Thesis_MES_2023_CorlissL.pdf

Media

Part of Community Science and Natural Resource Conservation

extracted text

COMMUNITY SCIENCE AND
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION

by
Lynn Corliss

A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
May 2023

©2023 by Lynn Corliss. All rights reserved.

This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Lynn Corliss

has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by

_______________________________
Kathleen Saul, Ph. D.
Member of Faculty

_______________________________
Date

ABSTRACT
Community Science and Natural Resource Conservation
Lynn Corliss
Citizen Science, Community Science or Community Participatory Based research
expands scientific knowledge about rare and endangered species as well as critical habitats
(Balazs and Morello-Frosch, 2013). For this research project, an ArcGIS Survey123 was
distributed to 18 community science project leaders, representing 23 projects, to investigate how
they are supporting environmental policies in Washington. Nine project leaders responded to the
survey. One of the project leaders participated in an interview which was conducted on Zoom
and transcribed and analyzed using Atlas.ti. Three out of nine projects directly support
environmental policies in Washington. All of the community science projects for which data
were collected promoted collaboration and stewardship of the natural resources, which is
important during a time of change and climate crisis.

Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vi
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.

Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Gaps in data ......................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 Management and Policy Decisions .................................................................................. 11
1.4 Community Benefits ......................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Future Needs...................................................................................................................... 16

2. Methods .................................................................................................................................... 18
3. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 20
4. Discussion................................................................................................................................. 26
5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 31
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 35

iv

List of Figures
Figure 1 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 1
Figure 2 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 6
Figure 3 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 13
Figure 4 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 22
Figure 5 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 23
Figure 6 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 24
Figure 7 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 27
Figure 8 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 33

v

List of Tables
Table 1 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 19
Table 2 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 21
Table 3 …………………………………………………………………………………Page 25

vi

Acknowledgements
I would like to first acknowledge my reader and mentor, Kathleen Saul for all the support that
she provided during this process. The Evergreen Faculty and Staff, Kathleen, Kevin Francis and
Averi Azar were all there supporting me every step of the way. I am also grateful to my peerreaders Sarah Brady, Rachelle Clausen and Aleks Storvick for their willingness to read through
my rough drafts and be there for a sense of humor and emotional support. Another MES student,
Jennifer Bass, was instrumental in sharing ideas about Atlas.ti and qualitative research. I would
also like to thank Terence Lee with the Nisqually Nature Center for sharing his thoughts and
time in the follow-up interview that I conducted on both the pigeon guillemot and forage fish
projects. The Washington Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Division staff Cinde
Donahue and Cassidy Johnson were instrumental in giving me an inside view of how
community science can be successful with their AneMone eelgrass project. And of course, I
would like to thank my family Brad and John Burnham. I would like to dedicate this work to my
mom, Jane Corliss, who has always told me to follow my dreams.

vii

Introduction

Humans have been observing their environment throughout the seasons and recording
changes for thousands of years (Battiste, 2000; Snively and Corsiglia, 2001). Formerly known as
citizen science, community science (CS) programs of national, state and non-profit agencies have
relied on surrounding communities to help collect valuable information and data on species and
natural resources of concern (Dickinson et al., 2012). Community science projects include many
contributors that are important along the way, from the initial data collection, to data processing
and then finally reaching the end goal of the project managers and policy makers. Newman et al.
(2012) summarized how data is collected by the community, educators and scientists and ends up
in a database available to stakeholders (Figure 1).
Figure 1
Flow of Community Science Information

Note. This flow chart illustrated how the flow of information goes from participants to stakeholders (Newman et al.,
2012, p. 3).

1

As seen in the figure above, community science contributors can be scientists, students,
educators and anyone who is willing to be trained and participate. This may include retirees,
parents and people who work in a variety of professions that are interested in learning more
about their natural resources. Data bases can be open platforms such as iNaturalist or they can be
data bases that are set up by a specific state agency. Once the data has been entered into these
data bases, they can be coded or analyzed in order to find patterns or information that can help
natural resource managers to make decisions or changes. The data may be coded by a statistician
or the manager themselves. Once interpreted, the data can be presented to the board of directors
or other stakeholders that may want to know if the project is reaching the intended goal of the
agency or if the data can be used for related policy work.
Natural resource agencies have saved both money and time by having community
members assist in both field and lab settings to gather information (Gundelund et al., 2021;
Rubio-Iglesias et al., 2020). Some of the more popular community science programs include bird
counts (Crabbe, 2012), coral reef data collection (Day et al., 2022), and beach sweeps (Zettler et
al., 2017). Project FeederWatch was initiated in the United States by the Cornell Lab of
Ornithology in 1986 to include minorities and participants who may not be able to spend all day
walking outdoors to count birds (Bonter and Greig, 2021). Community science projects have
been on the rise across the United State and have contributed billions of dollars in-kind towards
scientific knowledge (Roche, 2022; Theobald et al., 2015). Many state agencies and non-profit
organizations such as the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), Washington
Fish and Wildlife (WFWS), the Swinomish Tribe and the Nisqually Reach Nature Center have
realized the benefit of training community members to help gather data.
In a changing world where climate change continues to increase catastrophic events and

2

where biodiversity is at risk, there is a need for an all-hands-on deck approach. The use of
platforms on laptops and smart phones allows many community members to record important
observations (Young et al., 2019). These observations may include undescribed species, rediscovery of species, range extensions and undocumented animal behaviors (Callaghan et al.,
2022). The iNaturalist platform, one of the most popular, can provide biosecurity services by
alerting local communities to problems with invasive or dangerous species that may threaten
crops or humans (Callaghan et al., 2022). Likewise, data on potentially hazardous marine debris
has been documented in beach sweeps conducted by the Surfrider Foundation (2023).
As a result of all the work by community members, these projects have helped natural
resource managers see a more complete picture when making decisions about policies and
natural resources (Crabbe, 2012; Kieran et al., 2015; Monk et al., 2008). For instance,
community science has been used to study water quality parameters that have shaped global
policy (König et al., 2021). This was conducted by soliciting information through a survey from
participants on water quality focused on the nutrient content, extensive literature review and
participatory workshops with stakeholders (König et al., 2021). Ruiz-Gutierrez et al. (2021)
addressed how the eBird data on bald eagles has been used by the United State Fish and Wildlife
to determine low-risk areas for wind farms. Community science projects also respond to
environmental crisis situations such as the Deep Horizon Oil spill of 2010 (Sullivan et al., 2018).
This multi-year project used a community-based participatory approach to collect data working
with fishermen to gather information on the exposure of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH) to provide a seafood consumption guideline for the coasts of Louisiana, Alabama and
Mississippi. Projects like these expand the capabilities of ecologists, tribes, and project
managers, and help them with decision making on diseases, invasive species, and climate change

3

issues that may not be possible without the community’s help (Dickinson et al., 2012; Snively
and Corsiglia, 2001). In essence, community science projects have the potential to influence
future decisions about our natural resources.
With all the platforms and programs that that are used by community science participants
to collect data, the question remains: In what way does community science data support
environmental policies in Washington State? More governmental agencies and non-profits are
using community science projects to introduce the public to their local natural resources and for
gathering information about critical species and changing habitats (Gundelund et al., 2021
;Rubio-Iglesias et al., 2020). While some projects use community science to spark curiosity,
other projects, such as the eelgrass (Zostera marina) ANeMoNe project by the Washington
Department of Natural Resources and the Pigeon Guillemot (Cepphus columba) project by the
Nisqually Reach Nature Center and the Dungeness crab (Metacarcinus magister) larvae program
with the Swinomish tribe, provide agencies and tribes with data to inform management decisions
about important species and the natural resources in Washington.
This thesis research explores the use of community science data in support of
environmental policies in Washington. The first chapter in this thesis will explore the literature
on community science, gaps in the data, management and policy decisions and community
benefits and future needs. The second chapter will look at the results of both the survey and
interview and how they support the thesis question. The third chapter will discuss the
implications of these results and the last chapter will circle back and looks at what this means for
community science and environmental policies for Washington in the conclusion.

4

1. Literature Review
1.1 Introduction
Participants of community science projects contribute countless hours collecting
scientific data and supporting natural resource conservation. One of the first citizen science
projects started in 1885 and focused on how community members could collect data on bird
migration patterns (Merriam, 1885). Citizen Science, Community Science or Community
Participatory Based research expands scientific knowledge towards research on rare and
endangered species as well as critical habitats (Balazs and Morello-Frosch, 2013). These types of
projects set up unique science learning experiences by engaging participants in data collection
(Dibner and Pandya, 2018). This literature review includes background information on citizen
science projects, why there is a need for more data collected by community members, how the
data collected by community science members supports more informed management of natural
resources and environmental policies, how community science projects support transformative
learning experiences and what the challenges and future needs are for natural resource managers.
Modern citizen or community science projects have some common characteristics. Some
of those characteristics include having a systematic approach that produces reliable information
(Dibner and Pandya, 2018). This approach makes sure that participants are engaged with the data
and benefit from these projects. It also ensures participants are more invested in the data that
they are gathering and gives them a sense of pride. One example of this was seen in the sea turtle
projects in North Carolina where the coordinators had ownership in their project design and data
outcomes (Cornwell and Campbell, 2012). This technique of engaging participants who are not
the project scientists communicates results to these participants while advancing scientific
knowledge (Dibner and Pandya, 2018). Variations on this systematic theme may include the

5

duration of the project, mode of communication, scale of activities, location, voluntary vs.
compensated participants and experimental science or learning and community-based decision
making (Dibner and Pandya, 2018). Having a systematic approach also helps with the quality of
the data that is produced for these types of projects.
According to Wiggins and Crowston (2011, p. 4) there are different types of citizen
science projects which can be categorized by their goals. Projects may be ecologically or
conservation oriented and support natural resource management as mentioned below in Figure 2
with the “Marine Litter Watch” project.
Figure 2
Marine Litter Watch Map

Note. Image shows Marine Litter Watch web application for the distribution of Europe’s top ten marine debris items (RubioIglesias et al., p. 4).

Other projects are purely educational focused on informal learning for young learners such as
those led by the Seattle Aquarium. In this case, the data is collected and put in a repository but
not used to support environmental policies.

6

The types of participants and how they are involved in data collection may vary as well
as the focus of the project (Bonney et al., 2009; Dibner and Pandya 2018). Some participants are
observing animal behavior, location or density and entering data onto a platform such as eBird
(n.d.). Other projects are mediated through information and communication technologies or
platforms such as iNaturalist. And, action-based projects that are grassroots, involve
participatory action by the community where they are involved in the design of the project, data
collection and how the results are used.
Participants can also act as cultural researchers and guides. In this case, participants may
be studying and interpreting at the same time (Bang, 2015). Cultural researchers may include
research that a tribe is conducting in regards to food security or species that are important to their
cultural ceremonies (Snively and Corsiglia, 2001). Cultural community science programs have
the opportunity to engage a more diverse audience in science and acknowledge differing world
views (Cajete, 2018).
While the National Audubon society started one of the first citizen science projects in
1885 in the United States, Earthwatch is a more recently founded international organization that
uses community science to empower communities around the world (Day et al., 2022). In fact,
the term global community observatories was first coined by Jacqueline McGlade in 2009 during
an annual Earthwatch presentation. In this approach citizens are encouraged to engage in the
changes they see in their environment (McGlade, 2009). Community science or community
observatories is not a new phenomenon in Europe, and data gathered by such groups has even
been used by the United Nations to help make decisions about sustainable development (Fritz et
al., 2019; Hager et al., 2021).

7

Back in the United States, beach clean-up programs and marine debris collection started
in Oregon in 1984 and International Coastal Clean-ups followed suit by the Ocean Conservancy
(Zettler et al., 2017). The Marine Litter Watch project is coordinated by the European
Environmental Agency (EEA) and works with dozens of organizations to set up a protocol and
workshops for volunteers to collect information on marine debris on beaches and rivers (RubioIglesias et al., 2020). Volunteers use a common mobile application and the data is then made
available to the public through a web portal (Rubio-Iglesias et al., 2020, and Figure 2). Their data
demonstrates how cigarette butts and filters represent one of the most common marine debris
items in the ocean. More projects are using web-based applications like that used by Marine
Litter Watch to tackle environmental issues in the marine environment and along shorelines.
Community science projects can collect data that help project leaders make more
informed decisions on policy and management of critical habitat and species (Crabbe, 2012;
Kieran et.al.; 2015; Monk et.al., 2008). Examples of polices that are supported by community
science data include the Marine Research, Prevention and Reduction Act, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy (An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century) and legislation to ban the use of plastic
bags (Zettler et al., 2017). Zettler et al. (2017) devised standardized practices for data collection
and quality control for marine debris so that it could be reliably used for peer-review research.
This standardized data can then support environmental policies. Ruiz-Gutierrez et al. (2021)
explored how eBird data has been used by the United States Fish and Wildlife for decisions on
bird populations and permits for development. There is more potential to use data from these
community science projects in the future for important management decisions about our natural
resources as new platforms become available for data collection and the ability to share data
becomes more streamlined.

8

1.2 Gaps in data
Studies have shown that there is a need to fill gaps of missing data and information about
the environment with evidence-based natural resource data (Gundelund et al., 2021; Kieran et al.
2015). Gundeland et al. (2021) demonstrated how citizen science data and traditional data
collected on sea trout were similar. They showed that citizen science could act as a stand-alone
data collection system when combined with online applications. This type of approach could fill
a gap if agencies need data but are low on staff.
Kieran et al. (2015) reviewed 400 articles, confirming that most of the citizen science
projects had either high or medium frequency of expert judgement by professionals in the fields
of biodiversity, physical environment, resource management, and pollution in the marine
environment. This means that while all of these projects required a professional to oversee the
project, the data was deemed reliable. Kieran et al. (2015) emphasized that citizen data needs to
be cross checked with remote sensors, buoys, gliders, satellite tagged mammals, and ships. While
this may seem like an added expense, the support that community members give through
collecting data, advocacy and conservation outweighs the added expense. Data can also be
verified by using low-cost electronic based platforms such at Sealife Tracker (2023), Sea
Angling Catches (2023) and Marine Debris (n.d.) on participants’ smart phones.
Citizen science data can also support traditional surveys through electronic platforms for
fisheries (Gundelund et al., 2021). This fills a gap in data collection that was not possible in the
past. In the study by Gundeland et al. (2021), the citizen science data was entered into an
electronic Danish platform (fangstjournalen) when anglers fishing for sea trout returned from
their fishing trips and were cross checked by aireal surveys and creel surveys. Creel surveys are
also referred to as angler surveys which are conducted by a natural resource manager. The lack

9

of data in fisheries and lower costs of having anglers collect data are strong incentives for using
citizen science for supporting conservation of the marine environment (Dickinson et al., 2012;
Kieran et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2012).
Other applications that are used now by community members and volunteers include
HerpMapper (n.d.), Bumble Bee Watch (2023) and eButterfly (2022). Many of these applications
can be used with little to no training which can save money for non-profits and state agencies
collecting the data (Balazs, and Morello-Frosch, 2013; Rubio-Iglesias et al., 2020). For example,
volunteers contributed $19.6 million in volunteer hours to the Washington state’s budget in
2020. This budget includes natural resource agencies such as the WA Department of Ecology,
WFWS and WDNR which all utilize community members or volunteers to collect data (MartinJahn, 2020).
Tribes, state agencies and non-profits are historically underfunded (Roche et al., 2022).
Many of these projects are managed by leaders that have many other responsibilities and
appointments (Roche et al., 2022). Natural history information from tribal members in
Washington has been missing and is a gap that needs to be filled. Using surveys, interviews and
field notes focused on methodology and ethical issues is important for these types of community
science projects where the research teams are small (Roche et al., 2022). Also, finding ways to
integrate Western science and indigenous science into these projects can create a more holistic
view (Cajete, 2018; Snively and Corsiglia, 2001). Wheeler et al. (2020) examined what drives
the progress and limitations of indigenous knowledge in the management of natural resources in
the Arctic region. They emphasized the benefits of integrating these two systems, including
strong connections between cultural and biological diversity as well as a more holistic view of

10

the natural ecosystems. The authors found that collaboration and coproduction of information
were key to the success of environmental decision making.
Community science participants can also increase the volume of data that is collected.
For example, the European Evolution MegaLab was seeking information about the
polymorphism or the variety of patterns in banded snails (Worthington et al., 2012). A network
of 15 countries collaborated on this project in order to collect the data. A total of 6,461
community members participated and entered 7,629 data points. The success of the MegaLab
project for European snails was in the researcher’s design, recruitment and training in order to
assure that quality data was collected. Before this project, there was a much-needed information
gap on the polymorphism of banded snails in Europe.
1.3 Management and Policy Decisions
While community science projects can help fill the data gaps for agencies and non-profits
there is generally a limited understanding of what the policy needs are for most agencies (Wehn
et al., 2021). For example, the Wehn et al. (2021) team developed a Citizen Science Impact Story
Telling Approach (CISTA) and used this Impact Inquiry Instrument to collect qualitative data in
order to understand how citizen science may have been impacting environmental policies and
decision making in Europe. They found that there was limited knowledge of the policies within
the citizen science community and that this had created communication gaps between the
volunteers, stakeholders, and policy makers (Wehn et al., 2021). This team of researchers and
other studies suggest that there is a need to connect the data and policy demands either through
the CISTA approach or other means (Suškevičs et al., 2021; Wehn et al., 2021). While there is
more work that needs to be done in the area of communication between stakeholders and the

11

researchers collecting the data, both environmental governance and public policy are important
aspects of community science (Wehn et al., 2021).
Government agencies may review data collected by community members in order to
make important regulatory decisions and to gather support for proposed policies (Sullivan et al.,
2014). For example, regulations are an important tool for protecting at-risk species, habitats and
natural heritage sites. Out of 53 natural heritage sites surveyed by Young et al. (2019), 32 used
citizen science data in their regulatory reviews. Percival et al. (2018) discovered that government
agencies regularly use distribution data on at-risk species for permits and licensing applications.
Such applications might be rejected or accepted based on the distribution data for a particular
species. The platform eBird can contribute information on at-risk species distribution so that
government agencies can make informed decisions (Sullivan et al., 2014). This information has
been used by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) and has provided
analysis of bird populations in the United States through eBird data (Sullivan et al., 2014). In
another application, the eBird data collected on the endangered seaside sparrows (Ammodramus
maritimus) in New York State was compared to data collected by field biologists to help provide
greater certainty for regulatory decisions on this endangered species (Young et al., 2019) (Figure
3).

12

Figure 3
Seaside Sparrow Map

Note. The yellow dots represent breeding pairs of seaside sparrows (Ammodramus maritimus) in New York State. The green
polygons are mapped from the data collected by a trained observer. The blue triangles data was collected by observers on
eBird and represent unsuitable nesting habitat (golf courses) (Young et al., 2019, p. 58).

People engaged in the sparrow project collaborated with the National Heritage database, eBird
data and the non-profit Nature Serve (2022). This type of collaboration is important during a
time of rapid environmental change where bird populations are shifting farther and farther North
(Carbeck et al., 2022).
Global climate change, globalization and human population growth have all impacted
land, tribes and species at risk (Cajete, 2018). The need to have a clear picture of these changes
and how populations are responding has never been more important. All of these pressures have
implications for biodiversity (Sullivan et al., 2014). Decisions will need to be made in some
cases as the data is changing due this dynamic and ever-changing environment. The indigenous
history and changes to the land can reveal longer term trends in biodiversity (Snively and
Corsiglia, 2001). Some of the most compelling information has come from applications such as

13

eBird and iNaturalist on these biodiversity shifts (Sullivan et al., 2014; Young et al., 2019).
Many agencies at both national and international levels are looking at ways to streamline the
collection of community science data in light of the future challenges with climate change and
biodiversity loss (Rubio-Iglesias et al., 2020).
1.4 Community Benefits
Community science is not just about collecting data for biodiversity, population shifts or
climate change. In addition to providing data to scientists and policy makers, researchers have
uncovered a number of rewards that benefited volunteers participating in these projects.
Community members that participate in citizen science programs feel more engaged and
committed to learning during data collection (Day et al., 2022; Dean et al., 2018; Isley et al.,
2022; Thiel et al., 2014). Community science is by nature interdisciplinary since it uses both
sociological and ecological principles (Crain et al., 2014). Many participants of community
science already have an interest or connection to the land that can add a sociological aspect to
their research (Crain et al., 2014). Additionally, this social aspect of community science projects
can create social networks and encourage science literacy (Price and Lee, 2013). One study
recruited 82 participants from a local hiking group in New York and New Jersey to learn about
invasive species and participate in a hiking session to solidify their training sessions (Jordon et
al., 2011). The leaders noticed that there was a knowledge and behavior change among the
participants during their training (Jordon et al., 2011). Likewise, at the conclusion of the research
conducted on a sea turtles in North Carolina where the coordinators had ownership in their field
work, the scientists saw a change in attitude towards conservation and an increase in scientific
knowledge with the volunteers (Cornwell and Campbell, 2012).

14

Supporting people’s connection to nature and ecological knowledge also empowers
underrepresented groups (Crain et al., 2014). After the Deep Horizon Oil Spill in Louisiana in
2010, crowdsourcing (obtaining information from a large group of people) was used to collect
data in order to map the impacts of oil on the shrimp and effects from the oil spill on the local
community members (Louisiana Bucket Brigade (LABB) and McCormick, 2012). The locals
distrusted the officials and felt they had downplayed the impacts of the disaster. Crowdsourced
data pointed out places in the environment where community members registered air and water
quality issues, and where the government had not collected any data. In another example,
Newman et al. (2017) examined various projects and platforms to better understand how they
could increase the conservation of natural resources. The researchers found that when
participants focused on citizen science projects that gave them a sense of affinity to their natural
resources, or when they collected data close to their home, it improved conservation decision
making. Newman et al. (2017) suggested that these place-based projects can influence
participation, volunteer retention, and the efficiency by which data is collected.
Just as having a sense of place increases conservation, partnerships can be developed
when those involved with several projects come together to collaborate or share data. The
University of Maine created three community science projects to examine the impact of storm
surges on local estuaries (Roche et al., 2022). In this study, the researchers conducted interviews,
submitted surveys and reviewed the field data to evaluate and compare these three place-based
projects. They found that constant collaboration and communication is important in order to
have all aspects of the projects to stay aligned (Roche et al., 2022).
Informed community members often want to support environmental justice and natural
resource conservation. Researchers in Australia evaluated the community science projects

15

VeggieSafe and DustSafe in 7,200 homes (Isley et al., 2022). They found that many participants
used the information collected to mitigate and avoid toxic metal exposure in their food and the
dust in their homes. This project would not have been possible without the collaboration of
multiple agencies and researchers (Isley et al., 2022).
In the Balazs and Morello-Frosch study (2013), researchers looked at drinking water data
collected from households in Northern California to see how minorities and low-income
communities are disproportionately affected by high nitrates and arsenic. This project
encouraged collaboration between non-profit organizations and the local University (UC
Berkeley) to encourage data sharing and method discussions in order to make sure that the data
collected was relevant to the community (Balazs and Morello-Frosch, 2013). After collecting the
data, the partners were able to work together and break through the regulatory and political
barriers that insisted that these environmental inequities were only happening to an isolated
number of people (Balazs and Morello-Frosch, 2013). None of the projects reviewed above
would have been possible if there had not been collaboration between agencies and interested
community participants.
1.5 Future Needs
The data from well-established citizen science projects in Europe are being used for their
natural resource planning and regulatory needs (Rubio-Iglesias et al., 2020). These research
projects involved in the planning of future projects stated that the whole life cycle of the data
collection and storage needs to be considered (Rubio-Iglesias et al., 2020). Data from community
science projects also need to be available and centralized in order to continue their usefulness
well into the future.

16

Of course, there will always be skeptics who challenge the validity of citizen science
data. One example is a mixed method approach of surveying and interviewing participants and
leaders of citizen science projects that was conducted in Eastern Europe (Suškevičs et al., 2021).
Coordinators of three biodiversity initiatives were sent surveys and the researchers conducted
follow-up interviews. The coordinators were interested in using this community science data but
were skeptical about the reliability of the data and lack of user-friendly databases. Even with all
the skepticism, there seems to be overwhelming support from some agencies that want
community members to play a role in environmental conservation and environmental justice
(Balazs and Morello-Frosch, 2013; Isley et al., 2022).
The field of environmental science has more impact on the natural resources with the
integration of social science, policy makers, and public engagement (Kieran et al., 2015). Some
organizations and research groups are even creating tools that community science practitioners
can use to initiate these types of projects. Once such approach is called the Community Science
Impact Story Telling Approach (CSISTA) (Wehn et al., 2021). This approach allows the
community as a whole to be more involved in the decision-making process in regards to the
management of natural resources and the support of environmental policies. Involving
community members to help with assessing natural capital and ecosystem services brings in a
more holistic approach to gathering data in Washington and other parts of the world (Cajete,
2018; Seymour et al., 2022). Community science causes the democratization of science by
bringing together all the stakeholders.
In the following sections I will describe how I collected the data to answer my research
question “In what way does community science data support environmental policies in
Washington State?” I explain what my results revealed, explore what I discovered in my

17

discussion and finish with my conclusions on what all this means for the future of community
science.
2. Methods
In this section, I focus on my research methods and how I administered the collection of
my data. I conducted a survey and followed up with an interview. I collected information from
project leaders of community science projects in order to discover how their data was used and if
it was helpful in decision making for environmental policies and natural resource conservation in
Washington.
This project was approved by The Evergreen State College (TESC) Institutional Review
Board and a test survey was reviewed by several TESC faculty members before the final survey
went out to the project leaders. I then administered a survey to adult leaders of natural resource
community science projects in Washington during the winter of 2023. The 18 Washington
agencies and non-profits were contacted via email as listed on the Pacific Northwest Citizen and
Community Science Website (n.d.). The agencies and non-profits which were contacted include:
WA Department of Natural Resources, WA Sea Grant (UW), Meadow Watch (UW), Rare Plant
Monitors and Seed Collectors (UW), The Snow Fly Project (UW), Pacific Shellfish Institute,
Nisqually Reach Nature Center, Nisqually River Foundation, Surfrider Foundation, COASST,
Arbutus ARME (WSU), Forest Health Watch (WSU), Washington Invasives Council,
Amphibians of WA (Woodland Park Zoo), Carnivore Spotter (Woodland Park Zoo), Puget
Sound Seabird and Neighborhood Bird Project (Seattle Audubon), Thornton Creek Water
Quality Citizen Science, Giant Hornet Trapping (WA Department of Agriculture), Northwest
Indian and Fisheries Commission.

18

A cover letter accompanied a consent form. The convenience sampling survey included
fill in the blank, multiple choice and yes/no questions via email (See Appendix). Project leaders
could then fill out the form either directly from a QR code or by clicking on a link to the ArcGIS
Survey123 by Esri (n.d.) on their phone or computer. An ArcGIS map was inserted into the
survey so that project leaders could mark the location of their field site. The data were used to
assess the relationship between community science projects and natural resource management
and policies.
At the end of the survey, there was a yes/no question so that project leaders could
volunteer for a follow-up interview. There were nine open-ended questions that were asked
during the interview on Zoom (Table 1.).
Table 1
Interview Questions for Community Science Project Leaders

19

I used Atlas.ti (2023) software in order to input the qualitative data from the interviews
for analysis. The information from the interviews was coded and analyzed for correlations
between community science data collected and environmental policies. The coding search
approach was descriptive and deductive. Data was transferred from ArcGIS Survey 123 in to a
final story map for presentation at The Evergreen State College during spring of 2023. This
information is stored on ArcGIS Survey 123 and will be deleted three years after the completion
of the thesis.
All answers remain confidential and were only used for this thesis. Results from the data
analyses were shared with participants, the community science leaders, and faculty and students
during a public presentation at The Evergreen State College.
3. Results
Nine program leaders, who represent twenty-three projects of community science
programs, participated in the ArcGIS Survey123 questionnaire for this study. The program
leaders had two weeks to fill out the survey. These nine out of eighteen program leaders
completed the survey, resulting in a 50% return rate.
The results provided information on whether the data collected by community science
projects are supporting policies or the natural resource management in Washington. Some of the
nine participants oversaw more than one project (Table 2).

20

Table 2
List of Agencies and Organizations from Survey123

List of Agencies and Organizations from
Survey123
University of Washington
WA Department of Natural Resources
WA Department of Fish and Wildlife
Seattle Aquarium
US Fish and Wildlife Service
In the final version, WA Tribe
WA Sea Grant (UWA)
WA Department of Ecology
Pacific Shellfish Institute
Nisqually Reach Nature Center
COASST
WA State University
US National Park Service
WA Department of Agriculture
Thornton Creek Alliance

Number of projects
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Note. This table includes all of the agencies, institutions and organizations that participated in the Survey123 (ArcGIS).
Some organizations coordinated more than one community science project.

The total number of projects reviewed was n=23 from the nine project leaders that were
surveyed. Among these twenty-three projects, six supported non-profit organizations, fourteen
were state projects, and three were national projects (Table 2).
Four project leaders stated that their data supported state environmental policies, five
project leaders were not sure, and none of the project leaders said that their data did not support
environmental policies (Figure 4).

21

Figure 4
Responses to the Question: Does your data support environmental policy?

Note. This data shows the number of project leaders that are certain that their projects support environmental policies
(ArcGIS Survey 123).

One of the questions in the survey asked the project leaders to name the specific policy
that their data was supporting. Three community science project leaders were able to
communicate this on the survey. For example, the Nisqually Reach Nature Center (through the
WA Department of Fish and Wildlife) collected data with community members on the presence
or absence of forage fish in the intertidal shores of South Puget Sound, which supports the
Hydraulic Project Approval Rule (RCW 77.55). This rule is important to preserve shoreline
habitat for forage fish and determines whether a developer can obtain a permit for shoreline
development through the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (2023). The Thornton Creek
Alliance collects water quality data for a watershed in Seattle which supports the Total Coliform
Rule (DOH 331-556) through the WA Department of Health (n.d.). This rule makes sure that the
Thornton Creek watershed does not exceed the Washington State Department of Ecology’s total

22

coliform levels according to the 2022 Water Quality Assessment and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agencies Clean Water Act 303(d) (n.d.). Finally, the Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR) collects data on kelp and eelgrass beds along with water quality
information that supports the WA State Legislature’s State Bill 5619 for the restoration of kelp
and eelgrass beds (2021). This in turn, helps support the State’s goal of restoring 10,000 acres of
eelgrass beds by 2040, as part of the Puget Sound Eel Grass Recovery Strategy. Thus, all of the
data collected from community members for these three projects supports state level
environmental policies for water quality and fish.
Other interesting information obtained from the survey was that most of the participants
identified that the main focus for their project was investigative. The choices for classifying their
projects were based on Wiggins and Crowston (2011) and included: investigative, educational,
virtual, conservation, environmental justice, action or other. The investigative approach is an
inquiry-based approach where the participants learn as they collect data (Figure 5).
Figure 5
Main focus of the Community Science Projects

Note. Graph shows the classifications of projects surveyed (ArcGIS Survey123).

23

Over half of the project leaders that responded to the survey (56%) said that they were
able to collect more data with less staff (Figure 6). However, while they were able to collect
more data with less staff, the projects did create more work for the project leaders. The project
leaders spent 2 to 10 plus hours just focusing on their community science projects. Most of the
increased time investment was in education of the volunteers and data processing.
Figure 6
Collecting Data with Less Staff

Percentage of Projects Allowed to Collect More
Data with Less Staff
Unsure
22%

Yes
56%
No
22%

Yes

No

Unsure

Note. This data shows that community science projects collect more data with less staff (ArcGIS Survey 123).

I also collected demographic information on the project leaders that participated in this
survey. Over seventy-seven percent of the project leaders had sixteen plus years of experience
overseeing these types of projects. Over forty-four percent of these project leaders had a
Bachelor’s of Science degree or above. The project leaders said that it was the hands-on
experiences, the exposure to field science, and exposure to the environmental science field that
prepared them to lead these types of projects.
While five project leaders agreed to be interviewed, only one project leader was able to
24

complete the interview. This interview focused on two projects (pigeon guillemot and forage
fish) conducted by the Nisqually Reach Nature Center (See Appendix for the complete
interview). Sixty-one codes were created and placed into six categories after transcribing the
interview on Atlas.ti. The six categories include: collaboration, community, conservation,
knowledge gaps, policy, and tribes. The codes which occurred three or more times were included
in a frequency table (See Table 3).
Table 3
Frequencies of code words used in the interview during this study.

Code Frequency
Code Word
Conservation
Environment
Habitat
Information
Pigeon guillemot
Population
Quality Control
Spawning
Species
State
Survey
Fish
Data

Frequency
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
7
9

Note. Only code words that appeared three or more times are included. There are a total of sixty-one codes (Atlas.ti)

These code words are all related to natural resources and natural resource management.
The policies that were supported from the results this thesis survey focused on critical habitat
and indicator species. Fish are an important indicator species for water quality because they are

25

exposed to and accumulate contaminants. The Pacific Northwest tribes are interested in
obtaining data on fish habitat and spawning areas because of their treaty rights to fish in their
usual and accustomed areas according to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC)
(2016).
4. Discussion
While the data from this survey and interview were generally positive, information from
a wider range of project leaders would have given a more complete picture. Also, not all of the
project supervisors indicated that they were aligned with any environmental policy. Some
community science projects are purely educational, such as the Seattle Aquariums citizen science
program. Though the survey was easier to distribute and collect information from the project
leaders than conducting an interview, the answers were not as revealing. There were quite a few
assumptions such as how the data was handled and what kind of collaboration was occurred
between agencies, but probing those areas fell outside of the scope of the survey. And, while
coding and analysis of the information can be time consuming, it brings information and patterns
to light that might not be obvious in a survey. For example, the interview shows how important it
is to have quality control and check points as the data is being collected. When interviewing the
project leader at the Nisqually Reach Nature Center he stated:
This (analysis and quality control) is through Washington, State Department of
Fish, Wildlife. So we don’t do any analysis of the data. At this point we send our
data to Department of Natural Resources, and they conduct initial-level quality
control on a small percentage of the samples that we send in. So, of the samples that
we collect, whichever ones have eggs in it, we send the vials of eggs along with the
data sheets that match those samples to WADNR. They verify it, and if they have
questions they send it to consultant for further quality control, and that, as far as data
analysis on the State side, they don’t necessarily do analysis, but they do take that data,
and they put it into a GIS map which is that publicly available so there is potential for
data analysis to occur by anyone who may be interested in looking at statewide data (T.
Lee, Personal Communication, March 15, 2023).
26

Quality control is especially important when collaborating with state agencies that are
using this information to support, environmental permitting, policy or regulations (Figure 7)
(Bonter and Cooper, 2012).
Figure 7
Data Validity Flow Chart

Note. This figure shows the flow chart of how community science data can be evaluated for quality control by experts.
(Bonter and Cooper, 2012, p. 307).

Another revelation from the interview was how volunteers gain knowledge about their
natural resources in a place-based sense. This knowledge then translates into participants
supporting and advocating for stewardship of their natural resources (Newman et al., 2017).
Another missing piece that was brought to light throughout the interview was how indigenous
knowledge is missing from what data is collected and how the data may be interpreted for future
policies and regulations. This missing information has been an unfortunate factor for hundreds of
years in our state.
While this study included both a survey and an interview, it was the interview that
revealed the most. I teased out sixty-one code words as I went through the transcript line by line.

27

The words that showed up the most were survey, fish, and data. Forage fish, the salmon that
depend on them, and the species that depend on salmon are critical to environmental health in the
Pacific Northwest and support many aquatic ecosystems (NOAA, 2023). Since the pigeon
guillemot birds are dependent on the near shore and subtidal regions for foraging for fish yearround in the Salish Sea, they reflect the general health of these ecosystems. Understanding their
health gives natural resource managers an understanding of the health of the Salish Sea.
“Survey”, “fish”, and “data” together with the codes conservation, information and
habitat are not only telling about the focus of this thesis research but also about the role that
community science can play. Yes, all of the agencies and projects were focused on natural
resources but without the data and information that was collected by the community, then there
would be less information about the natural resources in Washington. This information about the
natural resources is vital in order to support policies that matter.
The data revealed that a number of different agencies and non-profits are using
community science as a tool to gather information. Most of the agencies participating in these
types of projects appear to be linked to the state institutions. Washington’s major universities as
well as natural resource agencies such as the WDNR, WFWS and the WA Department of
Ecology are major players in promoting these types of projects. Four project leaders state that
these community science projects are saving their agencies and the state time and money just as
indicated in the literature (Balazs, and Morello-Frosch, 2013; Rubio-Iglesias et al., 2020).
According to a survey conducted in 2020 by Martin-Jahn (2020) from the Office of Financial
Management in Washington, volunteers contributed $19.6 million dollars to the state’s budget.
Not only is the state saving money and time but it is also discovering new information about the
natural resources through the investigative approach to community science.

28

The investigative approach that dominated most of the projects studied in this research
suggests reasons why agencies use community science. By using an inquiry-based focus,
questions can be explored through the data collection. Science methodology demands that we ask
questions and investigate what is going on in the environment. Policies such as the Clean Water
Act 303 (d) and Clean Air Act of the U.S. Department of Environmental Protection came about
due to the need to investigate the severe pollution that was occurring in the 1970’s (EPA, 2022;
EPA, 2023).
That environmental policies and regulations are being supported by community science is
confirmed by the volume of literature on citizen/community science projects and by the myriad
of examples of successful projects in Washington alone. Projects like the COASST project
through the University of Washington, the AnNemone project with the WDNR and the crab
larvae project with the Pacific Shellfish Institute and the Swinomish tribe have shown how
organization, collaboration and support from the community can contribute to effective data
collection. The information collected from these projects from eelgrass to crab larvae is critical
knowledge for the state of Washington’s natural resources.
Platforms can now be downloaded onto volunteers’ phones and laptops in order to
expedite the process of collecting data (Sullivan et al., 2014; Young et al., 2019). This ease of
access creates an opportunity to get more people involved in conservation while also supporting
the mission of the WA Department of Ecology and the Governor’s goals for the natural resources
in Washington. The mission of the WA Department of Ecology is as follows: “To protect,
preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment for current and future generations (n.d.). The
mission for the WA Governor’s office is as follows: “Washingtonians care deeply about
preserving and protecting our clean water and air for our families and future

29

generations. Washington is among the leading states in the fight against climate change and
growing the state’s clean energy economy” (n.d.). It has been shown through this study and the
literature that community science can support these goals, as was done when the Thornton Creek
Alliance collected Seattle watershed data under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies
Clean Water Act 303(d).
As seen through the results of this study, a place-based approach to community science
can provide more social, emotional, and affective approaches to data collection. While some of
the projects’ goals are to collect data in order to support policies, others are to endorse
environmental education and conservation. I asked the project leader at the Nisqually Reach
Nature Center if he felt that his community science project aligned with the broader goals of
conservation. He said:
In a broader sense, I would say yes, because part of our mission is really about
connecting people with nature, and we use science and education as tools for doing
that. So one of the positive aspects of citizen science is that it is both a science tool,
and it is an educational tool (T. Lee, Personal Communication, March 15, 2023).
Community science can also create collaboration between the community, scientists, and
the stakeholders (Newman et al., 2017; Crain et al., 2014). There is an opportunity for
indigenous science and Western science to learn from each other and endorse a more holistic
approach to data collection and support environmental policies in Washington. In my interview, I
found this was not happening:
Unfortunately, like with pigeon guillemot project, the forage fish project is something that we don’t currently collaborate with in the Nisqually tribe, which is the one
tribe for whom this research would be the most relevant. But we are certainly open to
having opportunities to learn about the traditional ecological knowledge, and what
sort of role that plays in terms of cultural significance? I mean as an anecdotal, I noted
in this call, I tried. It was actually looked into studying the herring populations which
you know in turn that support salmon populations. We are not really partnering with
the tribe on that, so would be great if we could. But you know they tend to be a little
bit more insular. And yeah. But you know, if the opportunity were to come up, we
30

would certainly welcome the chance to, you know, partner with the tribe, and at the
same time try and find ways that can enhance their knowledge, or, you know, maybe
adapt our methods to collect information that you know, balance what they already
know (T. Lee, Personal Communication, March 15, 2023).

While I found out that the agencies are not collaborating with the tribes in community science
projects, the tribes can offer information about long-term trends of populations and
environmental changes. This place-based approach can be the bridge that connects these two
schools of thought. Both biodiversity and native food security are at risk. Also at risk is the
opportunity for all Washington community members to thrive in a healthy environment.
5. Conclusion
Not all community science projects are contributing to the environmental policies or laws
in the state of Washington. This study explored the question “In what way does community
science data support environmental policies in Washington State?” Three projects that
support environmental policies were revealed as a result of this study. And, community science
projects that are not supporting environmental policies are still valuable. The information in this
study uncovered many benefits to the state, agencies, non-profits, and participants from
community science projects. For example, the health of Puget Sound can be measured by
tracking the ubiquitous pigeon guillemot—it tends to be everywhere and eats anything so a
decline in its population would be particularly valuable information (T. Lee, Personal
Communication, March 15, 2023). The forage fish project on the other hand, probes spawning
in relation to regulations on shoreline development, permits and beach habitats (T. Lee, Personal
Communication, March 15, 2023). This data allowed the Nisqually Reach Nature Center to
gauge the impact of human-made structures on spawning areas and thus recommend habitat
restoration activities. In addition, population status is needed for indicator species in our state so

31

that targets can be used for recovery after a disaster (T. Lee, Personal Communication, March
15, 2023). While not all of the community science projects are endorsing environmental policies
or laws, these types of projects have dedicated volunteers who become advocates for
environmental conservation.
The Nisqually Reach Nature Center is just one non-profit that is doing this. They
collaborate with the WA Department of Fish and Wildlife and WA Department of Natural
Resources to collect data using members of the community. They use science as a tool in their
research projects to connect volunteers with nature and help them understand their role as
stewards of nature. The information from these projects is also available on statewide data bases
which are accessible to state residents. These projects are aligned with the goals of the
Governor’s office of this state to connect people to nature.
The locations of other projects that were a part of this study are shown in Figure 8 below.

32

Figure 8
Map of community science project locations

Note. Five out of seven projects that were indicated on the survey are located on the Salish Sea (ArcGIS Survey123).

As you can see from this map, most of the projects are located on the shores of the Salish Sea.
One of the top concerns for the State of Washington is water quality.
Several recommendations have emerged from this study. Community science projects
need to consider what their end goal is for the data that they are collecting. Quality control of the
data is also important when planning to collaborate with other agencies or if the data is being
used to support environmental policies. Additionally, clear communication and expectations is
essential at each level of the data collection. The more background information and training the
volunteers have, the more confidence they and the project leaders can feel while collecting this
data in the field.

33

In order to make community science data valuable to the state it needs to be valid. There
is an opportunity for Washington State to work with and support the tribes who’s needs have
been ignored. There is also an opportunity for the state to use community science as a tool to
promote environmental justice, climate change issues and environmental advocacy. During my
interview I learned what must be considered when initiating new community science projects:
If it were me is, I would do some investigation into looking at what sort of local or
regional or national issues might be of interest, and from there, I would see what existing
research has been conducted on it, and see if there’s any information out there as far as
knowledge gaps. And then from there, knowing what those knowledge gaps are,
identifying professionals who are working on the issue and connecting with those
professionals to find out what would be most useful (T. Lee, Personal Communication,
March 15, 2023).

Community science can be the vehicle that helps people feel empowered in a time of
despair. Climate change is threatening the livelihood of everyone and decreasing biodiversity in
Washington. With community science projects, not only are volunteers empowered, but the
agencies can broaden their network (Price and Lee, 2013). Community science is a supportive
web that can strengthen our communities and empower people to want to make a difference. By
supporting the natural resources through community science all the communities of Washington
benefit.

34

Bibliography
ArcGIS. (n.d.) Survey123. Esri. https://www.arcgis.com/index.html
Atlas.ti. (2023). @Atlas.ti. https://atlasti.com/
Balazs, C. & R. Morello-Frosch. (2013). The three R’s: How community based participatory
research strengthens the rigor, relevance and reach of science. Environmental Justice,
6(1). https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/env.2012.0017
Bang, M. (2015). Culture, learning, and development and the natural world: The influences
of situative perspectives. Educational Psychologist, 50(3), 220–233.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2015.1075402
Barbier, E. B. (2019). The concept of natural capital. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,
35(1), 14–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/gry028
Bartel, R. A., Oberhauser, K. S., de Roode, J. C., & Altizer, S. M. (2011). Monarch butterfly
migration and parasite transmission in eastern North America. Ecology, 92(2), 342–351.
https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0489.1
Battiste, M. (2000). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. University of Washington
Press, 1326 Fifth Avenue, Suite 555, Seattle, WA 98101 (ISBN-0-7748-0746-6).
Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk,
J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and
scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977–984. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
Bonter, D. N., & Cooper, C. B. (2012). Data validation in citizen science: A case study from
Project Feeder Watch. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment, 10(6), 305–307.
https://doi.org/10.1890/110273

35

Bonter, D. N., & Greig, E. I. (2021). Over 30 years of standardized bird counts at
supplementary feeding stations in North America: A citizen science data report for
project FeederWatch. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.619682
Bumble Bee Watch. (2023). Bumble Bee Watch. https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/
Buytaert, W., Dewulf, A., De Bièvre, B., Clark, J., & Hannah, D. M. (2016). Citizen science
for water Resources management: Toward polycentric monitoring and governance?
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(4), 01816002.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000641
Cajete, G. (2018). Indigenous governance and sustainability. Native Nations Institute. The
University of Arizona.
Callaghan, C. T., Mesaglio, T., Ascher, J. S., Brooks, T. M., Cabras, A. A., Chandler, M.,
Cornwell, W. K., Cristóbal Ríos-Málaver, I., Dankowicz, E., Urfi Dhiya’ulhaq, N.,
Fuller, R. A., Galindo-Leal, C., Grattarola, F., Hewitt, S., Higgins, L., Hitchcock, C.,
James Hung, K.-L., Iwane, T., Kahumbu, P., & Kendrick, R. (2022). The benefits of
contributing to the citizen science platform iNaturalist as an identifier. PLoS Biology,
20(11), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001843
Carbeck, K., T. Wang, J. M. Reid, and P. Arcese (2022) Adaptation to climate change
through seasonal migration revealed by climatic versus demographic niche models.
Global Change Biology, 28(14): 4260–4275. COASST. (2023). University of
Washington. https://coasst.org/about/our-story/

36

Cornwell, M. L., & Campbell, L. M. (2012). Co-producing conservation and knowledge:
Citizen-based sea turtle monitoring in North Carolina, USA. Social Studies of Science,
42(1), 101–120.
Crabbe, J. (2012). From citizen science to policy development on the coral reefs of Jamaica.
International Journal of Zoology, 102350, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/102350
Crain, R., Cooper, C. & Dickinson, J. (2014). Citizen science: A tool for integrating studies
of human and natural systems. Annual Review of Environmental and Resources, 39, 641665. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-environ-030713-154609
Day, G., Fuller, R., Nichols, C. & Dean, A. (2022). Characteristics of immersive citizen
science experiences that drive conservation engagement. People & Nature, 4(4), 983-995.
13p. DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10332.
Dean, A., Church, E., Loder, J., Fielding, K. & Wilson, K. (2018). How do marine and
coastal citizen science experiences foster environmental engagement? Journal of
Environmental Management, 213, 409-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.080
Dibner, K. and Pandya, R. (2018). Learning through citizen science: Enhancing
opportunities by design. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine;
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Board on Science Education;
Committee on Designing Citizen Science to Support Science Learning. Washington
(DC): National Academies Press (US).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535959/
Dickinson, J.L., Shirk, J., Bonter, D., Bonney, R., Crain, R.L., Martin, J., Phillips, T. and
Purcell, K. (2012). The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research

37

and public engagement, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 10, 291297. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236
eButterfly. (2022). eButterfly. University of Ottawa. https://www.e-butterfly.org/
eBird. (n.d.). Discover a new world of birding. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.
https://ebird.org/home
Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). Overview of Clean Air Act and Air Pollution.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-actoverview
Environmental Protection Agency. (2022). Summary of the Clean Water Act. United States
Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summaryclean-water-act
Feldman, R. E., Žemaitė, I., & Miller-Rushing, A. J. (2018). How training citizen scientists
affects the accuracy and precision of phenological data. International Journal of
Biometeorology, 62(8), 1421–1435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-018-1540-4
Fontaine, C., Fontaine, B., & Prévot, A.-C. (2021). Do amateurs and citizen science fill the
gaps left by scientists? Current Opinion in Insect Science, 46, 83–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2021.03.001
Fritz, S., See, L., Carlson, T., Haklay, M. (Muki), Oliver, J. L., Fraisl, D., Mondardini, R.,
Brocklehurst, M., Shanley, L. A., Schade, S., Wehn, U., Abrate, T., Anstee, J., Arnold,
S., Billot, M., Campbell, J., Espey, J., Gold, M., Hager, G., … West, S. (2019). Citizen
science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability,
2(10), 922–930. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0390-3

38

Fuccillo, K. K., Crimmins, T. M., de Rivera, C. E., & Elder, T. S. (2015). Assessing accuracy
in citizen science-based plant phenology monitoring. International Journal of
Biometeorology, 59(7), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-014-0892-7
Gonsamo, A., Chen, J. M., & Wu, C. (2013). Citizen Science: Linking the recent rapid
advances of plant flowering in Canada with climate variability. Scientific Reports, 3(1),
Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep02239
Gundelund, C., Venturelli, P., Hartill, B. W., Hyder, K., Olesen, H. J., & Skov, C. (2021).
Evaluation of a citizen science platform for collecting fisheries data from coastal sea trout
anglers. Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences, 78(11), 1576–1585.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2020-0364
Hager, G., Gold, M., Wehn, U., Ajates, R., See, L., Woods, M., Tsiakos, C., Masó, J., Fraisl,
D., Moorthy, I., Domian, D., & Fritz, S. (2021). Onto new horizons: Insights from the
WeObserve project to strengthen the awareness, acceptability and sustainability of
Citizen Observatories in Europe. Journal of Science Communication, 20(06), A01.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20060201
HerpMapper. (n.d.) Global Herp Atlas. HerpMapper. https://www.herpmapper.org/
iNaturalist. (n.d.). A Community for Naturalists. California Academy of Sciences and
National Geographic Society. https://www.inaturalist.org/
Isley, C. F., Fry, K. L., Sharp, E. L., & Taylor, M. P. (2022). Bringing citizen science to life:
Evaluation of a national citizen science program for public benefit. Environmental
Science & Policy, 134, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.015

39

Jordan, R. C., Gray, S. A., Howe, D. V., Brooks, W. R., & Ehrenfeld, J. G. (2011).
Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conservation
Biology, 25(6), 1148–1154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01745.x
Kieran H., Townhill B., Anderson L., Delany J. & Pinnegar, J.
(2015). Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy?
Marine Policy, 59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.022
König, A., Pickar, K., Stankiewicz, J., & Hondrila, K. (2021). Can citizen science
complement official data sources that serve as evidence-base for policies and practice to
improve water quality? Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 37(1), 189–204.
https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-200737
Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What Is Citizen Science? – A Scientometric
Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147152.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152
Lewandowski, E. J., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2017). Butterfly citizen scientists in the United
States increase their engagement in conservation. Biological Conservation, 208, 106–
112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.07.029
MacKerron, G., & Mourato, S. (2013). Happiness is greater in natural environments. Global
Environmental Change, 23(5), 992–1000.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.010
Marine Debris. (n.d.). Marine Debris. Marine Extension and Georgia Sea Grant. University
of Georgia. https://gacoast.uga.edu/marine-debris/
Martin-Jahn, A. (2020). How state government can better invest in volunteers. A report to
legislature. Chapter 45, Laws 2019 Report Washington State. Office of financial

40

management – Serve Washington. P. 1-18. https://servewashington.wa.gov/aboutus/reports
Merriam, C. (1885). Preliminary report of the committee on bird migration. The Auk, 2(1),
53–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/4625173
McCormick, S. (2012). After the cap: Risk assessment, citizen science and disaster recovery.
Ecology and Society, 17(4). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26269217
McGlade, J. (2009). Global citizen observatory—The role of individuals in observing and
understanding our changing world. European Environment Agency. (n.d.). [Speech].
Retrieved November 13, 2022, from https://www.eea.europa.eu/media/speeches/globalcitizen-observatory-the-role-of-individuals-in-observing-and-understanding-ourchanging-world
McKinley, D. C., Brown, H., Stepenuck, K. F., Weltzin, J. F., Wiggins, A., Boyle, O. D.,
Briggs, R. D., IIIChapin, S. F., Hewitt, D. A., Preuss, P. W., Soukup, M. A., Miller
Rushing, A. J., Ballard, H. L., Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Shirk, J. L., Cook-Patton, S.
C., Evans, D. M., French, R. A., & Parrish, J. K. (2017). Citizen science can improve
conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection.
Biological Conservation, 208, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015
Miller-Rushing, A., Primack, R., & Bonney, R. (2012). The history of public participation in
ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 285–290.
https://doi.org/10.1890/110278
Molsher, R., & Townsend, M. (2016). Improving wellbeing and environmental stewardship
through volunteering in nature, EcoHealth, 13(1), 151–155.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-015-1089-1

41

Monk, J., Ierodiaconou, D., Bellgrove, A., & Laurenson, L. (2008). Using community-based
monitoring with GIS to create habitat maps for a marine protected area in
Australia. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 88(5),
865-871. doi:10.1017/S0025315408001835
NatureServe. (2022). NatureServe. Earth Share. https://www.natureserve.org/
Newman, G., Chandler, M., Clyde, M., McGreavy, B., Haklay, M., Ballard, H., Gray, S.,
Scarpino, R., Hauptfeld, R., Mellor, D., & Gallo, J. (2017). Leveraging the power of
place in citizen science for effective conservation decision making. Biological
Conservation, 208, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.019
Newman, G., Wiggins, A., Crall, A., Graham, E., Newman, S. and Crowston, K. (2012). The
future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in
Ecology and the Environment, 10, 298-304. https://doi.org/10.1890/110294
NOAA. (2023). Salmon and steelhead research in the Pacific Northwest. National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Northwest Fisheries and Science
Center. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/science-data/salmon-and-steelheadresearch-pacific-northwest
NWIFC. (2016). Treaties. Northwest Indian and Fisheries Commission.
https://nwifc.org/member-tribes/treaties/
Pacific Northwest Citizen and Community Science. (n.d.). Advancing knowledge and
learning together. Pacific Northwest Citizen and Community Science.
https://pnwcitsci.org/
Percival, C. H., Schroeder, A. S., Miller, J. P., Leape, J. P. (2018). Environmental regulation:
Law, science, and policy. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, New York, USA.

42

Price, C. A., & Lee, H.-S. (2013). Changes in participants’ scientific attitudes and
epistemological beliefs during an astronomical citizen science project. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 50(7), 773–801.
Robinson, O. J., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V., Fink, D., Meese, R. J., Holyoak, M., & Cooch, E. G.
(2018). Using citizen science data in integrated population models to inform
conservation. Biological Conservation, 227, 361–368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.10.002
Robinson, O. J., Ruiz‐Gutierrez, Viviana., Reynolds, M. D., Golet, G. H., Strimas‐Mackey,
M., Fink, D., & Maiorano, L. (2020). Integrating citizen science data with expert
surveys increases accuracy and spatial extent of species distribution models. Diversity
& Distributions, 26(8), 976–986. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.13068
Roche, A. J., Rickard, L. N., Huguenard, K., & Spicer, P. (2022). Who’s tapped out and
what’s on tap? Tapping into engagement within a place-based citizen science
effort. Society & Natural Resources, 35(6), 667–683.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2022.2056668
Rubio-Iglesias, J., Edovald, T., Grew, R., Kark, T., Kidey, A., Peltola, T. & Volten, H.
(2020). Citizen science and environmental protection agencies: engaging citizens to
address key environmental challenges. Frontiers in Climate, 2(600998), 1-7.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2020.600998/full
Ruiz‐Gutierrez, V., Bjerre, E. R., Otto, M. C., Zimmerman, G. S., Millsap, B. A., Fink, D.,
Stuber, E. F., Strimas‐Mackey, M., & Robinson, O. J. (2021). A pathway for citizen
science data to inform policy: A case study using eBird data for defining low‐risk

43

collision areas for wind energy development. Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(6), 1104–
1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13870
Schwartz, M. D., Betancourt, J. L., & Weltzin, J. F. (2012). From Caprio’s lilacs to the USA
National Phenology Network. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6), 324–327.
https://doi.org/10.1890/110281
Sea Angling Catches. (2023). IGFA Catch Certificate. International Game Fish Association.
Sealife Tracker. (2023). Biological Records Center. UK Center for Ecology and Hydrology.
https://www.brc.ac.uk/sealife_tracker/
Seymour, V., Willls, B., Wilkin, P., Burt, P., Ikin, E., & Stevenson, P. C. (2022).
Incorporating citizen science to advance the natural capital approach. Ecosystem Services,
54, 101419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101419
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering Indigenous Science: Implications for science
education. Science Education, 85(1), 6–34.
Stepenuck, K. F., & Green, L. T. (2015). Individual- and community-level impacts of
volunteer environmental monitoring: A synthesis of peer-reviewed literature. Ecology
and Society, 20(3). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26270236
Sullivan, J. et al. (2018). Building and maintaining a citizen science network with fishermen
and fishing communities post Deepwater Horizon oil disaster using CBPR approach. New
Solutions, 28(3), 416–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1048291118795156
Sullivan, B. L., Aycrigg, J. L., Barry, J. H., Bonney, R. E., Bruns, N., Cooper, C. B.,
Damoulas, T., Dhondt, A. A., Dietterich, T., Farnsworth, A., Fink, D., Fitzpatrick, J. W.,
Fredericks, T., Gerbracht, J., Gomes, C., Hochachka, W. M., Iliff, M. J., Lagoze, C., La
Sorte, F. A., … Kelling, S. (2014). The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to

44

development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation, 169, 31–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003
Surfrider Foundation. (2023). The ocean needs more friends. https://www.surfrider.org/
Suškevičs, M., Raadom, T., Vanem, B., Kana, S., Roasto, R., Runnel, V., & Külvik, M.
(2021). Challenges and opportunities of engaging biodiversity-related citizen science data
in environmental decision-making: Practitioners’ perceptions and a database analysis
from Estonia. Journal for Nature Conservation, 64, 126068.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2021.126068
Taylor, S. D., Meiners, J. M., Riemer, K., Orr, M. C., & White, E. P. (2019). Comparison of
large-scale citizen science data and long-term study data for phenology modeling.
Ecology, 100(2), e02568. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2568
Theobald, E. J., Ettinger, A. K., Burgess, H. K., DeBey, L. B., Schmidt, N. R., Froehlich, H.
E., Wagner, C., HilleRisLambers, J., Tewksbury, J., Harsch, M. A., & Parrish, J. K.
(2015). Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen
science for biodiversity research. Biological Conservation, 181, 236–244.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021
Thiel, M., Penna-Diez, M., Luna-Jorquera, G., Salas, S., Sellanes, J. &Stotoz, W. (2014).
Citizen science and marine research: Volunteer participants, their contributions, and
projections for the future. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b17143
Tulloch, A. I. T., Possingham, H. P., Joseph, L. N., Szabo, J., & Martin, T. G. (2013).
Realizing the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biological
Conservation, 165, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025

45

United Nations. (2019). Nature’s dangerous decline “unprecedented” species extinction rates
“accelerating”. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/05/nature-decline-unprecedentedreport/
Vetter, J. (2011). Introduction: Lay participation in the history of scientific observation.
Science in Context, 24(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889711000032
WDNR. (2023). Licenses and permits. Hydraulic Project Approval. Washington Department
of Natural Resources. https://wdfw.wa.gov/licenses/environmental/hpa
WDOE. (n.d.). Water quality assessment and 303(d) list. Washington Department of
Ecology. https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Waterimprovement/Assessment-of-state-waters-303d
WDOH. (n.d.). Revised Coliform Rule. Washington Department of Health.
https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/drinkingwater/contaminants/coliform/revised-total-coliform-rule-rtcr
Washington Governor’s Office. (n.d.). Energy and the environment. Washington Govenor
Jay Inslee. https://governor.wa.gov/issues/energy-environment
Washington State Legislature. (2021). Conserving and restoring kelp forests and eel grass
medows in Washington state (SB 5169). Washington Department of Natural Resources.
https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5619&Year=2021
Wehn, U., Ajates, R., Fraisl, D., Gharesifard, M., Gold, M., Hager, G., Oliver, J. L., See, L.,
Shanley, L. A., Ferri, M., Howitt, C., Monego, M., Pfeiffer, E., & Wood, C. (2021).
Capturing and communicating impact of citizen science for policy: A storytelling
approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 295,

46

NA. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A669968486/PPES?u=evergreenst&sid=bookmarkPPES&xid=d324cc3e
Wheeler, H. C., Danielsen, F., Fidel, M., Hausner, V., Horstkotte, T., Johnson, N., Lee, O.,
Mukherjee, N., Amos, A., Ashthorn, H., Ballari, Ø., Behe, C., Breton‐Honeyman, K.,
Retter, G., Buschman, V., Jakobsen, P., Johnson, F., Lyberth, B., Parrott, J. A., …
Vronski, N. (2020). The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous
knowledge along with science for environmental decision‐making in the Arctic. People
and Nature, 2(3), 544–556. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10131
Wiggins, A., & Crowston, K. (2011). From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of
citizen science. In 2011 44th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 110). IEEE.
Worthington, J.P., Silvertown, J., Cook, L., Cameron, R., Dodd, M., Greenwood, R.M.,
McConway, K. and Skelton, P. (2012), Evolution MegaLab: a case study in citizen
science methods. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 303309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00164.x
Young, B. E., Dodge, N., Hunt, P. D., Ormes, M., Schlesinger, M. D., & Shaw, H. Y. (2019).
Using citizen science data to support conservation in environmental regulatory contexts.
Biological Conservation, 237, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.06.016
Zettler, E., Takada, H., Moteleone, B., Mallos, N., Eriksen, M., and Amaral-Zettler, L.
(2017). Incorporating citizen science to study plastics in the environment. The Royal
Society of Chemistry, 9, 1392-1403.

47

Appendices
Cover letter:

Dear Citizen Science Project Leader,
I am writing to ask for your help in gathering data for my thesis at The Evergreen State College.
Citizen science or community science projects are on the rise in South Puget Sound. This survey
will be gathering information on how well these community science projects are supporting
environmental policies in Washington. Specifically, I would like to know how the data is being
used.
The platform used for the questions in this survey will be on ArcGIS Survey 123 by Esri. You
can fill out the form directly by clicking on the link or using the QR code below on to your
phone or computer. The purpose of this survey is to get a clearer picture of how community
science may be supporting our natural resources.
This survey should take no more than 10 minutes of your time. This survey will provide valuable
information on how the data from these projects are being used to support environmental
policies. All the information that you share is confidential and any personally identifying
information will be removed before your information is shared with this class or project leaders.
Thank you so much for your time!
Lynn Corliss, MEd
MES Candidate

48

Consent Agreement and ArcGIS Survey123:

Natural Resources and Community Science
Thank you for taking my survey on citizen/community science! This survey is
collecting information as part of an Evergreen State College MES thesis project.
The purpose of this survey is to gain a clearer understanding of how community
science managers use project data and how community science projects can
support natural resource conservation in Washington. It is also looking at how
community science data supports environmental policies in Washington. All
answers will be confidential and only be used for this thesis.
1) Informed Consent Agreement
You are being invited to participate in a research study titled “Natural Resources
and Community Science” This study is being conducted by Lynn Corliss, a Master
of Environmental Studies student at The Evergreen State College. If you agree to
take part in this study, you will be asked to complete an online survey. This survey
will ask a variety of questions about the data that is collected for your community
science project and what type of environmental policies it may support. It will take
you approximately ten minutes to complete.
Risks to you are minimal and are likely to be no more than mild discomfort with
sharing your opinion. To the best of our ability, your answers in this study will
remain confidential. With any online-related activity, however, the risk of a breach
of confidentiality is always possible. Additional information about YouGov
privacy policy can be found here: http://today.yougov.com/about/privacy/. Your
participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at any
time. You are free to skip any question that you choose. Data collected from you
for this project will be shared with Lynn Corliss and The Evergreen State College.
Any personally identifiable information will be removed before your information
is shared.
49

If you have questions about this project, you may contact the researcher, Lynn
Corliss at Lynn.c@evergreen.edu. If you have any questions concerning your
rights as a research subject, or you experience problems as a result of participating
in this research project, you may contact The Evergreen State College Institutional
Review Board in Olympia, WA. They can be reached by email at:
irb@evergreen.edu
By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you are at least 18 years old, have read
and understood this consent form and agree to participate in this research study. You may
print a copy of this page for your records if you wish.

I Agree

I Disagree

2) Which of the following agency are you working with? Check all that apply.
_____ WA Department of Natural Resources
_____ WA Department of Fish and Wildlife
_____ WA Department of Ecology
_____ Pacific Shellfish Institute
_____ Nisqually Reach Nature Center
_____ Nisqually River Council
_____ Surfrider
_____ COASST
_____ University of Washington
_____ Washington State University
_____ Woodland Park Zoo
_____ Seattle Audubon
_____ NASA
_____ USGS
_____ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
_____ National Park Service
_____ Other. Please write out the agency name or non-profit below if not in this
list:

3) How long have you managed this project? Please pick one option.
1 Season

1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

50

4 Years

5+ Years

4) Type of information collected. Pick the options that apply.
_____ Nesting behavior
_____ Population density
_____ Population estimate
_____ Amount of toxic algae blooms
_____ Levels of toxins or chemicals
_____ pH levels
_____ Dissolved oxygen
_____ Amount of fertilizers (phosphates or nitrates)
_____ Invasive species
_____ Disease
_____ Climate change impacts (i.e. drought, fire, flooding)
_____ Other. If other, please indicate what you are measuring below:
5) Describe the main classification of your community science project. Please pick
the option that best describes your project.
_____ Educational
_____ Investigative
_____ Virtual
_____ Conservation
_____ Environmental Justice
_____ Action
_____ Other
6) Is the data collected by community science participants used to create new or
improved on management techniques? Please pick one option.
Yes
Unsure
No
7) Is the data collected by community science participants used to support existing
environmental policies? Please pick one option.
Yes

Unsure

No

8) Please describe in one or two sentences, how the data is used.

51

9) List any specific management decisions that the data has supported.

10) List any specific environmental policies that the data has supported.

11) Has this community science data allowed you to collect more data with less
staff?
Yes

Unsure

No

12) Has the community science project increased or decreased your work load.
Circle one option. If you choose increase, please pick the option that reflects this
increase in question number 13.
increased

Unsure

decreased

13) How many hours per week has your work load increased due to this
community science project? Please pick one option.
1-2 hours

3-4 hours

5-6 hours

7-8 hours

9-10 hours 10 + hours

14) What area of training and preparation takes the most time? Please pick one.
_____ Recruitment
_____ Designing data sheets
_____ Education of staff
_____ Education of participants
_____ Field training of staff
_____ Field training of participants
_____ Collection of data
_____ Obtaining and setting up equipment
_____ Equipment maintenance
_____ Processing data
_____ Organizing staff
52

15) Please indicate the number of years you have been in this profession. Pick one.
1-5 Years

6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21 Years +

16) How many citizen/community science projects do you oversee? Pick one
option.
1

2

3

4

5+

17) What training or degree has helped you design or develop these types of
projects?

I would like to conduct follow-up interviews with community science project
leaders to get a better understanding of how community science data can be
effectively implemented for future natural resource decisions in Washington. If
you are willing to agree to a follow-up call or Zoom session with me, please
answer the option “I agree” below.
I Agree

I Disagree

Thank you so much for taking my survey!
Please indicate field location where your field data was collected. Use GIS map
locator. Map title – Location of Community Science Projects.
Transcribed Interview (3/15/23):
Q1 - Name of your project?
So, my name is Terence Lee, and I help coordinate the South Sound (Nisqually Nature Center).
Q2 - You said that your project was investigative, educational, virtual, conservation,
environmental justice, action or other (circle one that applies). In light of this, I would like
to better understand how your data was used. What variables did you decide to focus on
and why?
Yeah, so this study (pigeon guillemot) is actually an estimation of population abundance. It's not
meant to be a complete population census. So key distinction. There, there are a handful of basic

53

metrics that we do collect data, for there's the actual number of given a month that are present
during a survey. So, we conduct 3 counts during our survey. We do take 3 counts during our
surveys. One count at the beginning of survey, one in the middle and one at the end. We count
the highest of those 3 counts as the high count, and that high count is then reported as the official
data point. That gets used in the data analysis. There are other data points that we collect with
respect to.
Breeding information. So we are documenting per visits, and we document when we visit
(pigeon guillemot) without pray, and went visit with pray for visits, with prey. We are doing our
best to identify down to the type of fish that they are bringing (to their nests) their 3 main
categories. With that there are the gunnel, the sculpin, and other. Obviously being a composite of
multiple species, including gunnels and sculpins that are not verified.
And those are the most basic aspects of data collection for this particular project.
Q3 - How did you design your project to align with the policy that you are hoping to
support? Which main policy/ies does your project support?
The end user of this data is actually the state. So the state uses this data. In addition to the data
that's collected by other volunteer organizations to form a composite that is then put in for a
trend status. And so we have yet to finalize the 2022 data. It's going to the (Puget Sound)
partnership. The is designated by some partnership as an indicator of species. It's one of many
variables that they have settled on.
As ways that they can evaluate the health it wouldn't really be a direct correlation with any
policy per se. It's more of a broad-based conservation measure. It's really not only say it's a
passive measure, but. It's a way for them to look at environmental conditions from biological
perspective. You know, if you look at it sound, it can be broken into biological business
chemicals, social types of yeah. In the case and so the is one of the biological indicators. But like
I said, they're isn't a direct policy that this is really informing.
You know, it's like with the Forge (fish) project, where there is something more direct in that
regard.
These are not (ESA) listed species. This is a somewhat unusual situation in that population of
this species. In our state is more or less stable, which is good, and their population levels are at
levels that are not anywhere near to being. Even a species of concern, so it's a bit preemptive in
the sense that we're collecting baseline data, so that in the event of some kind of disaster, should
there be a need for population recovery efforts that there will be some kind of information out
there that will help informing what needs to happen, and what sort of targets to set for recovery.
Q4 - Has this CS data helped your agency meet its goals? What are those goals? Does the
CS data help with your end of the year reports?
In a broader sense, I would say yes, because part of our mission is really about connecting people
with nature, and we use science and education as tools for doing that.
So one of the positive aspects of citizen science is that it is both a science tool, and it is an
educational tool. From the standpoint that that people coming into the project typically don't

54

have a science background. So they are learning. That's something new. They're gaining, a sense
of stewardship regarding these habitats that they're studying. And these birds study.
Q5 - How do you account for reliability of the data?
Yeah, so there's really to paired approaches to this. The primary approach is conducting quality
control in the ideal world. We would have a regular schedule for conducting the quality control.
So, you know, if you look at a normal season starting in week 3, we would review all of the data
from week one. Assuming that folks have had adequate time to conduct a survey and enter the
data and send us cop copies of their data sheets, so that we have something that we can check
against. And so every 2 weeks. We would then continue that process of reviewing. Data from 2
weeks prior until we get to the end of the season and see theoretically, we would be completely
done with the quality control. Barring any complications but the other part of how we can ensure
quality of data is through training and you know, there's also follow up that can come with that to
where we can ensure that people are following the probe call according to how it's written. Help
with interpretation of certain aspects of that protocol that are less clear and provide field training
as needed. To ensure that you know some of those parts of the protocol that are covered in the
training are clear.
So, we have been implementing that system. That is, that I described to a certain degree of
success. It's in. I wouldn't call it a resounding success, because it hasn't been. But.
You know when it works without any complications. It works fine. We did use to just let the data
pile up and then work on quality control in the fall and winter.
But we've since moved to that different schedule because it works better for ensuring higher
quality of data, awesome, timely completion of that process.
Q6 - Would you say that this project is place-based? Why?
Obviously, the pigeon, guillemot is place-based, and the issues with the pigeon guillemot in our
place base. We are conducting surveys at breeding colonies, and these breeding colonies are very
regular, so the birds are returning to the same location each year. So, there's a very strong sense
of site, fidelity for these species. They're not like other species that are more opportunistic. So,
yeah, yeah, it's very much place based.
Almost all of our participants have some connection to the local area. There might be some who
are from more outline areas, but you know if you're looking at it from more regional scale than
yes. But if you're looking at a more micro scale, then, you know, there's a small number of folks
who are not from the local area.
Q7 - Do you collaborate with the tribes or the NWIFC? Does the traditional ecological
knowledge (TEK) help give you a broader picture on what is going on with the natural
resources?
No, we don't currently have a collaboration with any of the local tribes whose territories overlap
with our study. It is something that we have identified as an area of interest.

55

But we have yet to pursue it. We would certainly be very much interested in learning about the
traditional knowledge of the local tribes. With respect to this species, and it's called true
importance. If there is any.
Q1 - Name of your project?
So, my name is Terence Lee, and I help coordinate the South Sound (Nisqually Nature Center).

Q2 - You said that your project was investigative, educational, virtual, conservation,
environmental justice, action or other (circle one that applies). In light of this, I would like
to better understand how your data was used. What variables did you decide to focus on
and why?
The Forage Fish Project is definitely a very strong conservation oriented project because it's end
result is basically environmental protection there's a very strong regulatory component to it in
that whenever anyone does a forge to survey and spawning is documented at a particular beach
that beach and a certain extent beyond the immediate survey area then becomes protected under
State law, and so, if there are any shoreline developments, activities, or any activities that
involve modification of the beach habitats, part of the permit requirement is to conduct a forge
fish survey to verify presence or absence of spawning, and in effect it operates similar to a forage
fish work window, like there is for salmon, except in this case it would be for forage fish. So you
know, if forged fish spawn was detected at a construction site, you know, that would effectively
limit the timing of the activities. And, as far as the data that we collect, the vast majority of the
data that we collect out in the field is qualitative data assessing the condition of the habitat, or
we're looking at suitability for spawning the sample collection. It then has the potential to
provide information as far as which species are actually present. How dense the spawning is at
that location, the age of the eggs that are deposited in those locations.
The diversity is I guess you could say a byproduct of that, but it's not. I mean, it's certainly
intentional, but it's you know we're not trying to do some sort of a population census here that
would require a determine that type of information. You know, we just trying to figure out when
the fish are ready. Fish responding to the environmental conditions.
We are focused primarily on the physical characteristics of the actual habitat in the immediate
visiting of where these fish are spawning. So we characterize the sediment size. We're looking at
the condition of the upland habitat to determine how much, if any, anthropogenic influence there
is, and what sort of impacts those might be having on natural beach processes we're also looking
other factors connected with those up on app tasks like shading, which can be critical for some
areas not down here in South Sound, but in other areas where spawning occur during the warmer
months, shading becomes a more critical habitat component and see what else do we collect we
measure the actual dimensions of the physical, spawning habitat, and we look for presence of
spawning, and if there is spawning detected, we estimate the density of spawning. So, yeah.
Q3 - How did you design your project to align with the policy that you are hoping to
support? Which main policy/ies does your project support?

56

Yes, so under the hydraulic project, approval, which I think is an RCW. Or the other place,
account number (RCW 77.55). It's part of the permitting process in the environmental review to
look at all the different environmental factors that might be impacted by a particular proposed
project. And yeah, if it turns out that there is previously documented forge fish spawning at that
location, that then triggers the condition on the permit to only allow for that work to be
conducted during time windows when it would not impact. Right. That's species that are
obviously up considerations, as far as you know, like salmon and whole host of other
environmental conditions. But just looking specifically at forage fish. You know, there's the
work window, and you know, if there's unavoidable impacts, then then that's where it triggers the
need for a survey. Add that specific location prior to the project starting, and then continuing for
as long as there is documented spawning, and after which point once spawning is no longer
detected. You know, that allows for a window of time in which work can be conducted.
Q4 - Who analyzes the data?
This is through Washington, State Department of Fish, Wildlife. So we don't do any analysis of
the data. At this point we send our data to Department of Natural Resources, and they conduct
initial-level quality control on a small percentage of the samples that we send in. So, of the
samples that we collect, whichever ones have eggs in it, we send the vials of eggs along with the
data sheets that match those samples to WADNR. They verify it, and if they have questions they
send it to consultant for further quality control, and that, as far as data analysis on the State side,
they don't necessarily do analysis, but they do take that data, and they put it into a GIS map
which is that publicly available so there is potential for data analysis to occur by anyone who
may be interested in looking at statewide data.
Yes, they share that with department of fish and wildlife.
Q5 - Has this CS data helped your agency meet its goals? What are those goals? Does the
CS data help with your end of the year reports?
It definitely is a very close match on this one (conservation oriented). Because, like, I said, with
picking, there's definitely both the scientific component and the research. Or I mean educational
components. And you know, again, we have people from various backgrounds, both science and
non-science. Most of whom have never helped out with this type of project before. So it is
something that you know they're able to learn, and they're able to. Gain a new perspective about
each environments that they didn't have before.
Q6 - Would you say that this project is place-based? Why?
Interviewee:
Again, are most of the people participating from this area. And obviously the species is from this
area. Yeah, it is. It's still a very. Please-based Activity.
All these are fish and they move around, but we do have some index sampling stations which are
stations that we repeatedly go to on a regular basis. And so we do try and sample in those same

57

exact spots, maybe not in the same exact spot on the beach, but you know, for each section of
beach we will repeat visits somewhere in that section as long as that section is representative of
you know, that area. So if there's a beach that has multiple habitat types, we would have multiple
sampling locations for that beach. And we do sample multiple beaches, and we do the same
approach for all of those beaches.
Q7 - Do you collaborate with the tribes or the NWIFC? Does the traditional ecological
knowledge (TEK) help give you a broader picture on what is going on with the natural
resources?
Unfortunately, like with pigeon guillemot project, the forage fish project is something that we
don't currently collaborate with in the Nisqually tribe, which is the one tribe for whom this
research would be the most relevant. But we are certainly open to having opportunities to learn
about the traditional ecological knowledge, and what sort of role that plays in terms of cultural
significance? I mean as an anecdotal, I noted in this call, I tried. It was actually looked into
studying the herring populations which you know in turn that support salmon populations. We
are not really partnering with the tribe on that, so would be great if we could. But you know they
tend to be a little bit more insular. And yeah. But you know, if the opportunity were to come up,
we would certainly welcome the chance to, you know, partner with the tribe, and at the same
time try and find ways that can enhance their knowledge, or, you know, maybe adapt our
methods to collect information that you know, balance what they already know.
We don't we do not collect data on herring. So herring actually utilize different habitats than they
have tests, at least survey. So we would only encounter herring eggs on an incidental basis.
They're actually sub-tidal spawners versus the surf smelt and the sand lance, the 2 primary
species that we surveyed for our intertidal spawners. So we almost actually, we have never found
any herring eggs, but there is always the very remote possibility of having a small number occur
in our locations.
Q8 - What sage advice would you give to someone who wants to start a CS project for the
first time?
Yeah, I think that they're the main approach that I will take. If it were me is, I would do some
investigation into looking at what sort of local or regional or national issues might be of interest,
and from there, I would see what existing research has been conducted on it, and see if there's
any information out there as far as knowledge gaps. And then from there, knowing what those
knowledge gaps are, identifying professionals who are working on the issue and connecting with
those professionals to find out what would be most useful.
And really working with those people to come up with a study design as opposed to necessarily
trying to come up with something original or not that original, but just that.
A project can be invented in that way, you know. Just usually plenty of low-hanging fruit, or
there's issues that have already been identified and they're just waiting for someone with time
and resources to tackle it.

58

To be honest, I came into both of these projects after they had already been initiated, so I was not
in at all involved in that process of deciding on implementation of these projects as citizen
science research. So I can't really speak to that at all.

59