CITIZEN SCIENCE IN LATVIA WITHIN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENT

2017

AUTHORS:

Baiba Prūse

Guna Dātava

Institute for Environmental Solutions

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Address: „Lidlauks”, Priekuļu parish,

Priekuļu county, LATVIA, LV-4101

Website: www.videsinstituts.lv

E-mail: baiba.pruse@videsinstituts.lv

PAPER DEVELOPED IN

COOPERATION WITH:

Snowchange Cooperative (Finland)

Vetenskap & Allmänhet (Sweden)

The report has been prepared with financial

support of the Nordic Council of Ministers’

Office in Latvia. The study represents its

authors’ views on the subject matter, which

should not be relied upon as a statement of the

NCM Office in Latvia. The NCM Office in Latvia

do not guarantee the accuracy of the data

included in the publication, nor do they accept

responsibility for any use made thereof.

3

Image: IES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Overview of Citizen Science

Citizen Science forms

Benefits of Citizen Science Activities

Challenges of Citizen Science

Concluding Remarks

Citizen Science in Latvia within the Field of

Environment

Cases of Citizen Science Initiatives

Perceptions Towards Citizen Science in

Latvia

Concluding Remarks

Future Perspectives

Acknowledgment

References

4

7

8

15

18

20

22

28

39

40

34

24

36

INTRODUCTION

The document is made as part of a

project called “Opening the Doors of

Science: Baltic-Nordic Cooperation

for Citizen Science Development” (Nr

NGSLV-409). The project is

financially supported by the Nordic

Council of Ministers’ Office in Latvia

and co-financed by the Institute for

Environmental Solutions.

The aim of the document is to

identify key elements and understand

the state of citizen science in Latvia

within the field of environment

studies. The document contains three

main parts: a general overview of

citizen science describing the forms,

benefits and challenges; case studies

of citizen science; researchers’ and

environmental protection specialists’

perceptions towards citizen science;

future perspectives of citizen

science. The document is primarily

intended for those interested in

existing citizen science initiatives in

Latvia and its future potential.

Citizen science is a form of public

participation in the scientific research

(PPSR) (Cornell University, n.d.).

Nevertheless, the term holds a variety

of definitions. As specified by the

United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) (2014) “in citizen

science people who are not

professional scientists take part in

one or more aspects of science—

systematic collection and analysis of

data, development of technology,

testing of natural phenomena and

dissemination of the results of

activities” (UNEP, 2014). According

to the European Citizen Science

Association (ECSA): “citizen science

projects actively involve citizens in

scientific endeavour that generates

new knowledge or understanding”

(ECSA, 2015).

Citizen science uses “bottom-up’’

approach incorporating “knowledge

for action” rather than “knowledge

for understanding”

(Shirk, et al., 2012;

Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995)

4

Public participation in science and

scientific discoveries has been taking

place for centuries e.g. in 1900 the

annual Christmas Bird Count took

place, initiated by National Audubon

Society; since the 1980s North

American Lighthouse keepers

collected data about birds (Dickinson

& Bonney, 2012). Remarkably, the

flowering cherry trees in Japan have

been recorded for more than a

thousand years as well as the locust

outbreaks in China (UNEP, 2014).

Furthermore, explorers such as

Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, and

Newton were initially amateur

scientists making some of the breath

taking discoveries (Liu & Kobernu,

2017; Silwertown, 2009 cited from

Kasperowski & Brouneus, 2016). In

addition, Linnaeus, the Swedish

botanist and physicist, has been

noted as the pioneer in practising

citizen science activities. For

example, while being a Lutheran

minister, Linnaeus was working with a

network of volunteers who donated

samples to him (Scyphers et al.,

2015 cited in Liu & Kobernu, 2017).

In recent years, an increasing

number of citizen science projects

have taken place. As stated by the

researchers, the boom of citizen

science initiatives could be explained

by the increase of the number of

variables that are observed and/or

monitored (measures of astronomy,

environment, health, theoretical

physics etc. (Roy, et al., 2012), the

number of monitoring areas, and the

variety of ways in which citizens can

participate in the citizen science

activities (Liu & Kobernu, 2017).

Moreover, the availability of internet

technologies and social media also

play a part in the growing numbers of

participants in citizen science

activities (UNEP, 2014). Besides that,

numerous networks have been

emerged which gather practitioners,

research organisations, independent

scientists etc. e.g. Citizen Science

Association (CSA; based in the

United States), the European Citizen

Science Association (ECSA), the

Australian Citizen Science

Association (ACSA), the Chinese

Citizen Science Network (CCSN).

These networks aim to establish a

global community of practice for

5

citizen science, provide tools,

resources and guidelines of best

practices in citizen science (Göbel,

et al., 2017).

.inhabitants etc. Although, citizen

science as a term has not yet been

widely used, it has slowly started to

emerge. National Environmental

Protection Law in Latvia states several

measures for the public to participate

in decision making process, e.g.

attending public meetings, being able

to submit information to the State

authorities. Besides that, the Law

emphasises the obligation of

including aspects of environmental

education. For instance, it is an

obligation to include a lecture course

on environmental science in all of

university and college programmes

(Environmental Protection Law,

29.11.2006.). Latvian National

Environmental Policy Strategy 2014 -

2020 stresses the importance of

public participation in environmental

management in various forms

acknowledging the importance of

public involvement in environmental

monitoring (VARAM, Vides politikas

pamatnostādnes 2014-2020, 2014).

Citizen science activities could

provide a great value for Latvia as it

enhances public participation in

decision making process.

Several leading documents (e.g.

Aarhus Convention, Water Framework

Directive, Rio Declaration on

Environment and Development, EU

Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, 7th

Environmental Action Programme)

emphasise the importance of active

public engagement in handling

environmental issues. European

Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020

notes that “citizen science initiatives,

for instance, are a valuable means of

gathering high-quality data while

mobilising citizens to get involved in

biodiversity conservation activities”

(European Commission, 2011). A

White Paper on Citizen Science in

Europe (2015) also emphasises that

citizen science holds a great value in

supporting education and research

(Serrano Sanz, et al., 2014).

In Latvia various citizen engagement

activities in environmental research

have taken place involving school

children, bird watchers, coastal

6

7

OVERVIEW OF CITIZEN SCIENCE

Image: IES

CITIZEN SCIENCE FORMS

Citizen science activities are

categorised in different forms

depending on i) the degree to which

participants are involved in the scientific

process (Bonney, et al., 2009); ii) the

goals; iii) the scale and duration of the

citizen science activity; iv) initiator of

the project (Dickinson & Bonney, 2012).

The goals of citizen science projects

include research, education and

behavioural change i.e. environmental

stewardship (Dickinson & Bonney,

2012). As identified by the scientific

community there is an existing trade-off

between the goals of education and

scientific research; i.e. while the weight

of education increases the weight of

research declines (Dickinson & Bonney,

2012). As to regards with initiator the

citizen science activities can be either

started by scientists or the public.

Furthermore, the scale and duration of

the project can range from local or

global and short or long term (Dickinson

& Bonney, 2012).

Each of these models differs in the

way the public is involved in the

research process. Contributory

projects are driven by the researchers

and involve citizens contributing with

data collection. According to the

research studies, most of the citizen

science projects are categorised

under the contributory model (Box 1,

2) e.g. the Birdhouse Network,

Spotting the Weedy Invasives,

ALLARM Acid Rain Monitoring

Project, Monarch Larva Monitoring

Project, Community Collaborative

Rain, Hail & Snow Network (Bonney,

et al., 2009), Galaxy Zoo, eBird,

climateprediction.net (Science

Communication Unit, 2013), the

Great Eggcase Hunt, Rothamsted

The degree to which participants are

involved in the scientific processes

can be divided in three models 1)

contributory; 2) collaborative; 3) co-

created model.

(Bonney, et al., 2009)

8

Insect Survey Light Trap Network,

oldWeather (Roy, et al., 2012).

Collaborative projects (Box 1, 3, 4)

on the other hand are research driven

but citizen scientists are involved

during the research activities e.g.

refine project design, analyse data,

and disseminate the findings e.g.

Salal Harvest Sustainability Study,

Community Health Effects of

Industrial Hog Operations, Invasive

Plant Atlas of New England (Bonney,

et al., 2009), Florida LakeWatch

(Conrad & Hilvhey, 2011).

Co-created project model (Box 5, 6)

is driven by the community where

scientists help to answer the question

which public came up with e.g.

Shermans Creek Conservation

Association, Reclam the Bay

(Bonney, et al., 2009), Corfe Mullen

BioBlitz, iSpot (also contributory),

Open farm Sunday Pollinator Survey

(also contributory) (Roy, et al., 2012).

Furthermore, participants are

encouraged to take part in different

stages of the research process

(Bonney, et al., 2009).

CONTRIBUTORY

MODEL:

CITIZEN SCIENCE

PARTICIATION LEVELS

COLLABORATIVE

CO-CREATED

CONTRIBUTORY

high few

low many

Model developed on the basis of Bonney, et al., 2009

9

CONTRIBUTORY

BOX 1

Monitoring air quality in the Barbican

Link:

http://mappingforchange.org.uk/

Organisation: Mapping for change

Location: London, United Kingdom

Timescale: 2009 - 2014

CS form: contributory (collaborative)

Commissioned by the City of

London, Mapping for Change

provided support and training to

enable communities to measure and

map air quality in the city. As a

result, “a number of areas that are

seen as key in trying to combat the

City’s air pollution problem were

discussed. Some of these were put

forward to The City of London

Corporation for consideration and

other actions were noted that can be

taken at an individual or community

level” (Mapping for change, 2014).

BOX 2

eBird

Link: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

Organisation: Cornell Lab of

Ornithology and National Audubon

Society

Location: Global

Timescale: 2002 - current

CS form: contributory

“eBird is a citizen science project

that takes advantage of numerous

information technologies to engage

a global network of birder to report

their bird observations to a

centralized database” (Wood,

Sullivan, Iliff, Fink, & S., 2011). Most

of the bird observations asked to

contribute include individuals for

each species, basic information that

identifies the observers, describes

how the count was conducted etc.

(Wood, Sullivan, Iliff, Fink, & S.,

2011). Following the data from 2015

the participants have reported more

than 9.5 million bird observations

across the world (eBird, n.d.).

10

COLLABORATIVE I

BOX 3

Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program

(an initiative for Great Lakes)

Link:

http://www.epa.illinois.gov/topics/w

ater-quality/monitoring/vlmp/index

Organisation: Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

Location: USA

Timescale: 1981 - current

CS form: collaborative

The volunteer program gathers

information about Illinois lakes,

raises awareness of the local

resource. Illinois Lake Monitoring

Program has basic and advanced

volunteer programs. The basic

volunteer program regularly monitors

lake transparency using Secchi disk

(twice per month from April to

October). Furthermore, the

volunteers monitor Zebra Mussels.

The advanced volunteer program

collects water samples and sends to

the state lab for chemical analysis

(Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency, 2016; cited from

Gillingham, 2017). The acquired

data is routinely used by lake

scientists, planners, consultants,

and the volunteers themselves for

different purposes. For example, in

Annual Report of Illinois Volunteer

Lake Monitoring Program the data

has shown continuous heavy loading

of nutrients in the lakes (Ratliff,

2015).

BOX 4

Swedish Mass Experiment

Link:

https://forskarfredag.se/researchers

-night/mass-experiments/

Organisation: Vetenskap &

Allmänhet

Location: Sweden

Timescale: 2009 - current

CS form: collaborative

Through the mass experiment

Vetenskap & Allmänhet seeks to

address four aims: “to give students

an opportunity to participate in real

research, introducing them to the

11

COLLABORATIVE II

scientific method and the systematic

work of researchers, stimulating an

interest in research; to help

researcher obtain large amounts of

data while engaging in dialogue with

the participating students and

teachers; to provide teachers with

material and methods based upon

state of the art research to integrate

into the curriculum; to assist science

event organisers in attracting media

attention, reaching potential visitors

and stimulating public understanding

of science. (…) Through the

experiments, thousands of Swedish

students from preschool to upper

secondary school have contributed

to the development of scientific

knowledge on” different themes e.g.

acoustic environment in classrooms,

children’s and adolescents’

perception of hazardous

environments (Kasperowski &

Brouneus, 2016).

12

CO-CREATED I

BOX 5

Cheetahs in Namibia

Organisation: lead by researchers in

Germany

Link:

http://www.izw-

berlin.de/stakeholder-dialogue.html

Location: Namibia

Timescale: since early 2000 - 2009

CS form: co-created

In order to solve the issue of hunting

cheetahs due to their attacks on

livestock researcher co-created a

study together with the local

farmers. The study aimed to track

the movements of cheetahs. The

farmers were involved in radio-

collaring the cheetahs thus being

involved in the research process. As

the results farmers together with

research identified a constant

pattern of cheetah movement which

was where the livestock was

feeding. The farmers moved the

livestock further away from the

cheetah’s path after the information

gained by the researchers. The

The results afterwards were

incredible where no livestock was

killed by cheetahs comparing to

previous years e.g. 2006 – 18 lost

calves, 2007 – 29 lost calves, 2008 –

26 lost calves, 2009 – no lost

calves. According to the researchers

“for stakeholders, the process of

co-creation is rewarding, since they

feel they make well-informed

contributions, understand why the

scientific research is undertaken and

because they will benefit directly if

the research addresses their specific

needs” (Hofer, 2016).

BOX 6

Jukajoki restoration project

Link:

http://casestudies.ourplaceonearth.

org/finland/

Organisation: Snowchange

Cooperative

Location: Finland

Timescale: 2010 - currently

CS form: co-created

“In 2010 and 2011 two massive fish

13

CO-CREATED II

die-offs triggered the local

communities of Selkie and Alavi to

take action. (…) One of the most

unique elements of the Jukajoki

case is the shift in perceptions

about the role of local-traditional

knowledge in resource management

in Finland” (OPOE, 2016). For

example, by observing the local

weather changes the community

members contributed to the climate

adaptation components. Moreover,

for the restoration efforts the

information of local fishermen is

used e.g. observations of changes

in fish spawning patterns and

timing. “By actively engaging and

valuing the local-traditional

knowledge that community members

hold, and incorporating it as an

equal information stream to ‘expert’

or scientific knowledge held by

formal institutions, the Jukajoki

project is demonstrating improved

ecological outcomes” (OPOE,

2016).

14

BENEFITS OF CITIZEN SCIENCE ACTIVITIES

(Evans, et al., 2005)

benefits to government and

ecosystem in general (Evans, et al.,

2005; Conrad & Hilvhey, 2011).

As summarised by Evans et al. (2005)

“formal education is not enough to

ensure scientific literacy in a world

where ideas and technology changing

rapidly. (…) Projects that invite citizens

to be involved in ecological research in

their own backyards or neighbourhoods

may provide rich opportunities for

community members of all ages to

improve their science literacy” (Hacker

& Harris 1992; Trumbull et al. 2000;

Brewer 2002 cited in (Evans, Abrams,

Reitsma, Roux, Salmonsen, & Marra,

2005).

Citizen science activities involve list of

benefits:

increasing environmental democracy;

scientific literacy on different

subjects, e.g. bird biology,

behaviour, wildlife knowledge;

social capital (Evans, et al., 2005);

sense of place, e.g. increase

awareness, perception of property;

changed behaviour;

citizen inclusion in local issues

Although citizen science requires a

substantial amount of funding there

exist cases where volunteer

contribution in environmental

monitoring becomes cost effective.

For example, Levrel et al. (2010)

estimated that the French National

15

It is important to note, that citizen

science has become a resource-

efficient data collection tool with the

possibility to collect data at much

larger spatio-temporal scale than

would be possible for researchers

alone (Pocock et al., 2014; Devictor,

Whittaker, & Beltrame, 2010).

Additionally, citizen science has been

defined as a “great way to connect

people with nature” (Blackmore et al.,

2013), thus increasing environmental

awareness.

Museum for Natural History’s Vigie-

Nature citizen science biodiversity

monitoring programme save the

French Government approximately in

between 1-4 million euros per year

(Levrel, et al., 2010). Nevertheless,

“citizen science could be most

effective when augmenting and

complementing professionally-

collected data” (Pocock, Chapman,

Sheppard, & Roy, 2014).

Conrad & Hilchey (2011) have noted

that “there is increasing evidence

that community-based monitoring

efforts are making an impact”

(Conrad & Hilchey, 2011). For

example, eBird, Feeder Watch,

Pigeon Watch has become as “an

established method for advancing

scientific knowledge in many areas,

including population trends in

wildlife, (…) avian life histories, (…)

management recommendations”

(Conrad & Hilvhey, 2011). Examples

such as Watershed Watch also have

had an influence on conservation

where the environmental

management board uses the

information for assessing the waters.

Citizen science has helped to “detect

climate-change-induced rage shifts

in a diversity of organisms (Parmesan

and Yohe 1993; Root et al. 2003),

phonological and elevational fhists in

flowering times of plants (Miller-

Rushing and Primack 2008; Crimmins

et al. 2009), and advances in the

egg-laying dates of migratory birds

(Dunn and Winkler 1999)” (cited in

Dickinson, et al., 2012). There are

numerous citizen science projects

According to the research papers

“one of the key challenges for citizen

science practitioners is determining

how to interact effectively with

government officials and other

authorities to convey information and

improve public decisions. (…) As

proposed, the citizen science

practitioners should seek to

determine which, if any, public

agencies or decision makers have

authority to address the subject

matter (...) and what capacity they

have to use and understand scientific

information that may be generated by

the project” (McElfish, Pendergrass,

& Fox, 2016).

16

.(e.g. Nature Watch programs in

Canada such as Frog Watch, Plant

Watch, Ice Watch) where the

conservation action is more elusive

(Conrad & Hilvhey, 2011).

Nevertheless, the lack of capacity

for evaluation citizen science makes

it challenging to measure the

outcome of citizen science activities

(Jordan et al., 2012; Phillips et al.,

2012 cited in Bonney et al. 2015).

17

CHALLENGES OF CITIZEN SCIENCE

Besides the data quality and sampling

difficulties, several study areas of

citizen science are in need of further

development (Bonney et al., 2016). For

example, Conrad et al. (2011) stresses

the need to compare and provide sound

evidence of the success of CBM

(Community Based Monitoring) (Conrad

& Hilchey, 2011). Furthermore,

researchers recommend questioning

citizen science from a social science

perspective e.g. “how and why people

participate in citizen science, what they

gain, and how best to match people

with projects that interest them. How

does the importance of learning

compare to the role of identity and

agency or civic responsibility? How can

we best recruit, maintain, and grow

18

citizen science participation so that it

benefits science and participants?”

(Kobori, et al., 2015).

Although data quality issues have

been associated with citizen science

e.g. data inaccuracy, data

fragmentation, lack of participant

objectivity (Whitelaw et al., 2003 cited

in Conrad & Hilchey, 2011), there exist

case studies where volunteer data

have been compared with the

professional biologists’ sampled data.

For example, LakeWatch initiated a

paired comparison study on numerous

lakes where professional biologists

and volunteers’ sampled the same

lakes on the same day. The

parameters measured (total

phosphorus, total nitrogen,

chlorophyll, Secchi depth) strongly

correlated with the values gathered by

the professionals (Hoyer et al., 2014).

Furthermore, some researchers have

even speculated if the quality of data

should be only linked with the

Citizen science holds variouschallenges, e.g. data quality,evaluation, motivating participants etc.

(Commons Lab, 2016; Conrad & Hilchey, 2011)

.scientific protocols and data

consistency. As stated by

Lukayanenko et al. (2016) “the

emerging problem of quality in citizen

science, is therefore, writing a story

in which citizens contribute to the

plot” (Lukayanenko, Parsons, &

Wierma, 2016).

Evaluation is another struggle where

citizen science initiatives have not

been measured for their success of

reaching the stated goal. “Evaluating

outcomes from citizen science

participation is a high priority for

practitioners, yet it is often rated as

one of their greatest challenges”

(Philips et al., 2014). Studies suggest

the need for citizen science projects

to be evaluated using different

measurement tools (Brossard,

Lewenstein, & Bonney, 2005).

Although, there already exist some

examples (e.g. evaluation of the

science education project – The

Birdhouse Network; The Lost Ladybug

Project) using theoretical framework

for citizen science evaluation towards

their effectiveness on changing

attitudes and scientific knowledge

(Scikler et al., 2014; Brossard,

Lewenstein, & Bonney, 2005)

researchers advice to make “efforts

to conduct more evaluations of the

attainment of science and education

goals” (Gommerman & Monroe,

2015) reached from the citizen

science activities. The evaluation of

the citizen science projects is a

struggle throughout the world as it

holds several challenges e.g. how to

measure the gained social value etc.

Besides the evaluation, it is

increasingly important to study

participant motivations both from the

perspective of recruitment and in

terms of sustaining participation.

According to Geoghegan et al. (2016)

there is a shortage of studies which

looks upon the motivations of

participants in the citizen science

projects (Geoghegan et al., 2016). As

summarized by Geoghegan et al.

(2016) motivations vary across

projects and change over time.

Importantly to note, that volunteering

activity may link people with different

motivations (Clary & Snyder, 1999

cited in Geoghegan et al. (2016)).

19

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Citizen science opens the doors for

non-professionals to take part in

science activities (UNEP, 2014)

enhancing to the process of science

democratization. Through citizen

science a communication bridge

between researchers and general public

can bring about a closer cooperation

and co-production of science. By

inviting the general public into the

research process, researchers are

breaking the communication barriers

between science and society. In

addition, during the research process

people can reach evidence based

information, which can be further used

in decision making processes (e.g., the

case of Jukajoki restoration project).

Although citizen science holds various

challenges there is a growing

movement of the field and interest

among researchers. Citizen science has

become a resource-efficient data

collection tool with the possibility to

20

collect data at a much larger spatio-

temporal scale than would be possible

for researchers alone (Devictor,

Whittaker, Beltrame, 2010). The

scientific community stresses that

“although there is much anecdotal

discussion of the environmental

benefits of citizen science, more peer-

reviewed studies must actually show a

relationship between CBM (Community

Based Monitoring) group efforts and

environmental improvements (…)”

(Conrad & Hilchey, 2011). Furthermore,

as identified by Shirk et al. (2012) the

outcomes of the projects enhancing

public participation “are influenced by

the degree of public participation in the

research process and the quality of

public participation as negotiated during

project design” (Shirk, et al., 2012). For

example, results from contributory

projects are more associated with

scientific outcomes whereas co-

created projects are more related to

affecting policy decisions. It is

.

scientific protocols and data

consistency. As stated by

Lukayanenko et al. (2016) “the

emerging problem of quality in citizen

science, is therefore, writing a story

in which citizens contribute to the

plot” (Lukayanenko, Parsons, &

Wierma, 2016). important to stress

the different degree of participation in

the contributory, collaborative, co-

created citizen science models which

will influence the outcome of the

research, individual and socio-

ecological system (Shirk, et al.,

2012).

To successfully implement citizen

science activities, overcome the

challenges and gain expected

benefits, citizen science

professionals and experts have

developed guiding documents and

platforms: e.g. Guide to Citizen

Science developing, implementing

and evaluating citizen science to

study biodiversity and the

environment in the UK (2012);

Choosing and Using Citizen Science

a guide to when and how to use

citizen science to monitor biodiversity

and the environment (2014); User’s

21

guide for Evaluating Learning

Outcomes from Citizen Science

(2014).

22

CITIZEN SCIENCE IN LATVIA WITHIN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENT

Image: ESA

.

As to that, citizen science may partly

contribute to solve the increasing

problems with environmental

monitoring although it might also lead

to biased results if the citizen science

activity is not organised effectively

(Mackechnie et al., 2011).

Due to lack of state funding

environmental monitoring in Latvia is

proceeded in critical amount

(VARAM, 2012). In addition, Latvian

Environmental Policy Strategy points

out that the reduction of state funding

for environmental monitoring during

2009-2012 has dramatically

influenced environmental monitoring

data (VARAM, 2014). The Latvian

water monitoring programme 2015-

2020 includes a note that in case of

limited funding for water monitoring

the number of monitored water

objects will be reduced (Ūdeņu

monitoringa programma, 2015).

Citizen science may play a part in

compensating for the reduced funds

in environmental monitoring. As an

example, the government of the

United Kingdom has suggested that

citizen science or so called Big

Society may become a possible way

to compensate for reduced funding

(D. Cameron, 2010 cited in

Mackechnie et al., 2011). Gillingham

(2017) suggests when discussing the

Great Lakes management that “with

government budgets cut, what is

needed is a call for citizens to act for

clean water” (Gillingham, 2017).

Currently, Latvian National Biological

Diversity Programme 2015 – 2020 on

winter water bird distribution relies on

volunteer gathered data.

(Bioloģiskās daudzveidības

monitoringa programma, 2015)

23

.

24

CASES OF CITIZEN SCIENCE INITIATIVESIn order to list the initiatives, several

discussions took place with the Citizen

Science practitioners in Latvia. The

authors have indicated over 15

initiatives in Latvia:

Dabasdati.lv (Nature portal -

Dabasdati.lv);

Vides SOS (Nature SOS);

Sabiedriskais monitorings (monitoring

initiative at North Vidzeme Biosphere

Reserve);

Nesting bird, spring, outcrop

monitoring;

Ieliec Upē Akmeni (initiative – Put a

rock in the river!);

GLOBE programme;

Baltic Sea Project;

Lakes for the Future;

Velodati;

Cod monitoring;

Mana Jūra (initiative - My Sea);

lake portal – ezeri.lv;

European Severe Storms monitoring;

additional initiatives of collecting of

Latvian plants for genetic purposes,

mapping geological nature monuments,

making phonological records).

As defined by the authors, most of the

citizen science initiatives in Latvia are

contributory projects (Bonney et al.,

2009) where the public is involved in

collecting observations (Case 1-3).

Nevertheless, some of the activities are

not as easy to distinguish the

collaborative and contributory citizen

science form (Case 1). Co-created

projects (Bonney et al., 2009) have not

been identified although there might

exist cases where the public have

chosen the study question and gone

through the whole research process

from the very beginning.

.CASE 1

DabasDati.lv

Link: http://www.dabasdati.lv/en/cat/2

Organisation: Latvian Fund for Nature

and Latvian Ornithological Society

Location: Latvia

Timescale: 2008 – current

CS form: contributory and

collaborative

DabasDati.lv is a nature observations

portal where everyone is welcome to

report their observations of wild plants

and animals. The aim of Dabasdati.lv

is to promote awareness and

protection of nature values in Latvia,

educate society and encourage dialog

between scientists and nature

protection specialists. The platform is

used by more than 6125 registered

users with total of 340254

observations (Dabasdati.lv, 2016).

25

European bee-eater (L. Merops

apiaster) observed in Latvia. Its

migration to Latvia is a result of

climate changes. Photo: Valdis

Pētersons

CASE 2

Nature Protection Agency – involving

public in environmental monitoring

Link:

http://www.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/sab

iedribas_lidzdaliba/sabiedriskais_moni

torings/

Organisation: Nature Protection

Agency

Location: Latvia

Timescale: 2005 - currently

CS form: contributory

.In 2005 the Nature Protection Agency

started a public monitoring system at

North Vidzeme Biosphere Reserve.

The aim of the initiative is to gain data

about a variety of nature objects by

involving local community members.

In order to reach this aim a handbook

and training materials were issued,

including protocols. The public is

involved in monitoring the distribution

and occurrence of hogweed, orchids,

secular trees (e.g. oak), tree alleys,

bats, hunted water birds, white storks,

beavers, night birds and corncrake

(Nature Protection Agency, n.d.).

School children measure largest and

oldest oaks in Latvia during the Nature

Protection Agency’s Citizen Science

campaign. Photo: Nature Protection

Agency.

26

CASE 3

Nature SOS

Link: http://www.videssos.lv/

Organisation: The State Environmental

Service

Location: Latvia

Timescale: 2015 - now

Type of the project: contributory

Nature SOS is a mobile platform

where anyone can report

environmental violation activities e.g.

illegal fishing. After the observations

has been submitted the officers from

the State Environmental Service

sends the report further to regional

inspectors who reacts accordingly.

Nature SOS allows following if the if

the activities been controlled and

solved. Since 2015 there have been

more than 2000 issues reported

including sites of illegal landfills

(Nature SOS, 2015).

.

students (Children‘s Environmental

School, n.d.).

Teachers and school childrenn

during the GLOBE summer learning

expeditions. Photo: Children’s

Environmental School

27

CASE 4

Globe School Programme

Link: http://www.videsskola.lv/about-

us

Organisation: Children‘s

Environmental School

Location: Latvia

Timescale: 1999 - now

CS form: collaborative

“The Global Learning and

Observations to Benefit the

Environment (GLOBE) Program is an

international science and education

program that provides students and

the public worldwide with the

opportunity to participate in data

collection and the scientific process,

and contribute meaningfully to our

understanding of the Earth system and

global environment” (GLOBE, n.d.). In

total 22 Latvian schools are involved

in GLOBE activities including

participation in teacher training,

consultations, summer learning

expeditions for teachers and

PERCEPTION TOWARDS CITIZEN SCIENCE IN LATVIA

related to characteristics of the

respondents, the use of volunteer help

in the research process, and the trust

in the volunteer gathered data.

Most of the respondents represent

academic and governmental research

institutions (N = 69) under several

fields, e.g. environmental and nature

protection, agriculture, forestry. The

questionnaire divided respondents in

two groups – those who have used

volunteer help in their research and

those who have not used volunteer

help in their research. More than half

of the respondents (N = 57) have not

used volunteer help in their research

process. The data analyses includes

answers both from the respondents

who have used volunteer help in the

research process and also those who

have not used volunteer help in the

research process before.

To understand the perception towards

citizen science in Latvia from

researchers and nature protection

specialists’, an online survey (18

questions) was sent out to various

Latvian environmental research

institutions including non-

governmental organisations (total

Norganisations and individual researchers = 97).

The responses were gathered in

November, 2016. In total 87

respondents gave their answers. The

questionnaire was made following the

example of EU BON (Building the

European Biodiversity Observation

Network (EU BON, 2012)) survey. The

questionnaire included sections related

to characteristics of the respondents,

the use of volunteer help in the

research process, and the trust in the

volunteer gathered dataThe

questionnaire was made following the

example of EU BON (Building the

European Biodiversity Observation

Network (EU BON, 2012)) survey. The

questionnaire included sections28

.A great deal of respondents who had

not used volunteer help in the

research considered involving

volunteers in the future research

activities (N = 26 out of 57). A need

for more data was one of the main

motivation for using volunteer help in

29

VOLUNTEER INVOLVEMENT

the research process for both

respondent groups (Figure 1).

Nevertheless, both respondent groups

noted additional reasons for not using

volunteer help - time; resources and

volunteer lack of skills.

20

31 28

19

6 7 7 4

22

1416

16

8 8 8

1

To incre

ase a

mount and v

ariety

of

data

whic

h is n

eeded f

or your

researc

h

Need f

or

forc

ed e

ffort (

e.g

. stu

dy h

as

to b

e d

one in s

hort p

eriod o

f tim

e)

Educational purp

oses

To rais

e the a

ware

ness a

nd c

om

mon

unders

tandin

g o

n p

artic

ula

r re

searc

h

topic

To c

reate

scie

ntifically

pro

ved

info

rmation to a

ddre

ss local, n

ational

or

inte

rnational is

sues

To p

rom

ote

the s

cie

nce

dem

ocra

tiza

tion p

rocess

To p

rom

ote

the s

cie

nce

dem

ocra

tiza

tion p

rocess

Oth

er

e.g

. if v

olu

nte

ers

would

be

inte

reste

d in the w

ork

ing r

esults

rath

er

than f

or

its “

ow

n g

ood”

Num

ber

of

respondents

Respondents – have not used volunteer help Respondents – used volunteer help

Figure 1. Answers of the respondents; reasons for volunteer engagement*.

*Multiple answers possible.

.Respondents identified digitization of

information, occurrence recording,

assistance in the field work and

communication of the research results

as the main activities that are suitable

for volunteer engagement for both

respondent groups (Figure 2).

Although, some respondents

30

speculated if and how to involve

public in the research process as it

requires in-depth knowledge of the

topic e.g. sea research area. Some

even note dilettantism of involving

volunteers in science as research

activities require specific knowledge

and experience.

Figure 2. Answers of the respondents; reasons for volunteer engagement*.

*Multiple answers possible.

84

21 1927

3126

4

23

4 10

21 14

8

4

Help

ing to d

efine the researc

h

question

Assis

t during d

esig

nin

g the m

eth

od

Dig

itiz

ation

Partic

ipato

ry s

ensin

g (

e.g

. usin

g

mobile

s a

s s

ensors

)

Occurr

ence r

ecord

ing (

e.g

. anim

al

or

pla

nt observ

ations)

Assis

tive fie

ldw

ork

(h

elp

ing

scie

ntists

with f

ield

work

–ringin

g

birds,

settin

g u

p instrum

ents

etc

.)

Com

munic

ating the r

esearc

h

results w

ith the p

ublic

Oth

er

e.g

. te

sting r

esearc

h r

esults

(pra

ctical use);

“backgro

und”

monitoring

Num

ber

of

respondents

Respondents – have not used volunteer help Respondents – used volunteer help

.Respondents who have not used

volunteer help in the research process

claimed that data that is gathered by

volunteers have an average (N = 32)

or even low quality (N = 25).

31

DATA QUALITY

0

32

25

1

26

2

High quality (biases

controlled, data validated)

Satisfactory (data mostly

accurate, some biases, some

of the data cannot be

validated)

Low (data accuracy mostly

unknown)

Num

ber

of

respondents

Respondents – have not used volunteer help Respondents – used volunteer help

Figure 3. Answers of the respondents: quality of volunteer gathered data.

Although, only some respondents who

have used volunteer help in the

research process evaluated that the

volunteer gathered data is of low

quality (N = 2) (Figure 3).

.It is important to note, that there

exists a certain reluctance to openly

share the data which is contributed by

citizen scientists, bringing new

questions regarding the state of open

data and data accessibility (Figure 4).

32

OPEN DATA

Although there seems to be a slight

difference between the respondents

who have or have not used volunteer

help. A large group of respondents

(40%) who have not used volunteer

help indicated that they would.

Figure 4. Answers of the respondents: respondents views on volunteer

gathered data accessibility.

8 9

4

23

6 7

3 1

2

3

5

15

Raw

data

could

be d

ow

nlo

aded

under an o

pen lic

ence

Raw

data

could

be d

ow

nlo

aded

under a r

estric

tive lic

ense (

e.g

.

non-com

merc

ial, researc

h o

nly

)

Raw

data

could

be d

ow

nlo

aded,

but w

ithout a lic

ense (

re-use m

ust

be requeste

d)

Raw

data

could

not be

dow

nlo

aded b

ut th

e d

ata

could

be

bro

wsed o

nlin

e

Access to the d

ata

would

be

restric

ted

Oth

er

e.g

. only

availa

ble

at th

e

public

ations;

Num

ber

of

respondents

Respondents – have not used volunteer help Respondents – used volunteer help

.Respondents who have used

volunteer help (N = 29) were asked to

answer what in their opinion

motivated volunteers to take part in

the research activities.

33

MOTIVATION FOR VOLUNTEERS

Most of the responses were related to

a personal satisfaction, enjoyment of

learning new things and social

contribution (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Answers of the respondents: volunteer motivation.

19

1918

9

63

Personal learning

Fulfilment through social participation

Personal enjoyment

Opportunity to address local, regional or international issues

Challenge, competitive element

Other e.g. for their own goals

Number of participants:

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In Latvia citizen science activities range

from observations of birds to monitoring

of marine litter. Nevertheless, most of

the activities (e.g. Case 1 – Case 4)

involve the public in the process of data

gathering rather than in the initial

research process of defining the

research question. According to the

models of degree to which participants

are involved in the research process

(Bonney, et al. 2009), most of the

citizen science activities in Latvia are

related to the contributory model by

engaging relatively large numbers of

people. Also results from the EU BON

project showed that researchers from

different European countries define the

motivation for using volunteer help

similarly i.e. “to increase amount and

variety of data which is needed for the

research” (EU BON, 2012).

The survey revealed that larger data

coverage, educational purposes and

raising awareness were some of the

commonly used reasons for volunteer

34

engagement in the research process

both for respondents who have and

have not used volunteer help.

Nevertheless, in Latvia only winter bird

monitoring relays on data collected by

the volunteers (Bioloģiskās

daudzveidības monitoringa programma,

2015). In comparison, in the United

Kingdom 7 out of the 26 biodiversity

indicators rely on volunteer-collected

data (Environmental Citizen Science,

2014).

In addition, respondents who have used

volunteer help shared similar view on

volunteer motivation as elsewhere. As

for example in the United Kingdom

statements behind the motivation for

joining citizen science activities

included altruistic values e.g. ‘to help

wildlife in general’ and ‘to contribute to

scientific knowledge’ as well as ‘sharing

enthusiasm’ and ‘enjoyment’

(Geoghegan et al., 2016). As identified

by Everett & Geoghegan (2016)

researchers have also described other

.

there are not significant differences in

data quality (Hoyer et al., 2014).

In Latvia there exists lack of

exemplary cases of co-production of

knowledge or co-creation of

solutions. Additionally, the question

remains if the state of understanding

among the end-users regarding

volunteer or citizen scientists’

involvement remains only as a source

for data or is/could be looked upon

as a tool to actively involve public in

the decision making process. In the

authors opinion it is possible to argue

that citizen science has not yet been

used to its fullest extent in Latvia and

holds a wider scope of benefits than

currently explored. Furthermore, the

concept itself regarding citizen

science and its possible contribution

to the research process has not been

widely communicated to different

target audiences limiting its

application.

factors for engaging in citizen

science activities such as “egotism,

collectivism, altruism and principlism

(upholding moral principles)” (Batson

et al. (2002) cited in Everett &

Geogrhegan, 2016). Furthermore,

Rotman et al. (2014) notes that

“temporal process of participation, in

which initial participation stems in

most cases from self-directed

motivations, such as personal

interest. (…) Long-term participation

is more complex and includes both

self-directed motivations and

collaborative motivations” (Rotman, et

al., 2014).

Similar to the general concern about

the data quality of citizen science

activities (e.g. data inaccuracy, data

fragmentation, lack of participant

objectivity) (Whitelaw et al., 2003

cited in Conrad & Hilchey, 2011), the

survey of perception towards citizen

science in Latvia reveals that most of

the respondents are also concerned

about data quality. Nevertheless,

LakeWatch that compared the quality

of data that has been obtained by

professionals with samples gathered

by volunteers and concluded that

35

36

FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

Image: ESA

.likely to be influenced by sociocultural

issues related to new technologies

and will continue to face practical

programmatic challenges The authors

foresee networked, open science and

the use of online computer/video

gaming as important tools to engage

non-traditional audiences (…). A

more formalized citizen-science

enterprise, complete with networked

organizations, associations, journals,

and cyber infrastructure, will advance

scientific research, including ecology,

and further public education”

(Newman et al., 2012). As noted by

Newman et al. (2012) "the concept of

citizen science itself could become

blurred as data collection tied to

games and linked to social interaction

becomes an integrated part of daily

life". (…) As proposed by the

researchers "a daily bicycle commute

could automate air-quality

monitoring; gardens could become

networked micro-environment

monitoring stations (...)" (Newman et

al., 2012).

Cross-border activities have a

potential for future citizen science

activities both for Latvia and other

There exists a lack of co-production

of citizen science activities in Latvia

between different stakeholder groups,

thus limiting the ground to explore the

additional benefits of citizen science

e.g. increasing environmental

democracy, public behaviour changes

towards particular science objects,

citizen inclusion in local issues,

benefits to government and

ecosystem in general, etc. Citizen

science activities in general rely on

volunteering movement. In regards to

this, in Latvia volunteering is not yet

widely popular and can be

characterised as medium high (20%-

29% of adults are engaged in

voluntary activities) (GHK, 2010). In

order to enhance citizen science

activities in future it is important to

work with general attitude of the

stakeholders towards volunteering

and public involvement in decision

making process. The authors stress

the need for regular communication

between the parties involved in order

to reach the full potential of citizen

science initiatives.

According to Newman et al. (2012)

"future citizen-science projects will

37

.countries. Currently there already

exists cross-border Citizen Science

activities e.g. observations of bird

migration. Parameters such as noise,

light, distributions of spiders and

invasive organisms have been asked

to be measured internationally

(Dabasdati.lv, 2016; Devictor,

Whittaker, & Beltrame, 2010). In

Latvia winter bird monitoring already

relays on data collected by the

volunteers (Bioloģiskās daudzveidības

monitoringa programma, 2015). This

proves that there is a potential to use

this experience and convey it to other

environmental parameters. The

researchers and nature protection

specialists can also share knowledge

and experience with other countries

and by building the cross-border

cooperation adapt acquired

knowledge for local needs. Therefore,

it is possible to promote science

democratization not just between the

public and researchers, but also

between the international research

communities.

38

Issues of pollution and biodiversity

monitoring in general have a potential

for cross-border citizen science

initiatives

(Commons Lab, 2015).

.

39

This report was made as a part of

the project Opening the Doors of

Science: Baltic-Nordic Cooperation

for Citizen Science Development

[NGSLV-409] financed by The

Nordic Council of Ministers and co-

funded by the Institute for

Environmental Solutions. We thank

our colleagues from Institute for

Environmental Solutions and project

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

partners – Snowchange Cooperative

and Vetenskap & Allmänhet for

productive discussions. Furthermore,

we would like to thank Citizen

Science practitioners, especially

Nora Rustanoviča, Inta Soma, Loreta

Urtāne, Andris Urtāns and Veljo

Runnel. Besides that we are grateful

for the responses on the survey

given by the researchers and NGOs’.

.

Bioloģiskās daudzveidības monitoringa

programma. (2015).the Ministry of

Environmental Protection and

Regional Development, Riga.

Blackmore, E., Underhill, R., McQuilkin, J., &

Lach, R. e. (2013). Common Cause

for Nture: finding values and frames

in the conservation sector. United

Kingdom: Public Interest Research

Centre.

Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie,

E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., et al. (2009).

Public Participation in Scientific

Research: Defining the Field and

Assessing Its Potential for Informal

Science Education. Washington,

D.C.: Center for Advancement of

Informal Science Education: A CAISE

Inquiry Group Report. .

Bonney, R., Phillips, T., Ballard, H., & Enck,

J. (2016). Can citizen science

enhance public understanding of

science? Public Understanding of

Science, 25(1), 2-16.

Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., & Bonney, R.

(2005). Scientific knowledge and

attitude change: The impact of a

citizen science project. International

Journal of Science Education, 27(9),

1099-1121.

Children‘s Environmental School. (n.d.).

About us. Retrieved November 2,

2016, from Children‘s Environmental

School:

http://www.videsskola.lv/about-us

Commons Lab. (2015). Citizen Science andPolicy: a European Perspective. TheWoodrow Wilson Center.

Conrad, C., & Hilvhey, K. (2011). A review of

citizen science and community-based

environmental monitoring: issues and

opportunities. Environ Monit Assess,

176, 273-291.

Cornell University. (n.d.). What is Citizen

Science and PPSR? Retrieved

September 7, 2016, from The Cornell

Lab of Ornithology:

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitool

kit/about/defining-citizen-science/

Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is

participatory research? Social Science

and Medicine, 41(12), 1667–1676.

Dabasdati.lv. (2016). About. Retrieved 2016,

from Dabasdati.lv:

http://www.dabasdati.lv/en/cat/2

Devictor, V., Whittaker, R., & Beltrame, C.

(2010). Beyond scarcity: citizen

science programmes as useful tools

for conservation biogeography.

Diversity and Distributions, 16, 354-

362.

Dickinson, J. L., & Bonney, R. (2012). Citizen

Science: Public Participation in

Environmental Research. Ithaca, NY,

USA: Comstock Pub. Associates .

ECSA. (2015). Ten principles of citizen

science. London: ECSA.

Environmental Citizen Science. (2014).

Environmental Citizen Science.

PostNote Houses of Parliament

Parliamentary Office of Science &

Technology.

Environmental Protection Law (29,11,2006,).

«Latvijas Vēstnesis», 183 (3551),

15,11,2006,, «Ziņotājs», 24,

REFERENCES

40

ECSA. (2015). Ten principles of citizen

science. London: ECSA.

European Commission. (2011). Our life

insurance, our natural capital: an EU

biodiversity strategy to 2020.

Brussels: European Commission.

Evans, C., Abrams, E., Reitsma, R., Roux, K.,

Salmonsen, L., & Marra, P. (2005).

The Neighborhood Nestwatch

Program: Participant Oucomes of a

Citizen-Science Ecological Research

Project. Conservation Biology, 589-

594.

Everett, G., & Geogrhegan, H. (2016).

Initiating and continuing participation

in citizen science for natural history.

BMC Ecology, 16.

Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West,

S., & Everett, G. (2016).

Understanding Motivations for Citizen

Science. Final report on behalf of the

UK Environmental Observation

Framework. Final report on behalf of

UKEOF, University of Reading,

Stockholm Environmental Institute

(University of York) and University of

the West of England.

GHK (2010). Volunteering in the European

Union. Educational, Audiovisual &

Culture Executive Agency; Directorate

General Education and Culture.

Gillingham, M. (2017). Surface Water

Information Collection: Volunteers

Keep the Great Lakes Great. In L.

Ceccaroni, & J. Piera, Analyzing the

Role of Citizen Science in Modern

Research (p. 355).

Göbel, C., Cappadonna, J., Newman, G.,

Zhang, J., & Vohland, K. (2017). More

Than Just Networking for Citizen

Science: Examining Core Roles of

Practitioner Organizations. In L.

Ceccaroni, & J. Piera, Analyzing the

Role of Citizen Science in Modern

Research.

Gommerman, L., & Monroe, M. (2015).

Lesson Learned from Evaluations of

Citizen Science Programs. UF IFAS

Extension University of Florida.

Hofer, H. (2016). Co-designing research

projects: Citizen Science meets

stakeholder involvement. First ECSA

Conference 2016 Citizen Science -

Innovation in Open Science, Society

and Policy.

Hoyer, M., Bigham, D., Bchmann, R., &

Candielf, J. D. (2014). Florida

LAKEWATCH: Citizen Scientists

protecting Florida's awuatic systems.

Florida Scientist, 77(4).

Kasperowski, D., & Brouneus, F. (2016). The

Swedish mass experiments - a way

of encouraging scientific citizenship?

Journal of Science Communication.

Kobori, H. D., Sakurai, R., Amano, T.,

Komatsu, N., Kitamura, W.,

Takagawa, S., et al. (2015). Citizen

science: a new approach to advance

ecology, education, and

conservation. 31(1).

Levrel, H., Fontaine, B., Henry, P.-Y., Jiguet,

F., Julliard, R., Kerbiriou, C., et al.

(2010). Balancing state and volunteer

investment in biodiversity monitoring

for the implementation of CBD

indicators: A French example.

Ecological Economics, 69, 1580-

1586.

Liu, H.-Y., & Kobernu, M. (2017). Citizen

Science and Its Role in Sustainable

Development: Status, Trends, Issues,

and Opportunities. In L. Ceccaroni, &

J. Piera, Analyzing the Role of Citizen

Science in Modern Research.

Lukayanenko, R., Parsons, J., & Wierma, Y.

41

(2016). Emerging problems of dataquality in citizen science. 30(3), 447-449.

Mackechnie, C., Maskell, L., Norton, L., &Roy, D. (2011). The role of 'BigSociety' in monitoring the state of thenatural environment. Journal ofEnvronmental Monitoring.

Mapping for change. (2014). Science in the

City. Monitoring air quality in the

Barbican. London.

McElfish, J., Pendergrass, J., & Fox, T.

(2016). Clearing the path Citizen

science and public devision making in

the United States. Washington, DC:

Woodrow Wilson International Center

for Scholars.

Nature Protection Agency. (n.d.).

Sabiedriskais monitorings. Retrieved

2016, from Nature Protection Agency:

http://www.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/sab

iedribas_lidzdaliba/sabiedriskais_moni

torings/

Nature SOS. (2015). Kā lietot? Retrieved

September 2016, from Vides SOS:

http://www.videssos.lv/kaa_lietot

Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham,

E., Newman, S., & Crowston, K.

(2012). The future of citizen science:

emerging technologies and shifting

paradigms. 10(6).

OPOE. (2016). Case study Collaborative

Management: Governance for the

New Normal An Exploration of

Community-Based Climate

Action,Finlad. OPOE.

Philips, T., Ferguson, M., Minarchek, M.,

Porticella, N., & Bonney, R. (2014).

User's guide for Evaluating Learning

Outcomes From Citizen Science.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell Lab of

Ornithology.

Pocock, M., Chapman, D., Sheppard, L., &

Roy, H. (2014). A Strategic

Framework to Support the

Implementation of Citizen Science for

Environmental Monitoring. SEPA &

Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.

Pocock, M.J.O., Chapman, D.S., Sheppard,

L.J. & Roy, H.E. (2014). A guide to

when and how to use citizen science

to monitor biodiversity and the

environment. Centre for Ecology &

Hydrology.

Ratliff, G. (2015). 2014 Annual Report Illinois

Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program.

Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency.

Rotman, D., Hammock, J., Preece, J., Hansen, D., Boston, C., Bowser, A., et al. (2014). Motivations Affecting Initial and Long-Term Participation in Citizen Science Projects in Three Countries. In iConference 2014 Proceedings, 110-124.

Roy, H., Pocock, M., Preston, C., Roy, D.,

Savage, J., Tweddle, J., et al. (2012).

Understanding citizen science and

environmental monitoring: final report

on behalf of UK Environmental

Observation Framework. Wallingford,

NERC/Centre for Ecology &

Hydrology.

Science Communication Unit, University of

the West of England, Bristol. (2013).

Science for Environment Policy In-

depth report: Environmental Citizen

Science. Report produced for the

European Commission DK

Environment.

Serrano Sanz, F., Holocher-Ertl, T.,

Kieslinger, B., García, F., & Silva, K.

(2014). White Paper on Citizen

Science for Europe. socientize.

42

Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C.,

Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R.,

et al. (2012). Public participation in

scientific research: a framework for

deliberate design. Ecology and

Society, 17(2), 29.

Tweddle, J., Robinson, L., & Pocock, M.(2012). Guide to Citizen Sciencedeveloping, implementing andevaluating citizen science to studybiodiversity and the environment in the UK. Natural History Museum andNERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrologyfor UK-EOF

Ūdeņu monitoringa programma. (2015). the

Ministry of Environmental Protection

and Regional Development, Riga.

UNEP. (2014). UNEP Year Book 2014

emerging issues update Realizing the

Potential of Citizen Science. UNEP.

VARAM. (2012). Informatīvais ziņojums par

vides monitoringu un zvejas kontroli.

VARAM.

VARAM. (2014). Vides politikas

pamatnostādnes 2014-2020.

Wood, C., Sullivan, B., Iliff, M., Fink, D., &

S., K. (2011). eBird: Engaging Birders

in Science and Conservation. PLoS

Biology.

43

44

Reproducing this paper withoutreference to the Nordic Councilof Ministers and the Institute forEnvironmental Solutions isprohibited.

Image: ESA