Environmental Management

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 425–434 | Cite as

Evaluating the Performance of Volunteers in Mapping Invasive Plants in Public Conservation Lands

  • Rebecca C. JordanEmail author
  • Wesley R. Brooks
  • David V. Howe
  • Joan G. Ehrenfeld


Citizen science programs are touted as useful tools for engaging the public in science and for collecting important data for scientists and resource managers. To accomplish the latter, it must be shown that data collected by volunteers is sufficiently accurate and reliable. We engaged 119 volunteers over three years to map and estimate abundance of invasive plants in New York and New Jersey parklands. We tested their accuracy via collected pressed samples and by subsampling their transect points. We also compared the performances of volunteers and botanical experts. Our results support the notion that volunteer participation can enhance the data generated by scientists alone. We found that the quality of data collected might be affected by the environment in which the data are collected. We suggest that giving consideration to how people learn can not only help to achieve educational goals but can also help to produce more data to be used in scientific study.


Citizen science Invasive plants Training Volunteers Parklands Monitoring program 



Funding was made possible through the USDA CSREES NRI # 05-2221 and all work was conducted in accordance to Institutional Review Board policy. We thank Ed Goodell and the people of the NY–NJ Trail Conference. Additionally, we thank Kristen Ross, David Mellor, and Edwin McGowan. We give a special thanks to our numerous volunteers.


  1. Bierele TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. RFF Press, Washington, DC, USA, p 148Google Scholar
  2. Bloniarz DV, Ryan HDP III (1996) The use of volunteer initiatives in conducting urban forest resource inventories. Journal of Arboricology 22:75–82Google Scholar
  3. Bonney R, Ballard H, Jordan R, McCallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, Wilderman C (2009) Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. In: A CAISE inquiry group report center for advancement of informal science education. CAISE, Washington, DC. Accessed 15 March 2010
  4. Boudreau SA, Yan ND (2004) Auditing the accuracy of a volunteer-based surveillance program for an aquatic invader Bythotrephes. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 91:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandon A, Spyreas G, Molano-Flores B, Carroll C, Ellis J (2003) Can volunteers provide reliable data for forest vegetation surveys? Natural Areas Journal 23:254–261Google Scholar
  6. Bransford JD, Brown A, Cocking R (eds) (1999) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, p 374Google Scholar
  7. Brossard D, Lewenstein B, Bonney R (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education 27:1099–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crall AW, Newman GL, Stohlgren TJ, Holfelder KA, Graham J, Waller DM (2011) Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conservation Letters. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00196.x
  9. Darwall W, Dulvy N (1996) An evaluation of the suitability of nonspecialist volunteer researchers for coral reef fish surveys, Mafia Island, Tanzania—a case study. Biological Conservation 78:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B (2008) Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biological Invasions 10:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual Reviews of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41:149–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunlap R (1992) Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. In: Dunlap R, Mertig A (eds) American environmentalism: the US environmental movement, 1970–1990. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp 89–116Google Scholar
  13. Evans C, Abrams E, Reitsma R, Roux K, Salmonsen L, Marra P (2005) The neighborhood nestwatch program: participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conservation Biology 19:589–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Firehock K, West J (1995) A brief history of volunteer biological water monitoring using macroinvertebrates. Journal of North American Benthological Society 14:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzpatrick M, Preisser E, Ellison A, Elkinton J (2009) Observer bias and the detection of low-density populations. Applied Ecology 19:1673–1679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Humphreys G (1989) Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychology Review 96:433–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jordan RC, Gray ST, Howe DV, Brooks WR, Ehrenfeld JG (2011) Conservation education and citizen science: using an invasive plant case study to highlight issues of practice. Conservation Biology. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011
  18. Krasny M, Bonney R (2005) Environmental education through citizen science and participatory action research. In: Johnson EA, Mappin MJ (eds) Environmental education or advocacy: perspectives of ecology and education in environmental education. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, pp 292–319Google Scholar
  19. Link WA, Sauer JR (1999) Controlling for varying effort in count surveys—an analysis of Christmas bird count data. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 4:116–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Luken JO (2003) Invasions of forests in the Eastern United States. In: Gilliam FS, Roberts MR (eds) The herbaceous layer in forests of Eastern North America. Oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp 283–301Google Scholar
  21. Marcinkowski T (1993) Assessment in environmental education. In: Wilke RJ (ed) Environmental education teacher resource handbook. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, pp 143–197Google Scholar
  22. McCormick S, Brown P, Zavestoski S (2003) The personal is scientific, the scientific is political: the public paradigm of the environmental breast cancer movement. Sociological Forum 18:545–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nerbonne JF, Nelson KC (2004) Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring in the United States: resource mobilization and comparative state structures. Society and Natural Resources 17:817–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pattengill-Semmens CV, Semmens BX (2003) Conservation and management applications of the reef volunteer fish monitoring program. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pierce BA, Gutzwiller KJ (2007) Interobserver variation in frog call surveys. Journal of Herpetology 41:424–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schmeller DS, Henry PY, Julliard R, Gruber B, Clobert J and others (2009) Advantages of volunteer-based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conservation Biology 23:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thelen BA, Thiet RK (2008) Cultivating connection: incorporating meaningful citizen science into Cape Cod national seashore’s estuarine research and monitoring programs. Park Science 25(1):74–80. Google Scholar
  28. Weber EP (2000) A new vanguard for the environment: grass–roots ecosystem management as a new environmental movement. Society and Natural Resources 13:237–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca C. Jordan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wesley R. Brooks
    • 1
  • David V. Howe
    • 1
  • Joan G. Ehrenfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Evolution, & Natural Resources, School of Environmental and Biological SciencesRutgers UniversityNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations