IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i11p2095-d978586.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who and Where Are the Observers behind Biodiversity Citizen Science Data? Effect of Landscape Naturalness on the Spatial Distribution of French Birdwatching Records

Author

Listed:
  • Adrien Guetté

    (Institut Agro, ESA, INRAE, BAGAP, 49000 Angers, France
    Institut Agro, ESO Angers UMR CNRS 6590, 49000 Angers, France
    ISTOM, Ecole Supérieure d’Agro-Développement International, 49000 Angers, France)

  • Sébastien Caillault

    (Institut Agro, ESO Angers UMR CNRS 6590, 49000 Angers, France)

  • Joséphine Pithon

    (Institut Agro, ESA, INRAE, BAGAP, 49000 Angers, France)

  • Guillaume Pain

    (Institut Agro, ESA, INRAE, BAGAP, 49000 Angers, France)

  • Hervé Daniel

    (Institut Agro, ESA, INRAE, BAGAP, 49000 Angers, France)

  • Benoit Marchadour

    (Coordination Régionale LPO Pays de la Loire, 49000 Angers, France)

  • Véronique Beaujouan

    (Institut Agro, ESA, INRAE, BAGAP, 49000 Angers, France)

Abstract

The study of spatial bias in opportunistic data produced by citizen science programs is mainly approached either from a geographical angle (site proximity, accessibility, habitat quality) or from the angle of human behavior and volunteer engagement. In this study we linked both by analyzing the effect of observer profile on spatial distribution of recordings. We hypothesized that observer profile biases spatial distribution of records and that this bias can be explained by landscape naturalness. First, we established observer profiles from analysis of the temporal and spatial distributions of their records as well as record contents. Second, we mapped a naturalness gradient at regional and local scales. Using a dataset of more than 7 million bird records covering a time span of 15 years from the west of France, we defined four types of observer: garden-watchers, beginners, naturalists, and experts. We found that recording intensity could be related to naturalness at regional level; most visited areas were those where naturalness was on average lower i.e., close to population basins and highly accessible due to well-developed road infrastructure. At local level (neighborhood of recording sites), we found that experts and naturalists recorded in areas of higher naturalness index than those of garden-watchers and beginners. These results highlight how records contributed by different types of observer may lead to complementary coverage of different areas of the landscape. Future studies should therefore fully consider observer heterogeneity and how different observer profiles are influenced by local landscape naturalness.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrien Guetté & Sébastien Caillault & Joséphine Pithon & Guillaume Pain & Hervé Daniel & Benoit Marchadour & Véronique Beaujouan, 2022. "Who and Where Are the Observers behind Biodiversity Citizen Science Data? Effect of Landscape Naturalness on the Spatial Distribution of French Birdwatching Records," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-25, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:2095-:d:978586
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/2095/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/11/2095/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Corey T Callaghan & Jodi J L Rowley & William K Cornwell & Alistair G B Poore & Richard E Major, 2019. "Improving big citizen science data: Moving beyond haphazard sampling," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-11, June.
    2. Fernández, Daniel & Nakamura, Miguel, 2015. "Estimation of spatial sampling effort based on presence-only data and accessibility," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 299(C), pages 147-155.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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).
    2. Beniamino Caputo & Mattia Manica & Federico Filipponi & Marta Blangiardo & Pietro Cobre & Luca Delucchi & Carlo Maria De Marco & Luca Iesu & Paola Morano & Valeria Petrella & Marco Salvemini & Cesare , 2020. "ZanzaMapp: A Scalable Citizen Science Tool to Monitor Perception of Mosquito Abundance and Nuisance in Italy and Beyond," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-19, October.
    3. Liu, Fang & McShea, William J. & Li, Diqiang, 2017. "Correlating habitat suitability with landscape connectivity: A case study of Sichuan golden monkey in China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 353(C), pages 37-46.
    4. M. Enenkel & M. E. Brown & J. V. Vogt & J. L. McCarty & A. Reid Bell & D. Guha-Sapir & W. Dorigo & K. Vasilaky & M. Svoboda & R. Bonifacio & M. Anderson & C. Funk & D. Osgood & C. Hain & P. Vinck, 2020. "Why predict climate hazards if we need to understand impacts? Putting humans back into the drought equation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 1161-1176, October.
    5. Ward-Paige, CA & White, Easton R & Madin, EMP & Bailes, LK & Bateman, RL & Belonje, E & Burns, KV & Cullain, N & de Waegh, R S & Eger, Aaron Matthius, 2020. "A framework for mapping and monitoring human-ocean interactions in near real-time during COVID-19 and beyond," OSF Preprints sxnu5, Center for Open Science.
    6. Nadja Pernat & Anika Kristin Gathof & Johann Herrmann & Birgit Seitz & Sascha Buchholz, 2023. "Citizen Science Apps in a Higher Education Botany Course: Data Quality and Learning Effects," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-15, August.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:11:p:2095-:d:978586. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.