We're going on safari: Striking the appropriate balance between precision in research and a rewarding experience with science

A citizen science project’s design must be optimized to balance the scientific and social objectives for the goals of the particular project. The way objectives are recognized, considered and balanced can affect all stages... [ view full abstract ]

A citizen science project’s design must be optimized to balance the scientific and social objectives for the goals of the particular project. The way objectives are recognized, considered and balanced can affect all stages of project development and implementation. (Shirk et al. 2011. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Converging on Effective Design Strategies.) This poster aims to investigate the validity of claims to citizen science through three case studies of programs run by the Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) on Mt. Tamalpais. The frog docent, turtle observer and Mt Tam bioblitz programs are evaluated using criteria and design strategies discussed in the literature.

Degree of training, requirements of staff, difficulty and number of tasks, complexity of protocols, depth of scientific inquiry, accessibility of data, integration of online processing and participant targets are all pieces to consider when molding a citizen science initiative. The functionality and the relative success of a program relies on the intentional combination and dynamic reorganization of these elements.

The Mt. Tamalpais Watershed is a working landscape; MMWD manages 18,500 acres of this land which is part of an internationally recognized biodiversity “hot spot.” MMWD serves its customers and their very real concerns which include rare and invasive species. Citizen-collected data and volunteer stewardship support their conservation goals and inform land use management decisions.

Each of these projects has been in existence for multiple seasons and protocols have been refined. Considering these models and criteria best practices and lessons learned are shared. But also what improvements could be made to further improve the socio-scientific outcomes? Will the investment pay off with a more empowered citizenry or more responsive science? Would deeper public participation and direction by volunteers yield more powerful outcomes? If this is an appeal and not a contribution then would it be sincere?