Running head: CITIZEN SCIENCE 1

Literature Review:

Citizen Science Bioblitzes

Joan Miller

California State University at Monterey Bay

IST Writing Workshop

Dr. Tourtellotte

December 12, 2017

CITIZEN SCIENCE 2

For more than 100 years, amateur naturalists have been contributing to biodiversity

science, but it wasn’t until the mid-1990s that the term “Citizen Science” was coined. In recent

years, citizen science has been defined as members of the public collaborating with professional

scientists to collect, transcribe, categorize, and/or analyze data that contributes to our

understanding or management of the natural world (Bonney, 2009). Shortly thereafter, in 1996,

the world’s first bioblitz was held in Kenilworth Aquatic Gardens in Washington, D.C. A

bioblitz is a kind of citizen science event where scientists and volunteers find and identify as

many organisms as they can in one day, in a specific area. Bioblitzes are typically held in urban

areas with the goal of encouraging public participation, in order to peak public interest in

biodiversity issues. Two questions that naturally arise are, can citizen scientists contribute quality

scientific data that can be utilized in a meaningful way, and if so, what benefit is there to effort-

intensive bioblitz surveys over traditional long-term species sampling?

Research by Heidi Ballard and associates at the California Academy of Sciences found

evidence that natural history museum-led citizen science had a measurable impact on several

aspects of conservation, including site and species management, policy outcomes, and core

research outcomes. These research outcomes were largely contributed to by bioblitz events, and

included finding species new to science, finding new species records for particular locations, and

increasing understanding of species distributions and abundance (Ballard, 2016).

However, David Ucko of the National Science Foundation echoes the sentiment of many

large science institutes in asserting that the main goal of citizen science initiatives is to increase

public awareness of science and biodiversity issues, and that educating the public is more

valuable than the research results that arise from these efforts (Cohn, 2008). By contrast, many
CITIZEN SCIENCE 3

lead scientists posit that the public’s involvement in scientific research is absolutely

indispensable. Rick Bonney of Cornell University’s Ornithology Lab states that citizens gather

data that cannot be obtained any other way. Using volunteers allows scientists to gather data on a

larger geographic scale and over a longer time period than is possible in more traditional

research (Bonney, 2009). Though amateur scientists may make mistakes and may not fully

understand the context of these studies, Donald Owen of the National Parks Service points out

that scientists simply cannot afford to hire enough scientists, graduate students and field

technicians to do what volunteers do (Cohn, 2008).

Citizen participation in scientific research dates back at least 100 years, yet there are very

few broad studies of the benefits and drawbacks of this work. Scholarly articles on the subject of

citizen science unanimously agree that the available information is difficult to interpret as a

whole. Even less research has been compiled on the efficacy of bioblitzes themselves. However,

one study conducted by the Tennessee Academy of Science compared the effectiveness of

bioblitz surveys to traditional long-duration sampling in a given sample area. Although slightly

less species were detected during the bioblitz, the period of time spent sampling was four times

less than the time spent conducting the traditional survey. These scientists suggest that bioblitz

surveys are a cost-effective method to provide baseline information on species richness and

distribution (Foster, 2013).

Formal research on the relevance of citizen science to conservation outcomes is

broadening as the range of citizen science programs is expanding. It is becoming clear that these

efforts are increasingly impacting key conservation actions, management decisions and

environmental policy. However, evidence is lacking to show that participation in these events

has resulted in subsequent changes in participant’s behavior to better conserve biodiversity

CITIZEN SCIENCE 4

(Ballard, 2017). Research on human attitudes over time is difficult to perform, but it can be done.

Further research on the outcomes of bioblitz events, as well as the attitudes of repeat volunteers

over time, will pave the way toward a better understanding of the educational and scientific

implications of these citizen science events.

CITIZEN SCIENCE 5

References

Ballard, H.L., et al., Contributions to conservation outcomes by natural history museum-led

citizen science: Examining evidence and next steps, Biological Conservation (2016),

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.040

Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G., & Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science: Examining

the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation. Biological

Conservation,208, 65-75. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.024

Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberk, K.V., Shirk, J.,

2009. Citizen science; a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific

literacy, Bioscience 59 (11), 977-984.

Cohn, J.P., (2008). Citizen Science: Can Volunteers Do Real Research? BioScience, 58 (3), 192-

197.

Foster, M. A., L. I. Muller, S. A. Dykes, R. L. P. Wyatt, and M. J. Gray.  2013.  Efficacy of

bioblitz surveys with implications for sampling nongame species.  Tennessee Academy of

Sciences, 88: 56-62.