Logistical and preference bias in participatory science butterfly data

Abstract

The volume of and interest in unstructured participatory science data has increased dramatically in recent years. However, unstructured participatory science data contain taxonomic biases—encounters with some species are more likely to be reported than encounters with others. Taxonomic biases are driven by human preferences for different species and by logistical factors that make observing certain species challenging. We investigated taxonomic bias in reports of butterflies by characterizing differences between a dedicated participatory semi‐structured dataset, eButterfly, and a popular unstructured dataset, iNaturalist, in spatiotemporally explicit models. Across 194 butterfly species, we found that 53 species were overreported and 34 species were underreported in opportunistic data. Ease of identification and feature diversity were significantly associated with overreporting in opportunistic sampling, and strong patterns in overreporting by family were also detected. Quantifying taxonomic biases not only helps us understand how humans engage with nature but also is necessary to generate robust inference from unstructured participatory data.