Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Making marine and coastal citizen science matter

John A. Cigliano a, *, Ryan Meyer b, Heidi L. Ballard c, Amy Freitag d, Tina B. Phillips e,
Ann Wasser f
a
Department of Biological Sciences, Cedar Crest College, 100 College Drive, Allentown, PA 18104, USA
b
California Ocean Science Trust, USA
c
School of Education, University of California, Davis, USA
d
Virginia Sea Grant, USA
e
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 159 Sapsucker Woods Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
f
Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Against the backdrop of a dramatic increase in citizen science activity worldwide, we convened a
Received 16 December 2014 combined symposium and focus group at the 2014 International Marine Conservation Congress to
Received in revised form consider the challenges and opportunities for mobilizing citizen science in the marine and coastal
4 June 2015
environment. Highlighting the diversity of existing models and approaches to citizen science, partici-
Accepted 9 June 2015
pants focused on six different conservation-related outcomes that citizen science projects can potentially
support: policy, education, community capacity building, site management, species management, and
research. We provide two example case studies of projects and summarize the key themes and rec-
Keywords:
Citizen science
ommendations associated with each of those outcomes. The result is a series of “toolkits” that can help to
Marine conservation guide new and existing citizen science projects that aim to support management and conservation of
Coastal conservation ocean resources, as well as providing insights and recommendations to stimulate further research on and
Toolkit assessment of marine and coastal citizen science programs. Citizen science is an effective approach to
conservation and it is time for this underutilized resource to become a more prominent approach for
marine and coastal conservation.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction species (Delaney et al., 2008). The use of citizen science in marine
and coastal contexts can impact marine conservation more broadly
The number of projects globally that engage the public in sci- by influencing management (of, e.g., fisheries) and policy,
entific research (i.e, citizen science) has dramatically increased in improving stewardship, and strengthening community capacity to
recent years (Conrad and Hilchey, 2011). Citizen science can be address environmental problems (Conrad and Hilchey, 2011;
defined as scientific research and monitoring projects for which Danielsen et al., 2013).
members of the public collect, categorize, transcribe or analyze
scientific data (Bonney et al., 2014). Although not as prevalent as in 1.1. Challenges for marine and coastal citizen science
other systems (Theobald et al., 2015), citizen science projects in
marine and coastal systems worldwide provide opportunities for Roy et al. (2012) put forward a framework focused on the scale
individuals to engage in marine conservation-related activities, of participation (local to mass participation) and degree of invest-
such as monitoring reef systems (Pattengill-Semmens and ment (from simple to thorough, referring to both project managers
Semmens, 2003) and species (Cigliano and Kliman, 2014), catego- and participants). In a broad international survey of more than 200
rizing whale calls (Shamir et al., 2014), and tracking marine debris citizen science projects, they found that marine and coastal citizen
(Hidalgo-Ruza and Thiel, 2013; Smith and Edgar, 2014) and invasive science is underrepresented in general (comprising only 14% of
their sample), and biased toward either thorough and local pro-
grams, or simple mass participation programs. This result, they
* Corresponding author. argue, suggests an opportunity for marine citizen science to expand
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.A. Cigliano). and diversify.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.012
0964-5691/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
78 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87

There are many explanations for the pattern they observed, 2. Case studies
some rooted in the challenges of the marine environment. Citizen
science projects in marine contexts encounter challenges not faced 2.1. Engaging citizen scientists in surveying and monitoring queen
in terrestrial systems. The primary challenges are logistical, stem- conch (Strombus gigas) in Belize
ming from the fact that humans, at best, spend only part of their life
on the water. In many contexts, access for citizen scientists is more Fisheries around the world are in decline (FAO, 2012). One such
challenging than on land, often requiring expensive boats, diving fishery is queen conch, Strombus gigas, a large marine gastropod
gear, or transportation to the coast. Safety and liability issues of found throughout the Caribbean from Venezuela to southern
marine-based data collection can also be prohibitive and costly, Florida, Bermuda and throughout the Caribbean (Theile, 2001). In
especially when involving children. Relatedly, it is still uncommon response to this decline, most countries have imposed manage-
in some cultures to learn to swim or incorporate marine activities ment regulations on the harvest of queen conch, primarily mini-
into daily life, so it may be difficult to recruit citizen scientists in mum length, gear restrictions, and seasonal closures. In Belize,
some regions without extensive training accompanying a cultural management of the queen conch fishery consists of size limits (at
shift toward becoming more comfortable with the ocean. Other least 17.75 cm in length with a minimum weight of 86 g for cleaned
potential factors include unclear resource rights and the lack of meat), a closed season corresponding to peak reproduction (July 1
visibility and site definition, i.e., it may be harder for citizen sci- e September 30), and a prohibition on the use of SCUBA (Pe rez,
entists to “take ownership” of a site without obvious demarcations 1997). Belize has also established a network of 13 marine pro-
or recognizable boundaries. These and other factors may contribute tected areas (MPAs) to protect queen conch and other fisheries
to the apparent under-representation of marine and coastal pro- (Cho, 2005). One such MPA is the Sapodilla Cayes Marine Reserve
jects in citizen science in general (Roy et al., 2012, Theobald et al., (SCMR), a 119 km2 reserve located at the southern end of the
2015). Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. The SCMR is a zoned-reserve with
varying levels of protection: (1) General Use Zone (GUZ): com-
1.2. Why work with citizen scientists in marine and coastal mercial extractive activities are allowed but managed; (2) Conser-
conservation research? vation Zones (CZ): no commercial extractive activities are allowed;
and (3) Preservation Zone (PZ): entry is prohibited except with a
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a variety of ways in special permit for research. The reserve was declared in 1996 but
which citizen science can be an effective and rigorous method for was not enforced until April 2009 (J. Finch, pers. comm).
advancing marine conservation and management, using case Because there had been no systematic survey of queen conch
studies of citizen science projects that have successfully fulfilled populations in the SCMR, the project team conducted a shallow-
their conservation-related goals and outcomes as examples. We water survey of conch aggregations from 2006 to 2012 inside and
also provide a typology of marine conservation outcomes that can outside protected zones before and after enforcement began.
be effectively addressed using citizen science and scientists, and, Shallow-water sites are important to the life history of queen conch
finally, a set of “toolkits” for each category of marine conservation as nursery areas (Stoner, 1997; Posada et al., 1999). The project was
outcome through which citizen science can be implemented. Our developed during a community workshop convened in May 2005
goal is to make it feasible and useful for marine conservation sci- by Earthwatch Institute and the Toledo Association for Sustainable
entists and practitioners to use citizen science, and to discern when Tourism and Empowerment (TASTE; now Southern Environmental
citizen science is appropriate to address marine conservation and Association [SEA]), the NGO responsible with co-managing the
management issues. reserve with the Department of Fisheries. This workshop brought
This paper is the product of a combined symposium and focus together key stakeholders, scientists and research organizations to
group, Making Marine Citizen Science Matter, held at the 3rd In- prioritize issues relevant to the sustainability of the SCMR and to
ternational Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC). The symposium formulate research questions to address these issues. Thirty-five
consisted of seven presentations by an interdisciplinary group of individuals representing 19 organizations participated in the
researchers and practitioners that provided an overview of marine workshop. The queen conch survey project was an outcome of this
citizen science and case studies of projects that have successfully workshop. The conservation goals of this project included: (1)
fulfilled their conservation-related goals. The symposium set the determining the effectiveness of the SCMR in protecting and
foundation for the accompanying focus group that was attended replenishing queen conch populations, (2) providing information
by 35 participants ranging from deeply experienced practitioners for adaptive management of the reserve, and (3) building capacity
and scholars of citizen science to relative newcomers to the field. in stakeholders.
The focus group built on the discussion from the symposium to Citizen scientists, participating through the Earthwatch Insti-
apply and further refine a typology of marine conservation out- tute, were engaged in most aspects of this co-created project. Co-
comes that could be addressed using citizen science and scientists. created projects are designed by scientists and members of the
The focus group discussion was framed by six types of conserva- public together with some of the public participants actively
tion outcomes determined to be related to conservation effort involved in most or all steps of the scientific process (Bonney et al.,
success: policy, education, community capacity-building, site 2009; Shirk et al., 2012). In addition to collaborating on the plan-
management, species management, and research (Kapos et al., ning of the project, local citizen scientists (fishers, Department of
2009). Using discussion notes from the focus group, we devel- Fisheries officers, TASTE) helped locate sample sites (current and
oped “toolkits” for each of the conservation outcomes to further historical aggregation sites) and both the local (including under-
support the development or adoption of citizen science in marine graduate students from the University of Belize Natural Resource
contexts. Management program) and international citizen scientists sur-
In the next section we describe two of the seven case studies veyed transects, either while snorkeling or diving, and recorded
from the symposium to demonstrate the variety of cases that were size (length) and age (lip thickness) of conch, and also tagged conch
presented in terms of structure and conservation-related goals and with unique alphanumeric tags (Floy Tag Inc.).
outcomes. We then move on to the toolkits developed from focus One benefit to using citizen scientists in marine conservation
group discussions that involved more than 35 participants over the projects is the ability to increase the temporal and spatial scale of a
course of a full day. project (Miller-Rushing et al., 2012; Ward et al., 2015) and this was
 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87 79

certainly true for this project. Over the 6 years of the study, the with a unique, legislatively established role in bringing scientists
project team was able to survey over 5000 conch (approximately and decision makers together around important marine and coastal
4200 were tagged), in 11 aggregations throughout all 4 zones of the issues facing the State (CORSA, 2000; Pietri et al., 2011). Working
reserve, as well as in 3 deep-water (15e30 m) breeding aggrega- together with state agencies, scientists, and stakeholder commu-
tions in and adjacent to the reserve and in 24 additional randomly nities, OST designs and implements monitoring that meets the
chosen sites to search for unknown aggregations (Cigliano and needs of MPA managers, while also contributing to a wide range of
Kliman unpubl. data). Without the assistance of the approximately issues such as ocean acidification and climate change, fisheries
80 citizen scientists, the spatial and temporal scope of this project management, and water quality.
would have been more limited. Citizen science has played a role in the MPA monitoring program
The conservation goals of the project were fulfilled. Data were from the beginning, and a state-adopted monitoring framework
used to determine age structure and density of aggregations explicitly calls out the potential role for citizen science to contribute
(Cigliano and Kliman, 2014) and the effectiveness of the reserve useful information for adaptively managing the MPAs (OST, 2014a).
(Cigliano and Kliman unpubl. data). The results of the study suggest A handful of citizen science programs participated in the initial
that some of the aggregations have begun to recover since “baseline” period directly following the establishment of MPAs,
enforcement of the reserve, though additional surveys are required whose citizen scientists collectively include high school students,
to confirm this (Cigliano and Kliman, unpubl. data). To provide in- volunteer SCUBA divers, and recreational fishermen. Experiences
formation for the adaptive management of the reserve, all raw and partnering with these programs led to important lessons about the
analyzed data and published and unpublished papers and reports promise and challenge of incorporating citizen science into a larger
have been shared with the Belize Department of Fisheries and monitoring community.
TASTE/SEA. The project team also met regularly with Fisheries and To further explore these lessons systematically, OST staff char-
TASTE/SEA to present and discuss findings from the surveys, which acterized the coastal and marine citizen science capacity in the
led to a modification of the placement of the preservation zone and Central Coast region and engaged all regional projects in a collab-
assisted in the planning of ranger patrols in the reserve. The project orative learning process. This effort was timed to coincide with a
also contributed to capacity building through the co-creation of the transition in the Central Coast from baseline MPA monitoring to a
project with stakeholders (see 3.3 community outcomes toolbox) new long-term monitoring phase, which includes a variety of op-
and through the Earthwatch Fellows program, which provided field portunities for scientists and stakeholders to contribute to the
training for Fisheries officers, TASTE/SEA scientists, and U. Belize design and implementation of monitoring.
Natural Resource Management students. Fisheries officers The research was designed to be a collaborative and open pro-
continued to work with the project team throughout the project cess. The first step was a census of all coastal and marine citizen
and two Natural Resource Management students conducted their science activity in the Central Coast yielding a total of 30 projects.
senior thesis research as part of the project. We also engaged the OST staff then interviewed the program coordinator of each project,
local community in informal and formal discussions about the and, for seven of them, conducted focus groups of heavily involved
project to help maintain support for the reserve. citizen scientists to learn more about participant experiences and
During the project, several “lessons-learned” were identified motivations. A document based on the information from this
that should be applicable to other similar projects: (1) Developing engagement was produced to give ocean resource managers and
the project as a co-created project with the major stakeholders led citizen science programs guidance about the challenge and op-
to early buy-in among stakeholders and helped build trust and portunity of partnering with one another. A workshop for citizen
collaboration between the researchers and stakeholders (see 3.3 science program leaders and managers provided an opportunity for
community outcomes toolbox). Additionally, because stake- feedback on the accuracy and utility of the guidance document.
holders were part of the planning project from the beginning, There are four main themes reflected in the guidance document:
project logistics (e.g., field site accommodations, boat drivers, etc.) (1) one must recognize that citizen science is comprised of many
were established quickly; (2) Because citizen scientists came with a approaches and many kinds of people; citizen science is diverse
wide variety of snorkel and diving experience and general comfort- both in terms of program structure and who participates, (2) suc-
level with being in and on the water, it was necessary to be strategic cessful collaborations are built on mutually beneficial partnerships,
in assigning research tasks as well as having well-planned safety (3) citizen science groups, especially those that exist outside of
procedures in place. It was also necessary to be sensitive to how known institutions of expertise like universities, must find ways to
tasks were assigned so that all citizen scientists felt equally establish and demonstrate credibility. Partners should establish
involved in the project; and (3) Training (started on land and then shared expectations about credibility early in their relationship, (4)
done in the water) and, to a lesser extent, in-field oversight were decisions about partnering with a management audience may have
necessary to ensure accurate data collection. repercussions for program design and vice versa. The decision to
engage with resource managers should not be taken lightly and
2.2. Engaging citizen scientists in marine protected area monitoring should entail carefully planned synergies and tradeoffs with other
in California program priorities. These results are discussed further in the final
version of the guidance document (OST, 2014b).
California has established a network of more than 100 marine This project has both informed the implementation of MPA
protected areas in state waters under the auspices of the Marine monitoring in California, and expanded the network of partners
Life Protection Act, passed in 1999 (MLPA, 1999). Among numerous participating in that process. For the Central Coast of California,
implementation and management concerns for this new network is lessons about citizen science and ocean resource management are
long-term monitoring to inform adaptive management across four directly applied to an updated Central Coast MPA monitoring plan
designated regions. A publiceprivate partnership known as the (OST, 2014a), which was recently adopted as state policy by the
Monitoring Enterprise was established to lead the design and California Fish and Game Commission. Findings will also be applied
implementation of partnerships-based monitoring, which lever- in other regions, where citizen science groups are both contributing
ages the great breadth and depth of scientific work already occur- to and sharing the results of MPA monitoring. This work demon-
ring in California. The Monitoring Enterprise is a program of the strates the strong potential role that citizen science can play in
California Ocean Science Trust (OST), an independent non-profit ocean resource management and provides a tangible first step for
80 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87

partners throughout California to realize that vision.  Communication channels to policy-makers can be established,
especially where the political interests of policy-makers align
3. Toolkits with the advocates;
 Issues previously unknown to or discounted by policy-makers
The toolkits described below are meant to serve as the foun- may gain a higher political profile;
dation for people interested in creating or supporting a link be-  Citizen science programs may be embedded in an organization
tween citizen science and a particular conservation outcome. For that pursues advocacy goals and professionals in the organiza-
example, if a citizen science group is focused on affecting policy, tion can help design citizen science projects that directly inform
they can refer to the policy section that speaks to how best to in- the broader advocacy agenda;
fluence policy change. The essential components of our toolkit  The constituency for the advocacy organization may expand;
include: (1) identifying the challenges in achieving the desired  External advocates may make use of citizen science data
conservation outcome, (2) guidelines and recommendations on without any other connection to the project or organization.
how to best pursue a particular outcome, and (3) identify, if any, the
unique aspects of the marine science context that deserve extra
attention in implementing these guidelines and recommendations. 3.1.2. Co-created/cooperative policy development and
In the future, these toolkits would also benefit from a set of in- implementation
dicators of success to use for program evaluation and a self- Citizen science can respond to a demand for information from
assessment tool to help determine if citizen science is the best managers or policy-makers. In this case the impetus comes from
approach to meet the desired outcome(s). within the system and citizen scientists work in partnership with
the policy-makers and/or managers. This model is especially rele-
3.1. Policy change toolkit vant in the context of data-intensive, systems-based environmental
policies such as ecosystems-based management. To continue the
Policy change can happen in many different ways and there is a plastic bag example from above, a citizen science group might enter
vast array of models and theories that describe this process (e.g., into an agreement with an agency to monitor changes in plastic bag
Lindblom, 1959; Kingdon, 1984; Clark, 2002), and the role that occurrence across a geographic area and generate data about
science (citizen or otherwise) can play in it (e.g., Guston, 1994; compliance patterns that could inform enforcement of the new
Jasanoff et al., 1998; Pielke, 2007; Weible, 2008; Kirchhoff et al., plastic bags ban, or updates to the ordinance in order to improve
2013). IMCC focus group participants identified three important effectiveness. The case study on marine protected area monitoring
modes in which marine citizen science may lead to positive out- in California, discussed above in Section 2.2, is another example of a
comes related to policy change: (1) informed advocacy, (2) co- collaborative approach in which many different partners coordi-
created/cooperative policy change, and (3) policy evaluation. nate to provide monitoring data for adaptive management called
for by state law.
Focus group participants noted that the necessary criteria for
3.1.1. Informed advocacy this model include an established relationship with decision-
Citizen science data and resulting analyses can educate advo- makers, shared expectations around time-frame, transparency in
cates and help them argue effectively for a desired policy outcome. data collection and analysis, a plan for delivering results, involve-
For example, citizen science data about the prevalence of plastic ment of appropriate stakeholders and policy-makers, and an un-
bags in the marine environment could help to inform a campaign to derstanding of existing governance.
establish a ban of plastic bags in grocery store check-out lanes. Focus group participants posited that the following marine
In this mode, citizen science is mobilized as one piece of an conservation outcomes could be achieved through co-created/
argument made in a political venue where the fundamental cooperative policy change:
impediment is often a values-based dispute. While these kinds of
campaigns often rely on scientific data, it is also important to  developing mutual awareness and understanding on the part of
maintain an awareness of the contingent and contested nature of collaborators of policy/management issues and of the need for
science that gets mobilized in this way (Sarewitz, 2004; Pielke, change;
2007). Scientific credibility is extremely important in these cases,  establishing communication channels to policy-makers, which
as political opponents are likely to scrutinize methods, data, and expand opportunities for collaboration;
analyses in great detail. Regardless of credibility, political oppo-  improved management effectiveness, leading to improved
nents are likely to exploit scientific uncertainty to their advantage conservation outcomes; and
(Sarewitz, 2004; Weible, 2008).  changes in policy and management.
Focus group participants identified the following as potential
marine-conservation outcomes that might be achieved through
informed advocacy; these can be considered as recommendations
for future studies on how informed advocacy can affect marine- 3.1.3. Policy evaluation
conservation outcomes: Focus group participants suggested that Citizen science can help
evaluate the effectiveness of a policy that has already been
 Citizen scientists themselves may become more active and legislated and implemented, leading to validation of current policy
effective advocates because of their participation in a citizen or demonstrating a need for policy change. This mode may overlap
science program. In this way, both the data and the learning significantly with either of the two modes described above and it
outcomes synergistically support advocacy; can be done cooperatively with an implementing agency, or to
 More informed advocates may be more likely to push for inform advocacy for or against an existing policy.
change, causing change to occur more quickly (see Toomey and
Domroese (2013) for a discussion on the link between engaging 3.1.4. Policy change categories
in citizen science and future conservation action of citizen All three modes of policy change share several potential out-
scientists); comes, which can be grouped into three general categories:
 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87 81

 Inspiring effective advocacy: By being directly involved in the and attraction to places, facilitated by individual experiences in
process, participants will feel an ownership of the data and those places (Kudryavtsev et al., 2012; Haywood, 2014). Powerful
would more likely be inspired towards advocacy and action. experiences and emotional connections can increase interest and
Moreover, by being part of the process, advocates will be better motivation for engaging in pro-environmental behaviors and ac-
informed and more effective in their advocacy (Toomey and tions to protect individual species and ecosystems (Grob, 1995; Kals
Domroese, 2013). et al., 1999; Cornwell and Campbell, 2011; Kudryavtsev et al., 2012;
 Increasing public awareness of the issue: Because citizen science Hartley et al., 2015).
often includes a broad range of stakeholders, public awareness
of, and involvement in, the issue can be greatly enhanced 3.2.2. Individual behavior change
(McKinley et al. submitted for publication). Focus group attendees agreed that citizen science projects can
 Increasing likelihood of policy change: An additional outcome of serve as an important catalyst to individual behavior change linked
an expanded and more informed constituency is that policy- to environmental stewardship of coastal and marine systems.
makers will see that a significant number of people care about Meaningful engagement can lead to pro-environmental practices
the issue. This can lead to influence across many layers of such as coastal habitat restoration, making sustainable consumer
governance (i.e., local to national). And probably most impor- buying choices, and reduction in the use of harmful materials that
tant, in some cases it can develop effective communication and make their way into the ocean (Cornwell and Campbell, 2011).
trust among advocates, stakeholders, and policy-makers Among adults in particular, citizen science may help inform deci-
(Danielsen et al., 2005). sion making in everyday activities as well as influencing civic
engagement and taking part in local environmental causes
(Fernandez-Gimenez et al., 2008; Cornwell and Campbell, 2011).
3.1.5. Recommendations for implementation Focus group participants also emphasized the role of individuals
To apply this toolkit, focus group participants noted that an who are empowered to protect local resources and habitats, and
understanding of the policy needs, process, and policy context is serve as community leaders to communicate and disseminate in-
important. The process will likely require mobilizing partnerships formation, leading to a shared sense of responsibility, ownership,
and effective communication. Scale matching is an important and co-management of resources among stakeholders (Fernandez-
concern. Does the citizen science project take place at a temporal Gimenez et al., 2008; Nisbet and Kotcher, 2009; Johnson et al.,
and spatial scale that is relevant to the policy problem? The biggest 2014).
challenge to overcome identified by focus group participants is a
lack of trust by policy-makers and opponents in the process and 3.2.3. Science literacy and critical thinking
data. It is critical, therefore, that the relevant partners are included Several of the focus group participants discussed how the
in all aspects of the project, whether the project is initiated by the hands-on and contextual nature of citizen science aligns well with
advocates (informed advocacy) or policy-makers or managers (co- inquiry-based learning, which can encourage rich discussion,
created/cooperative projects), and whether the project is designed student-driven questions and critical thinking (Krasny and Bonney,
to inform development of a policy (informed advocacy or co- 2005; Jordan et al., 2011; Trautmann et al., 2012). Focus group at-
created/cooperative projects) or to evaluate an existing policy tendees commented that children participating in citizen science
(policy evaluation). are motivated by the fact that they can and do contribute to sci-
entific and conservation outcomes. Classrooms also can take
3.2. Educational outcomes toolkit advantage of existing technologies to access and communicate
directly with scientists. When situated within the context of real
Citizen science can result in powerful cross-cultural and multi- world issues, citizen science can be used in schools to increase
generational learning outcomes beyond simple acquisition of science literacy by connecting curricular content to current envi-
content knowledge (Kountoupes and Oberhauser, 2008; Crall et al., ronmental issues. For example, lessons on climate change can be
2013; Phillips et al., 2012). Adults participating in citizen science enhanced through the use of publicly available datasets that pro-
projects are self-selected, often taking part in their free time on vide online tools for anyone to ask and answer their own questions
topics that are of interest to them. Youth citizen science projects and query temporal and geographic comparisons (see Trautmann
occur in formal K-12 environments, as well as informal learning et al., 2013 for examples).
settings such as after school programs and science and nature Focus group attendees also described the unique challenges that
clubs. Although educational outcomes can be diverse, focus group facilitating marine citizen science projects with large groups can
participants identified three general categories specific to citizen present. Whereas terrestrial projects are much more accessible,
science in marine and coastal systems: (1) awareness and inspira- getting groups of students outside to marine environments can be
tion, (2) individual behavior change, and (3) science literacy and fraught with barriers having to do with transportation, group lo-
critical thinking. gistics, water safety, and liability issues in and around water (see 1.1
Challenges for marine and coastal citizen science). In cases where
3.2.1. Awareness and inspiration access to coasts is not possible, leaders/teachers can model marine
Any opportunity to be outdoors is a potential opportunity to be ecosystems and incorporate simple water skills in indoor envi-
inspired and awed by the natural world; this is particularly true for ronments. Also, leaders can take advantage of the many online
marine environments. Emergent research termed “neuro- marine citizen science projects like Seafloor Explorer or WhaleFM,
conservation” has shown that being near oceans can nurture strong which use visual and audio technology respectively, to immerse
emotional connections to water and improve human well-being participants in marine simulations. Another issue brought up dur-
(Nichols, 2014). There was general consensus among focus group ing the focus group is that many leaders do not feel confident in
participants that environmentally-focused citizen-science projects supporting inquiry-based learning. As a first step, leaders need to
get people outdoors, increasing their chances of noticing, understand that not knowing the answer is okay. Additional
observing, appreciating, connecting with nature, and gathering training and resources to facilitate an inquiry-based paradigm are
meaning, as also noted by Louv (2012). These connections are needed, and in schools, efforts to align with curricula, state, and
essential aspects of “sense of place,” i.e., the emotional intensity national standards must be considered.
82 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87

3.2.4. Recommendations for implementation scientists are making observations and collecting data using the
Focus group participants suggested several recommendations same protocol, can increase trust and reduce conflict around
for maximizing the educational potential of citizen science across resource management. In fact, the planning meetings, trainings,
diverse audiences. Within formal school settings, providing real data collection efforts, and analysis discussions can provide a focus
world contexts and problems are key (see Bouillion and Gomez, and structure for collaboration around a common issue of concern
2001; Trautmann et al., 2013) and students should understand and inspire feelings of collective ownership of a conservation issue
why they are participating and how the data are being used. or natural resource, often in ways that more top-down monitoring
Whenever possible, teachers should strive for long term exposure programs cannot.
and immersive outdoor experiences where students are engaged in
activities that help to demystify science (Kountoupes and 3.3.2. Integration of multiple knowledge sources
Oberhauser, 2008) and demonstrate the process of science, con- A key way that participants in the focus group saw citizen sci-
tent, and context within the ecosystem (Jordan et al., 2011). When ence contributing to community conservation outcomes is through
accessing the outdoors is not possible, teachers can capitalize on the inclusion of local and traditional ecological knowledge in
technology and social media to bring the outdoors in, connect with monitoring and research. Not only can integration of multiple
scientists, and make science more accessible to students through sources of ecological knowledge expand the information from
the many virtual projects that exist (Wiggins and Crowston, 2011). which conservation decisions are made, but it has been shown to
There is widespread consensus that outside of schools, improve a community's capacity to deal with environmental
empowering people to be stewards of the natural environment changes and threats (Donoghue and Sturtevant, 2007). Further,
must begin well before adulthood (Wells and Lekies, 2012). Opti- participants explained that when collaborative monitoring is
mally, citizen science projects should aim to provide rich emotional incorporated as a public activity that is an inherent part of local
connections and expose children to marine systems as often and as natural resource management, it can improve social and ecosystem
young as possible. Projects must also understand their target resilience through social and adaptive learning, which can lead to
audience and how best to expose individuals to marine environ- the shortening of feedback loops between stakeholders and man-
ments, keeping things such as age, geographic accessibility, and agement actions (Tidball and Krasny, 2012; Spellman, 2014). Par-
cultural barriers in mind. For projects interested in promoting ticipants also pointed out that citizen science provides a means
behavior change, mounting evidence suggests that simply through which local stakeholders can participate and have a voice
providing education and outreach is not enough for sustained pro- in natural resource monitoring and decision-making that might
environmental behaviors (Hungerford and Volk, 1990; Schultz, otherwise exclude them.
2011). Instead, practitioners may wish to consider social market-
ing campaigns to influence behavior change. Social marketing 3.3.3. Challenges to building community capacity
works by first identifying a target behavior for a specific audience, Focus group participants also identified several challenges that
then understanding the barriers to the target behavior, and then are not unique to marine and coastal citizen science, but are
determining whether adequate resources exist to overcome those nevertheless important to overcome in any efforts to build
barriers (McKenzie-Mohr, 2000). Andriamalala et al. (2013) suc- community-capacity to address conservation problems. Commu-
cessfully used social marketing techniques to not only increase nities are not often monolithic and can include many factions and
local knowledge about destructive fishing practices in Madagascar, sectors of society (Agrawal and Gibson, 2001), and citizen science
they also showed a decrease in harmful beach seine net practices efforts may actually bring to the surface conflicts between stake-
and an increase in enforcement of local fishing laws. Finally, pro- holder groups if all are not engaged equitably and respectfully in
jects should seek out and leverage local sources of credible the project (Long et al. in press). Further, it was also pointed out that
knowledge that serve as community organizers or opinion leaders community members who may have interest and local ecological
and may have the greatest influence on local conservation efforts knowledge to contribute to a citizen science project may have time
and cumulative impact (Bird et al., 2003; Cooper et al., 2007; and other constraints that make it difficult to participate; often
Johnson et al., 2014). projects may involve only people who have the time and means to
volunteer. In these cases, special effort to include people from
3.3. Community outcomes toolbox across the whole community can truly pay off in building trust in
the project and capacity for future community projects (Long et al.
Groups of people participating in citizen science projects in press).
collectively in a local area can result in an overall increase in the
community's capacity to address conservation problems (e.g., 3.3.4. Recommendations for implementation
Aceves-Bueno et al., 2015). These community-level outcomes often Focus group participants offered several key recommendations
occur as a result of collaborative monitoring that involves ongoing for practitioners hoping to build community capacity through cit-
collaborative meetings, and is intertwined with community-based izen science projects. The most basic recommendation is to start
marine resource management (Ostrom et al., 2002). Community small. Rather than tackling a large and complex project, start with
capacity-building for conservation can also occur when citizen smaller projects or “quick wins” that can be a gateway to greater
scientists collectively mobilize for action, moving from data involvement that address larger community conservation issues
collection to organizing around an issue, e.g., from cleaning up and increase the likelihood that the project will be successful.
trash on the beach to actively patrolling rookeries (Overdevest Another way to increase the likelihood that a project will be suc-
et al., 2004; Ballard et al., 2012). Focus group participants identi- cessful is to build trust among and with local stakeholders. This
fied two overall community capacity outcomes from citizen science requires identifying and engaging with local leaders, both formal
in marine and coastal systems: (1) foundations for collaboration and informal, as well as learning about local concerns that may
and (2) integration of multiple knowledge sources. relate to the conservation issue targeted by the citizen science
project. Be targeted and thoughtful about who to involve in the
3.3.1. Foundations for collaboration project, particularly under-represented groups, so that many sec-
Several focus group participants pointed out that the very act of tors and participant groups may engage and have a stake in the
conducting fieldwork together, where community members and project and the issue. It is also critical to develop long-term goals
 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87 83

and systems to ensure continued engagement and ownership by 3.4.1. Provide long-term data to address management needs
the community members. These should be developed and main- Focus group participants noted that citizen science projects have
tained from the earliest stages of the project. the capacity to provide long-term, spatial-data (including baseline)
To build capacity, participants suggested that it is important to that is not ordinarily available for site management, which can be
partner with organizations from other sectors of the community used to address gaps in information needed for proper manage-
such as fisher organizations, non-government organizations, diving ment. The California MPA case study above (Section 2.2) is an
and recreational groups, and the fishing and eco-tourism in- example of a long-term, site-based ocean resources management
dustries. Citizen science projects can also encourage bottom-up project where citizen science is providing valuable information for
management by providing training for local people to not only marine management alongside other projects. Other examples
participate in the project but also develop livelihood skills, include the Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team
including field data collection, fishing guiding and work at dive (COASST), Long-term Monitoring Program and Experiential
centers, naturalist and tourism guiding, and enforcement in pro- Training for Students (LiMPETS), Beach Watch, and REEF (Reef
tected areas. This reciprocity can impact the sustainability of the Environmental Education Foundation). COASST, a program of the
citizen science project as well as the resource management. University of Washington, has been engaging state, tribal and fed-
Collaboratively defining the objectives of the citizen science proj- eral agencies, environmental organizations, and community groups
ect, if possible, can also significantly build capacity; data collection since 1998 to monitor seabirds along the coast of California, Oregon,
is often the limit of many people's participation in a citizen science Washington, and Alaska (depts.washington.edu/coasst/what/
project, but having a role in the design of the project can also create vision.html). LiMPETS has been using students and adult volun-
feelings of ownership and increase community capacity to create teers since 2001 to monitor rocky intertidal and sandy beach
new projects to address future conservation concerns. habitats in California's National Marine Sanctuaries (http://limpets.
To build trust and capacity among stakeholders, several focus org/, Osborn et al., 2005). Beach Watch, started by the Gulf of the
group participants attested that an effective mechanism is partici- Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, has been using citizen sci-
patory workshops that bring together the various stakeholders in entists since 1993 to survey the shoreline of the north-central
the marine resource to be monitored, such as fishers, resource California to provide early detection of environmental perturba-
managers, NGO staff, and tourism workers (see also 2.1 queen tions, including epizootic outbreaks, El Nineo-Southern Oscillation
conch case study). These workshops can also develop shared un- (ENSO) events, and oil spills, as well as provide a network of citizen
derstanding of ecosystems, build conceptual models to identify scientists who can respond to oil spills (http://www.farallones.org/
targets species and threats, develop novel strategies, and lead to volunteer/beach_watch_2.php, Roletto et al., 2003). REEF has been
new research questions that citizen science projects can help conducting reef fish surveys using divers and snorkelers since 1993
answer. (http://www.reef.org, Pattengill-Semmens and Semmens, 2003).
Finally, participants pointed out that it is important to share By conducting long-term surveys, these projects fill gaps in data
information with stakeholders and ensure data accessibility, and information needed for effective site management (Aceves-
especially if the goal is for community members to maintain the Bueno et al., 2015). For example, data collected by REEF citizen
project into the future. For example, a focus group participant scientists were used to provide missing science-based data needed
described her own experience with a fisher community in a South to determine whether Atlantic goliath grouper (Epinephelus itajara)
American community-based monitoring project that had to wait a populations in the southeastern United States were recovering as
year for the NGO to provide feedback about the data and results; suspected based on anecdotal evidence (Koenig et al., 2011). It was
the participants lost interest and commitment and abandoned the found that after a fishery closure was enacted in 1990 there was a
project. Therefore it's important to include results sharing with rapid population increase in juvenile groupers in the dominant
participants as part of the project design, which can be designed as nursery habitat (Ten Thousand Islands area of Florida) but slow
a social event so that people talk about and become excited to share recovery in other areas of the southeastern US. COASST, as part of a
the results of the citizen science project with each other and multi-organization effort, provided data for a study of entangle-
outside the community. ment by marine debris of seabirds and marine mammals from 2001
to 2005 (Moore et al., 2009).
3.4. Site Management outcomes toolkit
3.4.2. Improve rapid response to and detection of episodic or
Citizen science can be an especially effective tool for site man- stochastic events
agement because of the need to monitor species and habitats over Because citizen science allows for increasing the spatial and
the long-term and often over a large area (Aceves-Bueno et al., temporal scope of projects (see 2.1 queen conch case study; Miller-
2015). Using citizen scientists can help expand the temporal and Rushing et al., 2012; Ward et al., 2015), focus group participants
spatial scale of monitoring studies (Miller-Rushing et al., 2012; pointed out that the probability of identifying and responding to
Ward et al., 2015) especially if the site managers have limited re- episodic or stochastic events can be increased. For example,
sources. The queen conch case study discussed in Section 2.1 is an Scyphers et al. (2014) compared observations of the invasive Indo-
example of this; the spatial and temporal scope of that study would Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans/miles) in the northern Gulf of
not have been possible without citizen scientists given the level of Mexico by citizen scientists to observations made during traditional
resources available to the reserve managers (Cigliano and Kliman, reef fish monitoring from the earliest reports to 2012 and found
2014). Community-based citizen science monitoring programs that citizen scientists reported the presence of lionfish 1e2 years
can also lead to more rapid and more sustainable actions earlier and more frequently than did traditional reef fish moni-
(Danielsen et al., 2005). toring programs. Data from Beach Watch surveys were used to
The focus group participants identified several key themes and determine the impact of oil pollution on bird mortality from a
advantages related to working with citizen scientists to assist with sunken vessel and from spills from working vessels, as well as a
site management. Citizen scientists may: (1) provide long-term negative effect on bird reproduction from ENSO (Roletto et al.,
data that address management needs, (2) improve rapid response 2003). Bird Watch also provided data on bird mortality following
to and detection of episodic or stochastic events, and (3) enhance the M/V Cosco Busan oil spill, which occurred in 2007 (NOAA,
the sustainability of monitoring, and overall management of sites. 2013).
84 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87

3.4.3. Enhanced sustainability of monitoring and management of endangered species listings (Ward-Paige and Lotze, 2011).
sites Furthermore, data collected through local monitoring programs
Focus group participants also suggested that citizen-science often lead to more rapid and sustainable actions (Danielsen et al.,
based site management programs could be more sustainable 2005).
because the program would not necessarily be attached to a specific
project or funding stream (e.g., COASST). And by including citizen 3.5.2. Galvanizing support
scientists, the program could encourage ownership and better Focus group participants also suggested that citizen scientists
stewardship of a site, while building community (see 3.3 commu- might galvanize support for a particular species or set of manage-
nity outcomes toolbox). Focus group participants also suggested ment actions by their participation in a citizen science program.
that such a program could encourage broad awareness of the need The program can directly raise awareness of both the citizen sci-
for management (see 3.2 educational outcomes toolbox) and entists and managers through their visible community activities.
“soften” the top-down nature of management while improving The program might inspire citizen scientists to participate in more
community relationships with managers (see 3.3 community out- stewardship or advocacy activities (Danielsen et al., 2005; Toomey
comes toolbox), and possibly lead to self-enforcement of a reserve. and Domroese, 2013) and to directly aid with compliance and
enforcement (Danielsen et al., 2005). Citizen scientists may directly
3.4.4. Recommendations for implementation ask for action by resource management agencies or otherwise
To assist in the successful site management, focus group par- facilitate communication between stakeholders and managers
ticipants identified several recommendations. First, methods must (Danielsen et al., 2005). Focus on a particular species might also
be consistent and standardized over time and space to ensure that change people's perception of it or change the economic incentives
managers collect usable data that can be comparable to other around species management. All of these outcomes depend upon a
studies. Researchers also need to connect and work with managers citizen science program promoting a personal connection (see 3.2
from the earliest stages of project design and implementation so educational toolbox) with a particular species.
that managers “buy-in” to the project and to provide capacity-
building opportunities for managers (see 2.1 queen conch case 3.5.3. Recommendations for implementation
study; 3.3 Community Outcomes Toolbox). This will also allow re- The species management outcome relies on two key aspects of
searchers to understand the needs of managers, not just in terms of citizen science: the ability to collect data in more places and times
data and information, but also in the form and process by which and the personal connection to a particular species. Focus group
those resources can be of use. Finally, projects also need to be at the participants recognized that species management is a prominent
appropriate scale: a global citizen science program may not be able regulatory approach with a long history, but now widely seen as
to focus on specific local or regional management regimes without inadequate for addressing ecosystem-based management goals
a separate effort. On the flip side, a small community effort may not (Zhou et al., 2009). In order to increase the likelihood that species
be helpful for managers operating at the regional level. management is a successful outcome of citizen science, the focus
group participants suggested that the following intermediate steps
3.5. Species management outcomes toolkit be met and that these should be defined or planned out before the
program begins:
Conservation citizen scientists rally around iconic species often
termed ‘charismatic megafauna’ (Sodhi and Erllich, 2010), a trend  Transparency in the citizen science program: make clear how
that carries over into citizen science. Many established citizen sci- data quality will be validated, such as volunteer training or
ence programs, including those represented in the focus group, quality assurance protocols;
focused on a single species or suite of related species. These pro-  Adequate data collection tools: data collection tools should
grams often used the species status to argue for habitat conserva- allow easy recording in the field and include easily under-
tion (Mueller et al., 2012) or as a sentinel species indicating broader standable summary results for end users of the information;
ecosystem status (Porte et al., 2006). In shallow areas, many species  Analyst and point of contact: the citizen science program staff
are charismatic even if they don't fit the usual standards of cute and should include a designated point of contact, who may also be
furry (Shackeroff, 2008). Focus group participants identified two the data analyst, to explain the results and the analytical process
main pathways for improving species management through citizen to managers if asked; this person provides a human face for the
science: (1) aiding existing species management infrastructure and program;
(2) galvanizing support among a stakeholder community to in-  Relevant managers: create an ongoing, open relationship with
crease species management protections. relevant managers (possibly not all managers that deal with a
given species) so that when questions arise, there's a trusted
3.5.1. Aiding existing species management infrastructure relationship to rely upon.
Focus group participants suggested that citizen science has the
potential to increase the available information on which to base 3.6. Research outcomes toolkit
species management decisions. For example, citizens can gather
data in areas that would otherwise be difficult or impossible, such A key conservation outcome of citizen science projects is for
as on private land, over large spatial and temporal scales (Miller- research to inform natural resource management and decision-
Rushing et al., 2012), and at high frequency (e.g., 2.1 queen conch making, which inherently relies on credible data and analysis that
case study). This capability allows citizen science to detect changes researchers and managers can trust and use (McKinley et al.
more quickly than traditional science, for example with invasive submitted for publication). While the toolkits discussed above
species (Gallo and Waitt, 2011), disease spread (LaDeau et al., 2007; focus on directly informing a variety of outcomes and processes
Crowl et al., 2008), or changing climate (Parmesan et al., 1999; related to natural resource management and conservation, focus
Hurlbert and Liang, 2012; see 3.4.2 Improve rapid response to group participants suggested that there is also the possibility for
and detection of episodic or stochastic events). Citizen science citizen science approaches to enhance traditional academic
projects can directly support data gathering for species assess- research, thus indirectly improving its effectiveness in linking with
ments such as fishery stock assessments or for data deficient outcomes beyond the science.
 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87 85

There is a wide range of research topics that can be addressed adequately train citizen scientists (Gallo and Waitt, 2011) and for
using citizen science (Dickinson et al., 2010) including: (1) species researchers to be realistic in their expectations of their volunteers
range shifts, (2) phenology, (3) effects of habitat loss and frag- (Danielsen et al., 2005).
mentation on biodiversity, (4) detection and tracking of infectious Focus group participants also suggested that it is critical to
diseases, (5) distribution of invasive species, and (6) monitoring decide who the data collection participants are going to be before
effects of bio-contaminants. starting the project and to consider the following: (1) Who has the
Focus group participants identified a broad set of ways in which ability to collect the kind of data needed for the project; (2) What
citizen science can improve research outcomes: (1) quality and kind of training is required for accurate data collection; (3) What
effectiveness of science; (2) programmatic innovation; and (3) kind of supervision is necessary for accurate data collection; (4)
accessibility and participation. What kind of participants are most effective to engage in this
project; (5) What, if any, education and outreach goals, do you have
3.6.1. Quality and effectiveness of science as a part of your research that might help decide the ideal partic-
As discussed above, citizen science allows for better spatial and ipant to engage? Focus group participants also emphasized that it is
temporal coverage over a study area (see 3.4 site management important for researchers to be sensitive to cultural differences
outcomes toolkit), and can generate large amounts of high quality between themselves and their volunteers.
data (Delaney et al., 2008; Bonney et al., 2009; Aceves-Bueno et al., After deciding on the target volunteer pool, focus group par-
2015), very cost-effectively (Aceves-Bueno et al., 2015). Focus group ticipants suggested that it is critical to have a well-developed plan
participants suggested that broad involvement can also help to for how to recruit, manage, and communicate with citizen scien-
make the case for research. For example, a greater participation tists over the course of the project, as well as having clear research
base can increase the potential for fundraising, and thus feed into objectives, program goals and expectations for participants.
the overall quality of the research effort. Another point of emphasis identified by focus group participants is
that it is important to remember that citizen scientists are not paid
3.6.2. Programmatic innovation so that researchers will need to be clear about what the time
Focus group participants also noted that involving citizen sci- commitment will be for the citizen scientists and that the citizen
ence in a larger research effort requires flexibility and creativity scientists will require training and guidance, which will possibly
around program design. While this can be a challenge, it's also an increase time commitment and cost for the research group.
opportunity to explore creative approaches to methods, analysis, Furthermore, the research staff might require training, as well, on
collaboration, and communication. Participants in citizen science how to work with and manage citizen scientists.
are all potential innovators when it comes to collection methods Focus group participants also identified the need to communi-
and analytical approaches. Participants also have the potential to cate the results regularly with the citizen scientists and the local
identify new research questions that were not initially part of the community. Regular and open communication can increase the
program based on their participation and the data trends they effectiveness and sustainability of the research project (Danielsen
observe. et al., 2005).

3.6.3. Accessibility and participation 4. Conclusion

Focus group participants noted that citizen science can have
benefits for the participants in terms of education and empower- The oceans and coasts are in peril and we must use the full range
ment (see 3.4 2 educational outcomes toolkit). The focus group of resources to effect positive change. Citizen science is one such
participants identified two important potential outcomes: tool that has been underutilized (Roy et al., 2012; Theobald et al.,
“demystifying” science for the public while connecting scientists to 2015). One clear outcome of the combined symposium and focus
the community and recruiting future scientists. But scientists can group that we held at the 3rd International Congress for Marine
also learn about effective communication and collaboration in ways Conservation is that there are unique challenges and great potential
that improve their work. In other words, citizen science can temper in using citizen science to advance marine and coastal conserva-
the “elitist” nature of science which can then open doors for tion. In organizing our activity around distinct conservation out-
broader stakeholder involvement and an engaged, informed voting comes that a citizen science program might address, we have
public. emphasized the point that there are many different ways that cit-
izen science can effect such change, and that a program should
3.6.4. Recommendations for implementation reflect carefully on these choices. However, it is also clear that a
Focus group participants suggested several recommendations program can work toward multiple goals, and that there is strong
that should be considered when targeting strong conservation overlap across some of them in terms of strategies and best prac-
research outcomes through citizen science. Many of these recom- tices. For example, working with decision makers in policy and
mendations are simply consistent with good research design management may take different forms for species management vs.
practices, but are at risk of being neglected when a citizen science site management, but many of the recommendations for those two
project is designed with a variety of competing goals. areas are the same. The toolkits that we have developed should
To ensure that the data collected meet the needs of the research help stakeholders, policy-makers, educators, conservation practi-
project, research groups need to develop the research protocol, tioners, and researchers who wish to develop a marine or coastal
volunteer training program, and a QA/QC plan before starting the citizen science program. We also hope that the insights and rec-
project; researchers could modify procedures developed in similar ommendations that came out of our discussions will stimulate
projects or develop a plan of their own (Danielsen et al., 2005). further research on and assessment of marine and coastal citizen
Once a QA/QC plan is developed it is advisable to test it with the science programs.
project participants to ensure that the protocols match the abilities
of the participants and that the data meet the desired quality Acknowledgments
standard (e.g., accepted level of accuracy of identifying correct
species by citizen scientists) and to continually monitor and vali- We would like to the participants of the symposium and focus
date data quality (Danielsen et al., 2005). It is also critical to groups. Their dedication to and knowledge of marine and coastal
86 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87

conservation and to citizen science made this paper possible. JAC Allison Commission, 1884e1886. Minerva 32, 25e52.
Hartley, B.L., Thompson, R.C., Pahl, S., 2015. Marine litter education boosts children's
would like to thank Earthwatch International for funding and the
understanding and self-reported actions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 90 (1e2), 209e217.
amazing Earthwatch citizen scientists for their help. We would also Haywood, B.K., 2014. A “sense of place” in public participation in scientific research.
like to acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers for the helpful Sci. Educ. 98 (1), 64e83.
comments, which greatly improved the manuscript. Hidalgo-Ruza, V., Thiel, M., 2013. Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris
on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study supported by a citizen science
project. Mar. Environ. Res. 87e88, 12e18.
Hungerford, H.R., Volk, T.L., 1990. Changing learner behavior through environ-
References mental education. J. Environ. Educ. 21 (3), 8e21.
Hurlbert, A.H., Liang, Z., 2012. Spatiotemporal variation in avian migration
Aceves-Bueno, E., Adeleye, A., Bradley, D., Brandt, W.T., Callery, P., Feraud, M., phenology: citizen science reveals effects of climate change. PLoS One 7 (2),
Garner, K.L., Gentry, R., Huang, Y., McCullough, I., Pearlman, I., Sutherland, S.A., e31662.
Wilkinson, W., Yang, Y., Zink, T., Anderson, S.E., Tague, C., 2015. Citizen science Jasanoff, S.E., Wynne, B., Buttel, F., Charvolin, F., Edwards, P.N., Elzinga, A., Haas, P.,
as an approach for overcoming insufficient monitoring and inadequate stake- Kwa, C.L., Lambright, W.H., Lynch, M., Miller, C.A., 1998. Science and decision
holder buy-in in adaptive management: criteria and evidence. Ecosystems. making. In: Rayner, S., Malone, E.L. (Eds.), Human Choice & Climate Change, The
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9842-4. Societal Framework, vol. 1. Battelle Press, Ohio, pp. 1e87.
Agrawal, A., Gibson, C.C. (Eds.), 2001. Communities and the Environment: Ethnicity, Johnson, M., Hannah, C., Acton, L., Popovici, R., Karanth, K.K., Weinthal, E., 2014.
Gender and the State in Community-based Conservation. Rutgers University Network environmentalism: citizen scientists as agents for environmental
Press, New Brunswick, NJ. advocacy. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 235e245.
Andriamalala, G., Peabody, S., Gardner, C.J., Westerman, K., 2013. Using social Jordan, R.C., Gray, S.A., Howe, D.V., Brooks, W.R., Ehrenfeld, J.G., 2011. Knowledge
marketing to foster sustainable behaviour in traditional fishing communities of gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conserv. Biol. 25,
southwest Madagascar. Conserv. Evid. 10, 37e41. 1148e1154.
Ballard, H.L., Dixon, C., Evans, E., 2012. Proceedings of the California Biodiversity Kals, E., Schumacher, D., Montada, L., 1999. Emotional affinity toward nature as a
Citizen Science Meetings. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA. motivational basis to protect nature. Environ. Behav. 31 (2), 178e202.
Bird, K.E., Nichols, W.J., Tambiah, C.R., 2003. The value of local knowledge in sea Kapos, V., Balmford, A., Aveling, R., Bubb, P., Carey, P., Entwistle, A., Hopkins, J.,
turtle conservation: a case from Baja California, Mexico. In: Haggan, N.C., Mulliken, T., Safford, R., Stattersfield, A., Walpole, M., Manica, A., 2009. Out-
Wood, L. (Eds.), Putting Fishers' Knowledge to Work: Conference Proceedings, comes, not implementation, predict conservation success. Oryx 43 (3),
Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol. 11(1). Fisheries Centre, University of 336e342.
British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 178e183. Kingdon, J.W., 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little Brown, Boston.
Bonney, R., Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K.V., Shirk, J., Kirchhoff, C.J., Carmen Lemos, M., Dessai, S., 2013. Actionable knowledge for envi-
2009. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and ronmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu.
scientific literacy. Bioscience 59, 977e984. Rev. Energy Environ. 38, 393e414.
Bonney, R., Shirk, J.L., Phillips, T.B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H.L., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Koenig, C.C., Coleman, F.C., Kingon, K., 2011. Recovery of the Goliath Grouper (Epi-
Parrish, J.K., 2014. Next steps for citizen science. Science 243, 1427e1436. nephelus itajara) population of the Southeastern U.S. Bull. Mar. Sci. 87 (4),
Bouillion, L.M., Gomez, L.M., 2001. Connecting school and community with science 891e911(21).
learning: real world problems and school-community partnerships as contex- Kountoupes, D.L., Oberhauser, K.S., 2008. Citizen science and youth audiences:
tual scaffolds. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 38 (8), 878e898. educational outcomes of the Monarch Lava Monitoring Project. J. Community
Cho, L., 2005. Marine protected areas: a tool for integrated coastal management in Engagem. Scholarsh. 1 (1), 10e20.
Belize. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48, 932e947. Krasny, M., Bonney, R., 2005. Environmental education through citizen science and
Cigliano, J.A., Kliman, R.M., 2014. Density, age structure, and length of queen conch participatory action research. In: Johnson, E.A., Mappin, M.J. (Eds.), Environ-
(Strombus gigas) in shallow-water aggregations in the Sapodilla Cayes Marine mental Education or Advocacy: Perspectives of Ecology and Education in
Reserve, Belize. Caribb. J. Sci. 48 (1), 18e30. Environmental Education. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA,
Clark, T.W., 2002. The Policy Process: a Practical Guide for Natural Resources Pro- pp. 292e319.
fessionals. Yale University Press. Kudryavtsev, A., Krasny, M.E., Stedman, R., 2012. The impact of environmental ed-
Conrad, C.C., Hilchey, K.G., 2011. A review of citizen science and community-based ucation on sense of place among urban youth. Ecosphere 3 (4), 1e15.
environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. LaDeau, S.L., Kilpatrick, A.M., Marra, P.P., 2007. West Nile virus emergence and large-
176, 273e291. scale declines of North American bird populations. Nature 447, 710eU13.
Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., Bonney, R., 2007. Citizen science as a tool for Lindblom, C.E., 1959. The science of muddling through. Public Adm. Rev. 19, 79.
conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecol. Soc. 12 (2), 11. http://www. Long, J., Ballard, H.L., Fisher, L., Belsky, J., 2015. The questions that won't go away in
ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/. participatory action research. Soc. Nat. Resour. (in press).
Cornwell, M.L., Campbell, L.M., 2011. Co-producing conservation and knowledge: Louv, R., 2012. In: Dickinson, J.L., Bonney, R. (Eds.), Foreward in Citizen Science:
citizen-based sea turtle monitoring in North Carolina, USA. Soc. Stud. Sci. 42 (1), Public Collaboration in Environmental Research. Cornell University Press,
101e120. Ithaca, NY.
CORSA, 2000. California Ocean Resources Stewardship Act. McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000. Promoting sustainable behavior: an introduction to
Crall, A.W., Jordan, R., Holfelder, K., Newman, G.J., Graham, J., Waller, D.M., 2013. The community-based social marketing. J. Soc. Issues 56, 543e554.
impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant McKinley, D.C., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Ballard, H.L., Bonney, R.E., Brown, H.,
attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Underst. Sci. 22 (6), 745e764. Evans, D.M., French, R.A., Parrish, J.K., Phillips, T.B., Ryan, S.F., Shanley, L.A.,
Crowl, T.A., Crist, T.O., Parmenter, R.R., Belovsky, G., Lugo, A.E., 2008. The spread of Shirk, J.L., Stepenuck, K.F., Weltzin, J.F., Wiggins, A., Boyle, O.D., Briggs, R.D.,
invasive species and infectious disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Front. Chapin III, S.F., Hewitt, D.A., Preuss, P.W., Soukup, M.A., 2015. Can investing in
Ecol. Environ. 6 (5), 238e246. citizen science improve natural resource management and environmental
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Balmford, A., 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the protection? Issues Ecol. (in press).
potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 2507e2542. Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., Bonney, R., 2012. The history of public participation
Danielsen, F., Pirhofer-Walz, K., Adrian, T.P., Kapijimpanga, D.R., Burgess, N.D., in ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10 (6), 285e290.
Jensen, P.M., Bonney, R., Funder, M., Landa, A., Levermann, N., Madsen, J., 2013. MLPA, 1999. California Marine Life Protection Act.
Linking public participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of Moore, E., Lyday, S., Roletto, J., Litle, K., Parrish, J.K., Nevins, H., Harvey, J.,
international environmental agreements. Conserv. Lett. 7 (1), 12e24. Mortenson, J., Greig, D., Hermance, A., Lee, D., Adams, D., Allen, S., Kell, S.,
Delaney, D.G., Sperling, C.D., Adams, C.C., Leung, B., 2008. Marine invasive species: Piazza, M., 2009. Entanglements of marine mammals and seabirds in central
validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. California and the north-west coast of the United States 2001e2005. Mar.
Biol. Invasions 10 (1), 117e128. Pollut. Bull. 58 (7), 1045e1051.
Dickinson, J., Zuckerberg, B., Bonter, D., 2010. Citizen science as an ecological Mueller, M.P., Tippins, D., Bryan, L., 2012. The future of citizen science. Democr.
research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 41, 149e172. Educ. 20 (1), 1e17.
Donoghue, E.M., Sturtevant, V.E., 2007. Social science constructs in ecosystem as- Nichols, W.J., 2014. Blue Mind: the Surprising Science that Shows How Being Near,
sessments: revisiting community capacity and community resiliency. Soc. Nat. in, on, or Under Water Can Make You Happier, Healthier, More Connected, and
Resour. 20, 899e912. Better at What You Do. Little, Brown and Company, New York, NY.
FAO, 2012. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012, p. 209. Rome. Nisbet, M.C., Kotcher, J.E., 2009. A two-step flow of influence? Opinion leader
Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., Ballard, H.L., Sturtevant, V.E., 2008. Adaptive manage- campaigns on climate change. Sci. Commun. 30, 328e354.
ment and social learning in collaborative and community-based monitoring: a NOAA, 2013. Superintendent's 2nd Quarter FY2013 Report. http://farallones.noaa.
study of five community-based forestry organizations in the western USA. Ecol. gov/manage/pdf/sac/13_05/2ndQuartFY2013SuperReportFINAL.pdf.
Soc. 13 (2), 4. Osborn, D.A., Pearse, J.S., Roe, C.A., 2005. Monitoring rocky intertidal shorelines: a
Gallo, T., Waitt, D., 2011. Creating a successful citizen science model to detect and role for the public in resource management. In: Magoon, O.T., Converse, H.,
report invasive species. Bioscience 61, 459e465. Baird, B., Jines, B., Miller-Henson, M. (Eds.), California and the World Ocean ‘02,
Grob, A., 1995. A structural model of environmental attitudes and behavior. Conf. Proc. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 624e636.
J. Environ. Psychol. 15, 209e220. OST, 2014a. Central Coast MPA Monitoring Plan. Oakland, CA.
Guston, D.H., 1994. Congressmen and scientists in the making of science policy: the OST, 2014b. Citizen Science & Ocean Resource Management in California: Guidance
 J.A. Cigliano et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 77e87 87

for Forming Productive Partnerships. Oakland, CA. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design.
Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S., Weber, E.U., 2002. The Drama Ecol. Soc. 17 (2), 29. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229.
of the Commons. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Smith, S.D.A., Edgar, R.J., 2014. Documenting the density of subtidal marine debris
Overdevest, C., Orr, C.H., Stepenuck, K., 2004. Volunteer stream monitoring and across multiple marine and coastal habitats. PLoS One 9 (4), e94593. http://
local participation in natural resource issues. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 11, 177e185. dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094593.
Parmesan, C., Ryrholm, N., Stefanescu, C., Hill, J., Thomas, C., Descimon, H., Sodhi, N.S., Erllich, P.R., 2010. Conservation Biology for All. Oxford University Press,
Huntley, B., Kaila, L., Kullberg, J., Tammaru, T., et al., 1999. Poleward shifts in Oxford, UK.
geographical ranges of butterfly species associated with regional warming. Spellman, K., 2014. Educating for resilience in the North: building a toolbox for
Nature 399, 579e583. teachers. Ecol. Soc. 20 (1), 46. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/
Pattengill-Semmens, C., Semmens, B., 2003. Conservation and management appli- art46/.
cations of the REEF volunteer fish monitoring program. Environ. Monit. Assess. Stoner, A.W., 1997. Status of queen conch research in the Caribbean. In: Posada, J.M.,
81, 43e50. Garcia- Moliner, G. (Eds.), International Queen Conch Conference. Caribbean
rez, J., 1997. Status of queen conch, Strombus gigas, in Belize. In: Posada, J.M.,
Pe Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico, pp. 22e39.
Garcia- Moliner, G. (Eds.), International Queen Conch Conference. Caribbean Theile, S., 2001. Queen Conch Fisheries and Their Management in the Caribbean.
Fishery Management Council, San Juan, Puerto Rico, pp. 84e85. TRAFFIC Europe.
Phillips, T.B., Bonney, R., Shirk, J., 2012. What is our impact? Toward a unified Theobald, E.J., Ettinger, A.K., Burgess, H.K., DeBey, L.B., Schmidt, N.R., Froehlich, H.E.,
framework for evaluating impacts of citizen science. In: Dickinson, J.L., Wagner, C., HilleRisLambers, J., Tewksbury, J., Harsch, M.A., Parrish, J.K., 2015.
Bonney, R. (Eds.), Citizen Science: Public Collaboration in Environmental Global change and local solutions: tapping the unrealized potential of citizen
Research. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. science for biodiversity research. Biol. Conserv. 181, 236e244.
Pielke Jr., R.A., 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Tidball, K.G., Krasny, M.E., 2012. A role for citizen science in disaster and conflict
Politics. Cambridge University Press. recovery and resilience. In: Dickinson, J.L., Bonney, R. (Eds.), Citizen Science:
Pietri, D., McAfee, S., Mace, A., Knight, E., Rogers, L., Chornesky, E., 2011. Using Public Participation in Environmental Research. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
science to inform controversial issues: a case study from the California Ocean New York, USA, pp. 226e234.
Science Trust. Coast. Manag. 39, 296e316. Toomey, A.H., Domroese, M.C., 2013. Can citizen science lead to positive conser-
Porte, C., Janer, G., Lorusso, L., Ortiz-Zarragoitia, M., Cajaraville, M.P., Fossi, M.C., vation attitudes and behaviors? Hum. Ecol. Rev. 20 (1), 50e62.
Canesi, L., 2006. Endocrine disruptors in marine organisms: approaches and Trautmann, N.M., Fee, J., Shirk, J., 2012. Who poses the question? In: Dickinson, J.L.,
perspectives. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 143 (3), 303e315. Bonney, R. (Eds.), Using Citizen Science to Help K-12 Teachers Meet the
Posada, J.M., Mateo, I., Nemeth, M., 1999. Occurrence, abundance, and length fre- Mandate for Inquiry in Citizen Science: Public Collaboration in Environmental
quency distribution of queen conch, Strombus gigas (gastropoda) in shallow Research. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
waters of the Jaragua National Park, Dominican Republic. Caribb. J. Sci. 35 (1e2), Trautmann, N.M., Fee, J., Tomasek, T.M., Bergey, N.R., 2013. Citizen Science: 15
70e82. Lessons that Bring Biology to Life, 6e12. National Science Teachers Association
Roletto, J., Mortenson, J., Harrald, I., Hall, J., Grella, L., 2003. Beached bird surveys Press, Arlington, VA. USA, p. 224.
and chronic oil pollution in Central California. Mar. Ornithol. 31, 21e28. Ward, E.J., Marshall, K.N., Ross, T., Sedgley, A., Hass, T., Pearson, S.F., Joyce, G.,
Roy, H.E., Pocock, M.J.O., Preston, C.D., Roy, D.B., Savage, J., Tweddle, J.C., Hamel, N.J., Hodum, P.J., Faucett, R., 2015. Using citizen-science data to identify
Robinson, L.D., 2012. Understanding Citizen Science and Environmental Moni- local hotspots of seabird occurrence. PeerJ 3, e704. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/
toring. Final Report on Behalf of UK-EOF. peerj.704.
Sarewitz, D., 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Envi- Ward-Paige, C.A., Lotze, H.K., 2011. Assessing the value of recreational divers for
ron. Sci. Policy 7, 385. censusing elasmobranchs. PLoS One 6, e25609.
Schultz, W., 2011. Conservation means behaviour. Conserv. Biol. 25, 1080e1083. Weible, C.M., 2008. Expert-based information and policy subsystems: a review and
Scyphers, S.B., Powers, S.P., Akins, J.L., Drymon, J.M., Martin, C.W., Schbernds, Z.H., synthesis. Policy Stud. J. 36, 615e635.
Shofield, P.J., Shipp, R.L., Switzers, T.S., 2014. The role of citizens in detecting and Wells, N.M., Lekies, K.S., 2012. In: Dickinson, J.L., Bonney, R. (Eds.), Children and
responding to a rapid marine invasion. Conserv. Lett. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ Nature: Following the Trail to Environmental Attitudes and Behavior in Citizen
conl.12127. Science: Public Collaboration in Environmental Research. Cornell University
Shackeroff, J.M., 2008. The Historical Ecology and Social-ecological Systems of Kona Press, Ithaca, NY.
Coast Coral Reefs: Towards “Peopled” Approaches to Marine Science and Wiggins, A., Crowston, K., 2011. From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of
Management. Duke University. citizen science. In: Proceedings of the 44th Annual Hawaii International Con-
Shamir, L., Yerby, C., Simpson, R., von Benda-Beckmann, A., Tyack, P., Samarra, F., ference on Systems Sciences, 4e7 January 2011, Koloa, Hawaii, pp. 1e10. http://
Miller, P., Wallin, J., 2014. Classification of large acoustic datasets using machine dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2011.207.
learning and crowdsourcing e application to whale calls. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 135 Zhou, S., Smith, A.D.M., Puntb, A.E., Richardsona, A.J., Gibbsa, M., Fulton, E.A.,
(2), 953e962. Pascoea, S., Bulmanb, C., Baylissa, P., Sainsburye, K., 2009. Ecosystem-based
Shirk, J.L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., fisheries management requires a change to the selective fishing philosophy.
McCallie, E., Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B.V., Krasny, M.E., Bonney, R., 2012. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107 (21), 9485e9489.