Citizen science as a tool for enhancing recreation research in protected areas: Applications and opportunities

2022 ◽  
Vol 305 ◽  
pp. 114353
Author(s):  
Suet Yi Cheung ◽  
Yu-Fai Leung ◽  
Lincoln R. Larson
Author(s):  
Natalya Ivanova ◽  
Maxim Shashkov

Currently Russia doesn't have a national biodiversity information system, and is still not a GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility) member. Nevertheless, GBIF is the largest source of biodiversity data for Russia. As of August 2020, >5M species occurrences were available through the GBIF portal, of which 54% were published by Russian organisations. There are 107 institutions from Russia that have become GBIF publishers and 357 datasets have been published. The important trend of data mobilization in Russia is driven by the considerable contribution of citizen science. The most popular platform is iNaturalist. This year, the related GBIF dataset (Ueda 2020) became the largest one for Russia (793,049 species occurrences as of 2020-08-11). The first observation for Russia was posted in 2011, but iNaturalist started becoming popular in 2017. That year, 88 observers added >4500 observations that represented 1390 new species for Russia, 7- and 2-fold more respectively, than for the previous 6 years. Now we have nearly 12,000 observers, about 15,000 observed species and >1M research-grade observations. The ratio of observations for Tracheophyta, Chordata, and Arthropoda in Russia is different compared to the global scale. There are almost an equal amount of observations in the global iNaturalist GBIF dataset for these groups. At the same time in Russia, vascular plants make up 2/3rds of the observations. That is due to the "Flora of Russia" project, which attracted many professional botanists both as observers and experts. Thanks to their activity, Russia has a high proportion of research-grade observations in iNaturalist, 78% versus 60% globally. Another consequence of wide participation by professional researchers is the high rate of species accumulation. For some taxonomic groups conspicuous species were already revealed. There are about 850 bird species in Russia of which 398 species were observed in 2018, and only 83 new species in 2019. Currently, the number of new species recorded over time is decreasing despite the increase in observers and overall user activity. Russian iNaturalist observers have shared a lot of archive photos (taken during past years). In 2018, it was nearly 1/4 of the total number of observations and about 3/4 of new species for the year, with similar trends observed during 2019. Usually archive photos are posted from December until April, but the 2020 pandemic lockdown spurred a new wave of archive photo mobilisation in April and May. There are many iNaturalist projects for protected areas in Russia: 27 for strict nature reserves and national parks, and about 300 for others. About 100,000 observations (7.5% of all Russian observations) from the umbrella project "Protected areas of Russia" represent >34% of the species diversity observed in Russia. For some regions, e.g., Novosibirsk, Nizhniy Novgorod and Vladimir Oblasts, almost all protected areas are covered by iNaturalist projects, and are often their only source of available biodiversity data. There are also other popular citizen science platforms developed by Russian researchers. The first one is the Russian birdwatching network RU-BIRDS.RU. The related GBIF dataset (Ukolov et al. 2019) is the third largest dataset for Russia (>370,000 species occurrences). Another Russian citizen science system is wildlifemonitoring.ru, which includes thematic resources for different taxonomic groups of vertebrates. This is the crowd-sourced web-GIS maintained by the Siberian Environmental Center NGO in Novosibirsk. It is noteworthy that iNaturalist activities in Russia are developed more as a social network than as a way to attract volunteers to participate in scientific research. Of 746 citations in the iNaturalist dataset, only 18 articles include co-authors from Russia. iNaturalist data are used for the management of regional red lists (in the Republic of Bashkortostan, Novosibirsk Oblast and others), and as an additional information source for regional inventories. RU-BIRDS data were used in the European Russia Breeding Bird Atlas and the new edition of the European Breeding Bird Atlas. In Russia, citizen science activities significantly contribute to filling gaps in the global biodiversity map. However, Russian iNaturalist observations available through GBIF originate from the USA. It is not ideal, because the iNaturalist GBIF dataset is growing rapidly, and in the future it will represent more than all other datasets for Russia combined. In our opinion, iNaturalist data should be repatriated during the process of publishing through GBIF, as it is implemented for the eBird dataset (Levatich and Ligocki 2020).


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
A-S. Bonnet-Lebrun ◽  
A.A. Karamanlidis ◽  
M. de Gabriel Hernando ◽  
I. Renner ◽  
O. Gimenez

AbstractUnderstanding the processes related to wildlife recoveries is not only essential in solving human – wildlife conflicts, but also for identifying priority conservation areas and in turn, for effective conservation planning. We used data from a large citizen science program to study the spatial processes related to the demographic and genetic recovery of brown bears in Greece and to identify new areas for their conservation. This was achieved by visually comparing our data with an estimation of the past distribution of brown bears in Greece and by using a Point Process Model to model habitat suitability, and then comparing our results with the current distribution of brown bear records and with that of protected areas. Our results indicate that in the last 15 years bears may have increased their range by as much as 100%, by occupying mainly anthropogenic landscapes and areas with suitable habitat that are currently not legally protected, thus creating a new conservation reality for the species in Greece. This development dictates the re-evaluation of the national management and conservation priorities for brown bears in Greece by focusing in establishing new protected areas that will safeguard their recovery. Our conservation approach is a swift and cheap way of identifying priority conservation areas, while gaining important insights on the spatial processes associated with population recoveries. It will help prioritize conservation actions for brown bears in Greece and may serve as a model conservation approach to countries facing financial and logistic constraints in the monitoring of local biodiversity or facing challenges in managing rapid population recoveries. Our conservation approach appeared also to be better suited to identifying priority areas for conservation in areas with recovering wildlife populations and may therefore be used as an “early-warning” conservation system.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Lunney ◽  
Indrie Sonawane ◽  
Ian Shannon ◽  
Ben Hope ◽  
Mathew S. Crowther

ABSTRACT We used two survey methods - citizen science for private land and cameras for protected areas - to map the distribution of dingoes/wild dogs and foxes in NSW. Dingo/wild dog records were mostly confined to the east coast and ranges, with scattered locations in western NSW. This contrasts to the distribution of foxes, in which occupancy was high across most of the state. Data from 200 WildCount camera sites within protected areas also showed marked differences in the distribution of the two canid species. At the scale of the state, dingoes/wild dogs are uncommon, with the greatest concentration being in the north-east of the state, as well as a marked presence in the south-east. Foxes are common and widespread within protected areas, but less common in the north-east of the state. The camera data also indicated that feral cats are widespread within protected areas. The second aim of our study was to examine the WildCount data for behavioural patterns of the canid species. Foxes and dingoes/wild dogs significantly separated within two sub-formations of dry sclerophyll forest based on the Keith (2004) classification of NSW vegetation. From species pairwise interactions at sites, we found only limited evidence for significant interactions, and then only for the co-occurrence of fox-rabbit and fox-swamp wallaby, but no avoidance for any of the predators with each other. Camera records of the time of day of being active showed little effect of the presence of dingoes/wild dogs on the times of activity of foxes, but foxes curtailed the activity times of dingoes/wild dogs. From the analysis of inter-animal times at sites where both canids were recorded, there was little difference between the time since the other species was present. Thus, there was no evidence that dingoes/wild dogs or foxes inhibit the other from being at a site. We concluded that at the landscape level, both vegetation type and land tenure play a role in the interactions between dingoes/wild dogs and foxes. We also concluded that citizen science and cameras are complementary, not alternative techniques, especially as they sample different land tenures, and that cameras in protected areas and occupancy from citizen science have produced higher resolution maps and behaviour patterns than have been previously available. We can confirm that foxes are a ubiquitous threat throughout NSW, whereas dingoes/wild dogs are concentrated into a much smaller area of eastern, particularly north-eastern, NSW.


2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 116 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. S. Koss ◽  
K. Miller ◽  
G. Wescott ◽  
A. Bellgrove ◽  
A. Boxshall ◽  
...  

Citizen science involves collaboration between multi-sector agencies and the public to address a natural resource management issue. The Sea Search citizen science programme involves community groups in monitoring and collecting subtidal rocky reef and intertidal rocky shore data in Victorian Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Australia. In this study we compared volunteer and scientifically collected data and the volunteer motivation for participation in the Sea Search programme. Intertidal rocky shore volunteer-collected data was found to be typically comparable to data collected by scientists for species richness and diversity measures. For subtidal monitoring there was also no significant difference for species richness recorded by scientists and volunteers. However, low statistical power suggest only large changes could be detected due to reduced data replication. Generally volunteers recorded lower species diversity for biological groups compared to scientists, albeit not significant. Species abundance measures for algae species were significantly different between volunteers and scientists. These results suggest difficulty in identification and abundance measurements by volunteers and the need for additional training requirements necessary for surveying algae assemblages. The subtidal monitoring results also highlight the difficulties of collecting data in exposed rocky reef habitats with weather conditions and volunteer diver availability constraining sampling effort. The prime motivation for volunteer participation in Sea Search was to assist with scientific research followed closely by wanting to work close to nature. This study revealed two important themes for volunteer engagement in Sea Search: 1) volunteer training and participation and, 2) usability of volunteer collected data for MPA managers. Volunteer-collected data through the Sea Search citizen science programme has the potential to provide useable data to assist in informed management practices of Victoria?s MPAs, but requires the support and commitment from all partners involved.


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
Marco Schmidt ◽  
Eméline Sêssi Pélagie Assédé ◽  
Horst Oebel ◽  
Jakob Fahr ◽  
Brice Sinsin

To improve data availability and exchange in the area of the WAP complex, West Africa’s largest continuous area of reserves, we set up a citizen science project on the iNaturalist platform, allowing contribution of observations, ideally documented by photographs and/or sounds. Along with the project we created a number of online field guides for the local flora. Within only two months, 852 observations of 312 species have been assembled. We expect this dataset to further grow in the future and complement existing data sets from scientific collections and surveys.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udani A. Wijewardhana ◽  
Pragalathan Apputhurai ◽  
Madawa Jayawardana ◽  
Denny Meyer

AbstractIn the absence of comprehensive survey data this study used citizen science bird counts, extracted from the Atlas of Living Australia, to assess which species benefit most from protected areas. This was done by fitting temporal models using the Integrated Laplace Approximation (INLA) method.The trends for five resident shorebird species were compared to the Australian Pied Oystercatcher, with significantly steeper upward trends identified for the Black-fronted Dotterel, Red-capped Dotterel and Red-kneed Dotterel. Steeper upward trends were observed in protected than unprotected areas for the Black-fronted Dotterel, Masked Lapwing and Red-kneed Dotterel.This work suggests that, with some limitations, statistical models can be used with citizen science data for monitoring the persistence of resident shorebirds and for investigating factors that are impacting these data. The results for the Dotterel species in protected areas are particularly encouraging.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document