Published May 9, 2025 | Version 1
Journal article Open

Delineating the contours of citizen science: Development of the ECSA characteristics of citizen science

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Citizen Science Global Partnership (CSGP), Laxenburg, Austria
  • 2. Research Unit Learning Transitions, Learning Planet Institute, Paris, France
  • 3. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Lower Austria, Austria
  • 4. IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, Delft, South Holland, The Netherlands
  • 5. Natural History Museum, Leibniz-Institut für Evolutions- und Biodiversitätsforschung, Berlin, Germany
  • 6. Université de Paris, INSERM U1284, Learning Planet Institute, Paris, France
  • 7. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands Antilles
  • 8. Earthwatch Institute Europe, Oxford, England, UK
  • 9. Centre for Social Innovation GmbH, Vienna, Austria
  • 10. The Open University School of Engineering and Innovation, Milton Keynes, England, UK
  • 11. Environmental Social Science Research Group, Budapest, Hungary
  • 12. Stickydot srl, Brussels, Belgium
  • 13. European Citizen Science Association, Berlin, Germany
  • 14. International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, CA, USA
  • 15. The University of Sydney School of Chemistry, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • 16. Maremma Natural History Museum, Grosseto, Italy
  • 17. University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • 18. Natural History Museum Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • 19. Federal Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management, Berlin, Germany
  • 20. Kaunas University of Technology, Kaunas, Lithuania

Description

Citizen science is increasingly recognized as a valuable method in various research fields, but its definition remains challenging due to the diversity of approaches and practices. This paper introduces the "ECSA Characteristics of Citizen Science", which outline key elements of citizen science projects. It also connects these Characteristics to the ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science, which provide guidance on best practices. Additionally, the paper examines how different groups, such as policymakers and research funders, understand citizen science and highlights the differences in practices across disciplines. A strict definition of citizen science may limit creativity and participation, while a broad one could make it difficult to apply in specific contexts. The paper recommends a flexible, inclusive approach that allows different actors to define citizen science according to their own needs and contexts.

Files

openreseurope-5-21006.pdf

Files (1.8 MB)

Name Size Download all
md5:575da6f73d53e2fc4e5131a8fbfc83cd
1.8 MB Preview Download

Additional details

Cites
10.1073/pnas.1909278116 (DOI)
10.5334/cstp.691 (DOI)
10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05055.x (DOI)
10.5334/dsj-2020-043 (DOI)
10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5 (DOI)
10.1126/science.abi6487 (DOI)
10.5281/zenodo.7249085 (DOI)
10.17605/OSF.IO/XPR2N (DOI)
10.5334/cstp.96 (DOI)
10.5334/cstp.812 (DOI)
10.1007/s11625-020-00833-7 (DOI)
10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4 (DOI)
10.1007/s11625-023-01402-4 (DOI)
10.3389/fpubh.2023.1202188 (DOI)
10.1038/s41893-024-01489-2 (DOI)
10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_10 (DOI)
10.22323/1.393.0024 (DOI)
10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7 (DOI)
10.5281/ZENODO.4281293 (DOI)
10.1098/rsos.202108 (DOI)
10.5281/zenodo.3859970 (DOI)
10.5281/zenodo.3758668 (DOI)
10.5281/zenodo.3758555 (DOI)
10.1073/pnas.1903393116 (DOI)
10.5334/cstp.294 (DOI)
10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.036 (DOI)
10.33524/cjar.v13i2.37 (DOI)
10.3390/su14084676 (DOI)
10.1029/2022CSJ000026 (DOI)
10.3390/su13179534 (DOI)
10.1371/journal.pone.0172579 (DOI)
10.1057/s41599-022-01049-z (DOI)
10.1145/1864349.1864355 (DOI)
10.14324/111.9781787352339 (DOI)
10.5281/zenodo.4085172 (DOI)
10.5751/ES-04705-170229 (DOI)
10.1002/geo2.10 (DOI)
10.23987/sts.60425 (DOI)
10.1093/bjsw/bch345 (DOI)
10.54677/MNMH8546 (DOI)
10.5281/ZENODO.7472827 (DOI)
10.1109/HICSS.2011.207 (DOI)

References

  • Auerbach J, Barthelmess EL, Cavalier D (2019). The problem with delineating narrow criteria for citizen science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1909278116
  • Beck S, Fraisl D, Poetz M (2024). Multi-disciplinary perspectives on citizen science—Synthesizing five paradigms of citizen involvement. Citiz Sci. doi:10.5334/cstp.691
  • Bonney R (1996). Citizen science: a lab tradition. Living Bird.
  • Brauer PM, Hanning RM, Arocha JF (2009). Creating case scenarios or vignettes using factorial study design methods. J Adv Nurs. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05055.x
  • (2024). Die Citizen Science Plattform.
  • Burton VJ, Ambler A, Neilson R (2019). The Great GROW Experiment - challenges and opportunities for hypothesis and place-based citizen research in food growing: Place-Based Citizen-Science for Wellbeing.
  • Carroll SR, Garba I, Figueroa-Rodríguez OL (2020). The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Sci J. doi:10.5334/dsj-2020-043
  • Conrad CC, Hilchey KG (2011). A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5
  • Cooper CB, Hawn CL, Larson LR (2021). Inclusion in citizen science: the conundrum of rebranding. Science. doi:10.1126/science.abi6487
  • (2022). Citizen science global partnership.
  • (2024). Citizen science and open science community of practice.
  • Dörler D, Heigl F, Brounéus F (2022). Criteria for listing citizen science projects on citizen science online platforms. doi:10.5281/zenodo.7249085
  • (2015). Ten principles of citizen science. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/XPR2N
  • Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang C (2017). Citizen science terminology matters: exploring key terms. Citiz Sci. doi:10.5334/cstp.96
  • (2023). Eu-citizen.science.
  • (2022). The role of citizen science in the European green deal.
  • Fortson L, Crowston K, Kloetzer L (2024). Artificial Intelligence and the future of citizen science. Citiz Sci. doi:10.5334/cstp.812
  • Fraisl D, Campbell J, See L (2020a). Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability Science. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00833-7
  • Fraisl D, Hager G, Bedessem B (2022). Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences. Nat Rev Methods Primers. doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4
  • Fraisl D, Hager G, See L (2020b). Framework report describing criteria and rationale for sharing and selecting state of the art citizen science resources.
  • Fraisl D, See L, Bowers R (2023a). The contributions of citizen science to SDG monitoring and reporting on marine plastics. Sustainability Science. doi:10.1007/s11625-023-01402-4
  • Fraisl D, See L, Estevez D (2023b). Citizen science for monitoring the health and well-being related Sustainable Development Goals and the World Health Organization's Triple Billion Targets. Front Public Health. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1202188
  • Fraisl D, See L, Fritz S (2025). Leveraging the collaborative power of AI and citizen science for sustainable development. Nat Sustain. doi:10.1038/s41893-024-01489-2
  • Franzen M, Kloetzer L, Ponti M (2021). Machine learning in citizen science: promises and implications. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_10
  • Hager G, Kieslinger B (2020). Würden sie das citizen science nennen?.
  • Hager G, Kieslinger B, Hecker S (2021). The characteristics of citizen science in a fishbowl. doi:10.22323/1.393.0024
  • Haklay M (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: overview and typology of participation. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4587-2_7
  • Haklay M, Fraisl D, Greshake Tzovaras B (2020a). Supplementary material-table of Vignettes (case descriptions). doi:10.5281/ZENODO.4281293
  • Haklay M, Fraisl D, Greshake Tzovaras B (2021). Contours of citizen science: a vignette study. R Soc Open Sci. doi:10.1098/rsos.202108
  • Haklay M, Hecker S, Warin C (2020b). Webinar on the characteristics of citizen science. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3859970
  • Haklay M, Motion A, Balázs B (2020c). ECSA's characteristics of citizen science. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3758668
  • Haklay M, Motion A, Balázs B (2020d). ECSA's characteristics of citizen science: explanation notes. doi:10.5281/zenodo.3758555
  • Hecker S, Haklay M, Hager G (2021). Characteristics of citizen science.
  • Heigl F, Kieslinger B, Paul KT (2019). Opinion: toward an international definition of citizen science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1903393116
  • Heigl F, Kieslinger B, Paul KT (2020). Co-creating and implementing quality criteria for citizen science. Citiz Sci. doi:10.5334/cstp.294
  • Irwin A (1995). Citizen science: a study of people, expertise, and sustainable development.
  • Liu M, Conrad FG (2016). An experiment testing six formats of 101-point rating scales. Comput Hum Behav. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.036
  • MacDonald C (2012). Understanding participatory action research: a qualitative resarch methodology option. Canadian Journal of Action Research. doi:10.33524/cjar.v13i2.37
  • (2024). Medborgar forskning se.
  • (2023). Citizen science exploration grants.
  • (2024). Sparkling science.
  • (2024). Österreich forscht.
  • Parkinson S, Woods SM, Sprinks J (2022). A practical approach to assessing the impact of citizen science towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability. doi:10.3390/su14084676
  • Parrish JK (2022). Searching for community in community science. Community Science. doi:10.1029/2022CSJ000026
  • Pateman R, Tuhkanen H, Cinderby S (2021). Citizen science and the Sustainable Development Goals in Low and Middle Income Country Cities. Sustainability. doi:10.3390/su13179534
  • Pocock MJO, Tweddle JC, Savage J (2017). The diversity and evolution of ecological and environmental citizen science. PLoS One. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0172579
  • Ponti M, Seredko A (2022). Human-machine-learning integration and task allocation in citizen science. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. doi:10.1057/s41599-022-01049-z
  • Reddy S, Estrin D, Hansen M (2010). Examining micro-payments for participatory sensing data collections. Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. doi:10.1145/1864349.1864355
  • Robinson L, Cawthray J, West S (2018). Ten principles of citizen science. doi:10.14324/111.9781787352339
  • Roser M, Ortiz-Ospina E (2016). Our World in Data. Literacy.
  • Shanley LA (2015). Spatial data sovereignty and privacy in Indian country. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4085172
  • Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC (2012). Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc. doi:10.5751/ES-04705-170229
  • Sieber RE, Haklay M (2015). The epistemology(s) of volunteered geographic information: a critique. Geo: Geography and Environment. doi:10.1002/geo2.10
  • Strasser BJ, Baudry J, Mahr D (2018). "Citizen Science"? Rethinking science and public participation. Sci Technol Stud. doi:10.23987/sts.60425
  • (2022). 10 Swiss citizen science principles.
  • Taylor BJ (2006). Factorial surveys: using vignettes to study professional judgement. Br J Soc Work. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch345
  • (2019). Citizen science exploration grant.
  • (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science. doi:10.54677/MNMH8546
  • Wehn U (2021). Citizen science terminology & typology, marine citizen science community of practice thematic workshop #1.
  • Wehn U, Goebel C, Bowser A (2020). Global citizen science perspectives on open science.
  • Wehn U, Hepburn L (2022). Guidance for the implementation of the UNESCO Open Science Recommendation re. "Opening science to society" (FINAL). Zenodo. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.7472827
  • Wiggins A, Crowston K (2011). From conservation to crowdsourcing: a typology of citizen science. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2011.207