The fearsome flute players: Australian magpies in our lives (Roetman .... Magpie, the learning outcomes for students are presented in Paige and colleagues.
Creating Sustainable Communities in a Changing World
Edited by Philip E.J. Roetman and Christopher B. Daniels
Published in Australia by Crawford House Publishing Australia Pty Ltd P.O. Box 50, Belair SA 5052 Australia National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title:
Creating sustainable communities in a changing world / edited by Philip E. J. Roetman and Christopher B. Daniels
ISBN:
9781863333351 (pbk.)
Notes:
Includes bibliographical references
Subjects:
Community development Sustainable development Sustainability Sustainable living Environmentalism Climatic changes
Other Authors/Contributors:
Roetman, Philip E. J. Daniels, Christopher B.
Dewey Number: 307.14 © Barbara Hardy Institute, University of South Australia, November 2011 All rights reserved. This book may be used for research, individual study and educational purposes. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the Australian Copyright Act. Printed in Australia by Copycat Printing using soy-based ink on paper that is 50% post-consumer recycled waste and 50% FSC certified fibre. Available from: www.unisa.edu.au/barbarahardy
Contents Foreword................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Christopher B. Daniels and Philip E.J. Roetman Can we measure sustainability?...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Kathryn Davidson Responding to a changing climate..................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Jon Kellett and Stephen Hamnett Local capacity for carbon reduction.............................................................................................................................................................................................21 Cathryn M. Hamilton Zero waste and zero emission cities: transforming cities through sustainable design and behaviour change.............................................................................................................................................................31 Steffen Lehmann Developing a prefabricated low-carbon construction system using timber for multistorey inner-city housing.................................................................................................................................................................43 Steffen Lehmann Circulating resources, embodied energy and buildings................................................................................................55 Stephen Pullen Ecological Footprinting: what it means and how to put the concept to best use....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................63 John Boland and Manju Agrawal An introduction to the waste input-output model: a methodology to evaluate sustainable behaviour around (food) waste?......................................................................................................77 Christian John Reynolds, John Boland, Kirrilly Thompson and Drew Dawson Social inclusion, climate change and sustainable communities...........................................................87 Lou Wilson and Keri Chiveralls
The complexities of social sustainability: balancing tradition and change in a UNESCO World Heritage site.....................................................................................................................................................................95 Matthew Rofe, Diana Mohamad and Azizan Marzuki The myth of affordable housing and sustainable urban development ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................103 Alpana Sivam and Sadasivam Karuppannan Delivering sustainability through construction and project management: principles, tools and practices .........................................................................................................................................111 Nicholas Chileshe Sustainable transport, travel demand management, and electric vehicles............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................119 Michael A.P. Taylor, Rocco Zito and Michelle Philp Sustainable transport planning and urban communities...................................................................................129 Nicholas Holyoak Low-emission mobility....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................135 Peter J. Pudney Meeting the needs of our future cities for goods movement..................................................................141 Raluca Raicu Zero-energy housing............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................149 Stephen R. Berry and Wasim Y. Saman Concentrated solar power generation and high-temperature energy storage..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................159 Frank Bruno, Wasim Y. Saman and Ming Liu Sustainability of industry-scale nanomanufacturing.......................................................................................................171 Peter Majewski, Lee Luong, Ke Xing and Yousef Amer Urban biodiversity........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................179 Sandra G. Taylor, Philip E.J. Roetman and Christopher B. Daniels
Health benefits of healthy ecosystems..........................................................................................................................................................................189 Lovisa M. Rosnäs, Marina M.C.J. Louter, G.U. Sofia Orre-Gordon and Phil Weinstein Urban open space and health: the evidence base......................................................................................................................199 Jon Kellett and Mathew Rofe Beyond nature conservation: the importance of parks to a sustainable society......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................207 Delene L. Weber Behaviour change and the tourism springboard to sustainability..........................................217 Barbara A. Koth Education for sustainable development: improving curriculum design in higher education................................................................................................................................................................................................................................225 Ian Clark and Yvonne Zeegers Educating engineers for sustainable practice..........................................................................................................................................233 Julie E. Mills, Anh L.H. Tran, Elizabeth J. Smith and James Ward Educating for sustainability: a vehicle for engaging primary and middle education students in science.................................................................................................................................................................................239 Kathryn Paige and David Lloyd The benefits of citizen science in research, education and community engagement..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................249 Philip E.J. Roetman and Christopher B. Daniels Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................261 Christopher B. Daniels and Philip E.J. Roetman Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................262
The benefits of citizen science in research, education and community engagement Philip E.J. Roetman1 and Christopher B. Daniels1
Barbara Hardy Institute and School of Natural and Built Environments, UniSA
1
Introduction Citizen science is a research methodology that involves participation by citizens, who are not necessarily scientists, in scientific projects. There are now hundreds of citizen science projects being conducted worldwide. The number of projects is increasing, as is the number of research papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that have used data collected, or analysed, by citizen scientists (Bonney 2007; Lepczyk et al. 2009; Stodden 2010; Conrad & Hilchey 2011). Bonney and colleagues (2009) have stated that citizen science has great potential to ask new questions and engage new citizen participants. We concur, and contend that projects could be developed to address a wide range of issues related to the sustainability of our communities. Pertinently, Lawrence (2006) asserts that, ‘A stronger, more sustainable relationship with nature, mediated through good environmental governance, requires attention to both people and data.’ Citizen science projects can contribute to changes in community knowledge, attitudes and behaviours, as well as the scientific understanding of their focal topic by exploiting the methodology’s inherent nexus between research, education and community engagement. There are, therefore, benefits for scientists, decision makers and the wider community. In this chapter we demonstrate the potential of citizen science projects in research, education and community engagement. We draw on the growing body of relevant scientific literature and present findings of our own citizen science program. In order to ground our discussion we first provide some examples of notable citizen science projects, then a brief overview of our own program.
A brief introduction to citizen science projects
The use of the term ‘citizen science’, to refer to scientific projects that involved participation by the wider community, began in the 1990s, although projects of this nature have been running for many years (Bonney et al. 2009; Droege 2007). In Table 1 we present some notable examples of citizen science projects. This list is not meant to be representative or exhaustive, but is included to convey some sense of the range of projects that have been conducted.
A series of Operations We have run a series of citizen science projects in collaboration with a local radio station, 891 ABC Adelaide, and various industry partners (Roetman & Daniels 2009, 2010, 2011; Vasey, Daniels & Roetman 2008). The goals of our program – this series of 249
projects – have been to study wildlife, to understand how people interact with wildlife, to trial novel methods of community engagement, to educate people about wildlife, and to build our understanding of the citizen science methodology. Our projects have been focused on common wildlife taxa in South Australia: bluetongue lizards (in 2007), possums (in 2008), Australian magpies (in 2009), and spiders (in 2010). The projects have been called ‘Operations’, for example, ‘Operation Possum’. Each project has included an online survey instrument for data collection, open to the public for participation for up to 13 weeks during spring. Table 1. A selection of citizen science projects Project
Notes
Wells Cook’s collection of bird migration data
Wells Cook began a project collecting bird migration data in North America that ran from the 1880s to the 1950s and collected around 6 million records (Droege 2007)
Christmas Bird Count
Run by the Audubon Society, this project began in North America in 1900 with 27 observers. In 2006 there were over 57,000 participants (LeBaron 2007)
Project BudBurst
This project focuses on plant phenology in North America and had 4861 observations submitted during its first full year (Henderson and Havens 2009)
The Breeding Bird Survey
Run by the British Trust for Ornithology, this project included bird surveys at 3239 locations during 2010 (Risely et al. 2011)
Blackawton Bees
Run by the Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, in association with Blackawton Primary School, this project investigated visual recognition of a bee species and experimental design (Blackawton et al. 2011)
Waterwatch
A water monitoring program in Australia, this project had over 15,000 individuals monitor 5000 sites (Thomson 2007)
GLOBE at Night
A light pollution project, has had participants in 86 countries (Gurton 2007)
Galaxy Zoo
A galaxy classification project, this project has had over 200,000 people involved (Raddick et al.2009)
We have engaged a wide audience through traditional media (radio, print and television), new media (Facebook and YouTube), project events and competitions. Evidence of our community engagement is clear, with 7049 online questionnaires completed over the four projects. A formal education program, with materials disseminated for each project, has increased our community engagement, with participation by thousands of school students. The reach of various media outlets has increased the number of people able to learn passively from our projects. For example, talkback radio segments held numerous times during each project have an audience of over 30,000 people (audience data from Nielsen 2009).
The research of citizen science Project outputs in scientific publications clearly demonstrate that citizen science projects are beneficial to the scientific community and the development of scientific knowledge. In Table 2 we present some examples of citizen science projects and their 250
research outputs. This list of projects is not meant to be representative or exhaustive, but is included to help convey the range of scientific outputs, recognised in the literature, of this methodology. Table 2. Examples of citizen science projects and their data collection and research outputs Project name
Primary research organisation responsible
Notes
The Breeding Bird Survey
British Trust for Ornithology
Collection of data about bird species distributions and population trends. The data collected by volunteers has led to an extensive list of scientific publications (six recent journal papers are listed in Risely et al. 2011)
Birds in Forested Landscapes project
Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University
Collection of data about bird species distributions (tanagers), habitat fragmentation and Metapopulation Theory (Rosenberg et al. 1999, Hames et al. 2001)
Lost Ladybug Project
Cornell University
Collection of data about invertebrate (ladybug) distributions (the rediscovery of a rare species is reported in Losey et al. 2007)
Protea Atlas Project
National Botanical Institute, South Africa
Collection of data about plant species distributions (proteas), biogeography, conservation planning and species diversity modelling (Latimer et al. 2009, Gelfand et al. 2005, Latimer et al. 2006, Manne et al. . 2007, Grantham et al. 2009)
Galaxy Zoo
Zooniverse – a consortium of astronomers
This project has led to the classification of over 100 million galaxies and discovered numerous astronomical objects (Raddick et al. 2009, Lintott et al. . 2010)
Many authors have discussed the research benefits of engaging volunteers in scientific projects (for example, Bonney et al. 2009; Newman, Buesching & Macdonald 2003; Conrad & Hilchey 2011; Dickinson, Zuckerberg & Bonter 2010; Silvertown 2009). Volunteers can help gather data over a long period of time, or over a wide geographical area. They can gather large volumes of data, from many places at one time, and often have access to private land. In terms of ecological research, Dickinson, Zuckerberg and Bonter (2010) have noted that: Citizen science is perhaps the only practical way to achieve the geographic reach required to document ecological patterns and address ecological questions at scales relevant to species range shifts, patterns of migration, spread of infectious disease, broad-scale population trends, and impacts of environmental processes like landscape and climate. 251
Dickinson, Zuckerberg and Bonter (2010) also noted that this methodology has potential in the emerging field of coupled systems research, where human and environmental systems are modelled together, although there is a paucity of examples. Our research has been focused in this area. In order to better understand the relationship between people and wildlife we have asked project participants to collect and submit data about wildlife, and also about themselves. Some examples of the types of data we have collected concerning people, social-psychological data, are presented in Table 3. Table 3. Examples of social-psychological data collected during our wildlifefocused citizen science program Type of data
Examples
Demographic information (quantitative)
Age, gender, level of education, location of residence, home ownership and location of childhood (country/city)
Attitudes towards wildlife (quantitative)
A 5-point Likert item, ‘having animals around my home is important to me’
Knowledge about wildlife (quantitative)
A 5-point Likert item ‘Ringtail possums readily eat petfood’
Psychometric scales (quantitative)
The New Ecological Paradigm scale (Dunlap et al. 2000) and the Fear of Spiders Questionnaire (Szymanski and O’Donohue 1995)
Interactions with wildlife (qualitative)
Stories about experiences with wildlife
We have collected this information so that we can better understand how and why people interact with wildlife. For example, during Operation Possum we collected data about participants’ management of possums in addition to the types of data listed in Table 1. These data were collected so that we could determine if any of the socialpsychological variables would explain decisions to manage possums. For example, do people with a pro-environmental orientation, as measured by the New Ecological Paradigm scale (Dunlap et al. 2000), manage possums in more benign ways than people who are less concerned about ‘the environment’? Publication of the results of these analyses is forthcoming. We are also working to overlay spatial representations of our social-psychological data onto ecological maps to examine patterns of association between the human and environmental systems. The collection of qualitative data (people’s stories about their interactions with wildlife), has enabled us to gain a detailed understanding of how project participants interact with wildlife and the importance of wildlife to them. The rationale and methods for the analysis of this data were informed by social scientists, including Elliot (2005) and Orbuch (1997). The analysis of this data has been the basis of two book publications: 1. The possum-tail tree: understanding possums through citizen science (Roetman & Daniels 2009); and 2. The fearsome flute players: Australian magpies in our lives (Roetman & Daniels 2011).
These books are an important component of our citizen science program. They are research outputs predicated by the nexus between research, education and community engagement. Citizen science projects require a bilateral exchange of information 252
between scientists and the volunteer community involved. Scientists commence the exchange by providing information about the project and the taxa or phenomenon of interest. Data is then submitted to scientists from the community. Once this data is analysed, the results must be presented back to the community. As Droege (2007) puts it, ‘Volunteers want to see that you are using the data’. Silvertown (2009) goes further, stating that ‘volunteers must receive feedback on their contribution as a reward for participation’. It is certainly fundamental to conduct an exchange of information between scientists and the community in order to conduct citizen science.
The education of citizen science Citizen science projects can provide important science education – both in some general scientific methods and principles, and with more specific knowledge about the taxa or phenomenon being studied (Bonney et al. 2009). Silvertown (2009) describes the appeal of citizen science: ‘Undoubtedly the best way for the public to understand and appreciate science is to participate in it’. It is difficult to disentangle the education and engagement benefits of citizen science because they are interrelated. However, for the purposes of this chapter we have included information about informal and formal science education in this section on education. In the following section – on community engagement – we present the results of a program evaluation survey that, by necessity, includes information about the learning impacts of the educational aspects of our program. Informal science education for project participants is achieved through the bilateral exchange of information with scientists. In the first action of this exchange, community participants need information so that they can become involved, and so that they do become involved. It should be designed to engage the community and encourage participation. The information may also be necessary to ensure data collection is possible and that data is of a suitable standard for analysis. For example, during Operation Possum, we were concerned that participants might not know how to distinguish between common brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) and common ringtail possums (Pseudocheirus peregrinus). We therefore produced and disseminated factsheets about these species and embedded information about them within the online survey instrument. We followed similar protocols for each of our projects. Three examples of feedback from project participants which inform us that our strategies for informal education have been successful are: Thankyou for setting up the survey and the website information which is very helpful for me in addressing the management of the beautiful possum that has decided to make my garden its home. [Operation Possum survey respondent] ...We also had learnt on 891 ABC radio that female magpies had speckled backs, which Merv has. Although we now know that Merv is actually a female we still like to call her Merv. We hope Merv introduces us to her young! [Operation Magpie survey respondent] I have learnt a lot and now am very BRAVE!! Knowledge helps put things in perspective. Not that I was scared before, but didn’t realise how important spiders are to our healthy living. [Operation Spider survey respondent] 253
While informal science education is, at least, an implicit aspect of all citizen science projects, we have taken an additional step and embedded formal education within our program (Paige et al. 2010). While many citizen science projects are utilised by schools, very few are designed to be part of the formal curriculum (with some notable exceptions, like Blackawton et al. 2011). It should be noted that the majority of participants in our program have been above school age, but we have been interested in engaging schools for two reasons. The first was that we wanted to engage more people of different ages, so we could compare attitudes across age-cohorts. The second was that we felt our program was ideal for formal science education, with focal taxa that children see at home and at school. Importantly, citizen science projects provide opportunities for both gaining knowledge and experience about the natural environment, two important drivers in the development of positive environmental attitudes and behaviours (see, for example, Chawla & Cushing 2007). Participation in our formal education program has grown each year. In Table 4 we present data about how many teachers accessed our project materials and how many utilised them. During Operation Spider, over 100 teachers utilised the resources (teachers who either ran a unit of work or used the resources in other ways), equating to an estimated 2500 to 3000 students. Table 4. Access and use of project materials by teachers Description of action
Accessed materials
Operation Bluetongue (2007)
Operation Possum (2008)
Operation Magpie (2009)
Operation Spider (2010)
30
53
266
331
Used some materials
0
0
32
24
Ran a unit of work
5
18
30
83
TOTAL number of teachers who utilised project resources
5
18
62
107
The increases in both access and utilisation of the materials following Operation Possum can be attributed to two factors. First, at that time we began collaborating with academics from the School of Education at UniSA and developed more sophisticated teaching materials. Second, we also began to disseminate the materials online, thereby increasing access to them. Earlier project materials had been produced on CD-ROMs and distributed to a small network of teachers via traditional postage. For Operation Magpie, the learning outcomes for students are presented in Paige and colleagues (2010). We have a similar publication in preparation for Operation Spider. Three examples of comments from teachers about our education program are: I did a unit of work on Operation Spider with my 3, 4, 5 class last term. It was one of the most exciting and engaging science topics I have taught. The students were totally engaged and did a lot of research and personal observations at home. It was a topic that was easily integrated throughout all curriculum areas. The resources were very helpful and easily accessed. [Teacher 1] 254
I ran a unit of work on Operation Spider and it was a huge success for the class who were engaged every step of the way and also for me as a teacher. I loved it so much that I ran a seminar on the project as part of our school cluster PD [professional development]... 2 other classes took part in the project ... Looking forward to next year! [Teacher 2] I ran a unit of work on spiders for a Year 7 class. They absolutely loved it and I can’t believe how much I learnt as well. Thanks for the resources. [Teacher 3]
The aim of research is to increase knowledge. While conducting citizen science research projects there is great potential to informally and formally educate the community. This methodology can, therefore, inform both scientists and the wider community, made possible through a bilateral exchange of information. Our projects have been successful because this exchange has been engaging.
The community engagement of citizen science There is a great interest in increasing community participation in scientific projects, in order to derive the research and educational benefits described in the previous sections. In terms of community participation, Lawrence (2006) has reviewed relevant literature and developed a synthesised framework for analysing citizen science projects. This scale includes four categories of participation: • • • •
Consultative: where citizens collect data for scientists or decision makers; Functional: where citizens are engaged through training to collect data for scientists or decision makers; Collaborative: where scientists (or decision makers) and citizens work together in project design and implementation; and Transformative: where citizens lead project design and implementation.
Lawrence recognised that such categorisation, however, is problematic. It negates the ‘transformative’ experiences that can occur in individuals and groups through citizen participation at any level, from ‘extractive’ data collection in Consultative projects to empowering decision-making in Transformative projects. Of particular interest is Lawrence’s (2006) assertion that consultative and functional projects may stimulate ‘personal change’ in participants, such as change in knowledge, attitudes and behaviours. According the Lawrence’s (2006) framework, our ‘Series of Operations’ would most certainly be categorised as Consultative projects. We were, however, made aware, from the comments of survey respondents, that our projects had transformative elements. We investigated this notion during our most recent project. Within the Operation Spider survey instrument we included an evaluation of participation in the previous three projects in our program, the ‘program evaluation survey’. We based our evaluation on the schema presented by Friedman and colleagues (2008), and previously used by Bonney and colleagues (2009) to assess the potential project impacts of citizen science projects, including both engagement and education outcomes. The schema includes six impact categories: 255
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Awareness, knowledge or understanding (of a particular scientific topic); Engagement or interest (in a scientific topic); Attitude (towards a scientific topic); Behaviour (related to a scientific topic); Skills (related to a scientific endeavour); and Other (a project-specific category).
Ucko (2008) notes that it is ‘highly unlikely that all or even most of these impacts will apply to any particular project’ and that ‘applying the impact categories to projects will be challenging’. These sentiments are echoed by Dierking (2008), who states that understanding how projects contribute to science interest and understanding is ‘a tall order indeed’. Further, it can be difficult to increase knowledge in citizen science project participants because they generally start with high levels of science knowledge (Ellenbogen 2007). We have, however, gathered evidence that our program has had impact in all five named categories (not the ‘other’ category). Our program evaluation survey received responses from 213 people who had participated in some way in at least one of our three previous projects (Operations Bluetongue, Possum and Magpie). We defined ‘participation’ as having submitted a survey, read online project material, read results publications or listened to project discussions on the radio. Overall, 109 of these respondents (51 per cent) confirmed that ‘through participating in this citizen science program, my interest in the wildlife around my local area has increased’. More detailed data was collected regarding how involvement in each project had influenced participants and the results are presented in Table 5. Table 5. Response rates to questions about participant experience, learning and changes in behaviour Project Participants
Operation Bluetongue
Operation Possum
Operation Magpie
176
153
173
Participants who observed more of the focal taxa than they would normally observe
48 (27%)
25 (16%)
68 (39%)
Participants who learnt new things about the focal taxa
66 (38%)
59 (39%)
71 (41%)
Participants who gained an increased interest in the focal taxa
59 (39%)
37 (24%)
72 (42%)
Participants who changed their behaviour towards the focal taxa
29 (16%)
20 (13%)
36 (21%)
In order to substantiate these findings we collected further data about what participants had learnt and how their behaviour had changed towards target taxa. In terms of learning, for each of the three projects we asked a specific question, focused on information we had in project materials. For Operations Bluetongue and Possum we asked if participants had learnt to distinguish between species of the focal taxa. For Operation Magpie we asked if participants had learnt to distinguish between sexes of Australian magpies (as there was only one focal species, where the previous projects had focused on numerous species). The results are presented in Table 6. 256
Table 6. Response rates to specific questions about participant learning Project Question
Operation Bluetongue
Operation Possum
Operation Magpie
Did you learn to identify different species of bluetongue lizards by participating in this project?
Did you learn to identify different species of possums by participating in this project?
Did you learn to identify different sexes of magpies by participating in this project?
Participants Positive response to the question
176
153
173
56 (32%)
48 (31%)
59 (34%)
Qualitative information was also sought to corroborate the quantitative data regarding learning and behaviour change. Survey respondents were asked to give examples if they reported that they had learnt something or had changed their behaviour as a result of their participation. Table 7 gives examples of learning and Table 8 gives examples of behaviour change that participants have reported. Table 7. Examples of learning as a result of participation in citizen science projects Operation Bluetongue
Operation Possum
Operation Magpie
Range of habitats of various species and how to identify those I had not seen before
I learnt the difference between the 2 main types of possums and we have both here
We have become even more involved with our local magpie family and have more closely observed their social interactions and hierarchy
That bluetongues are skinks
Just general things, habitats, types, diets, behaviour etc.
That we aren’t the only ones blessed with non swooping [mag]pies and that so many other folk value them too...
I didn’t know there was a pygmy bluetongue
About their food an territory habits
I learnt what a female, male and juvenile magpie looked like. I always thought female magpies were juvenile magpies
Can’t believe how old they get!
Varieties, roof dwelling solutions, territoriality
How they look after and feed the young as a community, not just parents
Size of territories
The difficulty of relocating them...
I learnt more about their family systems than I’d known before
Species distribution
How much people like them
Their choral singing. Their food requirements!
Reproductive habits
How territorial they are
Their range of territory 257
Table 8. Examples of behaviour change as a result of participation in citizen science projects Operation Bluetongue
Operation Possum
Operation Magpie
I grew up thinking you should move them on from our living areas, but now we just leave them alone and make sure our dogs don’t harass them
...Having read all the wonderful stories and comments in The Possum-Tail Tree I refer to it often with friends who do not like possums
To avoid dependency which had developed previously, I avoid feeding them as often as I did. Now I feed the male (who is semi tame with us) only when he has young (now) or when the weather is so hot and dry that he is having trouble foraging in the garden/soil too hard
Put old down pipes flat as homes and advised guests that we have bluetongues in the garden
We now have a possum box as well as bird one and safeguard the tree from neighbours cats
I am far more interested in them now that I have noticed how many of them I see when out walking
We now look to find them and name them
More tolerant of their eating my garden
I tend to stop and watch them a lot more and think about interpreting their behaviour
Prepared the garden beds for Observe them without trying I am very mindful of feeding them to disturb them them the correct foods Try to avoid running over them on road
Now we know we can’t move the little .......!
I used to hate them. Now I tolerate them
More wood hollows and refuges from dogs
More tolerant of possums
Don’t get as angry if they try and swoop
Look for them more often
More positive
More observant of them and more appreciative
The data presented in this chapter indicates our Consultative citizen science projects have been transformational. Our engagement of participants has led them to become more interested in, and increased their knowledge about, local wildlife. Further, our projects have been catalysts for increasing experience with, and changing behaviour towards, the focal taxa.
Conclusion In this chapter we have drawn on the growing body of scientific literature and presented findings of our own research in order to demonstrate the potential of citizen science for research, education and community engagement. It is an exciting area that is expanding in many ways, with increasing numbers of participants involved in an increasing numbers of projects. The field is also expanding in terms of scope, with new data collection and analysis techniques, like coupled systems research. Researchers employing the citizen science methodology benefit through increased potential for data collection and analysis. Further, we are only beginning to understand the positive impacts that our projects can have on people, through the inherent synergies between 258
research, education and community engagement. We look forward to running further citizen science projects, expanding on the work we have done to engage and educate new participants collecting new types of data that will help us, scientists and community, further understand the relationship between our society and the changing environments where we live.
References
Blackawton, P.S., Airzee, S., Allen, A., Baker, S., Berrow, A., Blair, C., Chruchill, M., Coles, J., Cumming, R.F.-J., Fraquelli, L., Hackford, C., Mellor, A.H., Hutchcroft, M., Ireland, B., Jewsbury, D., Littlejohns, A., Littlejohns, G.M., Lotto, M., McKeown, J., O’Toole, A., Richards, H., Robbins-Davey, L., Roblyn, S., Rodwell-Lynn, H., Schenck, D., Springer, J., Wishy, A., Rodwell-Lynn, T., Strudwick, D. and Lotto, R. B. 2011. ‘Blackawton bees’, Biology Letters, 7(2): 168–172. Bonney, R. 2007. ‘Developing a citizen science toolkit’, in C. McEver, R. Bonney, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, K. Rosenberg and J. Shirk (eds), Proceedings of the Citizen Science Toolkit Conference, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, 14–18. Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J. and Wilderman, C.C. 2009. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing Its potential for informal science education, Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), Washington DC. Chawla, L. and Cushing, D.F. 2007. ‘Education for strategic environmental behavior’, Environmental Education Research, 13(4): 437–452. Conrad, C.C. and Hilchey, K.G. 2011. ‘A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities’, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 176: 273–291. Dickinson, J.L., Zuckerberg, B. and Bonter, D.N. 2010. ‘Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits’, Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 41: 149–172. Dierking, L. D. 2008. ‘Evidence and categories of ISE impacts’, in A.J. Friedman, S. Allen, P.B. Campbell, L.D. Dierking, B.N. Flagg, C. Garibay, R. Korn, G. Silverstein and D.A. Ucko (eds), Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects, National Science Foundation (USA), Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL), Washington DC. Droege, S. 2007. ‘Just because you paid them doesn’t mean their data are better’, in C. McEver, R. Bonney, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, K. Rosenberg and J. Shirk (eds), Proceedings of the Citizen Science Toolkit Conference, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, 21–34. Dunlap, R.E., van Liere, K.D., Mertig, A.G. and Emmet Jones, R. 2000. ‘Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: a revised NEP scale’, Journal of Social Issues, 56(3): 425–442. Ellenbogen, K. 2007. ‘Evaluating citizen science: examining the goals of citizen science’, in C. McEver, R. Bonney, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, K. Rosenberg and J. Shirk (eds), Proceedings of the Citizen Science Toolkit Conference, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, 83–88. Elliot, J. 2005. Using narrative in social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches, Sage, London. Friedman, A.J., Allen, S., Campbell, P.B., Dierking, L.D., Flagg, B.N., Garibay, C., Korn, R., Silverstein, G. and Ucko, D.A. 2008. Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects, National Science Foundation (USA), Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL) Washington DC. Gelfand, A.E., Schmidt, A.M., Wu, S., Silander Jr, J.A., Latimer, A.M. and Rebelo, A.G. 2005. ‘Modelling species diversity through species level hierarchical modelling’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C, Applied Statistics, 54(1): 1–20. Grantham, H.S., Wilson, K.A., Moilanen, A., Rebelo, A.G. and Possingham, H.P. 2009. ‘Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?’ Ecology Letters, 12(4): 293–301. Gurton, S. 2007. ‘Astronomy for Citizen Scientists and Citizen Scientist educators’, in C. McEver, R. Bonney, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, K. Rosenberg and J. Shirk (eds), Proceedings of the Citizen Science Toolkit Conference, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, 243–250. Hames, R.S., Rosenberg, K.V., Lowe, J.D. and Dhondt, A.A. 2001. ‘Site reoccupation in fragmented landscapes: testing predictions of Metapopulation Theory’, Journal of Animal Ecology, 70(2): 182–190. Henderson, S. and Havens, K. 2009. Results of the 2008 Project BudBurst Field Campaign, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder. Latimer, A.M., Silander Jr, J.A., Rebelo, A.G. and Midgley, G.F. 2009. ‘Experimental biogeography: the role of environmental gradients in high geographic diversity in Cape Proteaceae’, Oecologia, 160(1): 151–162. Latimer, A.M., Wu, S., Gelfand, A.E. and Silander Jr, J.A. 2006. ‘Building statistical models to analyze species distributions’, Ecological Applications, 16(1): 33–50.
259
Lawrence, A. 2006. ‘’No personal motive?’ Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation’, Ethics, Place and Environment, 9(3): 279–298. LeBaron, G. 2007. ‘Audubon’s Christmas Bird Count: from 19th century conservation action to 21st century citizen science’, in C. McEver, R. Bonney, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, K. Rosenberg and J. Shirk (eds), Proceedings of the Citizen Science Toolkit Conference, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, 253–260. Lepczyk, C.A., Boyle, O.D., Vargo, T.L., Gould, P., Jordan, R., Liebenberg, L., Masi, S., Mueller, W.P., Prysby, M.D. and Vaughan, H. 2009. ‘Symposium report from the 2008 ESA Annual Meeting; Symposium 18: citizen science in ecology: the intersection of research and education’, Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 90(3): 308–317. Lintott, C., Schawinski, K., Bamford, S., Slosar, A., Land, K., Thomas, D., Edmondson, E., Masters, K., Nichol, R.C., Raddick, M.J., Szalay, A., Andreescu, D., Murray, P. and Vandenberg, J. 2010. ‘Galaxy Zoo 1 : data release of morphological classifications for nearly 900,000 galaxies’, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, July, 2010: 1–14. Losey, J.E., Perlman, J.E. and Hoebeke, E.R. 2007. ‘Citizen scientist rediscovers rare nine-spotted lady beetle, Coccinella novemnotata, in eastern North America’, Journal of Insect Conservation, 11: 415–417. Manne, L.L., Williams, P.H., Midgley, G.F., Thuiller, W., Rebelo, A.G. and Hannah, L. 2007. ‘Spatial and temporal variation in species-area relationships in the Fynbos biological hotspot’, Ecography, 30(6): 852–861. Newman, C., Buesching, C.D. and 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. Nielsen. 2009. Adelaide Radio – Survey #8 2009, Commercial Radio Australia, Sydney. Orbuch, T.L. 1997. ‘People’s accounts count: the sociology of accounts’, Annual Review of Sociology, 23: 455–478. Paige, K., Lawes, H., Matejcic, P., Taylor, C., Stewart, V., Lloyd, D., Zeegers, Y., Roetman, P. and Daniels, C. 2010. ‘”It felt like real science!” How Operation Magpie enriched my classroom’, Teaching Science, 56(4): 25–33. Raddick, M.J., Bracey, G., Gay, P.L., Lintott, C.J., Murray, P., Schawinski, K., Szalay, A.S. and Vandenberg, J. 2009. ‘Galaxy Zoo: exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers’, Astronomy Education Review, 9(1). Risely, K., Renwick, A.R., Dadam, D., Eaton, M.A., Johnston, A., Baillie, S.R., Musgrove, A.J. and Noble, D.G. 2011. The Breeding Bird Survey 2010, BTO research report 597, British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford. Roetman, P.E.J. and Daniels, C.B. 2009. The possum-tail tree: understanding possums through citizen science, Barbara Hardy Centre, Adelaide. Roetman, P.E J. and Daniels, C.B. 2010. ‘Citizen Science’, retrieved from . Roetman, P.E.J. and Daniels, C.B. 2011. The fearsome flute players: Australian magpies in our lives, Crawford House, Adelaide. Rosenberg, K.V., Lowe, J.D. and Dhondt, A.A. 1999. ‘Effects of forest fragmentation on breeding tanagers: a continental perspective’, Conservation Biology, 13(3): 568–583. Silvertown, J. 2009. ‘A new dawn for citizen science’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9): 467–471. Stodden, V. 2010. ‘Open science: policy implications for the evolving phenomenon of user-led scientific innovation’, Journal of Science Communication, 9(1). Szymanski, J. and O’Donohue, W. 1995. ‘Fear of Spiders Questionnaire’, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 26(1): 31–34. Thomson, D. 2007. ‘Waterwatch – An integrated capacity building initiative’, in A.L. Wilson, R.L. Dehaan, R.J. Watts, K.J. Page, K.H. Bowmer and A. Curtis, Proceedings of the 5th Australian Stream Management Conference. Australian rivers: making a difference, Charles Sturt University, Thurgoona. Ucko, D.A. 2008. ‘Introduction to evaluating impacts of NSF Informal Science Education projects’ in A.J. Friedman, S. Allen, P.B. Campbell, L.D. Dierking, B.N. Flagg, C. Garibay, R. Korn, G. Silverstein and D.A. Ucko (eds), Framework for evaluating impacts of informal science education projects, National Science Foundation (USA), Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL), Washington DC. Vasey, E., Daniels, C.B. and Roetman, P.E.J. .2008. Operation Bluetongue final report: a pilot study of the citizen science approach to data collection, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
260
