Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Temporal Dimensions of Data Quality in Bird Atlases: the Case of the Second Southern African Bird Atlas Project Cover

Temporal Dimensions of Data Quality in Bird Atlases: the Case of the Second Southern African Bird Atlas Project

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
Volume 8 (2023): Issue 1
By: Karis A. Daniel and  Leslie G. Underhill  
Open Access
|Jun 2023

References

  1. 1Adler, FR, Green, A and Sekercioglu, CH. 2020. Citizen science in ecology: a place for humans in nature. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1469(1): 52–64. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14340
    Back to article
  2. 2Ainsley, J. 2016. The SABAP2 “Four Degrees Blue” project: the challenge to obtain at least 11 checklists in 576 pentads. Biodiversity Observations, 7: 1–7. Retrieved from https://journals.uct.ac.za/index.php/BO/article/view/332.
    Back to article
  3. 3Ainsley, J and Underhill, LG. 2017. Gamification (persuasive design) in the Second Southern African Bird Atlas Project (SABAP2). Vogelwelt, 137: 19–22.
    Back to article
  4. 4Altwegg, R and Nichols, JD. 2019. Occupancy models for citizen-science data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 10(1): 8–21. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.13090
    Back to article
  5. 5August, T, Fox, R, Roy, DB and Pocock, MJ. 2020. Data-derived metrics describing the behaviour of field-based citizen scientists provide insights for project design and modelling bias. Scientific Reports, 10(1): 11009. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-67658-3
    Back to article
  6. 6Bird, TJ, Bates, AE, Lefcheck, JS, Hill, NA, Thomson, RJ, Edgar, GJ, Stuart-Smith, RD, Wotherspoon, S, Krkosek, M, Stuart-Smith, JF and Pecl, GT. 2014. Statistical solutions for error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biological Conservation, 173: 144–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.037
    Back to article
  7. 7Bison, M, Yoccoz, NG, Carlson, BZ and Delestrade, A. 2019. Comparison of budburst phenology trends and precision among participants in a citizen science program. International Journal of Biometeorology, 63(1): 61–72. DOI: 10.1007/s00484-018-1636-x
    Back to article
  8. 8Boakes, EH, McGowan, PJ, Fuller, RA, Chang-qing, D, Clark, NE, O’Connor, K and Mace, GM. 2010. Distorted views of biodiversity: Spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS Biology, 8(6). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385
    Back to article
  9. 9Bonney, R, Ballard, H, Jordan, R, McCallie, E, Phillips, T, Shirk, J and Wilderman, CC. 2009a. Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE inquiry group report. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED519688.
    Back to article
  10. 10Bonney, R, Cooper, CB, Dickinson, J, Kelling, S, Phillips, T, Rosenberg, KV and Shirk, J. 2009b. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11): 977–984. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
    Back to article
  11. 11Bowler, DE, Callaghan, CT, Bhandari, N, Henle, K, Benjamin Barth, M, Koppitz, C, Klenke, R, Winter, M, Jansen, F, Bruelheide, H and Bonn, A. 2022. Temporal trends in the spatial bias of species occurrence records. Ecography, 2022(8): e06219. DOI: 10.1111/ecog.06219
    Back to article
  12. 12Brown, ED and Williams, BK. 2019. The potential for citizen science to produce reliable and useful information in ecology. Conservation Biology, 33(3): 561–569. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13223
    Back to article
  13. 13Burman, MS, Underhill, LG, Altwegg, R, Erni, B, Remisiewicz, M and MacLeod, J. 2018. Migratory connectivity of barn swallows in South Africa to their Palearctic breeding grounds. Diversity and Distributions, 24: 1699–1708. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12810
    Back to article
  14. 14Callaghan, CT, Rowley, JJ, Cornwell, WK, Poore, AG and Major, RE. 2019. Improving big citizen science data: Moving beyond haphazard sampling. PLoS Biology, 17(6): e3000357. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000357
    Back to article
  15. 15Chandler, M, See, L, Copas, K, Bonde, AM, López, BC, Danielsen, F, Legind, JK, Masinde, S, Miller-Rushing, AJ, Newman, G and Rosemartin, A. 2017. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biological Conservation, 213: 280–294. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004
    Back to article
  16. 16Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2022) Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework. Montreal, Canada: United Nations.
    Back to article
  17. 17Courter, JR, Johnson, RJ, Stuyck, CM, Lang, BA and Kaiser, EW. 2013. Weekend bias in citizen science data reporting: Implications for phenology studies. International Journal of Biometeorology, 57: 715–720. DOI: 10.1007/s00484-012-0598-7
    Back to article
  18. 18Danielsen, F, Pirhofer-Walzl, K, Adrian, TP, Kapijimpanga, DR, Burgess, ND, Jensen, PM, Bonney, R, Funder, M, Landa, A, Levermann, N and Madsen, J. 2014. Linking public participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of international environmental agreements. Conservation Letters, 7(1): 12–24. DOI: 10.1111/conl.12024
    Back to article
  19. 19Day, G, Fuller, RA, Nichols, C and Dean, AJ. 2022. Characteristics of immersive citizen science experiences that drive conservation engagement. People and Nature, 4(4): 983–995. DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10332
    Back to article
  20. 20de Solla, SR, Shirose, LJ, Fernie, KJ, Barrett, GC, Brousseau, CS and Bishop, CA. 2005. Effect of sampling effort and species detectability on volunteer based anuran monitoring programs. Biological Conservation, 121(4): 585–594. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.018
    Back to article
  21. 21Dennis, EB, Morgan, BJ, Brereton, TM, Roy, DB and Fox, R. 2017. Using citizen science butterfly counts to predict species population trends. Conservation Biology, 31(6): 1350–1361. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12956
    Back to article
  22. 22Di Cecco, GJ, Barve, V, Belitz, MW, Stucky, BJ, Guralnick, RP and Hurlbert, AH. 2021. Observing the observers: How participants contribute data to iNaturalist and implications for biodiversity science. BioScience, 71(11): 1179–1188. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biab093
    Back to article
  23. 23Dickinson, JL, Zuckerberg, B and Bonter, DN. 2010. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41: 149–172. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636
    Back to article
  24. 24Eitzel, M, Cappadonna, J, Santos-Lang, C, Duerr, R, West, SE, Virapongse, A, Kyba, C, Bowser, A, Cooper, C, Sforzi, A, Metcalfe, A, Harris, E, Thiel, M, Haklay, M, Ponciano, L, Roche, J, Ceccaroni, L, Shilling, F, Dorler, D, Heigl, F, Kiessling, T, Davis, B and Jiang, Q. (2017). Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, pp. 1–20. DOI: 10.5334/cstp.96
    Back to article
  25. 25Everett, G and Geoghegan, H. 2016. Initiating and continuing participation in citizen science for natural history. BMC Ecology, 16: 15–22. DOI: 10.1186/s12898-016-0062-3
    Back to article
  26. 26Fink, D, Auer, T, Johnston, A, Ruiz-Gutierrez, V, Hochachka, WM and Kelling, S. 2020. Modeling avian full annual cycle distribution and population trends with citizen science data. Ecological Applications, 30(3): e02056. DOI: 10.1002/eap.2056
    Back to article
  27. 27Follett, R and Strezov, V. 2015. An analysis of citizen science based research: Usage and publication patterns. PLoS One, 10(11): e0143687. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143687
    Back to article
  28. 28Fraisl, D, Campbell, J, See, L, Wehn, U, Wardlaw, J, Gold, M, Moorthy, I, Arias, R, Piera, J, Oliver, JL and Masó, J. 2020. Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science, 15: 1735–1751. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-020-00833-7
    Back to article
  29. 29Fraisl, D, Hager, G, Bedessem, B, Gold, M, Hsing, PY, Danielsen, F, Hitchcock, CB, Hulbert, JM, Piera, J, Spiers, H and Thiel, M. 2022. Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2(64). DOI: 10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4
    Back to article
  30. 30Grason, E, McDonald, S, Adams, J, Litle, K, Apple, J and Pleus, A. 2018. Citizen science program detects range expansion of the globally invasive European green crab in Washington State. Management of Biological Invasions, 9(1): 39–47. DOI: 10.3391/mbi.2018.9.1.04
    Back to article
  31. 31Harrison, JA, Underhill, LG and Barnard, P. 2008. The seminal legacy of the Southern African Bird Atlas Project. South African Journal of Science, 102: 82–84. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4
    Back to article
  32. 32Hidalgo, ES, Perelló, J, Becker, F, Bonhoure, I, Legris, M and Cigarini, A. 2021. Participation and co-creation in citizen science. In: Vohland, K et al. (eds.) The Science of Citizen Science. Springer Nature. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4
    Back to article
  33. 33Hochkirch, A, Samways, MJ, Gerlach, J, Böhm, M, Williams, P, Cardoso, P, Cumberlidge, N, Stephenson, PJ, Seddon, MB, Clausnitzer, V and Borges, PA. 2021. A strategy for the next decade to address data deficiency in neglected biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 35(2): 502–509. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13589
    Back to article
  34. 34Hofmeyr, SD, Symes, CT and Underhill, LG. 2014. Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius population trends and ecology: Insights from South African citizen science data. PlosOne, 9(5): e96772. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096772
    Back to article
  35. 35Horns, JJ, Adler, FR and Şekercioğlu, ÇH. 2018. Using opportunistic citizen science data to estimate avian population trends. Biological Conservation, 221: 151–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.02.027
    Back to article
  36. 36Hugo, S and Altwegg, R. 2017. The second Southern African Bird Atlas Project: Causes and consequences of geographical sampling bias. Ecology and Evolution, 7(17): 6839–6849. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3228
    Back to article
  37. 37Isaac, NJ, van Strien, AJ, August, TA, de Zeeuw, MP and Roy, DB. 2014. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5(10): 1052–1060. DOI: 10.1111/2041-210X.12254
    Back to article
  38. 38Jørgensen, FA and Jørgensen, D. 2021. Citizen science for environmental citizenship. Conservation Biology, 35(4): 1344–1347. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13649
    Back to article
  39. 39Kamp, J, Oppel, S, Heldbjerg, H, Nyegaard, T and Donald, PF. 2016. Unstructured citizen science data fail to detect long-term population declines of common birds in Denmark. Diversity and Distributions, 22(10): 1024–1035. DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12463
    Back to article
  40. 40Kaplan Mintz, K, Arazy, O and Malkinson, D. 2023. Multiple forms of engagement and motivation in ecological citizen science. Environmental Education Research, 29(1): 27–44. DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2022.2120186
    Back to article
  41. 41Kelling, S, Johnston, A, Bonn, A, Fink, D, Ruiz-Gutierrez, V, Bonney, R, Fernandez, M, Hochachka, WM, Julliard, R, Kraemer, R and Guralnick, R. 2019. Using semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring biodiversity. BioScience, 69(3): 170–179. DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biz010
    Back to article
  42. 42Kennett, R, Danielsen, F and Silvius, KM. 2015. Citizen science is not enough on its own. Nature, 521(161). DOI: 10.1038/521161d
    Back to article
  43. 43Kimura, AH and Kinchy, A. 2016. Citizen science: probing the virtues and contexts of participatory research. Engaging Science, Technology and Society 2: 331–361. DOI: 10.17351/ests2016.99
    Back to article
  44. 44Kuehn, E, Becker, M, Harpke, A, Kühn, I, Kuhlicke, C, Schmitt, T, Settele, J and Musche, M. 2022. The benefits of counting butterflies: recommendations for a successful citizen science project. Ecology and Society, 27(2). DOI: 10.5751/ES-12861-270238
    Back to article
  45. 45La Sorte, FA, Tingley, MW and Hurlbert, AH. 2014. The role of urban and agricultural areas during avian migration: An assessment of within-year temporal turnover. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(11): 1225–1234. DOI: 10.1111/geb.12199
    Back to article
  46. 46Lee, ATK, Brooks, M and Underhill, LG. 2022. The SABAP2 legacy: a review of the history and use of data generated by a long running citizen science project. South African Journal of Science, 118(1–2): 1–4. DOI: 10.17159/sajs.2022/12030
    Back to article
  47. 47Mattijssen, TJM, Ganzevoort, W, van den Born, RJG, Arts, BJM, Breman, BC, Buijs, AE, van Dam, RI, Elands, BHM, de Groot, WT and Knippenberg, LWJ. 2020. Relational values of nature: leverage points for nature policy in Europe. Ecosystems and People, 16(1): 402–410. DOI: 10.1080/26395916.2020.1848926
    Back to article
  48. 48Mayer, A. 2010. Phenology and citizen science: Volunteers have documented seasonal events for more than a century, and scientific studies are benefiting from the data. BioScience, 60(3): 172–175. DOI: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.3
    Back to article
  49. 49Mehring, M, Bernard, B, Hummel, D, Liehr, S and Lux, A. 2017. Halting biodiversity loss: How social–ecological biodiversity research makes a difference. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13(1): 172–180. DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2017.1289246
    Back to article
  50. 50Moulin, N. 2020. When citizen science highlights alien invasive species in France: the case of Indochina mantis, Hierodula patellifera. Biodiversity Data Journal, 8: e46989. DOI: 10.3897/BDJ.8.e46989
    Back to article
  51. 51Phillips, TB, Ballard, HL, Lewenstein, BV and Bonney, R. 2019. Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving beyond data collection. Science Education, 103(3): 665–690. DOI: 10.1002/sce.21501
    Back to article
  52. 52Pocock, MJ, Chandler, M, Bonney, R, Thornhill, I, Albin, A, August, T, Bachman, S, Brown, PM, Cunha, DGF, Grez, A and Jackson, C. 2018. A vision for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. In: Bohan, DA, Dumbrell, AJ, Woodward, G, and Jackson, M (eds.) Advances in Ecological Research: Next Generation Biomonitoring: Part 2. Academic Press: 169–223. DOI: 10.1016/bs.aecr.2018.06.003
    Back to article
  53. 53Pocock, MJ, Roy, HE, Fox, R, Ellis, WN and Botham, M. 2017. Citizen science and invasive alien species: Predicting the detection of the oak processionary moth Thaumetopoea processionea by moth recorders. Biological Conservation, 208: 146–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.010
    Back to article
  54. 54R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    Back to article
  55. 55Richter, A, Hauck, J, Feldmann, R, Kühn, E, Harpke, A, Hirneisen, N, Mahla, A, Settele, J and Bonn, A. 2018. The social fabric of citizen science—drivers for long-term engagement in the German butterfly monitoring scheme. Journal of Insect Conservation, 22: 731–743. DOI: 10.1007/s10841-018-0097-1
    Back to article
  56. 56Robinson, LD, Cawthray, JL, West, SE, Bonn, A and Ansine, J. 2018. Ten principles of citizen science. In Hecker, S et al. (eds.) Citizen science: Innovation in open science, society and policy. London: UCL Press. pp. 27–40. DOI: 10.14324/111.9781787352339
    Back to article
  57. 57Sullivan, BL, Aycrigg, JL, Barry, JH, Bonney, RE, Bruns, N, Cooper, CB, Damoulas, T, Dhondt, AA, Dietterich, T, Farnsworth, A and Fink, D. 2014. The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, 169: 31–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003
    Back to article
  58. 58Supp, SR, La Sorte, FA, Cormier, TA, Lim, MC, Powers, DR, Wethington, SM, Goetz, S and Graham, CH. 2015. Citizen-science data provides new insight into annual and seasonal variation in migration patterns. Ecosphere, 6(1): 1–19. DOI: 10.1890/ES14-00290.1
    Back to article
  59. 59Tessarolo, G, Ladle, R, Rangel, T and Hortal, J. 2017. Temporal degradation of data limits biodiversity research. Ecology and Evolution, 7(17): 6863–6870. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.3259
    Back to article
  60. 60Thornhill, I, Loiselle, S, Clymans, W and Van Noordwijk, CGE. 2019. How citizen scientists can enrich freshwater science as contributors, collaborators, and co-creators. Freshwater Science, 38(2): 231–235. DOI: 10.1086/703378
    Back to article
  61. 61Tulloch, AI, Possingham, HP, Joseph, LN, Szabo, J and Martin, TG. 2013. Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation, 165: 128–138. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025
    Back to article
  62. 62Underhill, LG. 2016. The fundamentals of the SABAP2 protocol. Biodiversity Observations, 7(42): 1–12.
    Back to article
  63. 63van Rooyen, JA. 2018. Systematic atlasing in Hessequa - Moving from mapping to monitoring. Biodiversity Observations, 9(10): 1–13. DOI: 10.15641/bo.v9i0.508
    Back to article
  64. 64van Rooyen, JA and Underhill, LG. 2020. Systematic atlasing in Hessequa: Report on the first cycle of seasonal monitoring. Biodiversity Observations, (11)3: 1–14. DOI: 10.15641/bo.933
    Back to article
  65. 65Wickham, H. 2016. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.578 | Journal eISSN: 2057-4991
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Sep 30, 2022
Accepted on: Mar 15, 2023
Published on: Jun 27, 2023
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Data quality,
temporal proximity,
biodiversity monitoring,
systematic fieldwork,
social impact

© 2023 Karis A. Daniel, Leslie G. Underhill, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 8 (2023): Issue 1Next article