IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p11019-d1544727.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Multiple Citizen Science Methods and Carbon Footprint of Tourists in Two Australian Marine Parks

Author

Listed:
  • Adam K. Smith

    (Reef Ecologic, 14 Cleveland Terrace, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia
    Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4878, Australia)

  • Joseph D. DiBattista

    (School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia)

  • Samatha J. Tol

    (Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER), James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4878, Australia)

  • Leona Kustra

    (Coral Conservation Society, 15372 Victoria Ave., White Rock, BC V4B 1H2, Canada)

  • Joanne Stacey

    (Reef Ecologic, 14 Cleveland Terrace, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia)

  • Toni Massey

    (Cultural Heritage Management Australia, 4/8 Hampden Rd., Battery Point, TAS 7004, Australia)

  • Paul E. Hardisty

    (P38 Media and Consulting, 12a Myera St., Swanbourne, WA 6010, Australia)

Abstract

Citizen or community science (CS) projects in the marine environment rarely consider carbon footprint and sustainability. In this case study, we assessed the effectiveness of ten CS methods used by tourists in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) and Coral Sea Marine Park (CSMP) who participated in the 2023 Citizen Science of the Great Barrier Reef expedition and the carbon footprint associated with these field methods. We also assessed the baseline coral reef knowledge of the tourists, observations of marine species, and the communication of our results to the public. Specifically, the tourists utilised up to ten methods: iNaturalist, CoralWatch, Great Barrier Reef Census, Eye on the Reef (EoR), environmental DNA (eDNA) testing kits, photogrammetry, social surveys, and Red Map, as well as marine debris and marine vegetation collections. A total of 10,421 data points were collected across 14 days, including 5390 records (52% of the total) uploaded to iNaturalist, comprising 640 plant and animal species. Public awareness of the CS expedition reached over 700,000 people based on estimates from advertising, media, social media, family and friends, and conference presentations. We estimated the total carbon footprint for the expedition as 268.7 tonnes of CO 2 or 4.47 tonnes of CO 2 per person, equivalent to AUD 112 needed to offset this input. Based on these results, our recommendations to leverage CS methods include governmental review strategies, temporal replication to allow for the measurement of changes through time, integrating sustainability into CS ecotourism platforms, and encouraging broad participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam K. Smith & Joseph D. DiBattista & Samatha J. Tol & Leona Kustra & Joanne Stacey & Toni Massey & Paul E. Hardisty, 2024. "Assessment of Multiple Citizen Science Methods and Carbon Footprint of Tourists in Two Australian Marine Parks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-21, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11019-:d:1544727
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11019/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/11019/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hunt, Colin, 2013. "Benefits and opportunity costs of Australia's Coral Sea marine protected area: A precautionary tale," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 352-360.
    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. Voyer, Michelle & Gladstone, William & Goodall, Heather, 2015. "Obtaining a social licence for MPAs – influences on social acceptability," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 260-266.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:11019-:d:1544727. 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.