Examining the influence of sociodemographics, residential segregation, and historical redlining on eBird and iNaturalist data disparities in three U.S. cities

IF 3.6 2区 社会学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Cesar O. Estien, Elizabeth J. Carlen, Christopher J. Schell
{"title":"Examining the influence of sociodemographics, residential segregation, and historical redlining on eBird and iNaturalist data disparities in three U.S. cities","authors":"Cesar O. Estien, Elizabeth J. Carlen, Christopher J. Schell","doi":"10.5751/es-15263-290316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ecologists often leverage contributory science, also referred to as citizen science, to answer large-scale spatial and temporal biodiversity questions. Contributory science platforms, such as eBird and iNaturalist, provide researchers with incredibly fine-scale data to track biodiversity. However, data generated by these platforms are spatially biased. Research has shown that factors like income, race, and historical redlining can influence spatial patterns of reported eBird and iNaturalist data. However, the role of contemporary residential segregation remains unclear. Additionally, we do not understand how these variables potentially relate to certain Census tracts having more or less biodiversity data than you would expect based on size or population density. To further understand the social factors that may contribute to spatial biases in eBird and iNaturalist data, we focused on three cities within the USA (Oakland, California; St. Louis, Missouri; and Baltimore, Maryland). We specifically investigated how income, race, segregation, and redlining via Home Owners’ Loan Corporation grades (grades A = best, B, C, and D = hazardous and “redlined”) are associated with the difference between reported and expected observations based on area and human population density. We find that census tracts with higher income and more White people generally have more observations than expected. We only find segregation to influence differences in reported and expected observations in Baltimore, with more segregated Census tracts having more observations than expected. Lastly, we find that grades C and D consistently have fewer data than expected compared with grades A and B for both platforms in each city. Our results show that although each city has distinct societal and ecological features, societal inequity permeates each city to shape the uptake of data for two of the largest sources of biodiversity data.</p>\n<p>The post Examining the influence of sociodemographics, residential segregation, and historical redlining on eBird and iNaturalist data disparities in three U.S. cities first appeared on Ecology & Society.</p>","PeriodicalId":51028,"journal":{"name":"Ecology and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5751/es-15263-290316","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ecologists often leverage contributory science, also referred to as citizen science, to answer large-scale spatial and temporal biodiversity questions. Contributory science platforms, such as eBird and iNaturalist, provide researchers with incredibly fine-scale data to track biodiversity. However, data generated by these platforms are spatially biased. Research has shown that factors like income, race, and historical redlining can influence spatial patterns of reported eBird and iNaturalist data. However, the role of contemporary residential segregation remains unclear. Additionally, we do not understand how these variables potentially relate to certain Census tracts having more or less biodiversity data than you would expect based on size or population density. To further understand the social factors that may contribute to spatial biases in eBird and iNaturalist data, we focused on three cities within the USA (Oakland, California; St. Louis, Missouri; and Baltimore, Maryland). We specifically investigated how income, race, segregation, and redlining via Home Owners’ Loan Corporation grades (grades A = best, B, C, and D = hazardous and “redlined”) are associated with the difference between reported and expected observations based on area and human population density. We find that census tracts with higher income and more White people generally have more observations than expected. We only find segregation to influence differences in reported and expected observations in Baltimore, with more segregated Census tracts having more observations than expected. Lastly, we find that grades C and D consistently have fewer data than expected compared with grades A and B for both platforms in each city. Our results show that although each city has distinct societal and ecological features, societal inequity permeates each city to shape the uptake of data for two of the largest sources of biodiversity data.

The post Examining the influence of sociodemographics, residential segregation, and historical redlining on eBird and iNaturalist data disparities in three U.S. cities first appeared on Ecology & Society.

研究美国三个城市的社会人口、居住隔离和历史红线对 eBird 和 iNaturalist 数据差异的影响
生态学家经常利用贡献科学(也称为公民科学)来回答大规模的时空生物多样性问题。贡献科学平台(如 eBird 和 iNaturalist)为研究人员提供了极其精细的数据来跟踪生物多样性。然而,这些平台生成的数据存在空间偏差。研究表明,收入、种族和历史红线等因素会影响 eBird 和 iNaturalist 数据报告的空间模式。然而,当代居住隔离的作用仍不明确。此外,我们还不了解这些变量如何与某些人口普查区的生物多样性数据相关联,而不是您根据面积或人口密度所预期的那样。为了进一步了解可能导致 eBird 和 iNaturalist 数据空间偏差的社会因素,我们重点研究了美国的三个城市(加利福尼亚州奥克兰市、密苏里州圣路易斯市和马里兰州巴尔的摩市)。我们特别调查了收入、种族、种族隔离和房屋所有者贷款公司的红线等级(A 级 = 最好,B、C 和 D 级 = 危险和 "红线")如何与基于面积和人口密度的报告观测值和预期观测值之间的差异相关联。我们发现,收入较高、白人较多的人口普查区的观测数据通常比预期的要多。我们只发现在巴尔的摩,种族隔离会影响报告观测值与预期观测值之间的差异,种族隔离程度较高的人口普查区的观测值比预期的要多。最后,我们发现在每个城市的两个平台中,C 级和 D 级的数据始终少于 A 级和 B 级的预期数据。我们的研究结果表明,虽然每个城市都有独特的社会和生态特征,但社会不公平现象渗透到每个城市,影响着两个最大的生物多样性数据来源的数据吸收。The Post Examining the influence of sociodemographics, residential segregation, and historical redlining on eBird and iNaturalist data disparities in three U.S. cities first appeared on Ecology & Society.
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
Ecology and Society
Ecology and Society 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
109
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Ecology and Society is an electronic, peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary journal devoted to the rapid dissemination of current research. Manuscript submission, peer review, and publication are all handled on the Internet. Software developed for the journal automates all clerical steps during peer review, facilitates a double-blind peer review process, and allows authors and editors to follow the progress of peer review on the Internet. As articles are accepted, they are published in an "Issue in Progress." At four month intervals the Issue-in-Progress is declared a New Issue, and subscribers receive the Table of Contents of the issue via email. Our turn-around time (submission to publication) averages around 350 days. We encourage publication of special features. Special features are comprised of a set of manuscripts that address a single theme, and include an introductory and summary manuscript. The individual contributions are published in regular issues, and the special feature manuscripts are linked through a table of contents and announced on the journal''s main page. The journal seeks papers that are novel, integrative and written in a way that is accessible to a wide audience that includes an array of disciplines from the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities concerned with the relationship between society and the life-supporting ecosystems on which human wellbeing ultimately depends.
×
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