Advertisement

Developing Mobile Applications for Environmental and Biodiversity Citizen Science: Considerations and Recommendations

  • Soledad LunaEmail author
  • Margaret Gold
  • Alexandra Albert
  • Luigi Ceccaroni
  • Bernat Claramunt
  • Olha Danylo
  • Muki Haklay
  • Renzo Kottmann
  • Christopher Kyba
  • Jaume Piera
  • Antonella Radicchi
  • Sven Schade
  • Ulrike Sturm
Chapter
Part of the Multimedia Systems and Applications book series (MMSA)

Abstract

The functionality available on modern ‘smartphone’ mobile devices, along with mobile application software and access to the mobile web, have opened up a wide range of ways for volunteers to participate in environmental and biodiversity research by contributing wildlife and environmental observations, geospatial information, and other context-specific and time-bound data. This has brought about an increasing number of mobile phone based citizen science projects that are designed to access these device features (such as the camera, the microphone, and GPS location data), as well as to reach different user groups, over different project durations, and with different aims and goals. In this chapter we outline a number of key considerations when designing and developing mobile applications for citizen science, with regard to (1) Interoperability. The factors that influence the usability of the mobile application are covered in both (2) Participant Centred Design and Agile Development, and (3) User Interface and Experience Design. Finally, the factors that influence sustained engagement in the project are covered in (4) Motivational Factors for Participation.

References

  1. 1.
    Jennett, C, Furniss, D J, Iacovides, I, Wiseman, S, Gould, S J J and Cox, A L “Exploring Citizen Psych-Science and the Motivations of Errordiary Volunteers”, Human Computation 1 (2), 200–218. (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Newman G, Wiggins A, Crall A, Graham E, Newman S and Crowston K, The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(6): 298–304, (2012) https://doi.org/10.1890/110294
  3. 3.
    Raddick MJ, Bracey G, Gay PL, Lintott CJ, Cardamone C, Murray P, Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of citizen scientists, Astronomy Education Review, 12(1) (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiggins, A, and Crowston, K, From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science, In Proc. of 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS ’10) (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonney, R, Shirk, JL, Phillips, TB, Wiggins, A, Ballard, HL, Miller-Rushing, AJ and Parrish, JK, Next Steps for Citizen Science, Science 343 (6178), 1436–1437 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haklay M, Citizen Science and Volunteered Geographic Information: Overview and Typology of Participation. In: Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge, Edited by D Z Sui, S Elwood and M F Goodchild, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 105–122 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Teacher AGF, Griffiths DJ, Hodgson DJ, Inger R, Smartphones in ecology and evolution: a guide for the app-rehensive, Ecology and Evolution 3(16): 5268–5278 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pettibone L, Vohland K, Ziegler D, Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria. PLoS ONE12(6): e0178778, (2017)  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178778
  9. 9.
    Pocock MJO, Tweddle JC, Savage J, Robinson LD, Roy HE, The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science, PLoS ONE 12(4): e0172579 (2017)  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172579
  10. 10.
    Chandler M, See L, Copas K, Bonde AMZ, Claramunt B, Danielsen F, Legind JK, Masinde S, Miller-Rushing AJ, Newman G, Rosemartin A, Turak E, Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring, Biologica Conservation (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004
  11. 11.
    Sheth AP, Citizen Sensing, Social Signals, and Enriching Human Experience, IEEE Internet Computing, 13(4), 87–92 (2009) http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/knoesis/728
  12. 12.
    Ceccaroni L, Bowser A and Brenton P, Civic Education and Citizen Science: Definitions, Categories, Knowledge Representation, Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research, IGI Global, 1–23 (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang, Duerr RE, Virapongse A, West SE, Conrad C, Kyba M, Bowser A, Cooper CB, Sforzi A, Metcalfe AN, Harris ES, Thiel M, Haklay M, Ponciano L, Roche J, Ceccaroni L, Shilling FM, Dörler D, Heigl F, Kiessling T, Davis BY, Jiang Q, Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2(1), p.1. (2017)  http://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96
  14. 14.
    Ceccaroni L and Piera J, Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research, IGI Global, 25 Oct (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bizer C, Heath T and Berners-Lee T, Linked Data – The Story So Far, International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems 5(3), pp1–22 (2009).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Groom Q, Weatherdon L and Geijzendorffer IR, Is citizen science an open science in the case of biodiversity observations?, Journal of Applied Ecology, 1–6 (2016) doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12767Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schade S and Tsinaraki C, Survey report: data management in Citizen Science projects, JRC Technical Report JRC101077 (2016) DOI: 10.2788/539115Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schade S, Tsinaraki C and Roglia E, Scientific Data from and for the Citizen, First Monday, August 2017, Volume 22, Number 8 (2017) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i8.7842
  19. 19.
    Scassa T and Haewon C, Managing Intellectual Property Rights in Citizen Science: A Guide for Researchers and Citizen Scientists, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (2015) http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication-series/commons-lab
  20. 20.
    Bowser A, Shilton K, Preece J, and Warrick E, Accounting for Privacy in Citizen Science: Ethical Research in a Context of Openness, In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2124–2136 (2017) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998305
  21. 21.
    Bastin, L, Sven S, and Schill C, Data and metadata management for better VGI reusability. Citizen Sensor (2017): 249.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Williams J, et al. Citizen-science data, how should you maximise their impact and sustainability? In: Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., & Bonn, A. (2018). Citizen science-Innovation in open science, society and policy.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schnetzer J, Kopf A, Bietz MJ, Buttigieg PL, Fernandez-Guerra A, Ristov AP, Kottmann R, MyOSD 2014: Evaluating Oceanographic Measurements Contributed by Citizen Scientists in Support of Ocean Sampling Day, Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 17(1), 163–171 (2016)  http://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1001
  24. 24.
    Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV and Shirk J, Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy, Bioscience, 59, 11, 977–984 (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rotman D, Collaborative science across the globe: The influence of motivation and culture on volunteers in the United States, India and Costa Rica, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland (2013) http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/14163
  26. 26.
    Curtis V, Online citizen science projects: an exploration of motivation, contribution and participation, Ph.D. thesis, The Open University (2015)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Crowston K and Prestopnik NR, Motivation and Data Quality in a Citizen Science Game: A Design Science Evaluation, In: Proceedings of HICSS 2013. IEEE, pp. 450–459 (2013)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rotman D, Hammock J, Preece J, Hansen D, Boston C, Bowser A and He Y, Motivations Affecting Initial and Long-Term Participation in Citizen Science Projects in Three Countries, In: Proceedings of iConference 2014, iSchools (2014)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Preece J, Citizen Science: New Research Challenges in HCI, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 32, 8, 585–612 (2016) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10447318.2016.119415
  30. 30.
    Eveleigh AMM, Jennett C, Blandford A, Brohan P and Cox AL, Designing for dabblers and deterring drop-outs in citizen science. In: Proceedings of the IGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14), New York, NY, U.S.A.: ACM Press, 2985–2994 (2014) DOI:10.1145/2556288.2557262Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jennett C and Cox A, Eight Guidelines for Designing Virtual Citizen Science Projects, Citizen + X: Volunteer-Based Crowdsourcing in Science, Public Health, and Government: Papers from the 2014 HCOMP Workshop (2014)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fielding RT, Chapter 5: Representational State Transfer (REST), Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures (Ph.D.). University of California, Irvine (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Anderson J, McRee J, Wilson R, Effective UI: The Art of Building Great User Experience in Software, O’Reilly Media (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wroblewski L, Mobile First, A Book Apart (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ries E, The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses, Crown Business, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bieller E, How To Design A Mobile App Using User Interface Design Principles, 06 September, Career Foundry Blog (2016) https://careerfoundry.com/en/blog/ui-design/how-to-design-a-mobile-app-using-user-interface-design-principles/
  37. 37.
    Zeldman J, Taking Your Talent to the Web: A Guide for the Transitioning Designer, New Riders Publishing (2001)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edwards R, Phillips TB, Bonney R and Mathieson K, Citizen Science and Science Capital, Stirling: University of Stirling (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Conrad CC and Hilchey KG, A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 176: 273 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5
  40. 40.
    Yadav P and Darlington J, Design Guidelines for the User-Centred Collaborative Citizen Science Platforms. Human Computation 3:1:205–211 (2016)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maisonneuve N, Stevens M, Niessen ME, Steels L, NoiseTube: Measuring and mapping noise pollution with mobile phones, In: Athanasiadis IN, Rizzoli AE, Mitkas PA, Gómez JM (eds) Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering, Environmental Science and Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kim S, Robson C, Zimmerman T, Pierce J and Haber E, Creek Watch: Pairing Usefulness and Usability for Successful Citizen Science, CHI 2011, May 7–12, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2011)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Traynor B, Lee T, Duke D, Case Study: Building UX Design into Citizen Science Applications, In: Marcus A, Wang W (eds) Design, User Experience, and Usability: Understanding Users and Contexts, DUXU 2017, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10290 Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mueller M, Tippins D and Bryan L, The future of citizen science. Democracy & Education 20(1): 1–12 (2012)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rotman D, Preece J, Hammock J, Procita K, Hansen D, Parr C, Lewis D and Jacobs D, Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects, In: Proceedings of CSCW 2012, ACM Press, 217–226 (2012)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lee, Miller and Crowston, Recruiting Messages Matter: Message Strategies to Attract Citizen Scientists, CSCW ’17 Companion, February 25 - March 01, 2017, Portland, OR, USA (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3022198.3026335
  47. 47.
    Land-Zandstra A, Devilee J, Snik F, Buurmeijer F, and van den Broek J, Citizen science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning, Public Understanding of Science, Vol 25, Issue 1, 45–60 (2015)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nov O, Ofer A and David A, Technology-Mediated Citizen Science Participation: A Motivational Model, ICWSM (2011)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Klandermans B, Collective political action, Oxford handbook of political psychology: 670–709 (2003)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Geoghegan H, Dyke A, Pateman R, West S and Everett G, Understanding motivations for citizen science, Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England (2016)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jennett C, Cognetti E, Summerfield J and Haklay M, Usability and interaction dimensions of participatory noise and ecological monitoring, In Participatory Sensing, Opinions and Collective Awareness, 201–212, Springer International Publishing (2017)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kloetzer L, Schneider D, Jennett C, Iacovides I, Eveleigh A, Cox AL, Gold M, Learning by volunteer computing, thinking and gaming: What and how are volunteers learning by participating in Virtual Citizen Science? ESREA 2013, Germany (2013)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jennett C, Kloetzer L, Schneider D, Iacovides I, Cox AL, Gold M, Fuchs B, Eveleigh A, Mathieu K, Ajani Z and Talsi Y, Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science, Journal of Science Communication 15 (3) (2016)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Aanensen DM, Huntley DM, Feil EJ, and Spratt BG, EpiCollect: linking smartphones to web applications for epidemiology, ecology and community data collection, PloS one, 4(9), e6968 (2009)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Koh J, Kim A, Butler B and Bock G, Encouraging Participation in Virtual Communities, Communications of the ACM, Vol.50. No. 2 (2007)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kim A, Community Building on the Web, Peachpit Press, Berkeley, CA (2000)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Sullivan BL, Wood CL, Iliff MJ, Bonney RE, Fink D and Kelling S, eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences, Biological Conservation, Elsevier BV (2009) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.05.006
  58. 58.
    Wiggins A, Crowdsourcing Scientific Work: A Comparative Study of Technologies, Processes, and Outcomes in Citizen Science, The School of Information Studies- Dissertations, Paper 72 (2012)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Danylo O, Sturn T, Giovando C, Moorthy I, Fritz S, See L, Kapur R, Girardot B, Ajmar A, Giulio Tonolo F, Reinicke T, Mathieu P and Duerauer M, Picture Pile: A citizen-powered tool for rapid post-disaster damage assessments, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 19, EGU2017-19266, 2017 EGU General Assembly 2017 (2017)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sturn T, Wimmer M, Salk C, Perger C, See L, and Fritz S, Cropland Capture — A Game for Improving Global Cropland Maps, In: Foundatoins of Digital Games, 22–25 June 2015, California (2015)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bastin L, Schade S and Mooney P, Standards, encodings and tools for assessing fitness for purpose, In: Bordogna, Gloria, and Paola Carrara, eds. Mobile Information Systems Leveraging Volunteered Geographic Information for Earth Observation. Vol. 4. Springer, 2017.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Radicchi, A. The HUSH CITY app. A new mobile application to crowdsource and assess “everyday quiet areas” in cities. Invisible Places. Sound, Urbanism and the Sense of Place, 511-528.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soledad Luna
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Margaret Gold
    • 3
  • Alexandra Albert
    • 4
  • Luigi Ceccaroni
    • 5
  • Bernat Claramunt
    • 6
    • 7
  • Olha Danylo
    • 8
  • Muki Haklay
    • 9
  • Renzo Kottmann
    • 10
  • Christopher Kyba
    • 11
  • Jaume Piera
    • 12
  • Antonella Radicchi
    • 13
  • Sven Schade
    • 14
  • Ulrike Sturm
    • 15
  1. 1.European Citizen Science Association (ECSA), Institute of Forest Growth and Computer ScienceTechnische UniversitätDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Nazca Institute for Marine ResearchQuitoEcuador
  3. 3.National History Museum LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  5. 5.1000001 LabsBarcelonaSpain
  6. 6.CREAF, Edifici Ciéncies, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)Bellaterra, CataloniaSpain
  7. 7.Ecology Unit (BABVE), Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB)Bellaterra, CataloniaSpain
  8. 8.International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)LaxenburgAustria
  9. 9.Extreme Citizen Science (ExCiteS)University College LondonLondonUK
  10. 10.Max Planck Institute for Marine MicrobiologyBremenGermany
  11. 11.GFZ German Research Centre for GeosciencesPotsdamGermany
  12. 12.Institute of Marine Sciences (ICM-CSIC)BarcelonaSpain
  13. 13.Technical University BerlinBerlinGermany
  14. 14.European CommissionJoint Research Centre (JRC), Unit B06-Digital EconomyIspraItaly
  15. 15.Museum für Naturkunde BerlinLeibniz Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity ScienceBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations