The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science?
Abstract
Over the past 20 years, thousands of citizen science projects engaging millions of participants in collecting and/or processing data have sprung up around the world. Here we review documented outcomes from four categories of citizen science projects which are defined by the nature of the activities in which their participants engage – Data Collection, Data Processing, Curriculum-based, and Community Science. We find strong evidence that scientific outcomes of citizen science are well documented, particularly for Data Collection and Data Processing projects. We find limited but growing evidence that citizen science projects achieve participant gains in knowledge about science knowledge and process, increase public awareness of the diversity of scientific research, and provide deeper meaning to participants’ hobbies. We also find some evidence that citizen science can contribute positively to social well-being by influencing the questions that are being addressed and by giving people a voice in local environmental decision making. While not all citizen science projects are intended to achieve a greater degree of public understanding of science, social change, or improved science -society relationships, those projects that do require effort and resources in four main categories: (1) project design, (2) outcomes measurement, (3) engagement of new audiences, and (4) new directions for research.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science
Pocock, M. J. O., Tweddle, J. C., Savage, J., Robinson, L. D., & Roy, H. E. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172579 · Cited by 359
Flood Risk in Urban Areas: Modelling, Management and Adaptation to Climate Change. A Review
Cea, L., & Costabile, P. (2022) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology9030050 · Cited by 317
Sharing biodiversity data: citizen scientists’ concerns and motivations
Ganzevoort, W., van den Born, R. J. G., Halffman, W., & Turnhout, S. (2017) · Biodiversity and Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10531-017-1391-z · Cited by 133
“public (Bonney et al. 2016), which is in theory open to anyone willing to participate.”
BackgroundAllf, B. C., Cooper, C. B., Larson, L. R., Dunn, R. R., Futch, S. E., Sharova, M., & CAVALIER, D. (2022) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biac035 · Cited by 74
Sinha, R. K., Kumar, R., Phartyal, S. S., & Sharma, P. (2024) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176621 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., & Enck, J. W.
- Venue
- Public Understanding of Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-10-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-16
- ISSN
- 0963-6625 (ISSN-L)
- 1361-6609
- OpenAlex
- W2177836626
- Cited by
- 994
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 635.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0963662515607406
- The paper
- Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., & Enck, J. W. (2016). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406
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.