RESUMEN
Increasing costs are challenging the capacity for resource management agencies to keep up with mounting needs for robust data about fish populations and their habitats. Furthermore, trust among scientists, government agencies, and the public is fundamental to effective fisheries management, and relations among these three groups are increasingly strained when decisions about fishing limits are made (or are perceived to be made) on the basis of limited information or analysis. In the South Atlantic region of the United States, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has begun building a citizen science program to increase the quantity and quality of data used for fisheries management decisions throughout the region and to build trust and foster mutual understanding among those involved in the process. The goal is to build on existing management infrastructure to address key challenges to managing fisheries for long-term sustainability. In the present article, we examine the collaborative process used to establish the program.
RESUMEN
Citizen science is a research practice that relies on public contributions of data. The strong recognition of its educational value combined with the need for novel methods to handle subsequent large and complex data sets raises the question: Is citizen science effective at science? A quantitative assessment of the contributions of citizen science for its core purpose--scientific research--is lacking. We examined the contribution of citizen science to a review paper by ornithologists in which they formulated ten central claims about the impact of climate change on avian migration. Citizen science was never explicitly mentioned in the review article. For each of the claims, these ornithologists scored their opinions about the amount of research effort invested in each claim and how strongly the claim was supported by evidence. This allowed us to also determine whether their trust in claims was, unwittingly or not, related to the degree to which the claims relied primarily on data generated by citizen scientists. We found that papers based on citizen science constituted between 24 and 77% of the references backing each claim, with no evidence of a mistrust of claims that relied heavily on citizen-science data. We reveal that many of these papers may not easily be recognized as drawing upon volunteer contributions, as the search terms "citizen science" and "volunteer" would have overlooked the majority of the studies that back the ten claims about birds and climate change. Our results suggest that the significance of citizen science to global research, an endeavor that is reliant on long-term information at large spatial scales, might be far greater than is readily perceived. To better understand and track the contributions of citizen science in the future, we urge researchers to use the keyword "citizen science" in papers that draw on efforts of non-professionals.