4.1 Article

Managing a large citizen science project to monitor wildlife

Journal

WILDLIFE SOCIETY BULLETIN
Volume 43, Issue 1, Pages 4-10

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/wsb.943

Keywords

camera trap; capacity; citizen science; project management; project planning; staff time; volunteer program

Funding

  1. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act
  2. Wisconsin Citizen-based Monitoring Network Partnership Program
  3. NASA Ecological Forecasting [NNX14AC36G]
  4. NASA ESSF [NNX16A061H]
  5. NASA [686418, NNX14AC36G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We provide program managers insight into considerations for launching and running a large-scale, long-term citizen science project, using the Snapshot Wisconsin trail-camera project as a case study. Many citizen science projects are undertaken with a learn as you go approach, so there is room to better prepare program managers from the outset. We provide a comprehensive list of components making up citizen science projects, and discuss capacity needs for each component. We then quantify staff time needed throughout the project, based on our own experiences managing a long-term citizen science project with >1,000 participants. We show that total staff time and staff time devoted to certain project components vary markedly among 3 project phases: planning, growth, and maintenance. We recommend planning for 5.5 staff positions to maintain a long-term project serving a few hundred volunteers or more. The illustrated concepts can be applied by any person or group developing a volunteer-based project to prepare for logistic and funding needs across a project's lifespan. Program managers must remember that people form the backbone of any citizen science project, and the success or failure of such projects depend in large part on the user experience of volunteers. (c) 2019 The Wildlife Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available