Skip to main content

Exploring the ability of urban householders to correctly identify nocturnal mammals

Abstract

Urban landscapes present substantial opportunities for biodiversity conservation with residential gardens offering some of the greatest potential conservation gains given that they represent a significant proportion of the total greenspace in urbanised landscapes. However, knowledge of wildlife ecology within gardens remains scarce, likely due to the difficulties associated with field ecologists accessing privately owned areas. Citizen-sourced data presents an alternative approach to typical field-based investigations and could be used to develop an extensive understanding of biodiversity within privately owned green spaces, providing concerns of data unreliability could be overcome. Here we i) examine the potential for urban householders to identify a threatened nocturnal mammal, in the presence of a similar non-threatened species, ii) examine which attributes can predict the level of accuracy in householders’ species identifications and iii) investigate how their self-reported level of certainty affects identification reliability. We found up to 80% agreement between householders and experienced ecologists when we assessed presence and absence of nocturnal mammals on urban properties. The amount of time a householder had lived at their residence was a significant predictor of accuracy for mammal species identification, suggesting that familiarity with a site enhances the accuracy of citizen science data. Those people with a high level of certainty in their ability to correctly identify nocturnal mammals were no more likely to show higher species identification accuracy than those with low certainty. In urban areas, where ecological surveys for nocturnal taxa are especially challenging, our results inspire optimism that householders can add to the body of knowledge about biodiversity persisting in these landscapes, especially on properties where they have resided for at least one year.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2019) 2011 census QuickStats. Albany https://quickstatscensusdataabsgovau/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/50901?opendocumentandnavpos=22 Accessed 19 September 2020

  2. Aceves-Bueno E, Adeleye AS, Feraud M, Huang Y, Tao M, Yang Y, Anderson SE (2017) The accuracy of citizen science data: a quantitative review. Bull Ecol Soc am 98:278–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/bes2.1336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Amano T, Lamming J, Sutherland W (2016) Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. BioScience 66:393–400. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Araújo MB (2003) The coincidence of people and biodiversity in Europe. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:5–12. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1466-822X.2003.00314.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Aronson MF, Lepczyk CA, Evans KL, Goddard MA, Lerman SB, MacIvor JS, Nilon CH, Vargo T (2017) Biodiversity in the city: key challenges for urban green space management. Front Ecol Environ 15:189–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ashcroft MB, Gollan JR, Batley M (2012) Combining citizen science, bioclimatic envelope models and observed habitat preferences to determine the distribution of an inconspicuous, recently detected introduced bee (Halictus smaragdulus Vachal Hymenoptera: Halictidae) in Australia. Biol invasions 14:515–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0092-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bader JC, Van Helden BE, Close PG, Speldewinde PC, Comer SJ (2019) Sheoak woodlands: a newly identified habitat for western ringtail possums. J Wildl Manag 83:1254–1260. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.21686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boakes EH, McGowan PJK, Fuller RA, Chang-qing D, Clark NE, O’Connor K, Mace GM (2010) Distorted views of biodiversity: spatial and temporal bias in species occurrence data. PLoS biol 8:e1000385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000385

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Burgman M, Carr A, Godden L, Gregory R, McBride M, Flander L, Maguire L (2011) Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv Letters 4:81–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Busschots MB, Close PG, Van Helden BE, Speldewinde PC (2020) Is the presence of a threatened arboreal mammal in residential areas related to remnant habitats? Austr Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12953

  11. Bradsworth N, White JG, Isaac B, Cooke R (2017) Species distribution models derived from citizen science data predict the fine scale movements of owls in an urbanizing landscape. Biol Conserv 213:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Froehlich HE, Schmidt N, Theobald EJ, Ettinger AK, Parrish JK (2017) The science of citizen science: exploring barriers to use as a primary research tool. Biol Conserv 208:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Callaghan CT, Ozeroff I, Hitchcock C, Chandler M (2020) Capitalizing on opportunistic citizen science data to monitor urban biodiversity: a multi-taxa framework. Biol Conserv 251:108753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Callaghan CT, Lyons MB, Martin JM, Major RE, Kingsford RT (2017) Assessing the reliability of avian biodiversity measures of urban greenspaces using eBird citizen science data. Avian Conserv Ecol 12:12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ACE-01104-120212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M, Lysenko I (2005) Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. Philos Trans R Soc B 360:443–455. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1592

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement of nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Conrad CC, Hilchey KG (2011) A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 176:273–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Phillips T, Bonney R (2007) Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12:11. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/

  19. Cosentino BJ, Marsh DM, Jones KS, Apodaca JJ, Bates C, Beach J, Beard KH, Becklin K, Bell JM, Crockett C, Fawson G, Fjelsted J, Forys EA, Genet KS, Grover M, Holmes J, Indeck K, Karraker NE, Kilpatrick ES, Langen TA, Mugel SG, Molina A, Vonesh JR, Weaver RJ, Willey A (2014) Citizen science reveals widespread negative effects of roads on amphibian distributions. Biol Conserv 180:31–38

  20. Coxen CL, Frey JK, Carleton SA, Collins DP (2017) Species distribution models for a migratory bird based on citizen science and satellite tracking data. Glob Ecol Conserv 11:298–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Crall AW, Jordan R, Holfelder K, Newman GJ, Graham J, Waller DM (2013) The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Underst Sci 22:745–764

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Crall AW, Newman GJ, Stohlgren TJ, Holfelder KA, Graham J, Waller DM (2011) Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conserv letters 4:433–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00196.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Daniels G, Kirkpatrick J (2006) Does variation in garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds in suburbia? Biol Conserv 133:326–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Davies TK, Stevens G, Meekan MG, Struve J, Rowcliffe JM (2013) Can citizen science monitor whale-shark aggregations? Investigating bias in mark–recapture modelling using identification photographs sourced from the public. Wildl Res 39:696–704. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR12092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (DBCA) (2019) Western ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) distribution map, 1990–2019, Perth, Western Australia

  26. Department of Parks and Wildlife (2017) Western Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis) Recovery Plan. Wildlife Management Program No. 58. Department of Parks and Wildlife, Perth, Western Australia

  27. Done T, Roelfsema C, Harvey A, Schuller L, Hill J, Schläppy ML, Loder J (2017) Reliability and utility of citizen science reef monitoring data collected by reef check Australia, 2002–2015. Mar Pollut bull 117:148-155. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.054

  28. Drescher M, Brenner J (2018) The practice and promise of private land conservation. Ecol Soc 23. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10020-230203

  29. Eymann J, Herbert CA, Cooper DW (2006) Management issues of urban common brushtail possums Trichosurus vulpecula: a loved or hated neighbour. Aust Mammal 28:153–171. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM06025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Falk S, Foster G, Comont R, Conroy J, Bostock H, Salisbury A, Kilbey D, Bennett J, Smith B (2019) Evaluating the ability of citizen scientists to identify bumblebee (Bombus) species. PLoS One 14(6):e0218614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0218614

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Farmer RG, Leonard ML, Mills Flemming JE, Anderson SC (2014) Observer aging and long-term avian survey data quality. Ecol Evol 4:2563–2576. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1101

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Gallo-Cajiao E, Archibald C, Friedman R, Steven R, Fuller RA, Game ET, Morrison TH, Ritchie EG (2018) Crowdfunding biodiversity conservation. Conserv biol doi: 10.1111/cobi.13144

  33. Gardiner MM, Allee LL, Brown PM, 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 10:471-476. doi.org/10.1890/110185

  34. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2013) Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential landscapes. Ecol Econ 86:258–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. González-García A, Sal AG (2008) Private urban greenspaces or “patios” as a key element in the urban ecology of tropical Central America. Hum Ecol 36:291–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-007-9155-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hansen BD, Clemens RS, Gallo-Cajiao E, Jackson MV, Maguire GS, Maurer G, Fuller RA (2018) Shorebird monitoring in Australia: a successful long-term collaboration between citizen scientists, governments and researchers. In: Legge S, Lindenmayer D, Robinson N, Scheele B, Southwell D, Wintle B (eds) Monitoring threatened species and ecological communities. CSIRO, Canberra, pp 100–120

    Google Scholar 

  38. Harper MJ (2005) Home range and den use of common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in urban forest remnants. Wildl Res 32:681–687. doi.org/10.1071/WR04072

  39. Hidalgo-Ruz V, Thiel M (2013) Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study supported by a citizen science project. Marine Environ Res 87:12–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hui O Ka Wai Ola (2019) Maui community for a clean ocean. https://wwwhuiokawaiolacom/ Accessed September 2019

  41. Ives CD, Lentini PE, Threlfall CG, Ikin K, Shanahan DF, Garrard GE, Bekessy SA, Fuller RA, Mumaw L, Rayner L, Rowe R, Valentine LE, Kendal D (2016) Cities are hotspots for threatened species. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:117–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jackson M, Gergel S, Martin K (2015) Citizen science and field survey observations provide comparable results for mapping Vancouver Island White-tailed ptarmigan (Lagopus leucura saxatilis) distributions. Biol Conserv 181:162–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jones KR, Venter O, Fuller RA, Allan JR, Maxwell SL, Negret PJ, Watson JE (2018) One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360:788–791. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9565

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kelling S, Johnston A, Bonn A, Fink D, Ruiz-Gutierrez V, Bonney R, Fernandez M, Hochachka WM, Julliard R, Kraemer R, Guralnick R (2019) Using semistructured surveys to improve citizen science data for monitoring biodiversity. BioScience 69:170–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A, Simmons B (2016) Assessing data quality in citizen science. Front Ecol environ 14:551-560. doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436

  46. Li E, Parker SS, Pauly GB, Randall JM, Brown BV, Cohen BS (2019) An urban biodiversity assessment framework that combines an urban habitat classification scheme and citizen science data. Front Ecol Evol 7:277. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2019.00277

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2013) Habitat fragmentation and landscape change: an ecological and conservation synthesis: island press

  48. Lloyd TJ, Fuller RA, Oliver JL, Tulloch AI, Barnes M, Steven R (2020) Estimating the spatial coverage of citizen science for monitoring threatened species. Glob Ecol Conserv doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01048

  49. Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (x): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22:601–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-006-9051-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lukyanenko R, Parsons J, Wiersma Y (2016) Emerging problems of data quality in citizen science. Conserv biol 30:447-449. doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12706

  51. Maguire GS, Rimmer JM, Weston MA (2013) Stakeholder perceptions of threatened species and their management on urban beaches. Animals 3:1002–1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3041002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Mathieson TJ, Close PG, Van Helden BE, Speldewinde PC, Comer SJ (2020) New evidence of unexpectedly high animal density and diet diversity will benefit the conservation of the critically endangered western ringtail possum. Aust Ecol 45:596–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/aec.12874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mathieu R, Freeman C, Aryal J (2007) Mapping private gardens in urban areas using object-oriented techniques and very high-resolution satellite imagery. Landsc Urban Plan 81:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.11.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL, Bonney R, Brown H, Cook-Patton SC, Soukup MA (2017) Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection. Biol Conserv 208:15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nagy C, Bardwell K, Rockwell RF, Christie R, Weckel M (2012) Validation of a citizen science-based model of site occupancy for eastern screech owls with systematic data in suburban New York and Connecticut. Northeast Nat 19:143–158. https://doi.org/10.1656/045.019.s611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Nelms SE, Coombes C, Foster LC, Galloway TS, Godley BJ, Lindeque PK, Witt MJ (2017) Marine anthropogenic litter on British beaches: a 10-year nationwide assessment using citizen science data. Sci Total Environ 579:1399–1409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.137

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Paloniemi R, Hujala T, Rantala S, Harlio A, Salomaa A, Primmer E, Arponen A (2018) Integrating social and ecological knowledge for targeting voluntary biodiversity conservation. Conserv letters 11:e12340. doi.org/10.1111/conl.12340

  58. R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/

  59. Radeloff VC, Williams JW, Bateman BL, Burke KD, Carter SK, Childress ES, Cromwell KJ, Gratton C, Hasley AO, Kraemer BM, Latzka AW, Marin-Spiotta E, Meine CD, Munoz SE, Neeson TM, Pidgeon AM, Rissman AR, Rivera RJ, Szymanski LM, Usinowicz J (2015) The rise of novelty in ecosystems. Ecol Appl 25:2051–2068. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1781.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Ratnieks FL, Schrell F, Sheppard RC, Brown E, Bristow OE, Garbuzov M (2016) Data reliability in citizen science: learning curve and the effects of training method, volunteer background and experience on identification accuracy of insects visiting ivy flowers. Methods Ecol Evol 7:1226-1235. doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12581

  61. Soanes K, Sievers M, Chee YE, Williams NSG, Bhardwaj M, Marshall AJ, Parris KM (2019) Correcting common misconceptions to inspire conservation action in urban environments. Conserv Biol 33:300–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. South West Development Commission (SWDC) (2019) City of Bunbury http://www.swdc.wa.gov.au/our-region/bunbury.aspx

  63. Speirs-Bridge A, Fidler F, McBride M, Flander L, Cumming G, Burgman M (2010) Reducing over-confidence in the interval judgements of experts. Risk Anal 30:512–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01337.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Steven R, Barnes M, Garnett ST, Garrard G, O'Connor J, Oliver JL, Fuller RA (2019) Aligning citizen science with best practice: threatened species conservation in Australia. Conserv Sci Pract 1:e100. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Swanson A, Kosmala M, Lintott C, Packer C (2016) A generalized approach for producing, quantifying, and validating citizen science data from wildlife images. Conserv biol 30:520-531. doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12695

  66. Sullivan BL, Aycrigg JL, Barry JH, Bonney RE, Bruns N, Cooper CB, Fink D (2014) The eBird enterprise: an integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biol Conserv 169:31-40. doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003

  67. Thompson SA, Thompson GG (2009) A case for in situ management of Western ringtail possums, Pseudocheirus occidentalis, in development areas. J Royal Soc West Aust 92:269

    Google Scholar 

  68. Tulloch AIT, Mustin K, Possingham HP, Szabo J, Wilson K (2013a) To boldly go where no volunteer has gone before: predicting volunteer activity to prioritize surveys at the landscape scale. Divers Distrib 19:465-480. doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00947.x

  69. Tulloch AIT, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG (2013b) Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol Conserv 165:128-138. doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025

  70. Van Heezik YM, Dickinson KJ, Freeman C (2012) Closing the gap: communicating to change gardening practices in support of native biodiversity in urban private gardens. Ecol Soc 17. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04712-170134

  71. Van Helden BE, Close PG, Stewart BA, Speldewinde PC, Comer SJ (2020) Critically endangered marsupial calls residential gardens home. Animal Conserv Online early. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12649

  72. Van Helden BE, Close PG, Steven R (2020a) Mammal conservation in a changing world: can urban gardens play a role? Urban Ecosyst 23:555–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-00935-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Van Helden BE, Close PG, Stewart BA, Speldewinde PC, Comer SJ (2020b) An underrated habitat: Residential gardens support similar mammal assemblages to urban remnant vegetation. Biol Conserv 250:250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Van Helden BE, Close PG, Stewart BA, Speldewinde PC, Comer SJ (2019) Going to ground: implications of ground use for the conservation of an arboreal marsupial. Aust Mammal 42:106–109. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM18053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Van Helden BE, Speldewinde PC, Close PG, Comer SJ (2018) Use of urban bushland remnants by the western ringtail possum (Pseudocheirus occidentalis): short-term home-range size and habitat use in Albany, Western Australia. Aust mammal 40:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1071/AM17026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Van Horn G, Mac Aodha O, Song Y, Cui Y, Sun C, Shepard A, Belongie S (2018) The inaturalist species classification and detection dataset. In proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (pp. 8769-8778)

  77. Vianna GM, Meekan MG, Bornovski TH, Meeuwig JJ (2014) Acoustic telemetry validates a citizen science approach for monitoring sharks on coral reefs. PLoS ONE 9:e95565. 10.1371%2Fjournal.Pone.0095565

  78. Watson JE, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13947

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Welvaert M, Caley P (2016) Citizen surveillance for environmental monitoring: combining the efforts of citizen science and crowdsourcing in a quantitative data framework. SpringerPlus 5:1890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Yokochi K, Chambers BK, Bencini R (2015) An artificial waterway and road restrict movements and alter home ranges of endangered arboreal marsupial. J mammal 96:1284–1294. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyv137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Zeng Q, Wei Q, Lei G (2018) Contribution of citizen science towards cryptic species census: “many eyes” define wintering range of the scaly-sided merganser in mainland China. Avian Res 9:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40657-018-0098-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Zettler ER, Takada H, Monteleone B, Mallos N, Eriksen M, Amaral-Zettler LA (2017) Incorporating citizen science to study plastics in the environment. Anal methods 9:1392–1403. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6AY02716D

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Availability of data and material

Data underpinning this study will be made publicly available via the link provided upon publication of this manuscript. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337570367_Supplementary_Data_Spotlighting).

Funding

RS was supported by the National Environmental Science Programme, Threatened Species Recovery Hub, BVH was supported by Western Australian Biodiversity Science Institute Top-up Scholarship, Australian Geographic Society, and the UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia. AIT was supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award DE170100599. We are grateful to the 96 householders that permitted us to enter their properties for the purposes of this study. We would also like to thank our volunteer surveyors whom gave their time many nights over the summer of 2019. We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

RS, PC and BVH conceived the ideas and designed methodology; RS and BVH collected the data; RS and AIT analysed the data; RS led the writing of the manuscript. PC, BVH, RF, MB and AIT provided significant feedback on multiple drafts of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rochelle Steven.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest/competing interests

We have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethics approval

This research was licenced under the University of Western Australia’s Human Ethics Committee (RA/4/20/4063).

Consent to participate

To participate in this research we ask you to complete a short questionnaire which should take no longer than 10 min. Completion of the survey is considered evidence of consent to participate in the study. This questionnaire is completely voluntary and you are not obligated in any way to complete the survey if you do not wish to participate.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 478 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 16 kb)

ESM 3

(DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Steven, R., Van Helden, B.E., Tulloch, A.I. et al. Exploring the ability of urban householders to correctly identify nocturnal mammals. Urban Ecosyst (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-021-01118-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Citizen science
  • Conservation
  • Nocturnal mammals
  • Public participation
  • Threatened species
  • Urban ecology
  • Biodiversity