A framework for contextualizing social‐ecological biases in contributory science data

Author:

Carlen Elizabeth J.1ORCID,Estien Cesar O.2ORCID,Caspi Tal3ORCID,Perkins Deja4ORCID,Goldstein Benjamin R.2ORCID,Kreling Samantha E. S.5ORCID,Hentati Yasmine5ORCID,Williams Tyus D.2ORCID,Stanton Lauren A.2ORCID,Des Roches Simone6ORCID,Johnson Rebecca F.7ORCID,Young Alison N.7ORCID,Cooper Caren B.4ORCID,Schell Christopher J.2ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Living Earth Collaborative Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis Missouri USA

2. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California–Berkeley Berkeley California USA

3. Department of Environmental Science and Policy University of California–Davis Davis California USA

4. Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources, Center for Geospatial Analytics North Carolina State University Raleigh North Carolina USA

5. School of Environment and Forest Sciences University of Washington Seattle Washington USA

6. School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences University of Washington Seattle Washington USA

7. Center for Biodiversity and Community Science California Academy of Sciences San Francisco California USA

Abstract

Abstract Contributory science—including citizen and community science—allows scientists to leverage participant‐generated data while providing an opportunity for engaging with local community members. Data yielded by participant‐generated biodiversity platforms allow professional scientists to answer ecological and evolutionary questions across both geographic and temporal scales, which is incredibly valuable for conservation efforts. The data reported to contributory biodiversity platforms, such as eBird and iNaturalist, can be driven by social and ecological variables, leading to biased data. Though empirical work has highlighted the biases in contributory data, little work has articulated how biases arise in contributory data and the societal consequences of these biases. We present a conceptual framework illustrating how social and ecological variables create bias in contributory science data. In this framework, we present four filters—participation, detectability, sampling and preference—that ultimately shape the type and location of contributory biodiversity data. We leverage this framework to examine data from the largest contributory science platforms—eBird and iNaturalist—in St. Louis, Missouri, the United States, and discuss the potential consequences of biased data. Lastly, we conclude by providing several recommendations for researchers and institutions to move towards a more inclusive field. With these recommendations, we provide opportunities to ameliorate biases in contributory data and an opportunity to practice equitable biodiversity conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Funder

National Science Foundation

University of California

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3