IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v422y2020ics0304380019304351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data

Author

Listed:
  • Johnston, Alison
  • Moran, Nick
  • Musgrove, Andy
  • Fink, Daniel
  • Baillie, Stephen R.

Abstract

Ecological citizen science data are rapidly growing in availability and use in ecology and conservation. Many citizen science projects have the flexibility for participants to select where they survey, resulting in more participants, but also spatially biased data. It is important to assess the extent to which these spatially biased data can provide reliable estimates of species distributions. Here we quantify the extent of site selection bias in a citizen science project and the implications of this spatial bias in species distribution models. Using data from the BirdTrack citizen science project in Great Britain from 2007 to 2011, we modelled the spatial bias of data submissions. We next produced species occupancy models for 138 bird species, and assessed the impact of accounting for spatial bias. We compared the distributions to those produced using unbiased data from an Atlas survey from the same region and time period. Averaging across 138 species, models with spatially biased data produced accurate and precise estimates of species occupancy for most locations in Great Britain. However, these distributions were both less accurate and less precise in the Scottish Highlands, showing on average a positive bias. Accounting for the spatially biased sampling with weights led to on average greater accuracy in the Scottish Highlands, but did not increase precision. This region is both distinct in environmental characteristics and has a low density of observations, making it difficult to characterise environmental relationships with species occupancy. Accounting for the spatially biased sampling did not affect average accuracy or precision throughout most of the country. Spatially biased citizen science data can be used to estimate species occupancy in regions with stationary environmental relationships and good sampling across environmental space. The reliability of estimated species distributions from spatially biased data should be further validated and tested under a range of different scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Johnston, Alison & Moran, Nick & Musgrove, Andy & Fink, Daniel & Baillie, Stephen R., 2020. "Estimating species distributions from spatially biased citizen science data," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 422(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:422:y:2020:i:c:s0304380019304351
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380019304351
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108927?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    2. Kolstoe, Sonja & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2017. "The Non-market Value of Birding Sites and the Marginal Value of Additional Species: Biodiversity in a Random Utility Model of Site Choice by eBird Members," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1-12.
    3. Peter J. Diggle & Raquel Menezes & Ting‐li Su, 2010. "Geostatistical inference under preferential sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 59(2), pages 191-232, March.
    4. D. Pati & B. J. Reich & D. B. Dunson, 2011. "Bayesian geostatistical modelling with informative sampling locations," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 98(1), pages 35-48.
    5. Fiske, Ian & Chandler, Richard, 2011. "unmarked: An R Package for Fitting Hierarchical Models of Wildlife Occurrence and Abundance," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 43(i10).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schartel, Tyler E. & Cao, Yong, 2024. "Background selection complexity influences Maxent predictive performance in freshwater systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 488(C).
    2. Boyd, Robin J. & Bowler, Diana E. & Isaac, Nick J.B. & Pescott, Oliver L., 2024. "On the trade-off between accuracy and spatial resolution when estimating species occupancy from geographically biased samples," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 493(C).
    3. Coppée, Thomas & Paquet, Jean-Yves & Titeux, Nicolas & Dufrêne, Marc, 2022. "Temporal transferability of species abundance models to study the changes of breeding bird species based on land cover changes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 473(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brian J. Reich & Shu Yang & Yawen Guan & Andrew B. Giffin & Matthew J. Miller & Ana Rappold, 2021. "A Review of Spatial Causal Inference Methods for Environmental and Epidemiological Applications," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 89(3), pages 605-634, December.
    2. Aubry, Philippe & Francesiaz, Charlotte & Guillemain, Matthieu, 2024. "On the impact of preferential sampling on ecological status and trend assessment," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 492(C).
    3. Lucia Paci & Alan E. Gelfand & and María Asunción Beamonte & Pilar Gargallo & Manuel Salvador, 2020. "Spatial hedonic modelling adjusted for preferential sampling," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(1), pages 169-192, January.
    4. Brian Conroy & Lance A. Waller & Ian D. Buller & Gregory M. Hacker & James R. Tucker & Mark G. Novak, 2023. "A Shared Latent Process Model to Correct for Preferential Sampling in Disease Surveillance Systems," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 28(3), pages 483-501, September.
    5. André Victor Ribeiro Amaral & Elias Teixeira Krainski & Ruiman Zhong & Paula Moraga, 2024. "Model-Based Geostatistics Under Spatially Varying Preferential Sampling," Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Statistics, Springer;The International Biometric Society;American Statistical Association, vol. 29(4), pages 766-792, December.
    6. Trudy Ann Cameron & Sonja H. Kolstoe, 2022. "Using Auxiliary Population Samples for Sample-Selection Correction in Models Based on Crowd-Sourced Volunteered Geographic Information," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(1), pages 1-21.
    7. Erin M. Schliep & Christopher K. Wikle & Ranadeep Daw, 2023. "Correcting for informative sampling in spatial covariance estimation and kriging predictions," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 587-613, October.
    8. Brian J. Reich & Howard H. Chang & Kristen M. Foley, 2014. "A spectral method for spatial downscaling," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 70(4), pages 932-942, December.
    9. Samira Zahmatkesh & Mohsen Mohammadzadeh, 2021. "Bayesian prediction of spatial data with non-ignorable missingness," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 62(5), pages 2247-2268, October.
    10. Darima Fotheringham & Michael A. Wiles, 2023. "The effect of implementing chatbot customer service on stock returns: an event study analysis," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 51(4), pages 802-822, July.
    11. Song, Wei-Ling & Uzmanoglu, Cihan, 2016. "TARP announcement, bank health, and borrowers’ credit risk," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 22-32.
    12. Raymundo M. Campos-Vázquez, 2013. "Efectos de los ingresos no reportados en el nivel y tendencia de la pobreza laboral en México," Ensayos Revista de Economia, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Facultad de Economia, vol. 0(2), pages 23-54, November.
    13. Stephen Brown & William Goetzmann & Bing Liang & Christopher Schwarz, 2008. "Mandatory Disclosure and Operational Risk: Evidence from Hedge Fund Registration," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(6), pages 2785-2815, December.
    14. Paul W. Miller & Barry R. Chiswick, 2002. "Immigrant earnings: Language skills, linguistic concentrations and the business cycle," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 15(1), pages 31-57.
    15. Chul‐Woo Kwon & Peter F. Orazem & Daniel M. Otto, 2006. "Off‐farm labor supply responses to permanent and transitory farm income," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 34(1), pages 59-67, January.
    16. Jonathan Gruber & Aaron Yelowitz, 1999. "Public Health Insurance and Private Savings," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(6), pages 1249-1274, December.
    17. Jean-Louis Arcand & Linguère M'Baye, 2013. "Braving the waves: the role of time and risk preferences in illegal migration from Senegal," CERDI Working papers halshs-00855937, HAL.
    18. Sandra Müllbacher & Wolfgang Nagl, 2017. "Labour supply in Austria: an assessment of recent developments and the effects of a tax reform," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 44(3), pages 465-486, August.
    19. Campbell, Randall C. & Nagel, Gregory L., 2016. "Private information and limitations of Heckman's estimator in banking and corporate finance research," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 186-195.
    20. Leye Li & Louise Yi Lu & Dongyue Wang, 2022. "External labour market competitions and stock price crash risk: evidence from exposures to competitor CEOs’ award‐winning events," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1421-1460, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:422:y:2020:i:c:s0304380019304351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.