Abstract
An extensive ecosystem restoration effort for Chesapeake Bay, launched in 1983, has more recently (2015) initiated a program to integrate volunteer monitoring into the overall monitoring program. We sought to understand Chesapeake Bay environmental stakeholders’ perspectives about citizen science. Specifically, we explored stakeholders’ perspectives on (a) the roles of both science and citizen science in Bay management, and (b) the level of influence that various stakeholder groups currently and ideally should have in Bay decision-making processes. We employed a watershed-wide survey of over 350 Chesapeake Bay environmental stakeholders, including managers, scientists, educators, waterkeepers, and citizen scientists. Survey respondents felt that they should have more influence in environmental management decisions, but the degree of desired influence varied among stakeholder groups. Stakeholders broadly agreed that professional scientists should influence public policy, and that citizen scientists should influence policy to a lesser degree. Chesapeake environmental stakeholders had mixed perspectives on the utility of citizen science for Chesapeake environmental research and management, despite the clear potential that citizen science has in the Chesapeake Bay area. But it was recognized that citizen scientists can play an important role in protecting Chesapeake Bay, in that they can serve as advocates for change, help fill data gaps, and engage more community members. We provide evidence in support of expanded stakeholder engagement in Chesapeake Bay environmental research and decision-making. Citizen science appears to be a promising new frontier that could help Chesapeake science and management develop more inclusive decision-making processes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aceves-Bueno, E., A.S. Adeleye, D. Bradley, W.T. Brandt, P. Callery, M. Feraud, K.L. Garner, R. Gentry, Y. Huang, I. McCullough, I. Pearlman, S.A. Sutherland, W. Wilkinson, Y. Yang, T. Zink, S.E. Anderson, and C. Tague. 2015. Citizen science as an approach for overcoming insufficient monitoring and inadequate stakeholder buy-in in adaptive management: Criteria and evidence. Ecosystems. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9842-4.
Alexander, S.M., J.F. Provencher, D.A. Henri, J.J. Taylor, J.I. Lloren, L. Nanayakkara, J.T. Johnson, and S.J. Cooke. 2019. Bridging Indigenous and science-based knowledge in coastal and marine research, monitoring, and management in Canada. Environmental Evidence. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0181-3.
Ator, S.W., J.D. Blomquist, J.S. Webber, and J.G. Chanat. 2020. Factors driving nutrient trends in streams of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeq2.20101.
Bäckstrand, K. 2003. Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts, policymakers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental Politics. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638003322757916.
Balazs, C.L., and R. Morello-Frosch. 2013. The three Rs: How community-based participatory research strengthens the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. Environmental Justice. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2012.0017.
Bednarek, A.T., C. Wyborn, C. Cvitanovic, R. Meyer, R.M. Colvin, P.F.E. Addison, S.L. Close, K. Curran, M. Farooque, E. Goldman, D. Hart, H. Mannix, B. McGreavy, A. Parris, S. Posner, C. Robinson, M. Ryan, and P. Leith. 2018. Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9.
Bennett, N.J., R. Roth, S.C. Klain, K. Chan, P. Christie, D.A. Clark, G. Cullman, D. Curran, T.J. Durbin, G. Epstein, A. Greenberg, M.P. Nelson, J. Sandlos, R. Stedman, T.L. Teel, R. Thomas, D. Veríssimo, and C. Wyborn. 2017. Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006.
Bennett, N.J. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681.
Berkes, F. 2009. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001.
Bidwell, D. 2009. Is community-based research postnormal science. Science, Technology & Human Values. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909340262.
Blake, C., A. Rhanor, and C. Pajic. 2020. The demographics of citizen science participation and its implications for data quality and environmental justice. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.320.
Boesch, D. F. and E. B. Goldman. 2009. Chesapeake Bay. In: Ecosystem-based management for the oceans, eds. K. McLeod and H. Leslie, 268–293. Island Press.
Boiral, O. 2002. Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Planning. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(02)00047-X.
Brosius, J.P., A. Lowehaupt Tsing, and C. Zerner. 1998. Representing communities: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929809381069.
Brouwer, H., J. Woodhill, M. Hemmati, K. Verhoosel, and S. van Vugt. 2019. The MSP guide: how to design and facilitate multi-stakeholder partnerships, 3rd ed. Wageningen: Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation and Rugby: Practical Action Publishing. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780446691.
Buytaert, W., Z. Zulkafli, S. Grainger, L. Acosta, T.C. Alemie, J. Bastiaensen, B. De Bièvre, J. Bhusal, J. Clark, A. Dewulf, M. Foggin, D.M. Hannah, C. Hergarten, A. Isaeva, T. Karpouzoglou, B. Pandeya, D. Paudel, K. Sharma, T. Steenhuis, S. Tilahun, G. Van Hecken, and M. Zhumanova. 2014. Citizen science in hydrology and water resources: Opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development. Frontiers in Earth Science. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2014.00026.
Calheiros, D.F., A.F. Seidl, and C.J. Ferreira. 2000. Participatory research methods in environmental science: Local and scientific knowledge of a limnological phenomenon in the Pantanal wetland of Brazil. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.2000.00524.x.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. Memorandum of understanding regarding using citizen and non-traditional partner monitoring data to assess water quality and living resource status and our progress toward restoration of a healthy Chesapeake Bay and watershed. https://www.chesapeakemonitoringcoop.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2018-Citizen-Science-MOU-signed.pdf. Accessed 1 Jun 2021.
Conrad, C.C., and K.G. Hilchey. 2011. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5.
Conrad, C.T., and T. Daoust. 2008. Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9042-x.
Costanza, R., and J. Greer. 1995. The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed: a model for sustainable ecosystem management? In: Barriers and Bridges for the Renewal of Regional Ecosystems, eds. L. H. Gunderson, C. S. Holling, and S. Light, 169–213. Columbia University Press.
Danielsen, F., N. D. Burgess, A. Balmford, P. F. Donald, M. Funder, J. P. Jones, P. Alviola, D. S. Balete, T. Blomley, J. Brashares, B. Child, E. Enghoff, J. Fields, S. Holt, H. Hübertz, A. E. Jensen, P. M. Jensen, J. Massao, M. M. Mendoza, Y. Ngaga, M. K. Poulsen, R. Rueda, M. Sam, T. Skielboe, G. Stuart-Hill, E. Top-Jørgensen, and D. Yonten. 2009. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: A characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01063.x.
Davis, J. 1977. The effects of tropical storm Agnes on the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication no. 54.
Dickinson, J.L., B. Zuckerberg, and D.N. Bonter. 2010. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236.
Dickinson, J.L., J. Shirk, D. Bonter, R. Bonney, R.L. Crain, J. Martin, T. Phillips, and K. Purcell. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236.
Doremus, H., and A.D. Tarlock. 2005. Science, judgment, and controversy in natural resource regulation. Public Land and Resources Law Review 26: 1.
Freitag, A., and M.J. Pfeffer. 2013. Process, not product: Investigating recommendations for improving citizen science “success.” PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064079.
Freudenburg, W.R. 1989. Social scientists’ contributions to environmental management. Journal of Social Issues. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1989.tb01536.x.
Gillelan, M.E., D. Haberman, G.B. Mackiernan, J. Macknis, and H.W. Wells Jr. 1983. Chesapeake Bay, a framework for action. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12405.pdf. Accessed 1 Jun 2021.
Goldman, M.J., P. Nadasdy and M.D. Turner (Eds.) 2011. Knowing nature: conversations at the intersection of political ecology and science studies. University of Chicago Press.
Gray, S., R. Shwom, and R. Jordan. 2012. Understanding factors that influence stakeholder trust of natural resource science and institutions. Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9800-7.
Heberlein, T.A. 1988. Improving interdisciplinary research: Integrating the social and natural sciences. Society & Natural Resources. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941928809380634.
Hennessey, T.M. 1994. Governance and adaptive management for estuarine ecosystems: The case of Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920759409362225.
Hermoso, M.I., V.Y. Martin, S. Gelcich, W. Stotz, and M. Thiel. 2021. Exploring diversity and engagement of divers in citizen science: Insights for marine management and conservation. Marine Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104316.
Hood, R.R., G.W. Shenk, R.L. Dixon, S.M. Smith, W.P. Ball, J.O. Bash, R. Batiuk, K. Boomer, D.C. Brady, C. Cerco, P. Claggett, K. de Mutsert, Z.M. Easton, A.J. Elmore, M.A.M. Friedrichs, L.A. Harris, T.F. Ihde, L. Lacher, L. Li, L.C. Linker, A. Miller, J. Moriarty, G.B. Noe, G. Onyullo, K. Pose, K. Skalak, R. Tian, T.L. Veith, L. Wainger, D. Weller, and Y.J. Zhang. 2021. The Chesapeake Bay program modeling system: Overview and recommendations for future development. Ecological Modelling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109635.
Houde, E.D. 2011. Chesapeake perspectives: managing the Chesapeake’s Fisheries. College Park: Maryland Sea Grant College.
Irwin, A. 1995. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. Psychology Press.
Johnson, M., and S. Clisby. 2009. Naturalising distinctions: The contested field of environmental relations in Costa Rica. Landscape Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426390802390517.
Jollymore, A., M.J. Haines, T. Satterfield, and M.S. Johnson. 2017. Citizen science for water quality monitoring: Data implications of citizen perspectives. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.05.083.
Kotcher, J.E., T.A. Myers, E.K. Vraga, N. Stenhouse, and E.W. Maibach. 2017. Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736.
Kreuter, M.W., C. De Rosa, E.H. Howze, and G.T. Baldwin. 2004. Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental health promotion. Health Education & Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104265597.
Lach, D., P. List, B. Steel, and B. Shindler. 2003. Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: A regional study. BioScience 53 (2): 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0170:AACOES]2.0.CO;2.
Lackey, R.T. 2007. Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00639.x.
Lang, D.J., A. Wiek, M. Bergmann, M. Stauffacher, P. Martens, P. Moll, M. Swilling, and C.J. Thomas. 2012. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x.
Martin, V.Y. 2020. Four common problems in environmental social research undertaken by natural scientists. BioScience. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz128.
Mascia, M.B., J.P. Brosius, T.A. Dobson, B.C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M.A. McKean, and N.J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01738.x.
McKinley, D.C., A.J. Miller-Rushing, H.L. Ballard, R. Bonney, H. Brown, S.C. Cook-Patton, D.M. Evans, R.A. French, J.K. Parrish, T.B. Phillips, S.F. Ryan, L.A. Shanley, J.L. Shirk, K.F. Stepenuck, J.F. Weltzin, A. Wiggins, O.D. Boyle, R.D. Briggs, S.F. Chapin, D.A. Hewitt, P.W. Preuss, and M.A. Soukup. 2017. Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biological Conservation 208: 15–28.
Milkoreit, M., M.L. Moore, M. Schoon, and C.L. Meek. 2015. Resilience scientists as change-makers—growing the middle ground between science and advocacy? Environmental Science & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.08.003.
Milton, K. 1993. Environmentalism and anthropology. In Environmentalism, ed. K. Milton, 1–17. London and New York: Routledge.
Moyer, D.L., and M.J. Langland. 2020. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads and trends measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network stations: water years 1985–2018. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/P931M7FT.
Nelson, M.P., and J.A. Vucetich. 2009. On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x.
Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An unprecedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.222.4619.51.
Oxnam, G., and J.P. Williams. 2001. Saving the Chesapeake. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 16 (1): 96.
Pew Research Center. 2020. Key findings about Americans’ confidence in science and their views on scientists’ role in society. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/12/key-findings-about-americans-confidence-in-science-and-their-views-on-scientists-role-in-society/. Accessed 12 Jul 2021.
Pettibone, L., B. Blättel-Mink, B. Balázs, A.D. Giulio, C. Göbel, K. Heubach, D. Hummel, J. Lundershausen, A. Lux, T. Potthast, K. Vohland, and C. Wyborn. 2018. Transdisciplinary sustainability research and citizen science: Options for mutual learning. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.27.2.9.
Pielke, R.A., Jr. 2007. The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Raymond, C.M., I. Fazey, M.S. Reed, L.C. Stringer, G.M. Robinson, and A.C. Evely. 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.03.023.
Reed, M.S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
Reed, M.S., L.C. Stringer, I. Fazey, A.C. Evely, and J.H. Kruijsen. 2014. Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.07.021.
Reed, M.S., S. Vella, E. Challies, J. De Vente, L. Frewer, D. Hohenwallner-Ries, T. Huber, R.K. Neumann, E.A. Oughton, J.S. del Ceno, and H. van Delden. 2018. A theory of participation: What makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restoration Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541.
Research!America. 2018. Advocating for science: your role in changing hearts and minds. https://www.researchamerica.org/sites/default/files/newsletter/Images/ASM%20Policy%20Board_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 11 Jul 2021.
Richter, A., D. Dörler, S. Hecker, F. Heigl, L. Pettibone, F. Serrano Sanz, K. Vohland, and A. Bonn. 2018. Capacity building in citizen science. In Citizen science: Innovation in open science, society and policy, eds. S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, and A. Bonn. London: UCL Press.
Roman, M., X. Zhang, C. McGilliard, and W. Boicourt. 2005. Seasonal and annual variability in the spatial patterns of plankton biomass in Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2005.50.2.0480.
Roux, D.J., R.J. Stirzaker, C.M. Breen, E.C. Lefroy, and H.P. Cresswell. 2010. Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. Environmental Science & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.002.
Rubin, L., C. Donovan, A. Fries, J. Vastine, J. Monismith, S. Spitzer, D. Donkersloot, and N. Dean. 2017. Chesapeake Monitoring Cooperative prioritization report: how volunteer and nontraditional monitoring can help fill data gaps in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Chesapeake Monitoring Cooperative. https://www.allianceforthebay.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Prioritization-Report_Final.pdf. Accessed 13 Jun 2021.
Shirk, J., H. Ballard, C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E. McCallie, M. Minarchek, B.V. Lewenstein, M.E. Krasny, and R. Bonney. 2012. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17 (2).
Shenk, G.W., and L.C. Linker. 2013. Development and application of the 2010 Chesapeake Bay watershed total maximum daily load model. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12109.
Tillman, N. 2009. The Chesapeake Watershed: a sense of place and a call to action. Chesapeake Book Company.
Trombley, J.M. 2017. An environmental anthropology of modeling and management on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park). https://doi.org/10.13016/M2CV4BS14.
Webster, S.E., E.C. Donovan, E. Chudoba, C.D. Miller-Hesed, M. Paolisso, and W.C. Dennison. 2022. Identifying and harmonizing the priorities of stakeholders in the Chesapeake Bay environmental monitoring community. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2022.100155.
Whitelaw, G., H. Vaughan, B. Craig, and D. Atkinson. 2003. Establishing the Canadian community monitoring network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025545813057.
Zhang, Q., R.R. Murphy, R. Tian, M.K. Forsyth, E.M. Trentacoste, J. Keisman, and P.J. Tango. 2018. Chesapeake Bay’s water quality condition has been recovering: Insights from a multimetric indicator assessment of thirty years of tidal monitoring data. Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.025.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of the Chesapeake Bay environmental stakeholders who participated in this study. We are also grateful to Natalie Spitzer for her statistical assistance, as well as Drew Webster and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript. We also thank Michael Paolisso, Astrid Caldas, Andrea Grover, and Judy O’Neil for their mentorship and comments on the study and survey design.
Funding
Funding for this research was provided by the Integration and Application Network at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Additionally, this manuscript was prepared by Suzanne Webster, in part, using Federal funds under award NA21OAR4170062 from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Sea Grant College Program, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Suzanne E. Webster: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, visualization (lead), writing — original draft (lead), and writing — reviewing and editing (equal), funding acquisition (supporting). William C. Dennison: visualization (supporting), writing — original draft (supporting), reviewing and editing (equal), and funding acquisition (lead).
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Sea Grant College Program or the U.S. Department of Commerce. These federal funding sources had no involvement in designing the study; collecting, analyzing, and interpreting the data; writing the manuscript, or deciding to submit the manuscript for publication.
Ethics and consent
This research was approved by the University of Maryland College Park Institutional Review Board (1436359-1).
Additional information
Communicated by Holly Greening
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Webster, S.E., Dennison, W.C. Stakeholder Perspectives on the Roles of Science and Citizen Science in Chesapeake Bay Environmental Management. Estuaries and Coasts 45, 2310–2326 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-022-01106-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-022-01106-5