Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências (2017) 89(3 Suppl.

): 2229-2245
(Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences)
Printed version ISSN 0001-3765 / Online version ISSN 1678-2690
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720160548
www.scielo.br/aabc | www.fb.com/aabcjournal

Citizen science participation in research in the environmental sciences:

key factors related to projects’ success and longevity

DAVI G.F. CUNHA1, JONATAS F. MARQUES1, JULIANA C. DE RESENDE1, PATRÍCIA

B. DE FALCO2, CHRISLAINE M. DE SOUZA3 and STEVEN A. LOISELLE3

1
Departamento de Hidráulica e Saneamento, Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos, Universidade de São
Paulo, Avenida Trabalhador São-Carlense, 400, Centro, 13566-590 São Carlos, SP, Brazil
2
Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Rodovia Washington Luís, s/n, Jardim Guanabara, 13565-905 São Carlos, SP, Brazil
3
Earthwatch Institute, Oxford, 256 Banbury Rd, Oxford OX2 7DE, United Kingdom

Manuscript received on August 24, 2016; accepted for publication on March 1, 2017

ABSTRACT
The potential impacts of citizen science initiatives are increasing across the globe, albeit in an imbalanced
manner. In general, there is a strong element of trial and error in most projects, and the comparison of best
practices and project structure between different initiatives remains difficult. In Brazil, the participation of
volunteers in environmental research is limited. Identifying the factors related to citizen science projects’
success and longevity within a global perspective can contribute for consolidating such practices in the
country. In this study, we explore past and present projects, including a case study in Brazil, to identify the
spatial and temporal trends of citizen science programs as well as their best practices and challenges. We
performed a bibliographic search using Google Scholar and considered results from 2005-2014. Although
these results are subjective due to the Google Scholar’s algorithm and ranking criteria, we highlighted
factors to compare projects across geographical and disciplinary areas and identified key matches between
project proponents and participants, project goals and local priorities, participant profiles and engagement,
scientific methods and funding. This approach is a useful starting point for future citizen science projects,
allowing for a systematic analysis of potential inconsistencies and shortcomings in this emerging field.
Key words: Citizen science, community-based monitoring, environmental management, public participa-
tion, volunteer data collection.

INTRODUCTION social capital necessary for collective action

to resolve large scale environmental problems
Participation of non-experts in environmental
(Overdevest et al. 2004) and favor behavioral
management and monitoring is emerging as one of changes for both individuals and groups (Toomey
the most important issues since the environmental and Domroese 2013). Participation in citizen
movement of the 1960-70s (Kenney 1999, 2001). science programs can enhance decision making
Citizen science has the potential to generate the processes by governments, companies and
Correspondence to: Davi Gasparini Fernandes Cunha institutions (Sinclair and Diduck 2001) and ensures
E-mail: davig@sc.usp.br a better understanding of key issues by different

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

2230 DAVI G.F. CUNHA et al.

stakeholders (Conrad 2006, Cooper et al. 2007, assessing biodiversity associated with ecoturism
Ely 2008, Haywood and Besley 2014). Public activities was reported in a project in Ubatuba (São
engagement, scientific learning, socialization and Paulo State) (Dias and Figueira 2010). A biotic
awareness raising are often important results from index for volunteer monitoring was proposed for
citizen science programs (Conrad and Hilchey water quality assessment of Brazilian streams at
2011, Lowry and Fienen 2013). Espírito Santo State (Buss 2008). A recent Brazilian
Recent citizen science projects on biodiversity, case of citizen monitoring activities occurred after
ecosystems functioning, species distribution, water, the collapse of a mining dam in Mariana (Minas
soil and air quality have shown that productive Gerais State). Immediately following the incident
partnerships between scientists and the public can (in 2015), volunteers organized themselves to
be formed (Toomey and Domroese 2013, Thornhill produce information regarding the environmental
et al. 2016). The increase in spatial and temporal impacts of the release of the iron ore tailings. One
resolution of environmental information made of the most active groups of volunteers is GIAIA
possible by citizen science makes these programs (Grupo Independente para Avaliação do Impacto
an attractive choice for monitoring and research Ambiental, see GIAIA 2016). While all these
activities where high resolution data are necessary projects are fundamental to produce important
(Devictor et al. 2010, Newman et al. 2011, Krasny information for decision making and environmental
et al. 2014). Citizen science initiatives can span assessment, the integration among such initiatives
different environmental scales, from biome and and the development of common methodologies
biogeographical studies to specific evaluations and performance indicators are still lacking. Since
of local issues (e.g., biological communities and Brazil is a large country with different biomes (e.g.,
fauna-environment interactions) (Wei et al. 2016, Atlantic Rainforest, Amazon, Pantanal, Cerrado,
Loiselle et al. 2016), being the latter approach still Caatinga and Pampa), the integration of volunteer
more common. monitoring of local natural resources, water,
The term “citizen science” is widely used soil and biodiversity could be a cost effective
to denote voluntary participation of citizens in mean to gather high resolution data and support
scientific data gathering and/or analysis (Dickinson environmental management.
et al. 2012, Roy et al. 2012, Donnelly et al. 2014). The present study examined spatial and
When a community takes the responsibility to temporal trends of citizen science programs to
collect data on their local environment, citizen determine commonalities, best practices, and
science can be denoted as community-based major opportunities and challenges. We identified
monitoring (Conrad and Hilchey 2011). Despite a preliminary list of key factors to compare, in a
such conceptual differences, volunteer participation systematic manner, the basic structure and function
in environmental monitoring, as citizen science of these disparate projects. We tested this approach
or community-based monitoring, is increasing in in a large scale citizen science project on freshwater
practice (Au et al. 2000, Conrad 2006, Couvet et ecosystems in Brazil, putting this project into the
al. 2008). Interestingly, best practices for project global context. Although there are other review
implementation and volunteer engagement still papers available in the literature (Couvet et al.
remain unclear (Stewart and Sinclair 2007, 2008, Elwood 2010, Magurran et al. 2010, Wiggins
O’Faircheallaigh 2010). and Crowston 2011, Catlin-Groves 2012, Ferster
In Brazil, the citizen science approach has been and Coops 2013), our research shows that there
usually limited to local projects. Bird watching for is a higher diversity on citizen science initiatives

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

 THE CITIZEN SCIENCE ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2231

than usually reported. This review represents an analyzed to identify the importance of the themes
attempt to systematize and analyze these projects to and topics discussed (Figure 1).
identify potential inconsistencies and shortcomings Although the criteria for ranking publications
in this emerging field and how these projects are and the searching algorithms of Google Scholar
reported. are not completely clear, studies have shown that
the article’s citation count has a significant impact
MATERIALS AND METHODS
on the retrieved ranking of publications (Beel and
A bibliographic search using Google Scholar Gipp 2009a, b). One important consequence of
was used to identify the main characteristics of this is that publications with different views to the
ongoing or past citizen science projects in the last mainstream are more likely to be unrepresented
ten years (2005-2014). Two major search terms (Beel and Gipp 2009a). However, one of the
were used (“citizen science” and “monitoring”), advantages of using Google Scholar is that it gives
combined with the logical operator AND to a better understanding of the international and
determine the number of publications available. interdisciplinary views of the scholarly community
The search gave 7,770 results on May, 2015. The (Yang and Meho 2007), with a diverse content from
first 498 results were sorted by relevance according different angles.
to the criteria: availability of full text, where it was Another sub dataset (n=126) of publications was
published, how often and how recently cited (About filtered according to the following criteria: [1]
Google Scholar 2015). Based on the journal type, papers describing the activities of the monitoring
the manuscripts were classified in peer-reviewed scheme (such as volunteers training and protocols
or not peer-reviewed, publication type and year. of data quality assurance etc.); [2] papers reporting
Using the sub dataset of articles published in peer- the experiences from citizen science projects;
reviewed journals (n=303), keyword frequency was [3] papers presenting results and conclusions

Figure 1 - Literature review using Google Scholar and filtering criteria.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

2232 DAVI G.F. CUNHA et al.

of scientific research based on citizen scientist associated with the search software. Our search
acquired data. results were therefore subject to the ranking
The citizen science projects found were algorithm used by Google Scholar, where highly-
classified in terms of monitoring type and biological cited documents are more frequently retrieved
topic. The projects with no strict components (Martin-Martin et al. 2017), possibly attributing
on biological communities (such as earthquake more weight to “classic” or old publications (with
monitoring and astronomy) were also included. For more time available for being cited).
each analyzed publication, information related to The language of the search terms is also an
the impact of the project (e.g., human resources important caveat. English was used, leaving out
required, project implementation and continuation, publications in other languages, such as Portuguese
financial sustainability and communication) was or Spanish. For example, Brazilian papers
used to identify common challenges and barriers, published in Portuguese and in local journals with
as well as the main opportunities and projects’ limited circulation were not considered, allowing
outcomes. These data were used in a comparative for possible inconsistencies in the assessment of
analysis according to the relative frequency for the project geographic location. However, English
each category. For example, regarding the “funding is the most commonly used language for scientific
source” of a given project, the options were public/ publications and as the most popular search engine
government, non-governmental organization, in colleges and universities (Neuhaus et al. 2008),
private, university or no information provided. it is expected to index the greatest number of
Finally, information from a multiple city core/fundamental articles on different fields (e.g.,
Brazilian citizen science project “Adopt a River” Walters 2007). Therefore, we consider the analyzed
was used to examine key issues related to project publications in this study are representative of
sustainability. This project is part of the FreshWater citizen science papers produced by the scientific
Watch (FWW), a global mass citizen science community between 2005 and 2014.
program supporting scientists in more than 30 cities The worldwide increase in citizen science
(on five continents) using a common methodology initiatives was reflected in the number of
and framework. manuscripts and other academic texts published in
the last 10 years (Figure 2). There was an increase
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION from 2005 to 2012, with a maximum conditioned
by two special editions of Frontiers in Ecology and
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE PUBLICATIONS
FROM THE DATABASE the Environment (14 manuscripts) and Nature (11
manuscripts). The publications were dominated by
Our literature review was performed through Google journal manuscripts (67%), followed by conference
Scholar with the search terms “citizen science” and proceedings (15%) and book chapters (7%) (Figure
“monitoring”. As any other search engine, the use 3). Most of the articles were published in peer-
of Google Scholar filters publications according reviewed journals (61%).
to specific (and not always explicit) criteria, with Following “citizen science” and “monitoring”,
associated consequences for data mining and the keywords “conservation”, “biodiversity”
interpretation. Pros and cons of using Google and “climate change” were the most common
Scholar are comprehensively described by Jacsó of the 1,130 keywords in the 303 peer-reviewed
(2008), with the main strengths related to the vast papers (Table I, Figure 4). This highlights the
content of the source base and the main weaknesses importance of citizen science for long term

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

 THE CITIZEN SCIENCE ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2233

Figure 2 - Temporal trend of the 498 screened publications on Figure 3 - Distribution of publications on citizen science
citizen science from 2005 to 2014. (n=498) from 2005 to 2014 according to the type of publication.
“Other types”: equal or less than 1% of the total.

biological monitoring. Other common keywords as consequence of the geographic distribution

addressed tools for data analyses (e.g., indicators, of citizen science projects. Such biomes include
GIS and census), environmental compartments or broadleaf and mixed forests, coniferous forests,
processes (pollution, diversity, wildlife, climate grasslands, savannas, and shrublands. Although not
and bird) and the indirect results (decision-making, biome specific, many projects focused on questions
democratizing, public, change and participatory). about biodiversity, species population and
Publications (n=126) showed a clear geographic distribution (e.g., Beasley et al. 2012 for cicadas
imbalance (Figure 5), with the North America and Abolafya et al. 2013 for birds).
(58%), and more specifically United States (46%) Most citizen science studies focused on
having the largest number of published studies, biological monitoring (n=98, 77%) (Table II),
followed by Europe, with 24%. Few initiatives followed by coastal marine (n=12, 9%) and
were reported in Africa, Asia and Oceania, and freshwater (n=7, 6%) monitoring programs.
even less in Central and South America. This Noise, earthquake, air and other monitoring
discrepancy is significant when compared to the studies accounted for another 7%. Both biology
national scientific output of these same regions: and ecology have a long history of volunteer
United States (24%) Europe (35%), China (10%) data collection (Bonney et al. 2009a, b) related to
and South America (3%) (www.scimagojr.com). species and population tracking, invasive species
One explanation for this discrepancy may be evaluation and habitat studies. Studies related to
the lack of national (private or public) funding bird populations were the most common and have
schemes, limited internet access and limited public the longest history of activity (Lepczyk 2005).
participation in environmental decision making in Published citizen science projects on water
several of these regions (Şekercioğlu 2012, Burgos quality were less frequent and commonly focused on
et al. 2013, Kebo and Bunch 2013, Sheppard et al. freshwater ecosystems, although studies of coastal
2014). Few (n=4) studies had a transnational or marine ecosystems were reported (Arvanitidis et
global geographic focus. al. 2011). Freshwater studies are facilitated by their
While the biome where the projects were common presence in most population centers. Most
conducted is not often described, we expect of these studies acquire information about habitat
temperate biomes are more frequently studied or water quality through the use of relatively

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

2234 DAVI G.F. CUNHA et al.

TABLE I
Ten keywords (with or without spaces) with the highest absolute and relative frequency (%) from the 303 analyzed peer-
reviewed articles.

Absolute Relative Keywords Absolute Relative frequency

Keywords
frequency frequency (%) without spaces frequency (%)

Citizen science 97 8.6 Science 117 5.7

Monitoring 21 1.9 Citizen 107 5.2

Conservation 9 0.8 Monitoring 82 4.0

Biodiversity 8 0.7 Data 25 1.2

Climate change 8 0.7 Biodiversity 25 1.2

Volunteers 7 0.6 Conservation 24 1.2

Invasive species 7 0.6 Species 21 1.0

Distribution 7 0.6 Environmental 20 1.0

Volunteer 6 0.5 Management 17 0.8

Data quality 6 0.5 Change 17 0.8

Figure 4 - Word cloud for the first 400 keywords of the peer-reviewed papers analyzed in this study, www.tagxedo.com. The size
of each word is proportional to the relative frequency it is mentioned in the texts.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

 THE CITIZEN SCIENCE ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2235

simple observations (e.g., algal blooms, stream

bank vegetation). More complex and quantitative
studies using citizen science grade measurements of
turbidity, temperature, concentrations of dissolved
oxygen, nutrients, fecal coliforms or invertebrates
(requiring additional training and support) were
limited (Kim et al. 2011). Data quality represents
a major challenge in these projects and secondary
information sources (photographic or confirmatory
observations) are often used (Lowry and Fienen
2013). Figure 5 - Geographic distribution of the citizen science
projects analyzed (n=126).
SEVEN KEY FACTORS

Based on the publication dataset (n=126), seven

factors were identified based on project participants TABLE II
(scientists and volunteers) and structure. These Absolute distribution of the topics addressed by
the selected citizen science papers in relation to the
factors were used to characterize and compare
monitoring scope.
projects across geographical and disciplinary areas
(Figure 6): Topic Number of projects
a. Project proponents. What is the main
Biological monitoring 98†
institution or group of people responsible
for the conception and initiation of the
Coastal monitoring 12
citizen science project? Government,
Non-Governmental Organization, Private
Water monitoring 7
Business or University.
b. Funding sources. What is the main provider Urban ecosystems 3
of financial resources for developing project
activities? Government, Non-Governmental Earthquakes monitoring 2
Organization, Private Business or
University. Astronomy studies 1
c. Volunteer profiles. Where do the volunteers
come from? Public from government Genomic studies 1

institutions (e.g., civil service), General

Health research 1
public (e.g., scuba divers), Non-
Governmental Organization, Private sector
Air monitoring 1
or University.
d. Volunteer commitment. How much time Total 126
does each volunteer donate for the activity?
†
One time (sporadic/random activity), Short- The following distribution was observed concerning the
biological specific topics: plants (20), birds (19), insects
term (less than one year) or Long-term (18), mammals (14), fish (6), amphibians (3), reptiles (2),
(more than one year). macroinvertebrate (2) and other cases (14).

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

2236 DAVI G.F. CUNHA et al.

In most cases, reported projects were initiated

by universities (35%, Figure 7a), NGOs (11%)
or similar social agents. The most common
“multiple” proponents were “university +
NGOs”, “government + NGOs” and “university
+ government + NGOs” partnerships, making
up for 65% of the cases within this category.
Scientists were the most common initiator, with
the typical objective to increase data gathering or
analysis capability or to increase engagement and
awareness. NGOs, community trusts and concerned
citizen groups were also initiators, usually focused
on a local or sectorial area with value to the local
community. The combination of the two (scientists
and concerned public) provides two major elements
which are often lacking individually: recruitment
with long term engagement and scientific rigor. The
private sector was not represented as a proponent,
although there was no clear information on project
proponents in 27% of the projects analyzed (Figure
7a).
Although the cost of citizen science
monitoring activities is expected to be lower than
Figure 6 - Seven elements related to project structure and conventional approaches, financial support is
participants in the analyzed citizen science projects (a) and in fundamental, not only for monitoring activities,
the “Adopt a River” project (b). but also for training, engagement, feedback and
e. Scientific methods. What are the main quality control (Danielsen et al. 2009, DeLuca et
characteristics of the citizen scientist activity al. 2010). Multiple-source funding was the most
and relative requirements for training? common characteristic of the studied projects (32%,
Observational data gathering (training or Figure 7b). These included shared funding among
no training required) or Quantitative data universities, NGOs, private and public agencies.
gathering (training or no training required). Co-funding was seen as a key element in the
f. Communication and engagement. What project sustainability (Conrad and Hilchey 2011,
are the main strategies for communication Wright and Stevens 2012) and can be an interesting
between project coordinators and volunteers alternative for developing countries, including
to insure engagement and activity rates? those from Latin America. Governmental agencies
Meetings (one or regular), Continuous (21% of the cases) often had the role of facilitator,
learning or Online interaction. and are a natural beneficiary of citizen science on
g. Citizen scientist responsibilities. What improved information flows and public awareness.
are the volunteers responsible for? Data In recent years (2014 to the present), a number of
gathering, Data analyses and interpretation national and transnational public programs have
or Quality control. been initiated.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

 THE CITIZEN SCIENCE ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2237

Figure 7 - Characterization of the 126 analyzed citizen science projects regarding: project proponents (a), funding sources (b),
volunteers profiles (c), volunteer commitment (d), scientific methods (e), communication and engagement (f) and citizen scientist
responsibility (g). “No information” means the information was never provided or, if provided, was unclear.

The European Commission’s “Citizen public attention to local environmental conditions

Observatories” includes the objective to improve (Daniels et al. 2012) and financial pressures on
in-situ data collection through partnerships between agency monitoring has created an opportunity
the private and public actors. In North America, an for complementary data gathering methods of
array of US Federal agencies has joined the Federal environmental conditions, including citizen
Community of Practice on Crowdsourcing and science (DeLuca et al. 2010, Wright and Stevens
Citizen Science to improve government’s use of 2012, Thornhill et al. 2016). One clear advantage
citizen science to enhance scientific and societal of citizen monitoring is that volunteers can cover
outcomes (Conrad and Daoust 2008). Private significant areas of the territory as they can be
initiatives (Google Impact Award, HSBC Water numerous and live in different watersheds, regions
Programme) are increasingly providing necessary and biomes.
funding for these initiatives, although exclusive Citizen scientists were characterized by
private funding has not been very common (2%, different ages and levels of education (Evans et
Figure 7b). The combined trends of increased al. 2005, Silvertown 2009). Most projects were

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

2238 DAVI G.F. CUNHA et al.

focused on the general public with no restrictions monitoring” (Bäckstrand 2003, Sharpe and Conrad
(73%, Figure 7c), although some were for specific 2006).
groups such as scuba divers, biologists or high The appropriateness of scientific methods and
school students. Project methodology reflected the training required for citizen science programs
the motivations and capabilities of the target have a significant impact on data quality (Hunter
volunteer profile to avoid bias in the dataset and et al. 2013, Tregidgo et al. 2013). Most published
loss of motivation due to frustration (Couvet et al. studies were based on observational data acquired
2008, Brook et al. 2009). Hobbs and White (2012) by volunteers (49%, Figure 7e), with no training
identified barriers to participation that vary across required. For example, the CrowdHydrology
different social and ethnic groups. People at lower project (Lowry and Fienen 2013) aims at
socio-economic levels were less represented most encouraging volunteers to submit hydrologic data
likely due to a lack of opportunities, motivation and by reading staff gauges. The second most common
accessibility. method was quantitative data acquisition with
Long term commitment in citizen science training required (24%, Figure 7e). These included
projects provides benefits to data quality and projects on population dynamics of specific
organisms or biological groups with training costs
quantity. Long term commitment (more than one
ranging from little to multiple day sessions focused
year) (41%) exceeded the cases of short term and
on safety procedures, monitoring protocols and
one time participation (33% and 15%, respectively,
equipment training (Brook et al. 2009, Ferreira et
Figure 7d). Pareto’s rule characterizes output from
al. 2012). Inadequate training of the volunteers can
citizen science or many crowdsourcing activities
compromise results and overall project efficiency
such as Wikipedia, where most data is obtained by a
(Milne et al. 2006, Conrad and Hilchey 2011).
minority of very dedicated participants (Sauermann
Mistrust from the scientific community regarding
and Franzoni 2015). Likewise, commitment is
the participation of untrained people in scientific
related to person motivation, participation costs
data gathering continues (McKinley et al. 2013);
and time requirements. Personal motivation is
data reliability is one of the most contested aspects
subject to change, with an initial enthusiasm due
of citizen science (Catlin-Groves 2012). Statistical
to the opportunity to increase personal knowledge methods, new protocols and long-distance learning
(Rotman et al. 2012). Continued engagement is have been shown to improve the quality of
associated to the presence of project mechanisms information acquired by volunteers (Galloway et
that support these personal goals together with al. 2006, Devictor et al. 2010, Bird et al. 2014).
social aspects of involvement (in communities, in Previous studies indicate that communication
scientific networks and in advocacy). Interactive among participants, scientists, and policy makers
features and data visualization tools (e.g., real-time through different channels is the most important
maps, tables, and charts) are increasingly being motivational factor for continued participation
used to sustain volunteers’ commitment (Price in citizen science projects (Rotman et al. 2012).
and Dorcas 2011). Participation costs (time and However, information on communication and
financial) can be both a barrier to participation as engagement was rarely reported in the published
well as an incentive for continued engagement. Also, studies (<25%) (Figure 7f). Among those projects
barriers to democratic participation in decision- with available information, most depended upon
making influence motivation to participation, and online methods (35%) to contact the volunteers
lead to a feeling of “monitoring for the sake of and keep them active. Meeting with participants

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

 THE CITIZEN SCIENCE ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2239

(14%) and continuous learning activities (4%) multilanguage communication platform and are
were other communication options, although responsible for uploading data on environmental
multiple strategies were more frequent (20%, conditions and water quality of local aquatic
Figure 7f). In the absence of reported information systems in a common open-access database. The
on these aspects, a major challenge remains on project falls into the “Water monitoring” category,
how to evaluate the impact of citizen science on the which accounts for 6% of the assessed citizen
scientific literacy of the participants (Cooper et al. science projects (Table II).
2007, Shwartz et al. 2012, Crall et al. 2013). In the “Adopt a River” FWW project, citizen
In the majority of the analyzed projects (93%), scientists are trained to monitor rivers and streams
volunteer activities were limited to data acquisition in three state capitals in Brazil (Curitiba, São Paulo
(e.g., samples, visual observations) (Figure 7g), and Rio de Janeiro) (Castilla et al. 2015), which were
with data analysis and interpretation performed originally representative of at least two important
by experts and scientists (e.g., School of Ants, Brazilian biomes: Cerrado and Mata Atlântica.
Lucky et al. 2014). Other projects focused on data The “Adopt a River” partners and promoters are
interpretation, usually by visual inspection (e.g., the University of São Paulo, Earthwatch Institute
Galaxy Zoo). Combined approaches and volunteers and HSBC (Figure 6b), a collaboration of public,
contributing to interpretation of the data that they NGO and private sector partners. This would match
collect are more recent (Shirk et al. 2012, Toomey the category “multiple proponents” considering the
and Domroese 2013). This is expected to increase other analyzed projects worldwide (Figure 7a). The
as online geographic information systems become private bank was the key project funder, unusual
more user friendly and expand to mobile devices as most projects were funded by other types of
and social media can facilitate citizen science institutions (see Figure 2b). The training and long
programs (Daume et al. 2014). Mobile personal term engagement were performed by researchers
communication devices (e.g., camera, GPS, touch from the University of São Paulo and Earthwatch
screen, microphones etc) can be used to obtain and Institute. HSBC volunteers participated in the
share information on geographic platforms where training on a regular workday, while all monitoring
volunteers can contribute to the interpretation of activities are performed external to contracted
spatial trends. work periods. Teams of trained volunteers adopted
specific sites and made regular measurements
CASE STUDY IN BRAZIL - ADOPT A RIVER
PROJECT
under the guidance of researchers, using online
and smart technologies. The use of citizen scientist
The FreshWater Watch (FWW) is a citizen science teams promotes socialization and improves safety.
project launched in 2012 in more than 30 cities Participants come from different areas of the
(on five continents) to support local freshwater bank, with an average age of 37 years (ages from
research in urban and peri-urban areas using a 21-59), and most have university degrees. The
common methodology. A field based training day participants are encouraged to act as ambassadors
prepares volunteers to perform measurements in a of the program and encourage community, family
safe and robust manner. Learning aspects include members and friends to join them in monitoring
awareness raising of local and global freshwater activities. Participant questionnaires and surveys
issues, opportunities for community leadership are used to evaluate training activities, the potential
and personal lifestyle changes. Participants for behavioral change and the understanding of
form a global citizen scientist network through a monitoring protocols. Over the first 24 months

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

2240 DAVI G.F. CUNHA et al.

of the project, 94% of the participants identified inadequate land use and anthropogenic impacts
a significant increase in their understanding of have been compromising ecosystem services and
freshwater issues (local and global), 95% reported the access to clean and safe water (e.g., Cunha et
a good to excellent understanding of the scientific al. 2016). The Adopt a River approach appeals
protocols and 96% reported an increased personal to the local participants as a means to contribute
commitment to action. to this local priority by supporting scientists and
After training, scientific engagement with the environmental agencies. Identifying appropriate
participants is maintained through multiple tools channels to make the data available for policy and
(Figure 6b). Feedback from researchers from the decision makers has been a challenge but was a
University of São Paulo and Earthwatch Institute key element to maintaining participation. Although
includes weekly quality control messages, online the participants’ activities also contribute to the
seminars and a yearly report. Automated feedback global FWW research objectives, participant’s
is returned in near real time following data upload contribution to local priorities was seen as a key
to the online database, and includes a comparative incentive to their long-term participation.
analysis of the uploaded dataset to local and global In the first 30 months of activity, there were
averages. 1,082 datasets uploaded by 307 different users,
The participant teams make regular working in teams. The number of repeat datasets
measurements using a standard global methodology obtained by single participants met the expected
with additional local parameters related to logarithmic trend (Figure 8). Interestingly, the
phytoplankton density and local meteorological data production shows a higher participation with
conditions. Local parameters are related to ongoing respect to other studies, as 80% of the data was
research into the conditions leading to harmful algal acquired by nearly 50% of the participant teams,
blooms in these mostly unmonitored ecosystems compared to the more common 80:20 rule found in
(e.g., Cunha et al. 2011). All data are uploaded most projects (Sauermann and Franzoni 2015). The
at an online platform (https://freshwaterwatch. engagement of the Brazilian volunteers was also
thewaterhub.org/) for open public consultation. attributed to the importance of the communication
In the first three years (2013-2015), more than channels and tools that were used to keep them
600 participants joined the project in Brazil and motivated. Communication strategies included
obtained data on a bimonthly basis in 80 streams online blogs, email communication, continuous
and rivers. Results from comparative analyses with learning activities and regular webinars. For the
other countries participating of the FWW project worldwide projects we analyzed, information
have been published in peer-reviewed journals on communication and engagement was rarely
(e.g., Loiselle et al. 2016). reported (Figure 7f), and we recommend special
The relevance of freshwater issues is of attention to this issue to achieve longer periods of
growing importance in Brazil. São Paulo, Rio volunteers’ active participation.
de Janeiro and Curitiba have had ongoing severe While the project showed a high activity rate,
water shortages with increasing eutrophication in clear barriers to long term commitment were present:
major water bodies. Water supply sources have i) volunteers build their own sample collectors;
reached the lowest water levels/discharges on ii) activities are performed outside of work hours
record and cyanobacterial blooms are common. and require travel to sample locations; iii) sample
Despite the country has a significant percentage ecosystems are often present in degraded areas (i.e.,
of the global water reserves, water pollution, with effluents discharge, presence of solid waste

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

 THE CITIZEN SCIENCE ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2241

and other unpleasant characteristics). Sampling remains unclear and a major challenge in many
frequency was every two months and to maintain projects (Newman et al. 2017).
participation, regular engagement activities (e.g. Engagement with Brazilian government
online interaction, follow-up workshops and agencies regarding information exchange is
events) were conducted. ongoing. Increasing the spatial and temporal
It was not possible to involve the volunteers in coverage of environmental monitoring is one of
data interpretation/analyses but temporal and spatial the most important challenges faced by local
analysis tools were provided online. Data gathering environmental agencies and the data obtained by
is the dominant task in the majority of citizen project participants represents a unique information
science projects (see Figure 1g). The effective base. At the moment (2016), citizen science is still
involvement of citizen scientists in decision-making
not fully embedded within public agencies and
(including delineation of scenarios and discussion
barriers remain, largely related to institutions’
of management options with professional scientists
structure and integration with strategic planning
and managers) has been more deeply studied in
(Blaney et al. 2016).
recent years and participatory models combined
to citizen science are already available (e.g., Gray CONCLUSIONS
et al. 2017). The direct transfer of the knowledge/
information gained from citizen science into The number and potential impact of citizen science
environmental conservation decision making initiatives are increasing worldwide. However,

Figure 8 - Datasets acquired by each volunteers of the Adopt a River project up to January 2015 (excluding datasets obtained by
the University of São Paulo and Earthwatch Institute).

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

2242 DAVI G.F. CUNHA et al.

there is a strong element of trial and error in many ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

projects, and the comparison of best practices

We thank HSBC Bank for the financial support to
and project structure between different initiatives the “Adopt a River” project in Brazil, under the
remains difficult. From the present study, it is scope of the HSBC Water Programme. Our sincere
possible to identify a successful citizen science grateful to all HSBC “Citizen Science Leaders”
program as one with a good match between project involved with the project. We also thank the
proponents and participants, project goals and local environmental engineering undergraduate students
priorities, participant profiles and engagement from the Universidade de São Paulo who are
practices, scientific methods and funding. Long members of the “Adopt a River” research team.
term engagement is favored when activities have
REFERENCES
implications for the local community (i.e. for the
ABOLAFYA M, ONMUS O, ŞEKERCIOĞLU ÇH AND
participants themselves), while the participation
BILGIN R. 2013. Using Citizen Science Data to Model
in a larger scale (global) effort provides additional the Distributions of Common Songbirds of Turkey Under
incentives for initial engagement, networking and Different Global Climatic Change Scenarios. PLOS ONE
8(7): e68037.
learning. Quality control, long term participation ABOUT GOOGLE SCHOLAR. 2015. Available from: https://
and personal commitment benefit from an initial scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html. Cited:
November 2015.
investment in training and continuous learning.
ARVANITIDIS C ET AL. 2011. Engaging the broader
In the Adopt a River project, a combination community in biodiversity research: the concept of the
of academic, private and NGO partners aimed COMBER pilot project for divers in ViBRANT. ZooKeys
150: 211-229.
at addressing a major local issue through field AU J, BAGCHI P, CHEN B, MARTINEZ R, DUDLEY
based training and long term engagement. The SA AND SORGER GJ. 2000. Methodology for public
monitoring of total coliforms, Escherichia coli and toxicity
methods were appropriate to meet both scientific
in waterways by Canadian high school students. J Environ
and monitoring objectives and the extended Manage 58: 213-230.
nature of the funding and commitment allowed BÄCKSTRAND K. 2003. Civic science for sustainability:
reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in
for the generation of a robust dataset. The success environmental governance. Global Environ Polit 3: 24-41.
of the project indicates that the data acquisition BEASLEY DAE, BENSON EP, WELCH SM, REID LS AND
MOUSSEAU TA. 2012. The use of Citizen Scientists to
methods and engagement approaches adopted were Record and Map 13-Year Periodical Cicadas (Hemiptera:
appropriate for the objectives set. Cicadidae: Magicicada) in South Carolina. Fla Entomol
The opportunity and potential benefits 95: 489-491.
BEEL J AND GIPP B. 2009a. Google Scholar’s ranking
for citizen science in Brazil are elevated. It is algorithm: an introductory overview. Pages 230-241.
a megadiverse country with a large and well Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI’09). Rio de Janeiro
educated population. There is a clear need for open (Brazil).
and accessible data and a greater involvement of BEEL J AND GIPP B. 2009b. Google Scholar’s ranking
algorithm: the impact of citation counts (an empirical
non-scientists as citizen scientists to help face
study). Pages 439-446. Research Challenges in Information
the country’s multiple environmental challenges. Science, 2009. RCIS 2009. Third International Conference
The present analysis shows that citizen science on. IEEE.
BIRD TJ ET AL. 2014. Statistical solutions for error and bias
is a growing part of the international scientific in global citizen science datasets. Biol Conserv 173: 144-
community area of practice. 154.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

 THE CITIZEN SCIENCE ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2243

BLANEY RJP, PHILIPPE ACV, POCOCK MJO AND to biodiversity science and public policy. Interdiscipl Sci
JONES GD. 2016. Citizen Science and Environmental Rev 33: 95-103.
Monitoring: Towards a Methodology for Evaluating CRALL AW, JORDAN R, HOLFELDER K, NEWMAN GJ,
Opportunities, Costs and Benefits. Final Report on behalf GRAHAM J AND WALLER DM. 2013. The impacts of
of UK Environmental Observation. Available at http:// an invasive species citizen science training program on
www.ukeof.org.uk/resources/citizen-science-resources/ participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public
Costbenefitcitizenscience.pdf. Cited: January 2017. Underst Sci 22: 745-764.
BONNEY R, BALLARD H, JORDAN R, MCCALLIE E, CUNHA DGF, DODDS WK AND CALIJURI MC. 2011.
PHILLIPS T, SHIRK J AND WILDERMAN CC. 2009a. Defining nutrient and biochemical oxygen demand
Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the baselines for tropical rivers and streams in São Paulo State
Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science (Brazil): a comparison between reference and impacted
Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Online sites. Environ Manage 48: 945-956.
Submission, 58 p. CUNHA DGF, SABOGAL-PAZ LP AND DODDS WK.
BONNEY R, COOPER CB, DICKINSON J, KELLING S, 2016. Land use influence on raw surface water quality
PHILLIPS T, ROSENBERG KV AND SHIRK J. 2009b. and treatment costs for drinking supply in São Paulo State
Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science (Brazil). Ecol Eng 94: 516-524.
knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59: 977-984. DANIELS DP, KROSNICK JA, TICHY MP AND TOMPSON
BROOK RK, KUTZ SJ, VEITCH AM, POPKO RA, ELKIN T. 2012. Public opinion on environmental policy in the
BT AND GUTHRIE G. 2009. Fostering community-based United States. The Oxford Handbook of US Environmental
wildlife health monitoring and research in the Canadian Policy, p. 461-486.
DANIELSEN F ET AL. 2009. Local participation in natural
North. EcoHealth 6: 266-278.
resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches.
BURGOS A, PÁEZ R, CARMONA E AND RIVAS H. 2013.
Conserv Biol 23: 31-42.
A systems approach to modeling Community-Based
DAUME S, ALBERT M AND VON GADOW K. 2014. Forest
Environmental Monitoring: a case of participatory water
monitoring and social media–Complementary data sources
quality monitoring in rural Mexico. Environ Monit Assess
for ecosystem surveillance? Forest Ecol Manag 316: 9-20.
185: 10297-10316.
DELUCA TH, APLET GH, WILMER B AND BURCHFIELD
BUSS DF. 2008. Desenvolvimento de um índice biológico
J. 2010. The unknown trajectory of forest restoration: a
para uso de voluntários na avaliação da qualidade da água
call for ecosystem monitoring. J Forest 108: 288-295.
de rios. Oecologia Brasiliensis 12: 520-530.
DEVICTOR V, WHITTAKER RJ AND BELTRAME C. 2010.
CASTILLA EP, CUNHA DGF, LEE FWF, LOISELLE S, HO
Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful
KC AND HALL C. 2015. Quantification of phytoplankton
tools for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib 16:
bloom dynamics by citizen scientists in urban and peri-
354-362.
urban environments. Environ Monit Assess 187: 1-11. DIAS R AND FIGUEIRA V. 2010. O turismo de observação
CATLIN-GROVES CL. 2012. The citizen science landscape: de aves: um estudo de caso do município de Ubatuba/SP-
from volunteers to citizen sensors and beyond. International Brasil. Revista de Estudos Politécnicos 8: 85-96.
Journal of Zoology 2012: Article ID 349630. DICKINSON JL, SHIRK J, BONTER D, BONNEY R,
CONRAD C. 2006. Towards Meaningful Community-Based CRAIN RL, MARTIN J, PHILLIPS T AND PURCELL
Ecological Monitoring in Nova Scotia: Where are we K. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for
versus where we would like to be. Environments 34: 25- ecological research and public engagement. Front Ecol
36. Environ 10: 291-297.
CONRAD C AND DAOUST T. 2008. Community-based DONNELLY A, CROWE O, REGAN E, BEGLEY S AND
monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of CAFFARRA A. 2014. The role of citizen science in
environmental stewardship. Environ Manage 41: 358-366. monitoring biodiversity in Ireland. Int J Biometeorol 58:
CONRAD CC AND HILCHEY KG. 2011. A review of citizen 1237-1249.
science and community-based environmental monitoring: ELWOOD S. 2010. Geographic information science: Emerging
issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 176: 273- research on the societal implications of the geospatial web.
291. Prog Hum Geog 34: 349-357.
COOPER CB, DICKINSON J, PHILLIPS T AND BONNEY ELY E. 2008. Volunteer monitoring and the democratization of
R. 2007. Citizen science as a tool for conservation in science. The Volunteer Monitor 19: 1-5.
residential ecosystems. Ecol Soc 12: Art. 11. EVANS C, ABRAMS E, REITSMA R, ROUX K,
COUVET D, JIGUET F, JULLIARD R, LEVREL H AND SALMONSEN L AND MARRA PP. 2005. The
TEYSSÈDRE A. 2008. Enhancing citizen contributions Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant outcomes

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

2244 DAVI G.F. CUNHA et al.

of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conserv LEPCZYK CA. 2005. Integrating published data and citizen
Biol 19: 589-594. science to describe bird diversity across a landscape. J
FERREIRA MA, SOARES L AND ANDRADE F. 2012. Appl Ecol 42: 672-677.
Educating citizens about their coastal environments: beach LOISELLE SA, CUNHA DGF, SHUPE S, VALIENTE E,
profiling in the Coastwatch project. J Coast Conserv 16: ROCHA L, HEASLEY E, BELMONT PP AND BARUCH
567-574. A. 2016. Micro and Macroscale Drivers of Nutrient
FERSTER CJ AND COOPS NC. 2013. A review of earth Concentrations in Urban Streams in South, Central and
observation using mobile personal communication North America. PLOS ONE 11: e0162684.
devices. Comput Geosci 51: 339-349. LOWRY CS AND FIENEN MN. 2013. CrowdHydrology:
GALLOWAY AW, TUDOR MT AND HAEGEN WMV. 2006. crowdsourcing hydrologic data and engaging citizen
The reliability of citizen science: a case study of Oregon scientists. Ground Water 51: 151-156.
white oak stand surveys. Wildlife Soc B 34: 1425-1429. LUCKY A, SAVAGE AM, NICHOLS LM, CASTRACANI
GIAIA. 2016. Independent Group for Environmental Impact C, SHELL L, GRASSO DA, MORI A AND DUNN RR.
Assessment. First interim report. Available at: http:// 2014. Ecologists, educators, and writers collaborate with
en.giaia.eco.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/First-Interim- the public to assess backyard diversity in The School of
Report-GIAIA_revised.pdf. Cited: December 2016. Ants Project. Ecosphere 5: art78.
GRAY S ET AL. 2017. Combining participatory modelling MAGURRAN AE, BAILLIE SR, BUCKLAND ST, DICK JM,
and citizen science to support volunteer conservation ELSTON DA, SCOTT EM, SMITH RI, SOMERFIELD PJ
action. Biol Conserv 208:76-86. AND WATT AD. 2010. Long-term datasets in biodiversity
HAYWOOD BK AND BESLEY JC. 2014. Education, research and monitoring: assessing change in ecological
outreach, and inclusive engagement: towards integrated communities through time. Trends Ecol Evol 25: 574-582.
indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory MARTIN-MARTIN A, ORDUNA-MALEA E, HARZING
science. Public Underst Sci 23: 92-106. A-W AND LÓPEZ-CÓZAR ED. 2017. Can we use Google
HOBBS SJ AND WHITE PC. 2012. Motivations and barriers Scholar to identify highly-cited documents? J Informetr
in relation to community participation in biodiversity 11: 152-163.
recording. J Nat Conserv 20: 364-373. MCKINLEY DC, BRIGGS RD AND BARTUSKA AM.
HUNTER J, ALABRI A AND INGEN C. 2013. Assessing 2013. Reprint of: When peer-reviewed publications are
the quality and trustworthiness of citizen science data. not enough! Delivering science for natural resource
Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience management. Forest Policy Econ 37: 9-19.
25: 454-466. MILNE R, ROSOLEN S, WHITELAW G AND BENNETT L.
JACSÓ P. 2008. Google scholar revisited. Online Inform Rev 2006. Multi-party monitoring in Ontario: Challenges and
32: 102-114. emerging solutions. Environments 34: 11-23.
KEBO S AND BUNCH MJ. 2013. Canadian ENGOs in NEUHAUS C, NEUHAUS E AND ASHER A. 2008. Google
governance of water resources: information needs and Scholar Goes to School: The Presence of Google Scholar
monitoring practices. Environ Monit Assess 185: 9451- on College and University Web Sites. The Journal of
9460. Academic Librarianship 34: 39-51.
KENNEY DS. 1999. Historical and Sociopolitical Context of NEWMAN G ET AL. 2017. Leveraging the power of place in
the Western Watersheds Movement1. J Am Water Resour citizen science for effective conservation decision making.
As 35: 493-503. Biol Conserv 208: 55-64.
KENNEY DS. 2001. Are community-based watershed NEWMAN G, GRAHAM J, CRALL A AND LAITURI M.
groups really effective? Confronting the thorny issue of 2011. The art and science of multi-scale citizen science
measuring success. Across the great divide: Explorations support. Ecol Inform 6: 217-227.
in collaborative conservation and the American West, p. O’FAIRCHEALLAIGH C. 2010. Public participation and
188-193. environmental impact assessment: Purposes, implications,
KIM S, ROBSON C, ZIMMERMAN T, PIERCE J AND and lessons for public policy making. Environ Impact
HABER EM. 2011. Creek watch: pairing usefulness and Asses 30(1): 19-27.
usability for successful citizen science. Pages 2125-2134. OVERDEVEST C, ORR CH AND STEPENUCK K. 2004.
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in
in Computing Systems. ACM. natural resource issues. Hum Ecol Rev 11: 177-185.
KRASNY ME, RUSS A, TIDBALL KG AND ELMQVIST T. PRICE SJ AND DORCAS ME. 2011. The Carolina Herp
2014. Civic ecology practices: Participatory approaches Atlas: an online, citizen-science approach to document
to generating and measuring ecosystem services in cities. amphibian and reptile occurrences. Herpetol Conserv Bio
Ecosyst Serv 7: 177-186. 6: 287-296.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)

 THE CITIZEN SCIENCE ROLE IN ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 2245

ROTMAN D, PREECE J, HAMMOCK J, PROCITA K, SINCLAIR AJ AND DIDUCK AP. 2001. Public involvement
HANSEN D, PARR C, LEWIS D AND JACOBS D. 2012. in EA in Canada: a transformative learning perspective.
Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen- Environ Impact Asses 21: 113-136.
science projects. Pages 217-226. Proceedings of the ACM STEWART JM AND SINCLAIR AJ. 2007. Meaningful public
2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative participation in environmental assessment: perspectives
Work. ACM. from Canadian participants, proponents, and government.
ROY HE, POCOCK MJO, PRESTON CD, ROY DB, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
SAVAGE J, TWEDDLE JC AND ROBINSON LD. Management 9: 161-183.
2012. Understanding citizen science and environmental THORNHILL I, LOISELLE SA, LIND K AND OPHOF D.
monitoring: Final report on behalf of UK environmental 2016. The Citizen Science Opportunity for Researchers
observation framework. and Agencies. BioScience 66(9): 720-721.
SAUERMANN H AND FRANZONI C. 2015. Crowd science TOOMEY AH AND DOMROESE MC. 2013. Can citizen
user contribution patterns and their implications. P Natl science lead to positive conservation attitudes and
Acad Sci USA 112: 679-684. behaviors? Hum Ecol Rev 20: 50-62.
ŞEKERCIOĞLU ÇH. 2012. Promoting community-based TREGIDGO DJ, WEST SE AND ASHMORE MR. 2013. Can
bird monitoring in the tropics: Conservation, research, citizen science produce good science? Testing the OPAL
environmental education, capacity-building, and local Air Survey methodology, using lichens as indicators of
incomes. Biol Conserv 151: 69-73. nitrogenous pollution. Environ Pollut 182: 448-451.
SHARPE A AND CONRAD C. 2006. Community based WALTERS WH. 2007. Google Scholar coverage of a
ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: challenges and multidisciplinary field. Inform Process Manag 43: 1121-
opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 113: 395-409. 1132.
SHEPPARD SA, WIGGINS A AND TERVEEN L. 2014. WEI JW, LEE BPY-H AND WEN LB. 2016. Citizen Science
Capturing quality: retaining provenance for curated and the Urban Ecology of Birds and Butterflies - A
volunteer monitoring data. Pages 1234-1245. Proceedings Systematic Review. PLOS ONE 11(6): e0156425.
of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported WIGGINS A AND CROWSTON K. 2011. From conservation
cooperative work & social computing. ACM. to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Pages
SHIRK JL ET AL. 2012. Public participation in scientific 1-10. System Sciences (HICSS), 2011. 44th Hawaii
research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc 17: international conference on. IEEE.
art. 29. WRIGHT PA AND STEVENS T. 2012. Designing a long-
SHWARTZ A, COSQUER A, JAILLON A, PIRON A, term ecological change monitoring program for BC Parks:
JULLIARD R, RAYMOND R, SIMON L AND PRÉVOT- ecological monitoring in British Columbia’s parks. BC J
JULLIARD A-C. 2012. Urban biodiversity, city-dwellers Ecosyst Manag 13: 87-100.
and conservation: How does an outdoor activity day affect YANG K AND MEHO LI. 2007. Citation Analysis: A
the human-nature relationship? PLOS ONE 7: e38642. Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of
SILVERTOWN J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Science. Proceedings of the American Society for
Trends Ecol Evol 24: 467-471. Information Science and Technology 43: 1-15.

An Acad Bras Cienc (2017) 89 (3 Suppl.)