A framework for contextualizing social‐ecological biases in contributory science data

• Published in: People and nature (Hoboken, N.J.) Vol. 6; no. 2; pp. 377 - 390
• Main Authors: Carlen, Elizabeth J., Estien, Cesar O., Caspi, Tal, Perkins, Deja, Goldstein, Benjamin R., Kreling, Samantha E. S., Hentati, Yasmine, Williams, Tyus D., Stanton, Lauren A., Des Roches, Simone, Johnson, Rebecca F., Young, Alison N., Cooper, Caren B., Schell, Christopher J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01.04.2024; Wiley
• Subjects: Bias; biases; Biodiversity; citizen science; Climate change; Community; community science; Conservation; Data collection; eBird; Ethnicity; Gender; iNaturalist; Participation; Platforms; Science; Scientists; Social factors; Socioeconomic factors; Socioeconomic status; Variables; Wildlife conservation; United Kingdom > UK; United States > US
• ISSN: 2575-8314; 2575-8314
• DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10592

Abstract Contributory science—including citizen and community science—allows scientists to leverage participant‐generated data while providing an opportunity for engaging with local community members. Data yielded by participant‐generated biodiversity platforms allow professional scientists to answer ecological and evolutionary questions across both geographic and temporal scales, which is incredibly valuable for conservation efforts. The data reported to contributory biodiversity platforms, such as eBird and iNaturalist, can be driven by social and ecological variables, leading to biased data. Though empirical work has highlighted the biases in contributory data, little work has articulated how biases arise in contributory data and the societal consequences of these biases. We present a conceptual framework illustrating how social and ecological variables create bias in contributory science data. In this framework, we present four filters— participation , detectability , sampling and preference —that ultimately shape the type and location of contributory biodiversity data. We leverage this framework to examine data from the largest contributory science platforms—eBird and iNaturalist—in St. Louis, Missouri, the United States, and discuss the potential consequences of biased data. Lastly, we conclude by providing several recommendations for researchers and institutions to move towards a more inclusive field. With these recommendations, we provide opportunities to ameliorate biases in contributory data and an opportunity to practice equitable biodiversity conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.