Emerging technologies in citizen science and potential for insect monitoring

Abstract

Emerging technologies are increasingly employed in environmental citizen science projects. This integration offers benefits and opportunities for scientists and participants alike. Citizen science can support large-scale, long-term monitoring of species occurrences, behaviour and interactions. At the same time, technologies can foster participant engagement, regardless of pre-existing taxonomic expertise or experience, and permit new types of data to be collected. Yet, technologies may also create challenges by potentially increasing financial costs, necessitating technological expertise or demanding training of participants. Technology could also reduce people's direct involvement and engagement with nature. In this perspective, we discuss how current technologies have spurred an increase in citizen science projects and how the implementation of emerging technologies in citizen science may enhance scientific impact and public engagement. We show how technology can act as (i) a facilitator of current citizen science and monitoring efforts, (ii) an enabler of new research opportunities, and (iii) a transformer of science, policy and public participation, but could also become (iv) an inhibitor of participation, equity and scientific rigour. Technology is developing fast and promises to provide many exciting opportunities for citizen science and insect monitoring, but while we seize these opportunities, we must remain vigilant against potential risks. This article is part of the theme issue 'Towards a toolkit for global insect biodiversity monitoring'.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; biodiversity monitoring; community science; insects; novel technologies; public participation in scientific research.

Figure 1.

Technology is developing fast and promises to provide many exciting opportunities for citizen science and insect monitoring, including (a) online training of volunteers; as in the German FLOW project (photo by Julia von Gönner), (b) smartphone apps with image recognition to verify identifications submitted by recorders; as demonstrated in the iRecord smartphone app (photo by Michael Pocock), (c) cameras for detecting species in hard-to-access locations and during unsociable hours; as demonstrated by the Australian Spider Crab Watch project (photo by Elodie Camprasse), (d) audio recorders combined with automated sound analysis for vocalizing species; here an AudioMoth recorder from Open Acoustic Devices (photo by Julie K. Sheard), (e) climate loggers for recording environmental covariates; as used in the German MikroSafari project (photo by Aletta Bonn), (f) image recognition or robotics for bulk samples (photo by Julie K. Sheard) and (g) molecular methods on volunteer-collected samples where laboratory work is also carried out by volunteers; as demonstrated by the Danish DNA&Liv project (photo by Frederik Wolff Nisbeth Teglhus).

Figure 2.

Online survey responses from 70 participants to the question ‘Please indicate which of the following technologies you are familiar with and how. Check all that apply’. This led to some categories with over 70 responses. While cameras, cell phones and apps are widely used in citizen science projects, more advanced and emerging technologies have seen less uptake. Technologies are ordered by the response ‘I have used often’.

Figure 3.

Technology as an enabler, facilitator, transformer and inhibitor of citizen science.

Figure 4.

(a) Survey answers to questions regarding willingness to acquire or use pre-owned technologies for citizen science projects. (b) Survey answers to the question ‘How much would you be willing to pay to participate in citizen science?’. Number of responses given in percent out of 70 respondents in total.