Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Citizen Science as an Approach for Overcoming Insufficient Monitoring and Inadequate Stakeholder Buy-in in Adaptive Management: Criteria and Evidence

  • Published:
Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Adaptive management is broadly recognized as critical for managing natural resources, yet in practice it often fails to achieve intended results for two main reasons: insufficient monitoring and inadequate stakeholder buy-in. Citizen science is gaining momentum as an approach that can inform natural resource management and has some promise for solving the problems faced by adaptive management. Based on adaptive management literature, we developed a set of criteria for successfully addressing monitoring and stakeholder related failures in adaptive management and then used these criteria to evaluate 83 citizen science case studies from peer-reviewed literature. The results suggest that citizen science can be a cost-effective method to collect essential monitoring information and can also produce the high levels of citizen engagement that are vital to the adaptive management learning process. The analysis also provides a set of recommendations for citizen science program design that addresses spatial and temporal scale, data quality, costs, and effective incentives to facilitate participation and integration of findings into adaptive management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Of course, there may be other reasons for the failure of citizen science to contribute to management. For example, managers might be reluctant to use citizen science-collected data. We focus here on the two most commonly-cited reasons for failure, while acknowledging that the use of citizen science for adaptive management may face other barriers.

  2. Other scholars (Bonney and others 2009a) have distinguished between contributory, collaborative, and co-created models for PPSR in order to assess whether citizen science can contribute to informal science education. While such a categorization could also be useful for determining when citizen science effectively engages stakeholders, we opt to distinguish instead between types of participants, in part because extracting the information about informal learning was usually not possible from the studies reviewed.

  3. We caution that the search terms we used likely do not cover all of the studies that involve citizen scientists, since terminology is highly variable. Although some programs date back to the late 1800s, we choose to limit the study to more recent papers, following Bonney and others (2009a, b) who argue that “The current concept of citizen science, however, with its integration of explicit and tested protocols for collecting data, vetting of data by professional biologists, and inclusion of specific and measurable goals for public education, has evolved primarily over the past two decades (Bonney 2007; Cohn 2008).” Including earlier papers that are more likely to lack a rigorous protocol would bias our results toward finding that citizen science cannot be useful for adaptive management. Although we inevitably miss some studies from our time period, there is no reason to think that the bias introduced by these omissions makes us more or less likely to conclude that citizen science can be used to resolve the two main problems of adaptive management.

References

  • Allen CR, Gunderson LH. 2011. Pathology and failure in the design and implementation of adaptive management. J Environ Manag 92:1379–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Au J, Bagchi P, Chen B, Martinez R, Dudley SA, Sorger GJ. 2000. Methodology for public monitoring of total coliforms, Escherichia coli and toxicity in waterways by Canadian high school students. J Environ Manag 58:213–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker CD, Agreda A, Astudillo E, Costantino M, Torres P. 2005. Community-based monitoring of fog capture and biodiversity at Loma Alta, Ecuador enhance social capital and institutional cooperation. Biodivers Conserv 14:2695–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bois ST, Silander JA, Mehrhoff LJ. 2011. Invasive Plant Atlas of New England: the role of citizens in the science of invasive alien species detection. Bioscience 61:763–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bone J, Archer M, Barraclough D, Eggleton P, Flight D, Head M, Jones DT, Scheib C, Voulvoulis N. 2012. Public participation in soil surveys: lessons from a pilot study in England. Environ Sci Technol 46:3687–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bonney R. 2007. Citizen science at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Exemplary science in informal education settings: Standards-based success stories. Arlington: NSTA Press. pp 213–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonney R, Ballard H, Jordan R, McCallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, Wilderman CC. 2009a. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Online Submission.

  • Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, Shirk J. 2009b. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59:977–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brook RK, Kutz SJ, Veitch AM, Popko RA, Elkin BT, Guthrie G. 2009. Fostering community-based wildlife health monitoring and research in the Canadian North. EcoHealth 6:266–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsdon C, Comber L. 2012. Assessing the changing flowering date of the common lilac in North America: a random coefficient model approach. Geoinformatica 16:675–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn JP. 2008. Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? Bioscience 58:192–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R. 2007. Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12:11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornwell ML, Campbell LM. 2012. Co-producing conservation and knowledge: citizen-based sea turtle monitoring in North Carolina, USA. Soc Stud Sci 42:101–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox TE, Philippoff J, Baumgartner E, Smith CM. 2012. Expert variability provides perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of citizen-driven intertidal monitoring program. Ecol Appl 22:1201–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crall AW, Newman GJ, Jarnevich CS, Stohlgren TJ, Waller DM, Graham J. 2010. Improving and integrating data on invasive species collected by citizen scientists. Biol Invasions 12:3419–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crall AW, Newman GJ, Stohlgren TJ, Holfelder KA, Graham J, Waller DM. 2011. Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conserv Lett 4:433–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crewe TL, Timmermans ST, Jones KE. 2005. The Marsh monitoring program annual report, 1995-2003. Port Rowan: Bird Studies Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dangles O, Carpio FC, Villares M, Yumisaca F, Liger B, Rebaudo F, Silvain JF. 2010. Community-based participatory research helps farmers and scientists to manage invasive pests in the Ecuadorian Andes. Ambio 39:325–35.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A. 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv 14:2507–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies AL, White RM. 2012. Collaboration in natural resource governance: reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland. J Environ Manag 112:160–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor V, Whittaker RJ, Beltrame C. 2010. Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib 16:354–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN. 2010. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:149–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doremus H. 2010. Adaptive management as an information problem. NCL Rev. 89:1455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs CT. 2005. Abundance of the endangered Cape parrot, Poicephalus robustus, in South Africa: implications for its survival. African Zoology 40:15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellul C, Francis L, Haklay M. 2011. A Flexible database-centric platform for citizen science data capture. In: 2011 IEEE Seventh International Conference on e-Science Workshops (eScienceW). pp 39–44.

  • Farmer RG, Leonard ML, Horn AG. 2012. Observer effects and avian-call-count survey quality: rare-species biases and overconfidence. Auk 129:76–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Gimenez ME, Ballard HL, Sturtevant VE. 2008. Adaptive management and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecol Soc 13:4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finn PG, Udy NS, Baltais SJ, Price K, Coles L. 2010. Assessing the quality of seagrass data collected by community volunteers in Moreton Bay Marine Park, Australia. Environ Conserv 37:83–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick MC, Preisser EL, Ellison AM, Elkinton JS. 2009. Observer bias and the detection of low-density populations. Ecol Appl 19:1673–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss JL. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76:378–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming JR, Love EA. 2012. Healthy lakes and vibrant economies: linking history, sense of place, and watershed protection in the Belgrade Lakes region. Maine Policy Rev 21:90–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster-Smith J, Evans SM. 2003. The value of marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biol Conserv 113:199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner MM, Allee LL, Brown PMJ, Losey JE, Roy HE, Smyth RR. 2012. Lessons from lady beetles: accuracy of monitoring data from US and UK citizen-science programs. Front Ecol Environ 10:471–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Ohlson D, Arvai J. 2006. Deconstructing adaptive management: criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol Appl 16:2411–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management—antidotes for spurious certitude. Conserv Ecol 3:7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gura T. 2013. Citizen science: amateur experts. Nature 496:259–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Habron G. 2003. Role of adaptive management for watershed councils. Environ Manag 31:29–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton RJ, Giningele M, Aswani S, Ecochard JL. 2012. Fishing in the dark-local knowledge, night spearfishing and spawning aggregations in the Western Solomon Islands. Biol Conserv 145:246–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holck MH. 2008. Participatory forest monitoring: an assessment of the accuracy of simple cost-effective methods. Biodivers Conserv 17:2023–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyer MV, Wellendorf N, Frydenborg R, Bartlett D, Canfield DE. 2012. A comparison between professionally (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) and volunteer (Florida LAKEWATCH) collected trophic state chemistry data in Florida. Lake Reserv Manag 28:277–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Humber F, Godley BJ, Ramahery V, Broderick AC. 2011. Using community members to assess artisanal fisheries: the marine turtle fishery in Madagascar. Anim Conserv 14:175–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jetz W, McPherson JM, Guralnick RP. 2012. Integrating biodiversity distribution knowledge: toward a global map of life. Trends Ecol Evol 27:151–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson BL. 1999. The role of adaptive management as an operational approach for resource management agencies. Conserv Ecol 3:8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan RC, Gray SA, Howe DV, Brooks WR, Ehrenfeld JG. 2011. Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conserv Biol 25:1148–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keith DA, Martin TG, McDonald-Madden E, Walters C. 2011. Uncertainty and adaptive management for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 144:1175–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis JR, Koch GG. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KN. 1999. Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 3:3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold M, Cakacaka A, Meo S, Sikolia J, Lecchini D. 2009. Evaluation of the effectiveness of three underwater reef fish monitoring methods in Fiji. Biodivers Conserv 18:3367–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levrel H, Fontaine B, Henry PY, Jiguet F, Julliard R, Kerbiriou C, Couvet D. 2010. Balancing state and volunteer investment in biodiversity monitoring for the implementation of CBD indicators: a French example. Ecol Econ 69:1580–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E. 2006. From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32:1072–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC. 2002. Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res 28:587–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotz A, Allen CR. 2007. Observer bias in anuran call surveys. J Wildl Manag 71:675–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lye GC, Osborne JL, Park KJ, Goulson D. 2012. Using citizen science to monitor Bombus populations in the UK: nesting ecology and relative abundance in the urban environment. J Insect Conserv 16:697–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons JE, Runge MC, Laskowski HP, Kendall WL. 2008. Monitoring in the context of structured decision-making and adaptive management. J Wildl Manag 72:1683–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie L, Long L, Coles R, Roder C. 2000. Seagrass-Watch: community based monitoring of seagrass resources. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 7:393–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie L, Campbell S, Roder C. 2001. Seagrass-Watch: manual for mapping and monitoring seagrass resources by community (citizen) volunteers. Cairns: QFS, NFC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meffe G, Nielsen L, Knight RL, Schenborn D. 2010. Ecosystem management: adaptive, community-based conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger ES, Lendvay JM. 2006. Seeking environmental justice through public participation: a community-based water quality assessment in Bayview Hunters Point. Environ Pract 8:104–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller IR, De’ath G. 1996. Effects of training on observer performance in assessing benthic cover by means of the manta tow technique. Mar Freshw Res 47:19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monroe MC, Plate R, Oxarart A. 2013. Intermediate collaborative adaptive management strategies build stakeholder capacity. Ecol Soc 18:24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munson MA, Caruana R, Fink D, Hochachka WM, Iliff M, Rosenberg KV, Sheldon D, Sullivan BL, Wood C, Kelling S. 2010. A method for measuring the relative information content of data from different monitoring protocols. Methods Ecol Evol 1:263–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Williams BK. 2006. Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:668–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols JD, Runge MC, Johnson FA, Williams BK. 2007. Adaptive harvest management of North American waterfowl populations: a brief history and future prospects. J Ornithol 148:S343–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldekop JA, Bebbington AJ, Berdel F, Truelove NK, Wiersberg T, Preziosi RF. 2011. Testing the accuracy of non-experts in biodiversity monitoring exercises using fern species richness in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Biodivers Conserv 20:2615–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattengill-Semmens CV, Semmens BX. 2003. Conservation and management applications of the reef volunteer fish monitoring program. Environ Monit Assess 81:43–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pittman SE, Dorcas ME. 2006. Catawba River corridor coverboard program: a citizen science approach to amphibian and reptile inventory. J N C Acad Sci 122:142–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plummer R, Armitage DR. 2007. Charting the new territory of adaptive co-management: A Delphi study. Ecol Soc 12:10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prell C, Hubacek K, Reed M. 2009. Stakeholder analysis and social network analysis in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 22:501–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price CA, Lee H-S. 2013. Changes in participants’ scientific attitudes and epistemological beliefs during an astronomical citizen science project. J Res Sci Teach 50:773–801.

  • Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reever Morghan KJ, Sheley RL, Svejcar TJ. 2006. Successful adaptive management-the integration of research and management. Rangel Ecol Manag 59:216–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringold PL, Alegria J, Czaplewski RL, Mulder BS, Tolle T, Burnett K. 1996. Adaptive monitoring design for ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 6:745–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rist L, Campbell BM, Frost P. 2013. Adaptive management: where are we now? Environ Conserv 40:5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan RL, Kaplan R, Grese RE. 2001. Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental stewardship programmes. J Environ Plann Manage 44(5):629–48. doi:10.1080/09640560120079948.

  • Sale PF, Cowen RK, Danilowicz BS, Jones GP, Kritzer JP, Lindeman KC, Planes S, Polunin NVC, Russ GR, Sadovy YJ, Steneck RS. 2005. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends Ecol Evol 20:74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe A, Conrad C. 2006. Community based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: challenges and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 113:395–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shea CP, Peterson JT, Wisniewski JM, Johnson NA. 2011. Misidentification of freshwater mussel species (Bivalvia: Unionidae): contributing factors, management implications, and potential solutions. J N Am Benthol Soc 30:446–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, McCallie E, Minarchek M, Lewenstein BV, Krasny ME, Bonney R. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc 17:29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol 24:467–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Silvertown J, Buesching CD, Jacobson SK, Rebelo T. 2013. Citizen science and nature conservation. Key Topics Conserv Biol 2:127–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunde P, Jessen L. 2013. It counts who counts: an experimental evaluation of the importance of observer effects on spotlight count estimates. Eur J Wildl Res 59:645–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susskind L, Camacho AE, Schenk T. 2012. A critical assessment of collaborative adaptive management in practice. J Appl Ecol 49:47–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szabo JK, Vesk PA, Baxter PWJ, Possingham HP. 2010. Regional avian species declines estimated from volunteer-collected long-term data using List Length Analysis. Ecol Appl 20:2157–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turnhout E, Van Bommel S, Aarts N. 2010. How participation creates citizens: participatory governance as performative practice. Ecol Soc 15(4):26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijsoort J, Zhang JF. 2005. Participatory resource monitoring as a means for promoting social change in Yunnan, China. Biodivers Conserv 14:2543–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters C. 1997. Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conserv Ecol 1:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters CJ. 2007. Is adaptive management helping to solve fisheries problems? AMBIO 36:304–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walters CJ, Hilborn R. 1976. Adaptive control of fishing systems. J Fish Board Canada 33:145–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westgate MJ, Likens GE, Lindenmayer DB. 2013. Adaptive management of biological systems: a review. Biol Conserv 158:128–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK. 2011. Adaptive management of natural resources—framework and issues. J Environ Manag 92:1346–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaffee SL. 2002. Ecosystem management in policy and practice. In: Meffe GK, Nielsen LA, Knight RL, Schenborn DA, Eds. Ecosystem management: adaptive community-based conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press. p 89–93.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at the University of California, Santa Barbara. This paper is the product of an interdisciplinary PhD seminar. The first 15 authors were participants. Anderson and Tague were the faculty leads.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, 2400 Bren Hall, Santa Barbara, California, 93106, USA

    Eréndira Aceves-Bueno, Adeyemi S. Adeleye, Darcy Bradley, W. Tyler Brandt, Patrick Callery, Marina Feraud, Kendra L. Garner, Rebecca Gentry, Yuxiong Huang, Ian McCullough, Isaac Pearlman, Sara A. Sutherland, Whitney Wilkinson, Yi Yang, Trevor Zink, Sarah E. Anderson & Christina Tague

Authors
  1. Eréndira Aceves-Bueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adeyemi S. Adeleye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Darcy Bradley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Tyler Brandt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick Callery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Marina Feraud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kendra L. Garner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Rebecca Gentry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yuxiong Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ian McCullough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Isaac Pearlman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Sara A. Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Whitney Wilkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Yi Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Trevor Zink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Sarah E. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Christina Tague
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah E. Anderson.

Additional information

Author contributions

Conceived of and designed study (EAB, ASA, DB, WB, PC, MF, KG, RG, YH, IM, IP, SS, WW, YY, TZ, SA, CT), performed research (EAB, ASA, DB, WB, PC, MF, KG, RG, YH, IM, IP, SS, WW, YY, TZ), analyzed data (EAB, ASA, DB, WB, PC, MF, KG, RG, YH, IM, IP, SS, WW, YY, TZ, SA, CT), wrote paper (EAB, ASA, DB, WB, PC, MF, KG, RG, YH, IM, IP, SS, WW, YY, TZ, SA, CT).

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 41 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aceves-Bueno, E., Adeleye, A.S., Bradley, D. et al. Citizen Science as an Approach for Overcoming Insufficient Monitoring and Inadequate Stakeholder Buy-in in Adaptive Management: Criteria and Evidence. Ecosystems 18, 493–506 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9842-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9842-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation