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

IF 4.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
Elizabeth J. Carlen, Cesar O. Estien, Tal Caspi, Deja Perkins, Benjamin R. Goldstein, Samantha E. S. Kreling, Yasmine Hentati, Tyus D. Williams, Lauren A. Stanton, Simone Des Roches, Rebecca F. Johnson, Alison N Young, Caren Cooper, Christopher J. Schell
{"title":"A framework for contextualizing social‐ecological biases in contributory science data","authors":"Elizabeth J. Carlen, Cesar O. Estien, Tal Caspi, Deja Perkins, Benjamin R. Goldstein, Samantha E. S. Kreling, Yasmine Hentati, Tyus D. Williams, Lauren A. Stanton, Simone Des Roches, Rebecca F. Johnson, Alison N Young, Caren Cooper, Christopher J. Schell","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nContributory 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.\n\nThe 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.\n\nWe 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.\n\nLastly, 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.\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10592","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.
对科学数据中的社会生态偏差进行背景分析的框架
贡献科学--包括公民科学和社区科学--使科学家能够利用参与者生成的数据,同时提供与当地社区成员互动的机会。由参与者生成的生物多样性平台所产生的数据使专业科学家能够回答跨地理和时间尺度的生态和进化问题,这对保护工作具有难以置信的价值。向生物多样性贡献平台(如 eBird 和 iNaturalist)报告的数据可能受到社会和生态变量的驱动,从而导致数据偏差。虽然实证工作已经强调了贡献数据中的偏差,但很少有工作阐明贡献数据中的偏差是如何产生的,以及这些偏差的社会后果。我们提出了一个概念框架,说明社会和生态变量如何在贡献科学数据中产生偏差。在这一框架中,我们提出了四个过滤器--参与、可探测性、取样和偏好--它们最终形成了生物多样性贡献数据的类型和位置。最后,我们为研究人员和机构提供了几项建议,以迈向更具包容性的领域。通过这些建议,我们为改善贡献数据中的偏差提供了机会,也为实践公平的生物多样性保护提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
People and Nature
People and Nature Multiple-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
103
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信