Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 176, Issue 1–4, pp 273–291 | Cite as

A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities

  • Cathy C. Conrad
  • Krista G. HilcheyEmail author


Worldwide, decision-makers and nongovernment organizations are increasing their use of citizen volunteers to enhance their ability to monitor and manage natural resources, track species at risk, and conserve protected areas. We reviewed the last 10 years of relevant citizen science literature for areas of consensus, divergence, and knowledge gaps. Different community-based monitoring (CBM) activities and governance structures were examined and contrasted. Literature was examined for evidence of common benefits, challenges, and recommendations for successful citizen science. Two major gaps were identified: (1) a need to compare and contrast the success (and the situations that induce success) of CBM programs which present sound evidence of citizen scientists influencing positive environmental changes in the local ecosystems they monitor and (2) more case studies showing use of CBM data by decision-makers or the barriers to linkages and how these might be overcome. If new research focuses on these gaps, and on the differences of opinions that exist, we will have a much better understanding of the social, economic, and ecological benefits of citizen science.


Citizen science Community-based monitoring Social capital Environmental democratization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Au, J., Bagchi, B., Chen, B., Martinez, R., Dudley, S. A., & Sorger, G. J. (2000). Methodology for public monitoring of total coliforms, Escheri coli and toxicity in waterways by Canadian high school students. Journal of Environmental Management, 58, 213–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audubon (2008). The 109th Christmas bird count. Retrieved from: on September 10th, 2008.
  3. Bibby, C. J. (2003). Fifty years of bird study: Capsule field ornithology is alive and well, and in the future can contribute much more in Britain and elsewhere. Bird Study, 50, 194–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradshaw, B. (2003). Questioning the credibility and capacity of community-based resource management. The Canadian Geographer, 47, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bucket Brigade (2006). Bucket brigade introduction. Retrieved from: on September 15th, 2008
  6. Cannon, A. R., Chamberlain, D. E., Toms, M. P., Hatchwell, B. J., & Gaston, K. J. (2005). Trends in the use of private gardens by wild birds in Great Britain 1995–2002. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr, A. J. L. (2004). Why do we all need community science. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 841–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carolan, M. S. (2006). Science, expertise and the democratization of the decision-making process. Society and Natural Resources, 19, 661–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chilvers, J. (2008). Deliberating competence: Theoretical and practitioner perspectives on effective participatory appraisal practice. Science Technology Human Values, 33, 421–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cline, S. A., & Collins, A. R. (2003). Watershed associations in West Virginia: Their impact on environmental protection. Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conrad, C. (2006). Towards meaningful community-based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: Where we are versus where we would like to be. Environments, 34, 25–36.Google Scholar
  12. Conrad, C., & Daoust, T. (2008). Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environmental Management, 41, 356–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Contador, J. F. L. (2005). Adaptive management, monitoring, and the ecological sustainability of a thermal-polluted water system: A case in SW Spain. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 104, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper, C. B., Hochachka, W., Butcher, G., & Dhondt, A. (2005). Egg viability as a constraint on seasonal and latitudinal trends in clutch size. Ecology, 86, 2018–2031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., & Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12, 11–21.Google Scholar
  16. Cornell Lab of Ornithology (2008). Citizen Science. Retrieved from: on September 10th, 2008.
  17. Datta, A., Anand, M. O., & Naniwadekar, R. (2008). Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Biological Conservation, 141, 1429–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. de Solla, S. R., Shirose, L. J., Fernie, K. J., Barrett, G. C., Brousseau, C. S., & Bishop, C. A. (2005). Effect of sampling effort and species detectability on volunteer based anuran monitoring programs. Biological Conservation, 121, 585–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Easa, P. S., Surendranathan Asari, P. K., & Chand Basha, S. (1997). Status and distribution of the endangered lion-tailed macaque Macaca silenus in Kerala, India. Biological Conservation, 80, 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ely, E. (2008a). Getting volunteer data into science journals. The Volunteer Monitor, 19, 8–11.Google Scholar
  21. Ely, E. (2008b). Volunteer monitoring and the democratization of science. The Volunteer Monitor, 19, 1–5.Google Scholar
  22. Evans, C., Abrams, E., Reltsrna, R., Roux, K., Salmonsen, L., & Marra, P. P. (2005). The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conservation Biology, 19, 589–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Florida Lakewatch (2008). Florida LAKEWATCH: Florida’s volunteer water quality monitoring program, Retrieved from: on September 15th, 2008.
  24. Fore, L. S., Paulsen, K., & O’Laughlin, K. (2001). Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshwater Biology, 46, 109–123.Google Scholar
  25. Foster-Smith, J., & Evans, S. M. (2003). The value of marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biological Conservation, 113, 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gadgil, M. (2006). Science and the right to information. Economic and Political Weekly, 13, 1895–1902.Google Scholar
  27. Global Community Monitor. (2006). Retrieved from on September 15th, 2008.
  28. Gouveia, C., Fonseca, A., Camara, A., & Ferrira, F. (2004). Promoting the use of environmental data collected by concerned citizens through information and communication technologies. Journal of Environmental Management, 71, 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gregory, R. D., van Strein, A., Vorisek, P., Gmelig Meyling, A. W., Noble, D. G., Foppen, R. P. B., et al. (2005). Developing indicators for European birds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 360, 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Griffin, C. B. (1999). Watershed councils: An emerging form of public participation in natural resources management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35, 505–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hochachka, W. M., & Dhondt, A. A. (2000). Density-dependent decline of host abundance resulting from a new infectious disease. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97, 5303–5306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hochachka, W. M., Wells, J. V., Rosenberg, K. V., Tassaglia-Hymes, D. L., & Dhondt, A. A. (1999). Irruptive migration of common redpolls. Condor, 101, 195–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. James, M. C., Sherrill-Mix, S. A., Martin, K., & Myers, R. A. (2006). Canadian waters provide critical foraging habitat for leatherback sea turtles. Biological Conservation, 133, 347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, F. C., Baird, D., Bowman, M., Cameron, G., Craig, B., Cutler, B., et al. (2006). Performance of Ontario’s Benthos Biomonitoring Network: Impacts on participants’ social capital, environmental action and problem-solving ability. Environments, 34, 37–53.Google Scholar
  35. Karney, R. (2009). Poor water quality? Not in my backyard! The effectiveness of neighbourhood pond associations in the protections and improvement of shellfish growing waters on Martha’s Vineyard. Martha’s Vineyard Shellfish Group, Inc. Accessed from on June 26, 2009.
  36. Keough, H. L., & Blahna, D. J. (2006). Achieving integrative, collaborative ecosystem management. Conservation Biology, 20, 1373–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kerr, M., Ely, E., Lee, V., & Mayio, A. (1994). A profile of volunteer environmental monitoring: National survey results. Lake and Reservoir Management, 9, 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kershaw, M., & Cranswick, P. A. (2003). Numbers of wintering waterbirds in Great Britain, 1994/1995–1998/1999: I. Wildfowl and selected waterbirds. Biological Conservation, 111, 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kruger, L. E., & Shannon, M. A. (2000). Getting to know ourselves and our places through participation in civic social assessment. Society and Natural Resources, 13, 461–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lakshminarayanan, S. (2007). Using citizens to do science versus citizens as scientists. Ecology and Society, 12, Response 2, 1.Google Scholar
  41. Lawrence, A. (2005). “Reluctant citizens? The disjuncture between participatory biological monitoring and environmental governance.” Paper presented at the International Sociology Association Conference “Environment, knowledge and democracy” Marseilles, France, p. 6, 7 July 2005.Google Scholar
  42. Lawrence, A. (2006). No personal motive? Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation. Ethics, Place and Environment, 9(3), 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lawrence, R. L., & Deagan, D. A. (2001). Choosing public participation methods for natural resources: A context-specific guide. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 857–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lawrence, A., & Turnhout, E. (2005). “Personal meaning in the public space: The bureaucratization of biodiversity data in the UK and the Netherlands.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the Royal Geographical Society, August 31, 2005.Google Scholar
  45. Legg, C. J., & Nagy, L. (2006). Why most conservation monitoring is, but need not be, a waste of time. Journal of Environmental Management, 78, 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lynam, T., Jong, W., Sheil, D., Kusumanto, T., & Evans, K. (2007). A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences and values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecology and Society, 12, 5–18.Google Scholar
  47. Milne, R., Rosolen, S., Whitelaw, G., & Bennett, L. (2006). Multi-party monitoring in Ontario: Challenges and emerging solutions. Environments, 34, 11–23.Google Scholar
  48. Mullen, M. W., & Allison, B. E. (1999). Stakeholder involvement and social capital: Keys to watershed management success in Alabama. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35, 655–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nagendra, H., Karmacharya, M., & Karna, B. (2005). Evaluating forest management in Nepal: Views across space and time. Ecology and Society, 10, 24–40.Google Scholar
  50. Nali, C., & Lorenzini, G. (2007). Air quality survey carried out by schoolchildren: An innovative tool for urban planning. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 131, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Newman, C., Buesching, C. D., & MacDonald, D. W. (2003). Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation- “Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?” Biological Conservation, 113, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Oberhauser, K. S., & Solensky, M. J. (2004). The Monarch butterfly: Biology and conservation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Pattengill-Semmens, C. V., & Semmens, B. X. (2003). Conservation and management applications of the reef volunteer fish monitoring program. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 81, 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pollock, R. M., Whitelaw, G. S., & Atkinson, D. K. (2003). Linking community based ecosystem monitoring to local decision making and policy development on sustainability: Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI) Project: Final Report. Canadian Nature Federation: Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network Coordinating Office, Environment Canada. Accessed on September 15th, 2008: The Canadian Community Monitoring Network website:
  55. Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302, 142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pretty, J., Guijt, I., Thompson, J., & Scoones, I. (1995). Participatory learning and action: A trainer’s guide (p. 267). IIED Participatory Methodology Series, London.Google Scholar
  57. Robertson, D. P., & Hull, R. B. (2001). Beyond Biology: Toward a more public ecology for conservation. Conservation Biology, 15, 970–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Root, T., & Alpert, P. (1994). Volunteers and the NBS. Science, 263, 1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rosenberg, K. V., Hames, R. S., Rohrbaugh, R. W. Jr, Barker Swarthout, S. E., Lowe, J. D., & Dhondt, A. A. (2003). A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for forest thrushes. Ithaca: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.Google Scholar
  60. Rosenberg, K. V., Rohrbaugh, R. W. Jr, Barker, S. E., Lowe, J. D., Hames, R. S., & Dhondt, A. A. (1999). A land manager’s guide to improving habitat for scarlet tanagers and other forest-interior birds. Ithaca: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology.Google Scholar
  61. Royle, J. A. (2004). Modeling abundance index data from anuran calling surveys. Conservation Biology, 18, 1378–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Savan, B., Morgan, A., & Gore, C. (2003). Volunteer environmental monitoring and the role of the universities: The case of citizen’s watch. Environmental Management, 31, 561–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schwartz, M. W. (2006). How conservation scientists can help develop social capital for biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 20, 1550–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sharpe, A., & Conrad, C. (2006). Community based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: Challenges and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 13, 305–409.Google Scholar
  65. Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N., & Brown, M. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: A review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology, 19, 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stokes, P., Havas, M., & Brydges, T. (1990). Public participation and volunteer help in monitoring programs: An assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 15, 225–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sullivan, B., Wood, C., Iliff, M., Bonney, R., Fink, D., & Kelling, S. (2009). eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation, 142, 2282–2292.Google Scholar
  68. Sultana, P., & Abeyasekera, S. (2008). Effectiveness of participatory planning for community management of fisheries in Bangladesh. Journal of Environmental Management, 86, 201–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2009). Introducing the Aarhus Convention. Accessed on June 21, 2009 at
  70. Vos, P., Meelis, E., & Keurs, W. J. (2000). A framework for the design of ecological monitoring programs as a tool for environmental and nature management. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 61, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Warren, R. D., & Witter, M. S. (2002). Monitoring trends in bat populations through roost surveys: Methods and data from Rhinolophus hipposideros. Biological Conservation, 105, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Whitelaw, G., Vaughan, H., Craig, B., & Atkinson, D. (2003). Establishing the Canadian Community Monitoring Network. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 88, 409–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographySaint Mary’s UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Water and Wastewater BranchNova Scotia Department of EnvironmentHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations