Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 May 12:8:e9141.
doi: 10.7717/peerj.9141. eCollection 2020.

Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: insights from Bumble Bee Watch

Affiliations

Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: insights from Bumble Bee Watch

Victoria J MacPhail et al. PeerJ. .

Abstract

Bumble Bee Watch is a community science program where participants submit photos of bumble bees from across Canada and the United States for expert verification. The data can be used to help better understand bumble bee biology and aid in their conservation. Yet for community science programs like this to be successful and sustainable, it is important to understand the participant demographics, what motivates them, and the outcomes of their participation, as well as areas that are working well or could be improved. It is also important to understand who verifies the submissions, who uses the data and their views on the program. Of the surveyed users, most participate to contribute to scientific data collection (88%), because of a worry about bees and a desire to help save them (80%), to learn more about species in their property (63%) or region (56%), and because of a personal interest (59%). About 77% report increased awareness of species diversity, while 84% report improvement in their identification skills. We found that 81% had at least one college or university degree. There were more respondents from suburban and rural areas than urban areas, but area did not affect numbers of submissions. While half were between 45 and 64 years of age, age did not influence motivation or number of submissions. Respondents were happy with the program, particularly the website resources, the contribution to knowledge and conservation efforts, the educational values, and the ability to get identifications. Areas for improvement included app and website functionality, faster and more detailed feedback, localized resources, and more communication. Most respondents participate rarely and have submitted fewer than ten records, although about five percent are super users who participate often and submit more than fifty records. Suggested improvements to the program may increase this participation rate. Indeed, increased recruitment and retention of users in general is important, and advertising should promote the outcomes of participation. Fifteen experts responded to a separate survey and were favorable of the program although there were suggestions on how to improve the verification process and the quality of the submitted data. Suggested research questions that could be asked or answered from the data included filling knowledge gaps (species diversity, ranges, habitat, phenology, floral associations, etc.), supporting species status assessments, effecting policy and legislation, encouraging habitat restoration and management efforts, and guiding further research. However, only about half have used data from the project to date. Further promotion of Bumble Bee Watch and community science programs in general should occur amongst academia, conservationists, policy makers, and the general public. This would help to increase the number and scope of submissions, knowledge of these species, interest in conserving them, and the overall program impact.

Keywords: Bumble bees; Citizen science; Community science; Environmental awareness; Natural history; Pollinators; Program evaluation; Public participation in science; Survey.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Sheila R. Colla is an Academic Editor with PeerJ.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Acorn JH. Entomological citizen science in Canada. Canadian Entomologist. 2017;785:1–12. doi: 10.4039/tce.2017.48. - DOI
    1. Austen GE, Bindemann M, Griffiths RA, Roberts DL. Species identification by conservation practitioners using online images: accuracy and agreement between experts. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4157. doi: 10.7717/peerj.4157. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bell S, Marzano M, Cent J, Kobierska H, Podjed D, Vandzinskaite D, Reinert H, Armaitiene A, Grodzińska-Jurczak M, Muršič R. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008;17:3443–3454. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9357-9. - DOI
    1. Berenguer J, Corraliza JA, Martin R. Rural-Urban differences in environmental concern, attitudes, and actions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2005;21:128–138. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.128. - DOI
    1. Birkin L, Goulson D. Using citizen science to monitor pollination services. Ecological Entomology. 2015;40:3–11. doi: 10.1111/een.12227. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources