The role of Earth observation (EO) data in addressing societal problems from environmental through to humanitarian should not be understated. Recent innovation in EO means provision of analysis ready data and data cubes, which allows for rapid use of EO data. This in combination with processing technologies, such as Google Earth Engine and open source algorithms/software for EO data integration and analyses, has afforded an explosion of information to answer research questions and/or inform policy making. However, there is still a need for both training and validation data within EO projects – often this can be challenging to obtain. It has been suggested that citizen science can help here to provide these data, yet there is some perceived hesitancy in using citizen science within EO projects. This paper reports on the Citizen Science 4 EO (Citizens4EO) project that aimed to obtain an in-depth understanding of researchers’ and practitioners’ experiences with citizen science data in EO within the UK. Through a mixed methods approach (online and in-depth surveys and a spotlight case study) it was found that although the benefits of using citizen science data in EO projects were many (and highlighted in the spotlighted “Slavery from Space” case study), there were a number of common concerns around using citizen science. These were around the mechanics of deploying citizen science and the unreliability of a potentially misinformed or undertrained citizen base. As such, comparing the results of this study with those of a similar survey undertaken in 2016, it is apparent that progress towards optimizing citizen science use in EO has been incremental but positive with evidence of the realization of the benefits of citizen science for EO (Citizens4EO). As such, we conclude by offering priority action areas to support further use of citizen science by the EO community within the UK, which ultimately should be adopted further afield.
Linda See, Qingqing Chen, Andrew Crooks, Juan Carlos Laso Bayas, Dilek Fraisl, Steffen Fritz, Ivelina Georgieva, Gerid Hager, Martin Hofer, Myroslava Lesiv, Žiga Malek, Milutin Milenković, Inian Moorthy, Fernando Orduña-Cabrera, Katya Pérez-Guzmán, Dmitry Schepaschenko, Maria Shchepashchenko, Jan Steinhauser, Ian McCallum
Inian Moorthy, Linda See, Steffen Fritz, Ian McCallum, Christoph Perger, Martina Dürauer, Christopher Dresel, Tobias Sturn, Mathias Karner, Dmitry Schepaschenko, Myroslava Lesiv, Olha Danylo, Juan Carlos Laso Bayas, Carl Salk, Victor Maus, Dilek Fraisl, Dahlia Domian, Pierre-Philippe Mathieu
Inian Moorthy, Linda See, Steffen Fritz, Ian McCallum, Christoph Perger, Martina Dürauer, Christopher Dresel, Tobias Sturn, Mathias Karner, Dmitry Schepaschenko, Myroslava Lesiv, Olha Danylo, Juan Carlos Laso Bayas, Carl Salk, Victor Maus, Dilek Fraisl, Dahlia Domian, Pierre-Philippe Mathieu
C. S. R. Neigh, Compton Tucker, Mark Carroll, Paul Montesano, D. A. Slayback, Margaret Wooten, Alexei Lyapustin, David Shean, Oleg Alexandrov, M. J. Macander
IGARSS 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
A. J. Simmons, Jean-Louis Fellous, V. Ramaswamy, Kevin E Trenberth, Ghassem Asrar, Magdalena Balmaseda, John P. Burrows, Philippe Ciais, Mark R. Drinkwater, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nadine Gobron, Éric Guilyardi, David Halpern, Martin Heimann, Johnny A. Johannessen, P. F. Levelt, Ernesto López-Baeza, Joyce E. Penner, Robert J. Scholes, T. G. Shepherd
Discussion(0)
No comments yet. Be the first to comment.