
  62. Liberatore, 2018, Social media as a platform for a citizen science community of practice, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 3, 3, 10.5334/cstp.108 · DOI
  63. Liebenberg, 2017, Smartphone icon user interface design for non-literate trackers and its implications for an inclusive citizen science, Biol. Conserv., 208, 155, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.033 · DOI
  64. Lovell, 2009, An assessment of the use of volunteers for terrestrial invertebrate biodiversity surveys, Biodivers. Conserv., 18, 3295, 10.1007/s10531-009-9642-2 · DOI
  65. MacKechnie, 2011, The role of “Big Society” in monitoring the state of the natural environment, J. Environ. Monit., 13, 2687, 10.1039/c1em10615e · DOI
  66. MacPhail, 2019, Incorporating citizen science, museum specimens, and field work into the assessment of extinction risk of the American Bumble bee (Bombus pensylvanicus De Geer 1773) in Canada, J. Insect Conserv.
  67. MacPhail, 2020, Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: insights from Bumble Bee Watch, PeerJ, 8, 10.7717/peerj.9141 · doi:10.7717/peerj.9141
  68. McKinley, 2017, Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection, Biol. Conserv., 208, 15, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Meiners, 2020, The influence of data type and functional traits on native bee phenology metrics: opportunistic versus inventory records, bioRxiv Ecol. preprint, 1
  70. Miller-Rushing, 2012, The history of public participation in ecological research, Front. Ecol. Environ., 10, 285, 10.1890/110278 · DOI · Paper page
  71. Mueller, 2019, Using citizen science to inform urban canid management, Landsc. Urban Plan., 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.04.023 · DOI
  72. Nestle, 2001, Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?, Public Health Nutr., 4, 1015, 10.1079/PHN2001253 · DOI
  73. Newman, 2012, The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms, Front. Ecol. Environ., 10, 298, 10.1890/110294 · DOI · Paper page
  74. Newman, 2017, Leveraging the power of place in citizen science for effective conservation decision making, Biol. Conserv., 208, 55, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.019 · DOI · Paper page
  75. Oberhauser, 2012, Insects and plants: engaging undergraduates in authentic research through citizen science, Front. Ecol. Environ., 10, 318, 10.1890/110274 · doi:10.1890/110274
  76. Odenwald, 2019, Smartphone sensors for citizen science applications: radioactivity and magnetism, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 4, 18, 10.5334/cstp.158 · DOI
  77. Owen, 2019, Citizen science in environmental protection agencies, Citiz. Sci., 284–300
  78. Parker, 2018, Citizen scientists document geographic patterns in pollinatoro communities, J. Pollinat. Ecol., 23, 90, 10.26786/1920-7603(2018)10 · doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2018)10
  79. Pastor, 2018, Natural history and ecology: three books you should read (and a few more) reviewed, Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am., 99, 242, 10.1002/bes2.1383 · doi:10.1002/bes2.1383
  80. Peters, 2017, Trusting land to volunteers: how and why land trusts involve volunteers in ecological monitoring, Biol. Conserv., 208, 48, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.029 · DOI
  81. Pocock, 2015, Developing and enhancing biodiversity monitoring programmes: a collaborative assessment of priorities, J. Appl. Ecol., 52, 686, 10.1111/1365-2664.12423 · DOI
  82. Poisson, 2020, Quantifying the contribution of citizen science to broad-scale ecological databases, Front. Ecol. Environ., 18, 19, 10.1002/fee.2128 · DOI
  83. Ponti, 2018, Getting it right or being top rank: games in citizen science, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 3, 1, 10.5334/cstp.101 · DOI
  84. Prudic, 2017, eButterfly: leveraging massive online citizen science for butterfly consevation, Insects, 8, 53, 10.3390/insects8020053 · DOI
  85. Rasmussen, 2019, Confronting research misconduct in citizen science, Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 4, 1
  86. Reynolds, 2017, Dynamic conservation for migratory species, Sci. Adv., 3, 10.1126/sciadv.1700707 · DOI · Paper page
  87. Rosenstock, 2002, Attacks on science: the risks to evidence-based policy, Am. J. Public Health, 92, 14, 10.2105/AJPH.92.1.14 · DOI
  88. Roy, 2019, Citizen science during the Flint, Michigan Federal Water Emergency: Ethical Dilemmas and Lessons Learned. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract., 4, 1
  89. Ryan, 2018, The role of citizen science in addressing grand challenges in food and agriculture research, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci., 285
  90. Sauermann, 2015, Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 112, 679, 10.1073/pnas.1408907112 · DOI · Paper page
  91. Schröter, 2017, Citizen science for assessing ecosystem services: status, challenges and opportunities, Ecosyst. Serv., 28, 80, 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.017 · DOI
  92. Schuttler, 2018, Bridging the nature gap: can citizen science reverse the extinction of experience?, Front. Ecol. Environ., 16, 405, 10.1002/fee.1826 · DOI · Paper page
  93. Sharma, 2019, From citizen science to citizen action: analysing the potential for a digital platform to cultivate attachments to nature, J. Sci. Commun., 18, 1, 10.22323/2.18010207 · DOI
  94. Shirk, 2012, Public participation in scientific research: a framework for intentional design, Ecol. Soc., 17, 29, 10.5751/ES-04705-170229 · DOI · Paper page
  95. Silvertown, 2009, A new dawn for citizen science, Trends Ecol. Evol., 24, 467, 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 · DOI · Paper page
  96. Silvertown, 2015, Crowdsourcing the identification of organisms: a case-study of iSpot, Zookeys, 146, 125, 10.3897/zookeys.480.8803 · DOI
  97. Smith, 2017, The use of social media to document a range extension of an iconic social parasite ant, J. Entomol. Soc. Ontario, 148, 1
  98. Soroye, 2018, Opportunistic citizen science data transform understanding of species distributions, phenology, and diversity gradients for global change research, Glob. Chang. Biol., 1
  99. Stafford, 2010, Eu-social science: the role of internet social networks in the collection of bee biodiversity data, PLoS One, 5, 1, 10.1371/journal.pone.0014381 · DOI
  100. Starr, J., Schweik, C.M., Bush, N., Fletcher, L., Finn, J., Fish, J., Bargeron, C.T., 2014. Lights, camera…citizen science: assessing the effectiveness of smartphone-based video training in invasive plant identification. PLoS One 9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111433. · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111433
  101. Sterling, 2017, Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation, Biol. Conserv., 209, 159, 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008 · DOI · Paper page
  102. Stribling, 2008, Data quality, performance, and uncertainty in taxonomic identification for biological assessments, J. North Am. Benthol. Soc., 27, 906, 10.1899/07-175.1 · DOI
  103. Sullivan, 2017, Using open access observational data for conservation action: a case study for birds, Biol. Conserv., 208, 5, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.031 · DOI · Paper page
  104. Suzuki-Ohno, 2017, Utilization of photographs taken by citizens for estimating bumblebee distributions, Sci. Rep., 7, 11215, 10.1038/s41598-017-10581-x · DOI
  105. Terry, 2020, Thinking like a naturalist: enhancing computer vision of citizen science images by harnessing contextual data, Methods Ecol. Evol., 11, 303, 10.1111/2041-210X.13335 · DOI · Paper page
  106. Theobald, 2015, Global change and local solutions: tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research, Biol. Conserv., 181, 236, 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021 · DOI · Paper page
  107. Thomas, 2016, Butterfly communities under threat, Science (80-.), 353, 216, 10.1126/science.aaf8838 · DOI · Paper page
  108. Toomey, 2013, Can citizen science lead to positive conservation attitudes and behaviors?, Hum. Ecol. Rev., 20, 50
  109. van der Velde, 2017, Comparison of marine debris data collected by researchers and citizen scientists: is citizen science data worth the effort?, Biol. Conserv., 208, 127, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.025 · DOI · Paper page
  110. van der Wal, 2015, Mapping species distributions: a comparison of skilled naturalist and lay citizen science recording, Ambio, 44, S584, 10.1007/s13280-015-0709-x · DOI
  111. van der Wal, 2016, The role of automated feedback in training and retaining biological recorders for citizen science, Conserv. Biol., 30, 550, 10.1111/cobi.12705 · DOI
  112. Wäldchen, 2018, Machine learning for image based species identification, Methods Ecol. Evol., 9, 2216, 10.1111/2041-210X.13075 · DOI · Paper page
  113. Wilson, 2020, More eyes on the prize: an observation of a very rare, threatened species of Philippine Bumble bee, Bombus irisanensis, on iNaturalist and the importance of citizen science in conservation biology, J. Insect Conserv., 1
  114. Wood, 2011, eBird: engaging birders in science and conservation, PLoS Biol., 9, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001220 · DOI · Paper page
  115. Worthington, 2012, Evolution MegaLab: a case study in citizen science methods, Methods Ecol. Evol., 3, 303, 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00164.x · DOI
  116. Zapponi, 2017, Citizen science data as an efficient tool for mapping protected saproxylic beetles, Biol. Conserv., 208, 139, 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.035 · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.035
  117. Zipkin, 2018, Synthesizing multiple data types for biological conservation using integrated population models, Biol. Conserv., 217, 240, 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.10.017 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 128

Metadata

Authors
MacPhail, V. J., & Colla, S. R.
Venue
Biological Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
249
Pages
108739
ISSN
0006-3207
DOI
10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108739
Cited by
128
References
4
Language
en
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Power of the people: A review of citizen science programs for conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108739
The paper
MacPhail, V. J., & Colla, S. R. (2020). Power of the people: A review of citizen science programs for conservation. Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108739

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.