Simon Jungblut Viola Liebich Maya Bode-Dalby Editors YOUMARES 9 - The Oceans: Our Research, Our Future Proceedings of the 2018 conference for YOUng MArine RESearcher in Oldenburg, Germany YOUMARES 9 - The Oceans: Our Research, Our Future Sea nettles, genus Chrysaora. Freely available at: www.pexels.com/photo/jelly-fish-underwater-115488/ Simon Jungblut • Viola Liebich Maya Bode-Dalby Editors YOUMARES 9 - The Oceans: Our Research, Our Future Proceedings of the 2018 conference for YOUng MArine RESearcher in Oldenburg, Germany Editors Simon Jungblut Viola Liebich BreMarE - Bremen Marine Ecology, Marine Envio Maritime Zoology, University of Bremen, Berlin, Germany Bremen, Germany Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research Bremerhaven, Germany Maya Bode-Dalby BreMarE - Bremen Marine Ecology, Marine Zoology, University of Bremen Bremen, Germany ISBN 978-3-030-20388-7 ISBN 978-3-030-20389-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20389-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020. This book is an open access publication. Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland To all young marine researchers Foreword YOUMARES 9, a conference from and for YOUng MArine RESearchers, is well-established and an format to present current research topics to early career scientists. This international conference represented a platform for early career scientists in Germany, Europe, and world- wide to build up a scientific network. At large congresses, young scientists often do not have the opportunity to present themselves. YOUMARES 9 was important, giving young research- ers a place to discuss their research and engage in discussions on important research questions early in their scientific career. YOUMARES 9 was organized by master’s students and doctoral candidates as a bottom-up conference. The bottom-up concept of YOUMARES 9 was professionalized by a core organi- zational team and a local team provided by the host. The participants of the organizational team learned to organize conferences, communicate with different stakeholders, and moderate sessions or lead workshops. As a result, the team learned self-confidence and strengthened their key competencies besides their scientific work. These kinds of conferences are indeed a very good way of supporting young researchers in their starting careers. Young researchers learn to present their work and discuss it with peers and network. To sum up, all participants learn the parts of “how to do research” that take place outside of the lab. During the conference, there is a spirit of curiosity, interest, and energy of young researchers and an open-minded atmosphere. It was great to be the host of YOUMARES 9 under the theme “The oceans: our research, our future” from 11 to 14 September 2018 at the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, ICBM. It was a pleasure to welcome over 300 participants to Oldenburg. Originally, YOUMARES 9 started with a zero budget, but with support from various sponsors from sci- ence and industry, it ended up being a prestigious conference. As a future perspective, such conferences would be an essential link between industry, insti- tutions, and universities to provide young scientists the best possibilities for future careers inside and outside the universities. These proceedings, which include a peer-reviewed process, are an excellent summary of the research activities of young marine scientists and document the actual challenges in marine and social sciences. This book is the second that was published open access with Springer in the context of YOUMARES. I congratulate the organizers of YOUMARES 9 for their enthusiasm, creativity, and engagement. Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Dr. Ferdinand Esser Environment (ICBM) Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg Scientific Coordinator of Early Career Researchers (Doctoral Candidates and Postdocs) of the ICBM Oldenburg, March 2019 vii Preface This book is the final product of the YOUMARES 9 conference, held from 12 to 14 September 2018 in Oldenburg, Germany. From all areas of marine sciences, bachelor, master, and PhD students were asked to contribute. The oral and poster presentations of this conference repre- sent the most recent research in marine sciences. All presentations were part of a topical ses- sion, which were also organized and moderated by early career scientists. Apart from handling the presentation abstracts, all session hosts were given the opportunity to write a review article on a topic of their choice in their area of research. These peer-reviewed articles and the corre- sponding abstracts are compiled in this book. The 2018 edition of the YOUMARES series started with an icebreaker event at the State Museum for Nature and Man in the city center of Oldenburg. All participants were welcomed by Prof. Ursula Warnke (State Museum for Nature and Man), Prof. Oliver Zielinski (Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, ICBM), and Prof. Dieter Hanelt (German Society for Marine Research, DGM). Some introductory games, food, and drinks indeed broke the ice, especially for the people who have not already been part of the YOUMARES family. The scientific part of the conference was hosted by the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg and its Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM). After some welcome words by Prof. Esther Ruigendijk (University of Oldenburg, Vice President for Early Career Researchers and International Affairs) and Prof. Oliver Zielinski (ICBM), we started a plenary discussion bridging marine sciences with ocean governance and conservation. The vivid discussion was moderated by James G. Hagan (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB). The discussants on the podium were session hosts of the 2018 YOUMARES edition: Meenakshi Poti, Morgan L. McCarthy, Thomas Luypaert, and Liam Lachs (all VUB, experts in the field of environmental conservation), Pradeep A. Singh, and Mara Ort (University of Bremen, representing the field of ocean governance). They were joined by Prof. Zielinski (ICBM, University of Oldenburg) and Dr. Cornelia Nauen (Mundus Maris, Brussels). The opening morning was completed by a keynote talk of Prof. Frank Oliver Glöckner (Max Plank Institute for Marine Microbiology and Jacobs University Bremen) on the “Ocean Sampling Day, an Example for Science 2.0.” One afternoon was reserved for workshops and excursions. Participants could choose from workshops like “How to turn science into a story?,” “Publishing in Natural Sciences,” and “Knowledge transfer in marine science” as well as guided tours through the city center of Oldenburg or the Botanical Garden of the University Oldenburg and others. The remaining time was filled with a diverse spectrum of talks and poster presentations of cutting-edge research results obtained by the conference participants. In total, 109 talks and 33 posters were presented in 1 of the 19 sessions. Including session hosts, helpers, presenters, and listeners, a total over 250 people contributed to YOUMARES 9. ix x Preface We hope that this book is a source of knowledge and inspiration to the participants, session hosts, and helpers of YOUMARES 9, as well as to all young marine researchers and to every- body interested in marine research. Bremen, Germany Simon Jungblut Berlin, Germany Viola Liebich Bremen, Germany Maya Bode-Dalby March 2019 Acknowledgments We would like to thank everyone who was helping with the preparation and realization of the conference in Oldenburg. Without the strong support of these volunteers, organizing such a big conference would be impossible. We would like to especially thank Jan Brüwer, Charles Cadier, Muhammad Resa Faisal, Lena Heel, Laura Hennings, Dorothee Hohensee, Patricia Kaiser, Elham Kamyab, Charlotte Kunze, Jonas Letschert, Veloisa Mascarenhas, Lea Oeljeschläger, Nora-Charlotte Pauli, Lena Rölfer, Lukas Ross, Yvonne Schadewell, Paula Senff, Joko Tri Wibowo, Nils Willenbrink, and Mirco Wölfelschneider. We thank the State Museum Nature and Man and its director, Ursula Warnke, for providing the rooms and supporting the organization of a great icebreaker event and for offering free entrance to their exhibitions for all conference participants. We are very grateful to the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg and its Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM) for providing the space and rooms for the conference. Very special thanks go to Ferdinand Esser for all the organizational support during the preparation and during the actual conference. The opening podium discussion received much attention. It was excellently moderated by James G. Hagan, and we would like to thank the discussants: Liam Lachs, Thomas Luypaert, Morgan L. McCarthy, Cornelia Nauen, Mara Ort, Meenakshi Poti, Pradeep A. Singh, and Oliver Zielinski. Frank-Oliver Glöckner presented a stimulating keynote talk on the “Ocean Sampling Day, an Example for Science 2.0?” for which we thank him very much. The workshops during the conference were organized by several people to whom we are all grateful: Alexandrine Cheronet, Lydia Gustavs, Daniel Hartmann, Marie Heidenreich, Thijs Janzen, Elham Kamyab, Veloisa Mascarenhas, Cornelia Nauen, Yvonne Schadewell, Tim Schröder, and Nils Willenbrink. Several partners supported the conference financially, with materials or with special condi- tions for our conference participants. For any kind of support, we are very grateful to DFG- Schwerpunktprogramm Antarktisforschung, Reederei Laeisz GmbH, Briese Schiffahrts GmbH Forschungsschifffahrt, SubCtech, develogic GmbH subsea systems, Norddeutsche Stiftung für Umwelt und Entwicklung, Stadt Oldenburg, DFG-Sonderforschungsbereich Roseobacter, Institut für Marine Biologie, German Association for Marine Technology (GTM), Bornhöft Meerestechnik, Kraken Power GmbH, Die Flänzburch, and umBAUbar. Springer Nature provided book vouchers to award the three best oral and the three best poster presentations and one voucher to raffle among all voters. The Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Bremen and the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, supported the open-access publication of this confer- ence book. Thanks go to Alexandrine Cheronet, Judith Terpos, and Springer for their support during the editing and publishing process of this book. All chapters of this book have been peer-reviewed by internationally renowned scientists. The reviews contributed significantly to the quality of the chapters. We would like to thank all reviewers for their time and their excellent work: Martijn Bart, Kartik Baruah, Thorsten Blenckner, Hans Brumsack, Xochitl Cormon, Michael Fabinyi, Tilmann Harder, Enrique Isla, xi xii Acknowledgments Annemarie Kramer, Annegret Kuhn, Amy Lusher, Tess Moriarty, Elisabeth Morris-Webb, May-Linn Paulsen, Pamela Rossel Cartes, Chester Sands, Theresa Schwenke, Rapti Siriwardane-de Zoysa, Lydia The, David Thomas, Eva Turicchia, Benjamin Twining, Laura Uusitalo, Jan Verbeek, Ans Vercammen, Benjamin Weigel, and further anonymous reviewers. We editors are most grateful to all participants, session hosts, and presenters of the confer- ence and to the contributing authors of this book. You all did a great job in presenting and representing your (fields of) research. Without you, YOUMARES 9 would not have been worth to organize. Contents 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Hannah S. Earp and Arianna Liconti 2 A Literature Review on Stakeholder Participation in Coastal and Marine Fisheries ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 21 Heike Schwermer, Fanny Barz, and Yury Zablotski 3 Law and Policy Dimensions of Ocean Governance���������������������������������������������� 45 Pradeep A. Singh and Mara Ort 4 Status of Marine Biodiversity in the Anthropocene���������������������������������������������� 57 Thomas Luypaert, James G. Hagan, Morgan L. McCarthy, and Meenakshi Poti 5 Challenges in Marine Restoration Ecology: How Techniques, Assessment Metrics, and Ecosystem Valuation Can Lead to Improved Restoration Success���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 Laura Basconi, Charles Cadier, and Gustavo Guerrero-Limón 6 Understanding How Microplastics Affect Marine Biota on the Cellular Level Is Important for Assessing Ecosystem Function: A Review���������������������� 101 Natalie Prinz and Špela Korez 7 Chemical Biodiversity and Bioactivities of Saponins in Echinodermata with an Emphasis on Sea Cucumbers (Holothuroidea)���������������������������������������� 121 Elham Kamyab, Matthias Y. Kellermann, Andreas Kunzmann, and Peter J. Schupp 8 Secondary Metabolites of Marine Microbes: From Natural Products Chemistry to Chemical Ecology ���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 159 Lars-Erik Petersen, Matthias Y. Kellermann, and Peter J. Schupp 9 Sponges Revealed: A Synthesis of Their Overlooked Ecological Functions Within Aquatic Ecosystems ������������������������������������������������������������������ 181 Mainah Folkers and Titus Rombouts 10 Theories, Vectors, and Computer Models: Marine Invasion Science in the Anthropocene ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 195 Philipp Laeseke, Jessica Schiller, Jonas Letschert, and Sara Doolittle Llanos 11 Benthos-Pelagos Interconnectivity: Antarctic Shelf Examples���������������������������� 211 Santiago E. A. Pineda-Metz 12 Investigating the Land-Sea Transition Zone �������������������������������������������������������� 225 Stephan Ludger Seibert, Julius Degenhardt, Janis Ahrens, Anja Reckhardt, Kai Schwalfenberg, and Hannelore Waska xiii xiv Contents 13 Fisheries and Tourism: Social, Economic, and Ecological Trade-offs in Coral Reef Systems��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 243 Liam Lachs and Javier Oñate-Casado 14 Progress in Microbial Ecology in Ice-Covered Seas ������������������������������������������� 261 Tobias R. Vonnahme, Ulrike Dietrich, and Brandon T. Hassett 15 Complex Interactions Between Aquatic Organisms and Their Chemical Environment Elucidated from Different Perspectives����������������������������������������� 279 Mara E. Heinrichs, Corinna Mori, and Leon Dlugosch Appendixes����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 299 Contributors Janis Ahrens Microbiogeochemistry Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Fanny Barz Thünen-Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries, Rostock, Germany Laura Basconi Ca Foscari University, Venice, Italy Charles Cadier MER Consortium, UPV, Bilbao, Spain Julius Degenhardt Paleomicrobiology Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Ulrike Dietrich UiT- The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway Leon Dlugosch Biology of Geological Processes Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Hannah S. Earp Institute of Biology, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales, UK School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Wales, UK Mainah Folkers Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Gustavo Guerrero-Limón MER Consortium, UPV, Bilbao, Spain University of Liege, Ulg, Belgium James G. Hagan Faculty of Sciences and Bioengineering Sciences, Department of Biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology of Organisms, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium Brandon T. Hassett UiT- The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway Mara E. Heinrichs Paleomicrobiology Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Elham Kamyab Institute of Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Matthias Y. Kellermann Institute of Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Špela Korez Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany xv xvi Contributors Andreas Kunzmann Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT) GmbH, Bremen, Germany Faculty 02, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Liam Lachs Marine Biology, Ecology and Biodiversity, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium Institute of Oceanography and Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia Department of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy Philipp Laeseke Marine Botany, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Jonas Letschert Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany Arianna Liconti School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Wales, UK School of Biological and Marine Sciences, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK Sara Doolittle Llanos Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life-Sciences GELIFES, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands Thomas Luypaert Faculty of Sciences and Bioengineering Sciences, Department of Biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology of Organisms, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium Faculty of Maths, Physics and Natural Sciences, Department of Biology, Università degli Studi di Firenze (UniFi), Sesto Fiorentino, Italy Morgan L. McCarthy Faculty of Sciences and Bioengineering Sciences, Department of Biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology of Organisms, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium Faculty of Maths, Physics and Natural Sciences, Department of Biology, Università degli Studi di Firenze (UniFi), Sesto Fiorentino, Italy School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland (UQ), St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia Corinna Mori Microbiogeochemistry Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Javier Oñate-Casado Department of Biology, University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy Sea Turtle Research Unit (SEATRU), Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia Mara Ort artec Sustainability Research Center, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany INTERCOAST Research Training Group, Center for Marine Environmental Sciences (MARUM), Bremen, Germany Lars-Erik Petersen Institute of Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Santiago E. A. Pineda-Metz Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven, Germany Universität Bremen (Fachbereich 2 Biologie/Chemie), Bremen, Germany Contributors xvii Meenakshi Poti Faculty of Sciences and Bioengineering Sciences, Department of Biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology of Organisms, Université libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium Faculty of Maths, Physics and Natural Sciences, Department of Biology, Università degli Studi di Firenze (UniFi), Sesto Fiorentino, Italy School of Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia Sea Turtle Research Unit (SEATRU), Institute of Oceanography and Environment, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia Natalie Prinz Faculty of Biology and Chemistry, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research (ZMT), Bremen, Germany Anja Reckhardt Microbiogeochemistry Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Titus Rombouts Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Jessica Schiller Marine Botany, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany Peter J. Schupp Institute of Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Helmholtz Institute for Functional Marine Biodiversity at the University of Oldenburg (HIFMB), Oldenburg, Germany Kai Schwalfenberg Marine Sensor Systems Group, Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Wilhelmshaven, Germany Heike Schwermer Institute for Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries Science, Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability, University of Hamburg Germany, Hamburg, Germany Stephan L. Seibert Hydrogeology and Landscape Hydrology Group, Institute for Biology and Environmental Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Pradeep A. Singh Faculty of Law, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany INTERCOAST Research Training Group, Center for Marine Environmental Sciences (MARUM), Bremen, Germany Tobias R. Vonnahme UiT- The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway Hannelore Waska Research Group for Marine Geochemistry (ICBM-MPI Bridging Group), Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment (ICBM), Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany Yury Zablotski Thünen-Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries, Rostock, Germany About the Editors Dr. Simon Jungblut Simon Jungblut is a marine ecologist and zoologist. He completed a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology and Chemistry at the University of Bremen, Germany, and stud- ied the international program, Erasmus Mundus Master of Science in Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, at the University of Bremen, Germany; the University of Oviedo, Spain; and Ghent University, Belgium. Afterward, he completed a PhD project entitled “Ecology and ecophysiology on invasive and native decapod crabs in the southern North Sea” at the University of Bremen in cooperation with the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, in Bremerhaven and was awarded the Doctoral title in Natural Sciences at the University of Bremen in December 2017. Since 2015, Simon is actively contributing to the YOUMARES conference series. After hosting some conference sessions, he is the main organizer of the scientific program since 2017. Dr. Viola Liebich Viola Liebich is a biologist from Berlin, who worked on invasive tunicates for her diploma thesis at the Alfred Wegener Institute Sylt. With a PhD scholarship by the International Max Planck Research School for Maritime Affairs, Hamburg, and after her thesis work at the Institute for Hydrobiology and Fisheries Science, Hamburg, and the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, Texel, Netherlands, she finished her thesis entitled “Invasive Plankton: Implications of and for ballast water management” in 2013. For 3 years, until 2015, Viola Liebich worked for a project on sustainable brown shrimp fishery and stakeholder communication at the WWF Center for Marine Conservation, Hamburg, and started her voluntary YOUMARES work 1 year later. She is currently working as a self- employed consultant on marine and maritime management (envio maritime). Dr. Maya Bode-Dalby Maya Bode-Dalby is a marine biologist, who accomplished her Bachelor of Science in Biology at the University of Göttingen, Germany, and her Master of Science in Marine Biology at the University of Bremen, Germany. Thereafter, she completed her PhD thesis entitled “Pelagic biodiversity and ecophysiology of copepods in the eastern Atlantic Ocean: Latitudinal and bathymetric aspects” at the University of Bremen in coopera- tion with the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, in Bremerhaven and the German Center for Marine Biodiversity Research (DZMB) at the Senckenberg am Meer in Wilhelmshaven. She received her Doctorate in Natural Sciences at the University of Bremen in March 2016. Maya actively contributes to the YOUMARES conference series as organizer of the scien- tific program since 2016. Currently, she is working as a scientist at the Marine Zoology Department of the University of Bremen. xix Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research 1 and Conservation Hannah S. Earp and Arianna Liconti Abstract clusion, marine citizen science lies at a crossroads of Over the last decade, significant advances in citizen sci- unresolved challenges, demonstrated successes and unre- ence have occurred, allowing projects to extend in scope alized potential. However, should the challenges be from the ocean floor to the Milky Way and cover almost addressed, the unique capacity of citizen science to everything in between. These projects have provided cost- broaden the scope of investigations may be the key to the effective means to collect extensive data sets covering future of marine research and conservation in times of vast spatio-temporal scales that can be used in scientific global change and financial hardship. research, to develop conservation policy and to promote environmental awareness. This review explores the cur- Keywords rent status of marine citizen science by examining 120 Volunteer · Public participation · Community-based marine citizen science projects. Trends in geographic monitoring · Environmental policy · Ecological locations, focal taxa, participant demographics, tasks surveying undertaken and data directionality (i.e. storage and publi- cation) are highlighted, and the challenges and benefits of citizen science to marine research and conservation are reviewed. Marine citizen science projects act primarily at 1.1 Introduction national levels (53.3%) and mainly focus on coastal ocean environments (49.2%) with chordates as the most popular 1.1.1 The History of Citizen Science focus taxa (40%). Some form of methodological training for participants is provided by 64.2% of projects, and the Citizen science, often described as amateur participation in most popular tasks undertaken are field surveys (35.8%) scientific research and monitoring, has emerged as a power- and reporting of opportunistic sightings (34.2%). Data ful tool and popular activity in recent decades (Cohn 2008; quality and participant motivation are among the most Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016; Burgess et al. 2017). common challenges facing projects, but identified However, this phenomenon is not new and extends back to strengths include enhanced marine policy, increased sci- before the professionalization of science, whereby most ‘sci- entific knowledge and environmental stewardship. In con- entists’ including Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790), Charles Darwin (1809–1888) and Margaret Gatty (1809–1873) made a living in different professions (Silvertown 2009). H. S. Earp (*) Yet, despite the evolution of science as a paid profession in Institute of Biology, Environmental and Rural Sciences, the late nineteenth century, amateurs remained involved in Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Wales, UK many scientific disciplines such as archaeology, astronomy, School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, meteorology and natural history (Silvertown 2009; Haklay Menai Bridge, Wales, UK 2015). On the verge of the twentieth century, the first ‘citizen A. Liconti science project’, the National Audubon Society Christmas School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Bird Count, was established (Cohn 2008; Bonney et al. Menai Bridge, Wales, UK 2009). It was, however, another 89 years before the first cita- School of Biological and Marine Sciences, Plymouth University, tion of ‘citizen science’ to describe the collection of r ainwater Plymouth, UK © The Author(s) 2020 1 S. Jungblut et al. (eds.), YOUMARES 9 - The Oceans: Our Research, Our Future, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20389-4_1 2 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti samples by 225 volunteers as part of a National Audubon survey available at www.capturingourcoast.co.uk/specific- Society acid-rain awareness-raising campaign (Kerson information/beach-babies). 1989), and a further 15 years before its inclusion in the Thiel et al. (2014) examined 227 peer-reviewed studies Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in 2014. Today, citizen involving volunteer-scientist collaborations and showed that science is widely defined as ‘scientific work undertaken by developed nations including the United States of America members of the general public, often in collaboration with (USA), Australia and the United Kingdom (UK) are hotspots or under the direction of professional scientists and scien- for marine citizen science, with easily accessible areas tific institutions’ (OED Online 2018a). However, as an including intertidal and subtidal regions among the most fre- evolving discipline, a transition from the primarily contrib- quently surveyed environments. However, recent technologi- utory paradigm whereby participants mainly collect data, cal developments, often dubbed ‘citizen cyberscience’, have to more collaborative and co-created approaches, where further elevated the accessibility of citizen science and may they are involved in additional elements of the scientific in turn alter these trends (Science Communication Unit – process has been observed (Bonney et al. 2009; Wiggins University of the West of England 2013). These develop- and Crowston 2011; Teleki 2012). Today, some citizen sci- ments have allowed volunteers from around the world to entists work alone or through community-driven projects, ‘virtually’ participate in marine research across international as opposed to directly collaborating with scientists (Bonney borders and in otherwise inaccessible environments (e.g. the et al. 2016a; Cigliano and Ballard 2018). Nevertheless, deep sea) from the comfort of home. Examples include over the past 20 years, citizen science has boomed, with Seafloor Explorer (available at www.seafloorexplorer.org), millions of participants from diverse backgrounds becom- where participants analysed over two million images of the ing involved in projects that have extended in scope from seafloor (~250 m deep) in order to investigate the distribution the seafloor to the Milky Way and covered almost every- of commercially important species such as scallops along the thing in between (Foster-Smith and Evans 2003; Bonney northeast United States continental shelf. et al. 2016b). 1.1.3 itizen Science as a Tool in Research C 1.1.2 Marine Citizen Science and Conservation Although not as prevalent as their terrestrial counterparts Despite the broad array of topics, the aims of citizen science (Roy et al. 2012; Cigliano et al. 2015; Theobald et al. 2015; projects remain similar: to gather data that answers scientific Garcia-Soto et al. 2017), marine citizen science projects pro- questions and/or drives policy (Cigliano et al. 2015; Bonney vide a cost-effective means of collecting and analysing et al. 2016b; Garcia-Soto et al. 2017), to promote environ- extensive data sets across vast spatio-temporal scales, using mental awareness and literacy, and to empower citizens and conventional and new observation and simulation tools communities (Danielsen et al. 2013; Garcia-Soto et al. 2017). (Bonney et al. 2009; Silvertown 2009; Hochachka et al. Consequently, it has been suggested that citizen science pro- 2012; Garcia-Soto et al. 2017). Wiggins and Crowston cesses and outcomes warrant acknowledgement as a distinct (2011) suggested that citizen science projects fall into five discipline (Jordan et al. 2015; Burgess et al. 2017; Garcia- exhaustive groups: (1) action-orientated projects that encour- Soto et al. 2017). Despite being incorporated into an increas- age participation in local issues, for example, collecting and ing array of scientific literature, proposals and conference categorizing marine debris (e.g. Marine Conservation submissions (Cigliano and Ballard 2018), and evolving well- Society’s Beachwatch available at www.mcsuk.org/beach- tested protocols and data validation techniques, citizen sci- watch); (2) conservation projects that promote stewardship ence has yet to be fully embraced by the scientific community, and management such as restoring coral reefs (e.g. Rescue a and questions remain surrounding best practices and data Reef available at sharkresearch.rsmas.miami.edu/donate/ quality and/or verification (Cohn 2008; Silvertown 2009; rescue-a-reef); (3) investigation projects that answer a scien- Bonney et al. 2014; Burgess et al. 2017). This review builds tific question including monitoring coral reefs (Marshall on research by Thiel et al. (2014) that demonstrated trends et al. 2012; Done et al. 2017), cetacean populations (Evans across marine citizen science published in peer-reviewed et al. 2008; Tonachella et al. 2012; Bruce et al. 2014; Embling journal articles, in order to highlight the diversity of current et al. 2015) and invasive species (Delaney et al. 2008); (4) marine citizen science projects. This includes projects that virtual projects that are exclusively ICT-meditated, for exam- have published their data in peer-reviewed journals, as well ple, online photo analysis (e.g. Weddell Seal Count available as those whose primary aims are to provide data that drives at www.zooniverse.org/projects/slg0808/weddell-seal- management or to educate and engage the public. count); and (5) education projects whereby outreach is the ‘Voluntourism’ projects are excluded from our consider- primary goal (e.g. the Capturing our Coast ‘Beach Babies’ ations as they primarily constitute ‘voluntary work typically 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 3 aiming to help others’ (OED Online 2018b) as opposed to was included (e.g. Capturing our Coast available at www. the ‘scientific work’ nature of citizen science. The selected capturingourcoast.co.uk). A total of 120 projects, covering marine citizen science projects were examined in order to the majority of oceans, their associated flora and fauna, and highlight trends in terms of: geographic locations, focal taxa, several conservation issues met the selection criteria (see participant demographics, tasks undertaken and data direc- Appendix 1 for a list of reviewed projects). Data for each tionality (i.e. data publication and storage). Challenges and project was collected by combining information available strengths arising from the review are then presented before from websites, newsletters, databases and email communi- suggestions for the future of citizen science in marine cations. Core data included lead organization, year of research and conservation are made. establishment, spatial coverage (i.e. international, regional, etc.), location, focus area/taxa, volunteer training require- ment (i.e. written instructions, training programs), activity 1.2 Methodology genre (i.e. fieldwork/online) and tasks undertaken (i.e. sightings, image/recording analysis, etc.). When available, 1.2.1 Project Selection information on the number of surveys undertaken by citi- zen scientists, data validation techniques (i.e. data quality Marine citizen science projects were collated using: (1) checking), data directionality (i.e. storage location) and Google searches using the keywords ‘marine + citizen + number of peer-reviewed scientific publications using the science’, (2) searches on the citizen science database projects data set was also recorded. SciStarter (available at www.scistarter.com) using the key- word ‘marine’, (3) the Wikipedia citizen science project list (available at www.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_citizen_sci- 1.3 Identified Trends Across Marine ence_projects), (4) social media searches on Facebook Citizen Science Projects using the keywords ‘marine + citizen + science’, (5) proj- ects mentioned in reviewed literature and (6) personal 1.3.1 Geographic Location knowledge. Project websites were consulted, and a project was included in the review when it had a marine focus and 1.3.1.1 Spatial Coverage involved citizen scientists. In cases where an organization The reviewed projects occurred across multiple geographical coordinated multiple citizen science projects, each project scales, extending from local and regional levels (4.2%) to was included individually (e.g. The Shark Trust coordi- international and global coverage (42.5%). The majority of nates; The Great Eggcase Hunt, Basking Shark Project and projects acted at national levels (53.3%) and spanned nine Angling Project: Off The Hook, available at www.shark- locations (Fig. 1.1), with the most being located in the USA trust.org/en/citizen_science). In cases where a project orga- (43.8%), followed by the UK (27.4%) and Australia (11%). nized multiple campaign style activities, the project alone A trend towards greater project abundances in developed Fig. 1.1 Number of reviewed marine citizen science projects per location, excluding those operating on international (n = 10) or global (n = 37) scales 4 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti nations was observed, with only 6.8% of projects occurring these environments, and the higher volume of visitors as in nations with developing economies (as defined by the potential citizen science participants (relative to colder oce- United Nations Conference on Trade and Development anic environments). (UNCTADstat 2018)), for example, Brazil and South Africa. The deep sea remained the least studied environment with A similar trend was reported by Thiel et al. (2014), although only one project, Digital Fishers (available at www.ocean- this may be attributed, in part, to the fact that projects incor- networks.ca), focusing their investigations on the organisms porated in these reviews were selected based on their journal inhabiting this remote and often inaccessible region. publications and websites, and consequently projects using However, inaccessibility may not be the only reason for the other communication strategies to engage with citizen scien- lack of projects concerning this environment, as limited sci- tists (e.g. local community groups that may be more abun- entific knowledge and expensive technologies may also be dant in developing nations) are excluded. factors. Despite large deep-sea video databases being avail- able online (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration 1.3.1.2 Environmental Coverage Ocean Explorer available at www.oceanexplorer.noaa.gov; The most commonly investigated environment was the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute available at coastal ocean (depth < 200 m) (49.2%), closely followed by www.mbari.org; Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & easily accessible coastline regions (34.2%) (Fig. 1.2). Technology e-library of deep-sea images available at www. Although further divisions into zones such as the supralitto- godac.jamstec.go.jp), the identification of deep-sea organ- ral, intertidal, subtidal, continental shelf and oceanic envi- isms remains complex and thus must be conducted by experts ronments (similar to Thiel et al. 2014) were beyond the scope in this field. However, in order to enhance the identification of this review, this information could provide a greater process (i.e. make it quicker and easier), software is cur- insight into hotspot environments for marine citizen science, rently under development that can automatically identify as well as those with capacity for development. Interestingly, deep-sea species, and in the case of Digital Fishers, citizen studies specifically focused on environments known for their scientists are contributing to the development of this soft- roles in supporting ecosystem functions and services, includ- ware by ‘educating’ it to count and identify different taxa ing mangrove and kelp forests, seagrass meadows and wet- (Ocean Networks Canada 2018). lands, were limited (5% in total), demonstrating potential The majority of reviewed projects (25.8%) focused on opportunities for expansion of citizen science in these envi- multiple taxa (‘Diverse Taxa’) (Table 1.1), through investiga- ronments. An exception was coral reefs that were the focus tions on the intertidal or subtidal or on invasive species and of investigation in 8.3% of projects, potentially due to their planktonic communities. However, among the most popular charismatic appeal, exotic location, alongside the relative individual taxa were the so-called charismatic megafauna, ease of conducting research involving SCUBA diving in including marine mammals (15%), seabirds (8.3%) and Fig. 1.2 Number of reviewed marine citizen science projects per environment, excluding those that focused on multiple environments (e.g. Redmap, available at www.redmap.org.au) (n = 3) 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 5 Table 1.1 Focus taxa of the reviewed marine citizen science projects, marine research descend from a diverse array of backgrounds excluding those that focused on oceanography or pollution (n = 18). and may have no formal training or qualifications in marine- Diverse taxa includes projects focusing intertidal and subtidal flora and fauna, alongside those that focus on multiple invasive or planktonic related subjects (Thiel et al. 2014). Participant recruitment taxa often occurs through collaborations with other established Taxa Number of projects nature organizations including conservation groups and Chordata Mammalia 18 ocean water sport centres. These recreational users of the Aves 10 marine environment, especially SCUBA divers (Martin et al. Chondrichthyes 9 2016), often have enhanced interests in marine life and its Osteichthyes 8 preservation and are consequently attracted to opportunities Actinopterygii 1 whereby they can expand their knowledge base and partici- Reptilia 1 pate in research (Campbell and Smith 2006; Cohn 2008). Diverse taxa 1 More recently, online tools (i.e. project websites and social Cnidaria Anthozoa 8 Scyphozoa 1 media) have provided a low-effort method of recruiting both Arthropoda Crustacea 6 on- and off-site participants. This is partially due to the fact Diverse taxa 1 that those with an interest in nature conservation are usually Plantae Angiosperma 4 connected with other like-minded people and/or groups Heterokontophyta Phaeophyceae 3 online, and consequently a positive loop of information shar- Echinodermata Echinoidea 1 ing is generated that benefits both citizen science outreach Mollusca Gastropoda 1 and recruitment. Diverse Taxa General 29 The majority of reviewed projects are open to participants of any age, although several were noted to exhibit a prefer- ence for adult participants (i.e. aged 18 and over); however, sharks/rays (7.5%), which are often considered more news- this is often due to protocol complexity (see sect. 3.3 for a worthy compared to projects focusing on seaweeds or plank- review). In cases where the protocol requires species identi- ton (Stafford et al. 2010). Surprisingly, sea turtles (also fication, adult participants are often designated as final deci- considered charismatic megafauna) were the focus of only sionmakers, although younger participants may assist under one project (Seaturtle.org available at www.seaturtle.org), supervision (e.g. Capturing our Coast available at www.cap- yet were highly popular among voluntourism projects (e.g. turingourcoast.co.uk). In the case of projects that involve Sea Turtle Conservation available at www.volunteeringsolu- SCUBA diving, only participants that meet the minimum tions.com, www.frontier.ac.uk and www.gvi.co.uk; SEE requirements (e.g. certification and/or experience level) are Turtles available at www.seeturtles.org). In addition to the permitted to partake. However, some variation among mini- popularity of charismatic megafauna, charismatic sessile mum requirements is exhibited, for example, to certify as a organisms, such as corals, are frequently investigated by Reef Check Ecodiver, participants must be comfortable with marine citizen science projects, accounting for 6.6% of proj- the use of a mask, snorkel and fins or be a certified SCUBA ects in this review. Despite the popularity of projects involv- diver (Reef Check 2018), while the requirements to become ing charismatic taxa, studies focusing on lesser charismatic a Seasearch Observer include being certified as a PADI organisms such as plankton (e.g. FjordPhyto available at Advanced Open Water Diver (or equivalent) and having > 20 www.fjordphyto.wordpress.com; Secchi Disk available at dives, of which ≥ 10 should be in temperate waters (Seasearch www.secchidisk.org) are growing in popularity, with esti- 2018). Despite some background experience being required mates showing ~110,900 volunteers are engaged in the in these instances for safety, none of the reviewed projects counting and identification of plankton in the Mediterranean required participants to have any educational background, as Sea and California currents through Plankton Portal (www. they become trained and therefore specialists in the task planktonportal.org). required (Hobson 2000). Furthermore, some projects allow participant development to a level whereby they can become project organizers, coordinators, or even lead authors in sci- 1.3.2 Participant Demographics entific publications and/or identification guides (see Bowen et al. 2011 for an example of an identification guide authored 1.3.2.1 Participant Recruitment by citizen scientists). An example includes Seasearch (avail- At present, there is no quantification of the number of citizen able at www.seasearch.org.uk) that coordinates general sur- scientists actively involved in scientific research. However, veys that all participants may undertake, as well as a as it often entails limited/no cost, the number is likely to ‘surveyor’ level survey for participants that undertake exceed that of voluntourists (estimated at 10 million people advanced training, and ‘specialist projects’ created by marine per annum by McGehee 2014). Citizen scientists involved in biology experts and experienced volunteers. The latter may 6 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti involve additional training but in some cases are open to ensuring the collection of scientifically sound and high- experienced divers that have no previous Seasearch experi- quality data (see sect. 3.4 for a review), and the length of the ence (Bunker et al. 2017; Kay and Dipper 2018). This dem- training is somewhat correlated to the complexity of the pro- onstrates how well-designed and long-term projects can tocol employed. Some projects further engage with partici- satisfy participants from varied backgrounds and allow for pants through the organization of additional events and significant participant development. courses in order to maintain project engagement and allow for upskilling. An example of this is Capturing our Coast 1.3.2.2 Participant Training (available at www.capturingourcoast.co.uk) that organizes Basic training of participants occurs across the majority of regular refresher events for trained participants to maintain marine citizen science projects and extends from written their survey/identification skills and to enhance data quality, instructions, to two–three-day training programs, especially alongside engagement events such as ‘Wine and Science’ in projects involving specific methodological techniques/ where participants are invited to talks by guest speakers that protocols (Thiel et al. 2014). Within this review, 77 projects cover a range of marine science disciplines. Beyond training, provided some form of participant training, of which 29.9% many projects communicate with their participants through involved brief instructions, 53.2% involved basic training their websites, newsletters and social media in order to keep (i.e. an event where an expert introduced the protocol to be them up-to-date with the project progress and encourage fur- employed) and 16.9% included a ≥ one-day training course. ther participation. In addition, ‘group sourced identification Training of participants involved in projects that use simple forums’ on websites and social media are growing in popu- protocols (i.e. count or presence/absence surveys) (see sect. larity and may assist in participant engagement and increase 3.3 for a review) primarily occurs through basic written the accuracy of the citizen-collected data (Chamberlain instructions on data sheets and at times video tutorials (Bravo 2018). Informal participant feedback has suggested that et al. 2009; Ribic et al. 2011). However, in projects that online engagement strategies are becoming increasingly require more complex protocols (i.e. quadrat or transect sur- important components of marine citizen science projects veys) and species identification, participants often attend a (E. Morris-Webb, personal communication). However, there compulsory ≥ one-day training course, and it was noted that is currently a lack of systematic reviews on the role of out- many of these projects often also involve SCUBA diving. reach tools in the retention of volunteers highlighting the Participant capabilities are usually assessed throughout the potential for future research in this area. training, although only six projects explicitly stated that they verified participant capabilities. In addition, complex survey techniques often require additional scientific equipment (e.g. 1.3.3 Tasks Undertaken quadrats, transects, diving slates, identification guides, etc.) that are costly, resulting in some projects (e.g. Reef Check In order for citizen science projects to investigate the diverse California, Mediterranean Sea and Tropical available at array of habitats and species mentioned previously, a hetero- www.reefcheck.org) requesting a fee to cover the cost of the geneous range of methodologies are employed. Each project training and tools. Although this may limit the project’s must use methods that are appropriate to the field of enquiry accessibility, it also ensures training quality and often but that are within the capabilities of the participants recruited enhances the recruitment of highly motivated participants. (Worthington et al. 2012). Among the most popular are field Citizen scientists contributing financially to projects might surveys (35.8%) and reporting of opportunistic sightings consider it an investment, and they may in turn be more (34.2%) (Fig. 1.3), which aligns with the findings of Thiel likely to continue participating. However, this theory has yet et al. (2014). Field surveys primarily involve searches for to be tested explicitly and represents the scope for future both live (e.g. Reef Check Tropical available at www.reef- research. Despite the multiple benefits of training, 25.8% of check.org/tropical/overview) and deceased organisms (e.g. projects required no training, and the majority of these are Beach COMBERS, available at www.mlml.calstate.edu/ reliant on incidental sightings (i.e. stranded animals or beachcombers), as well as ecological phenomena (e.g. marine debris) (McGovern et al. 2016). In the case of Bleach Patrol available at www.ldeo.columbia.edu/bleach- stranded animals, citizen scientists report the sighting, and patrol), during predefined time periods or within predefined professionals are then required for the subsequent removal, areas such as transects and quadrats. Surveys generally identification and autopsy (Avens et al. 2009). require citizen scientists to report findings of abundance or For the most part, the projects considered in this review presence/absence, although in some cases, parameters allow participants to conduct research without professional uniquely designed for that project are requested, for exam- supervision. Consequently, full explanatory training is key to ple, the reef coloration requested in the CoralWatch bleach- 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 7 Fig. 1.3 Number of reviewed marine citizen science projects per primary tasks undertaken, excluding those that involved several tasks (n = 2) ing protocol (available at www.coralwatch.org). Other 1.3.4 Data Directionality surveys involve more novel methods, such as divers4ocean- ography (available at www.divers4oceanography.org) that 1.3.4.1 Data Quality asks SCUBA divers to report ocean temperatures recorded Citizen science strives to meet the same credibility standards on their dive computers, and Smartfin (available at www. as academic research and industry; however, it is often sub- smartfin.org) that has designed a surfboard fin with sensors ject to limited resources and consequently faces trade-offs that allows surfers to collect real-time ocean parameters between data quantity and quality, protocol standardization including temperature, location and wave characteristics and discrepancies in skills and expectations of participants (sensors that measure salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen and and project facilitators/scientists (Robertson et al. 2010; chlorophyll are under development). Surveying remains a Tulloch et al. 2013). To maintain data quality, some projects key methodology of marine citizen science projects due to its statistically compare results reported by citizen scientists to cost-effectiveness, relative ease of implementation and abil- those of professional scientists as a means of data validation ity to generate data across large spatio-temporal scales. (Bell 2007; Worthington et al. 2012; Holt et al. 2013; Bird Opportunistic sightings again allow data to be generated et al. 2014; Thiel et al. 2014; Earp et al. 2018b). Within this across vast scales and are at times a more time- and effort- review, 19.2% of projects were found to validate their data in efficient method compared to quadrat and transect surveys some way, which is much lower than the 55.1% reported by (Wiggins and Crowston 2011; Cox et al. 2012, 2015); Thiel et al. (2014) in a similar investigation. However, an although for the most part, they are employed by projects increasing body of research has shown that data collected by focusing on marine mammals, jellyfish and marine debris citizen scientists meets, or surpasses accepted quality stan- (including both field and online projects). dards, or detects important ecological trends (Cox et al. Technological developments have allowed an increasing 2012; Forrester et al. 2015; Kosmala et al. 2016; Schläppy number of projects to incorporate online citizen scientists to et al. 2017). In the study of Delaney et al. (2008), the accu- analyse vast data sets of images and recordings (19.1%), racy of volunteers in identifying native and invasive crabs often through web portals such as Zooniverse. The popular- was assessed and found to be between 80 and 95% accurate ity of this method lies in the fact that its only limitation is the for school children and even greater for those with a univer- often time-consuming preparation of the photos prior to sity education, suggesting that demographic variables such being uploaded online. Finally, a combination of advanced as age and educational background may be important drivers technology and that fact that they are often focused on spe- of data quality. As a result, choosing a research topic to suit cific target organisms may explain why tagging (i.e. catch, the target participants is key to the success of a citizen sci- tag and release of organisms) and restoration (i.e. environ- ence project. In other studies, increasing experience level mental regeneration) were among the least used methodolo- (Jiguet 2009) and training of participants (Edgar and Stuart- gies (1.6% and 0.8%, respectively) (Fig. 1.3). Smith 2009) (see sect. 3.2.2 for a review) were shown to 8 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti positively correlate with data quality. In other cases, citizen zen science, whereas the majority of marine mammal science data has been shown to demonstrate bias or projects are well established and commenced prior to inaccuracies (Courter et al. 2013; Forrester et al. 2015; van 2008. Although the trend towards pollution-based studies der Velde et al. 2017), but this can be minimized in data sum- has allowed for vast data sets to be generated in seemingly maries by examining broader-scale trends (e.g. family level short time periods, the number of investigations (i.e. sur- rather than species level) (Fore et al. 2001; Gouraguine et al. veys) was shown to have less of an influence on publica- 2019) or excluding data from participants that differed sub- tion frequency compared to project duration (Fig. 1.5a). stantially to data collected by scientists (Culver et al. 2010). Project durations vary from days to decades (Thiel et al. Irrespectively, perceptions on data quality remain a key fac- 2014), and of the projects that state their start date tor influencing the publication of citizen science data (n = 103), the greatest percentage (24.3%) are currently (Schläppy et al. 2017). between 2 and 5 years in duration. Despite a limited cor- relation between project duration and publication fre- 1.3.4.2 Data Publication quency (Fig. 1.5b), short projects have a demonstrated In recent years, an increasing number of peer-reviewed jour- capacity to be published, for example, in the 2-day nal articles have focused on marine citizen science with ‘bioblitz’ undertaken by Cohen et al. (2011) in Sitka many incorporating participant-collected data. This was the (Alaska), where citizen scientists collected data that con- case for a minimum of 44 of the 120 reviewed projects that firmed a 1000 km northward extension of the colonial have contributed data to at least 1483 peer-reviewed journal tunicate Didemnum vexillum (Sundlov et al. 2016). articles. The majority of these publications (54%) were in relation to chordates (Fig. 1.4), of which 70% focused on 1.3.4.3 Policy Development marine mammals followed by seabirds (15.6%). Interestingly, It is important to note that peer-reviewed journal articles are only 5.2% of chordate publications focused on groups such not the only outlet for marine citizen science data, and in as sharks and rays. Projects concentrating on diverse taxa some cases, especially in terms of marine pollution, the data were also highly likely to contribute to publications (29.1%), collected is more valuable for aspects such as informing pol- whereas <2% of publications focused on marine pollution. icy or driving management (Newman et al. 2015; Burgess Despite marine mammals and pollution being the focus et al. 2017). Marine legislation is often underpinned by evi- of comparable project numbers, the publication frequency dence from large data sets, and citizen science provides a of marine mammal data is over 30 times greater than that cost-effective method for their generation (Crabbe 2012; of marine pollution. This discrepancy may be due to the Hyder et al. 2015). The importance of marine citizen science fact that pollution is a relatively new trend in marine citi- in delivering evidence to support decision-making in marine Fig. 1.4 Number of peer-reviewed journal articles (n = 1483) per focus taxa published by reviewed marine citizen science projects, excluding those that focus on oceanography or pollution (n = 18) 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 9 Fig. 1.5 Number of peer-reviewed journal articles published by reviewed marine citizen science projects (n = 1483) vs. number of project investiga- tions (i.e. surveys) (a) and project duration (b) 10 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti Table 1.2 The primary policy area underpinned by reviewed marine exceptional value in addressing questions regarding the citizen science projects and the total number of publications generated spatio-temporal distribution of marine organisms (Ponti by projects in each of these areas et al. 2011b; Mieszkowska et al. 2014). More recently these Number of Number of data sets have become important in assessing the response of Policy Area projects publications Biodiversity Species distribution 43 790 organisms to climate change (Southward et al. 2005; MPA designation 7 166 Mieszkowska et al. 2014). Climate change can induce so- Invasive non-native 6 0 called shifts in marine species distributions, either towards species more favourable seawater temperatures or because of trophic Stranding 4 211 mismatches resulting from changes in prey phenology Threatened and rare 4 42 (Visser and Both 2005; Cheung et al. 2009). Mieszkowska species et al. (2014) demonstrated some of the fastest geographic Other biological 31 184 research range shifts in marine species in 50 years using citizen sci- Physical Oceanographical 4 2 ence data collected as part of the Marine Biodiversity and environment research Climate Change (MarClim) project. Lusitanian species, Climate change 2 0 including Phorcus (previously Osilinus) lineatus and Pollution Marine debris 10 15 Steromphala (previously Gibbula) umbilicalis (topshells), Water quality 4 15 Chthamalus montagui and Perforatus perforatus (barnacles), Resource Fisheries 5 27 as well as the limpet Patella depressa and the macroalga management Bifurcaria bifurcata, extended their range poleward, whilst Boreal species, such as the barnacle Semibalanus balanoides legislation was reviewed by Hyder et al. (2015), who classi- and the kelp Alaria esculenta, were shown to be important fied four marine policy areas (biodiversity, physical environ- indicator species that fluctuate in abundance in response to ment, pollution and resource management) in which citizen periods of warming and cooling (Mieszkowska et al. 2014). science had played a valuable role. Within our review, the Although only two projects in this review investigated physi- majority of projects (79.2%) were found to provide evidence cal components of climate change (i.e. changes in tempera- underpinning biodiversity conservation policies (Table 1.2). tures, pH and storm frequency), numerous projects (35.8%) Within this policy area, > 40% of projects investigated ques- addressed questions regarding species distributions with sev- tions regarding species distribution, which was supported by eral of these providing information important for climate findings from a study by Hyder et al. (2015). Other popular change studies (e.g. information on coral bleaching that policy areas underpinned by the reviewed projects were: bio- results from climatic change). logical research (25.8%), marine debris surveying (8.3%), marine protected area (MPA) designation (5.8%) and inva- 1.3.4.4.2 Invasive Non-Native Species sive species tracking (5%) (Table 1.2). Marine citizen science is not only a powerful tool in moni- toring the distribution of native species but also the arrival 1.3.4.4 Data Storage and encroachment of invasive non-native species (Delaney Although the use of citizen science data varies, projects are et al. 2008; Parr and Sewell 2017), whose impacts on native encouraged to make their data publicly accessible, yet in this ecosystems remain poorly understood (Ruiz et al. 1997). review, less than 10% of projects stored their data on a repos- These species can go undetected for extended periods of itory (e.g. NBN Atlas available at www.nbnatlas.org). In par- time (i.e. years) (Geller et al. 1997; Lohrer 2001), meaning ticular, all species survey data from reviewed citizen science their subsequent eradication may be difficult, in part projects in the UK is stored on NBN Atlas, which is acces- because of large population sizes (Bax et al. 2001). sible to the public and government for a range of purposes, Consequently, monitoring for invasive species is of primary although some data limitations exist regarding commercially importance so that early eradication can be conducted sensitive/overexploited species. The majority of reviewed (Delaney et al. 2008). In the USA, the Citizen Science projects instead made their data available through the project Initiative: Marine Invasive Species Monitoring Organization website (50.8%), although 40% of projects kept their data (www.InvasiveTracers.com) used 190 groups of partici- private or failed to disclose its location. pants to survey 52 sites for a species of introduced Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus), previously known 1.3.4.4.1 Species Distribution only to be present in Moores Harbour. They reported a The long-term observational data sets generated by citizen notable expansion of the range of H. sanguineus, with one science projects, which often extend beyond timescales of specimen being reported 60 km northeast of Moores standard research programs (i.e. two-three years), are also of Harbour (Delaney et al. 2008). Some invasive species are 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 11 not only detrimental to native ecosystems, but also to local (official press release available at www.gov.uk/government/ economies, for example, the carpet sea squirt (Didemnum news/deposit-return-scheme-in-fight-against-plastic). vexillum), which was discovered in the UK for the first time by citizen scientists in a study conducted by Cohen et al. 1.3.4.4.4 Marine Protected Areas (2011). D. vexillum is detrimental to shellfish aquaculture One method to protect and promote biodiversity is the des- with high abundances resulting in increased labour costs ignation of marine protected areas (MPAs) and Marine and reduced product value (Watson et al. 2009; Adams Conservation Zones (MCZs); however to do this, patterns of et al. 2011). Knowing the origin and arrival location of species distributions across vast spatio-temporal scales invasive species is very important to model their potential (such as those covered by citizen science/scientists) are dispersion pathways, allow for early detection and in turn required (Dickinson et al. 2010; Cerrano et al. 2012; Crabbe limit further colonization of new areas (Ricciardi et al. 2012; Markantonatou et al. 2013; Branchini et al. 2015; 2000). The spatio-temporal scale at which citizen science Jarvis et al. 2015; Cerrano et al. 2017). Additionally, marine operates is therefore of exceptional value to invasive spe- citizen science is also an effective tool for monitoring MPAs cies monitoring and benefits both scientific research and that is essential to support adequate management and to ful- industry. Although several of the reviewed projects (e.g. fil the requirements of the European Marine Strategy Capturing our Coast available at www.capturingourcoast. Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC) (Ponti et al. co.uk, Seasearch available at www.seasearch.org.uk and 2011a; Cerrano et al. 2017; Turicchia et al. 2017). This Reef Check Mediterranean Sea available at www.reef- review found that 5.8% of projects provided data that under- checkmed.org) have trained volunteers to report sightings pins MPA designation and/or monitoring (Table 1.2). of non-native species, they were the primary focus of only Despite this low percentage, the majority of these projects 5% of reviewed projects (Table 1.2), therefore demonstrat- were found to operate over extensive geographical ranges ing scope for significant expansion of marine citizen sci- (e.g. Reef Check available at www.reefcheck.org; eOcean ence in this area. available at www.eoceans.co; SubseaObservers available at www.subseaobservers.com). Since its establishment in 1.3.4.4.3 Marine Debris 1996, Reef Check data has contributed to the establishment As part of an action to tackle a widespread and growing and monitoring of several MPAs in regions with limited issue, citizen scientists are helping to investigate marine funding for conservation policies (Cerrano et al. 2012), and debris by contributing to vast global data sets that form the in the UK, the Seasearch data set that extends back to 1984 basis of both political decisions and conservation policies has contributed to the designation of 38 MCZs and several (Ryan et al. 2009; Eriksen et al. 2014; Hidalgo-Ruz and other MPAs including Lamlash Bay No-Take Zone Thiel 2013, 2015; Nelms et al. 2017). Although this policy (Seasearch 2018). area was underpinned by only 8.3% of projects within this review (Table 1.2), it has grown considerably in the past decade, with more citizens sharing responsibility for the 1.4 hallenges and Strengths of Marine C issue and contributing to projects aiming to provide solutions Citizen Science (Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel 2015; Nelms et al. 2017). These projects often involve simple beach clean-ups that provide 1.4.1 Challenges information on the distribution and abundance of marine debris items (Ribic 1998; Martin 2013). Because of the sim- The rapid expansion of marine citizen science, coupled with plicity of the protocols, several citizen science projects advancing possibilities and limited funding means, at pres- underpinning different areas of policy (i.e. biodiversity poli- ent, limited guidelines for good practice are in place, and cies such as species distribution and stranding) have orga- instead many facilitators are learning on the job (Silvertown nized events to tackle marine debris issues and contributed to 2009). Consequently, many projects face challenges, usually litter recording databases. In the UK, citizen scientists in the form of participant motivation and/or data issues. reported and collected over 10,866 plastic bottles as part of the Marine Conservation Society Wild Bottle Sighting cam- 1.4.1.1 Participant Motivation paign (www.mcsuk.org/bottlesightings). The awareness At the organizational level, motivation is one of the most raised and evidence collected through this, and other similar commonly referenced challenges facing citizen science campaigns (OSPAR 2010; Van Franeker et al. 2011), were (Conrad and Daoust 2008; Conrad and Hilchey 2011; key to the decision of the UK government to develop a Rotman et al. 2012), and it comes in two forms: (1) motivat- Deposit Return System for plastic bottles and aluminium ing outsiders to sign-up and begin participating and (2) moti- cans as part of a plan to eliminate single-use plastic by 2042 vating participants to continue or expand their participation 12 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti (Prestopnik and Crowston 2011; Rotman et al. 2012). To standards (Cox et al. 2012; Forrester et al. 2015; Kosmala motivate participants to sign up, some projects focus specifi- et al. 2016; Schläppy et al. 2017). These concerns often cally on either charismatic organisms (Bear 2016; Garcia- relate but are not limited to a lack of attention to project Soto et al. 2017) or accessible environments (Garcia-Soto design and standardized data verification methods, limited et al. 2017), or incorporate an activity (e.g. SCUBA diving) participant training and sampling biases (Conrad and Hilchey into the protocol to engage participants who readily partici- 2011; Burgess et al. 2017). Riesch and Potter (2014) postu- pate in this activity already (e.g. Seasearch available at www. lated that a lack of use of citizen science data in academia seasearch.org.uk). However, these strategies generate issues may stem from the belief of some scientists that the data including a data bias towards charismatic species and acces- would not be well received by their peers. In terms of policy sible nearshore environments that may be of limited ecologi- development, the United States Congress excluded volunteer cal/scientific relevance, or if SCUBA diving is required, the collected data from their National Biological Survey over project may become cost and/or experience prohibitive to concerns that it would be biased based on environmentalist certain participants. An often-unaddressed issue of citizen agendas (Root and Alpert 1994). To address the issue of data science is accessibility, especially for participants with perceptions, Burgess et al. (2017) suggest greater transpar- impairments. For the most part, projects involve either a ency and availability of methods and data attributes that will physical task in a somewhat hazardous (i.e. slippy) environ- hopefully result from the generation of good practice guide- ment, a highly skilful and intense activity (e.g. SCUBA div- lines and toolkits for citizen science (Silvertown 2009). ing), or recording on small data sheets. Consequently, However, despite the shortcomings, many benefits of marine participants with impairments may be limited to online citizen science have been documented. For this reason, the marine citizen science projects, unless a protocol can be development of a standard ‘impact assessment’, to assess adapted to suit their needs. survey and data verification methods, as well as scientific Motivating participants to continue or expand their par- and socio-psychological benefits would be highly beneficial ticipation is often a greater challenge, especially when the to marine citizen science projects. project involves reporting ‘zero data’, which may be of sig- nificant scientific importance, but it is often disengaging and might result in declines in participation (Bear 2016). One 1.4.2 Strengths solution to maintain engagement that is also used to motivate sign-ups and initial participation is gamification (Prestopnik The strengths of citizen science have been demonstrated to and Crowston 2011) and/or incentivization of the protocol extend across scientific, social and economic boundaries, as (e.g. the ‘Top Trumps’ format of the Capturing our Coast well as underpinning several areas of marine policy (see sect. ‘Beach Babies’ survey, available at www.capturingourcoast. 1.3.4.3) (Delaney et al. 2008; Crabbe 2012; Mieszkowska co.uk/specific-information/beach-babies). For participants, et al. 2014; Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel 2015; Hyder et al. 2015; the more fun, or the greater the benefit they receive from Turicchia et al. 2015; Parr and Sewell 2017). completing the work, the more likely they are to participate (Prestopnik and Crowston 2011). In addition, feedback to 1.4.2.1 The Many Eyes Hypothesis participants is of exceptional importance (Bonney et al. The ‘many eyes hypothesis’ has been used to describe the 2009; Silvertown 2009) and has been shown to increase and/ efficiency of marine citizen science in generating data across or maintain participation by demonstrating the value of their vast spatio-temporal scales and across multiple taxa contribution (Rotman et al. 2012). Research from Thiel et al. (Hochachka et al. 1999; Dickinson et al. 2012; Thomas et al. (2014) supports this view, stating that public recognition of 2017). This hypothesis, in the case of animal aggregations, participant effort is a significant motivator for participation shows a larger group size has extended individual feeding but that factors including personal satisfaction (i.e. wellbeing times and an increased likelihood of detecting predators impact of developing social connections and being outdoors) compared to smaller groups (Lima 1995). When applied to and development of a skill base (i.e. greater understanding of citizen science, it demonstrates that a network of citizen sci- the scientific processes) are also important motivators. entists with clearly defined protocols and realistic survey aims is capable of surveying vast areas (Ponti et al. 2011b; 1.4.1.2 Data Concerns Cerrano et al. 2012, 2017), which increases the chances of Another obstacle facing citizen science is perceptions regard- detection of a species/phenomenon, increases replication ing data quality (see sect. 3.4 for a review), despite several rates and decreases individual effort (Hochachka et al. 1999; studies demonstrating that the data meets accepted quality Thomas et al. 2017). This ‘many eyes’ effect has allowed 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 13 citizen science to benefit landscape ecology and macroecol- nating project findings to participants, must be considered. ogy research by covering extensive spatio-temporal scales Overall however, the projects investigated within this review (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Southward et al. 2005; Dickinson demonstrated positive outcomes of collaborations between et al. 2010, 2012; Mieszkowska et al. 2014; Schläppy et al. members of the public and scientists. Citizen scientists 2017), alongside providing an efficient means for detecting become specialized in the protocols used and in turn provide species with low abundances (e.g. rare or invasive species) quality data that increase the spatio-temporal coverage of (Delaney et al. 2008; Dickinson et al. 2010, 2012). marine research (Thiel et al. 2014). With our oceans and coasts in peril due to changing cli- 1.4.2.2 Marine Stewardship matic conditions and increasing anthropogenic activities Appropriately designed projects not only have the potential (Cigliano et al. 2015, Earp et al. 2018a), marine citizen sci- to broaden the scope of marine research and policy but also ence provides a unique platform to discover, innovate and reconnect participants with nature that in turn increases their address global challenges (i.e. species shifts and marine awareness of the current status of the marine realm and the debris) for which data is significantly lacking (Bear 2016). threats it faces (Brightsmith et al. 2008; Dickinson et al. As marine citizen science comes of age, although not pana- 2010; Koss and Kingsley 2010; Garcia-Soto et al. 2017; cea, if it successfully keeps pace with the changing contexts Cerrano et al. 2017; Schläppy et al. 2017; Turicchia et al. of marine ecological research, conservation needs and stake- 2017). Through marine citizen science projects, participants holder interests, its capacity to increase ocean literacy may may observe the impact of anthropogenic activities on aid the development of culturally and politically feasible marine environments, which may promote a sense of owner- solutions for a more sustainable future (McKinley et al. ship and drive behavioural changes towards more sustainable 2017; Schläppy et al. 2017). With this in mind, it can be sum- actions (Branchini et al. 2015; Cerrano et al. 2017). This marized that the current benefits of marine citizen science increased awareness may then be used to promote marine outweigh the challenges, and there is significant scope for stewardship, and in many cases, participants often become the development and incorporation of ‘science by the peo- advocates of marine conservation (Dickinson et al. 2010; ple’ into marine research and conservation projects Cerrano et al. 2017; Garcia-Soto et al. 2017). The enhanced (Silvertown 2009). ocean literacy, resulting from participating in marine citizen science projects, combined with exposure to science through Acknowledgements The authors are grateful for the constructive input other mediums (e.g. television documentaries and news arti- of Dr. Siobhan Vye, Ms. Natalie Prinz and three reviewers, Dr. Ans Vercammen, Dr. Eva Turicchia and Ms. Elisabeth Morris-Webb that cles) (Thiel et al. 2014) may also lead to greater support for greatly improved the manuscript. We would also like to share our grati- scientific advances and policy, as opposition often results tude to the YOUMARES 9 committee for the opportunity to research a from a lack of understanding of the underlying science topic that is close to both our academic and personal experiences. (Schläppy et al. 2017). This environmental stewardship also Finally, our appreciation and recognition goes to all professional and citizen scientists involved in the reviewed projects for their outstanding forms the basis of compliance with marine management pol- work and commitment in making citizen science the science of the icies such as MPAs and can indirectly enhance their effi- future. ciency (Evans et al. 2008; McKinley and Fletcher 2012). 1.5 Summary Appendix At present, marine citizen science is at a crossroads of dem- This article is related to the YOUMARES 9 conference ses- onstrated sucesses, unresolved challenges and unrealized sion no. 1: “Could citizen scientists and voluntourists be the potential (Burgess et al. 2017). To resolve these challenges, future for marine research and conservation?” The original and fulfill its potential, citizen science practitioners must be Call for Abstracts and the abstracts of the presentations willing to acknowledge project shortcomings and work within this session can be found in the Appendix “Conference together to align objectives and methodologies that ensure Sessions and Abstracts”, Chapter “1 Could citizen scientists the generation of high-quality data sets (Burgess et al. 2017). and voluntourists be the future for marine research and con- In addition, the accessibility and feasibility of the project to servation?”, of this book. a diverse array of participants, as well as methods of dissemi- 14 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti Supplementary Material Table 1.A1 Name and website of the 120 marine citizen science projects reviewed in this manuscript Marine Citizen Science Project Website Angling Project: Off The Hook www.sharktrust.org/en/anglers_recording_project B.C. Cetacean Sightings Network www.wildwhales.org Basking Shark Project www.sharktrust.org/en/basking_shark_project Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication & Health www.ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-quality/Saltwater/ (BEACH) BEACH-program Beach Watch www.beachwatch.farallones.org BeachObserver www.beachobserver.com Big Seaweed search www.bigseaweedsearch.org Birding Aboard www.birdingaboard.org/index.html Biscayne Bay Drift Card Study www.carthe.org/baydrift Bleach Patrol www.ldeo.columbia.edu/bleachpatrol Blue Water Task Force www.surfrider.org/blue-water-task-force Cape Radd Citizen Science Day www.caperadd.com/courses/citizen-science-day Capturing our Coast www.capturingourcoast.co.uk CARIB Tails www.caribtails.org/home.html Caribbean Lionfish Response Program www.corevi.org Chesapeake Bay Parasite Project www.serc.si.edu/citizen-science/projects/chesapeake-bay-parasite-project Clean Sea LIFE cleansealife.it Coastal Observation & Seabird Survey Team (COASST) www.depts.washington.edu/coasst Coastal Ocean Mammal & Bird Education & Research Surveys www.mlml.calstate.edu/beachcombers (Beach COMBERS) Community Seagrass Initiative www.csi-seagrass.co.uk Coral Reef Monitoring Data Portal www.monitoring.coral.org CoralWatch www.coralwatch.org Crab Watch www.seachangeproject.eu/seachange-about-4/crab-watch Delaware Bay Horseshoe Crab Spawning Survey www.dnrec.alpha.delaware.gov/coastal-programs/education-outreach/ horseshoe-crab-survey Delaware Shorebird Project www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/Shorebirds Digital Fishers www.oceannetworks.ca/learning/get-involved/citizen-science/digital-fishers divers4oceanography www.divers4oceanography.org Earthdive www.earthdive.com eOceans www.eoceans.co Fish Watchers www.fishbase.org/fishwatcher/menu.php FjordPhyto www.fjordphyto.wordpress.com Floating Forests www.zooniverse.org/projects/zooniverse/floating-forests Follow & Learn About the Ocean & Wetland (FLOW) www.amigosdebolsachica.org/flow.php Global Microplastics Initiative www.adventurescientists.org/microplastic Gotham Whale www.gothamwhale.org/citizen-science Grunion Greeters www.grunion.org Happywhale www.happywhale.com Horseshoe crabs as homes www.sites.google.com/site/epibiont IHO Crowdsourced Bathymetry www.ngdc.noaa.gov/iho/#csb iNaturalist www.inaturalist.org Invader ID www.zooniverse.org/projects/serc/invader-id iSeahorse www.iseahorse.org JellyWatch www.jellywatch.org Kelp Watch www.serc.si.edu/citizen-science/projects/kelp-watch Long-term Monitoring Program & Experimental Training for www.limpets.org Students (LiMPETS) (continued) 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 15 Table 1.A1 (continued) Marine Citizen Science Project Website Manatee Chat www.zooniverse.org/projects/cetalingua/manatee-chat MangroveWatch www.mangrovewatch.org.au Manta Matcher www.mantamatcher.org/overview.jsp Marine Debris Monitoring & Assessment Project www.marinedebris.noaa.gov/research/monitoring-toolbox Marine Debris Tracker www.marinedebris.engr.uga.edu Marine Metre Squared (Mm2) www.mm2.net.nz MCS Wild Bottle Sightings www.mcsuk.org/bottlesightings Mitten Crab Watch www.mittencrabs.org.uk Monitor Tupinambás www.zooniverse.org/projects/larissakawabe/monitore-tupinambas New England Basking Shark & Ocean Sunfish Project www.nebshark.org New York Horseshoe Crab Monitoring Network www.nyhorseshoecrab.org North Atlantic Right Whale Sightings Advisory System www.nefsc.noaa.gov/psb/surveys/SAS.html Ocean Sampling Day www.microb3.eu/osd.html Orcasound www.orcasound.net OSPAR Beach Litter www.ospar.org/work-areas/eiha/marine-litter/beach-litter Our Radioactive Ocean www.ourradioactiveocean.org Oyster Drills in Richardson Bay www.serc.si.edu/citizen-science/projects/oyster-drill Penguin Cam www.penguinscience.com/education/count_the_penguins.php Penguin Watch www.penguinwatch.org Plankton Portal www.planktonportal.org PlateWatch www.platewatch.nisbase.org Puget Sound Seabird Survey (PSSS) www.seattleaudubon.org/sas/About/Science/CitizenScience/ PugetSoundSeabirdSurvey.aspx Redmap www.redmap.org.au Reef Check California www.reefcheck.org/california/ca-overview Reef Check Mediterranean Sea www.reefcheckmed.org Reef Check Tropical www.reefcheck.org Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) www.reef.org Reef Life Survey www.reeflifesurvey.com/reef-life-survey Reef Watch www.conservationsa.org.au/reef_watch Rescue a Reef www.sharkresearch.rsmas.miami.edu/donate/rescue-a-reef Satellites Over Seals (SOS) www.tomnod.com Scuba Tourism For The Environment www.steproject.org Sea Star Wasting Disease www.udiscover.it/applications/seastar Seabird Ecological Assessment Network (SEANET) www.seanetters.wordpress.com Seabirdwatch www.zooniverse.org/projects/penguintom79/seabirdwatch Seagrass Spotter www.seagrassspotter.org Seagrass Watch www.seagrasswatch.org Sealife Survey www.mba.ac.uk/recording/about Seasearch www.seasearch.org.uk seaturtle.org www.seaturtle.org Seawatch Submit a Sighting www.seawatchfoundation.org.uk Send us your skeletons www.fish.wa.gov.au/Fishing-and-Aquaculture/Recreational-Fishing/ Send-Us-Your-Skeletons/Pages Sevengill Shark Identification Project www.sevengillsharksightings.org SharkBase www.shark-base.org Sharkscount www.sharksavers.org/en/our-programs/sharkscount Smartfin www.surfrider.org/programs/smartfin Snapshots at Sea www.zooniverse.org/projects/tedcheese/snapshots-at-sea South Africa Elasmobranch Monitoring (ELMO) www.elmoafrica.org SubseaObservers www.subseaobservers.com Tag A Tiny www.umb.edu/tunalab/tagatiny Tangaroa Blue www.tangaroablue.org (continued) 16 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti Table 1.A1 (continued) Marine Citizen Science Project Website TBF Tag & Release Program www.billfish.org/research/tag-and-release The Big Sea Survey www.hlf.org.uk/our-projects/big-sea-survey The Florida Keys BleachWatch Program www.mote.org/research/program/coral-reef-science-monitoring/ bleachwatch The Great Eggcase Hunt Project www.sharktrust.org/en/great_eggcase_hunt The Great Nurdle Hunt www.nurdlehunt.org.uk The Plastic Tide www.theplastictide.com The Secchi Disk study www.secchidisk.org The Shore Thing www.mba.ac.uk/shore_thing The Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/webs TLC Juvenile Lobster Monitoring Program www.lobsters.org/volunt/volunteer.html trackmyfish trackmy.fish Wakame Watch wakamewatch.org.uk WDC Shorewatch Programme www.wdcs.org/national_regions/scotland/shorewatch Weddell Seal Count www.zooniverse.org/projects/slg0808/weddell-seal-count Whale FM whale.fm Whale mAPP www.whalemapp.org Whale Track whaletrack.hwdt.org Whales as Individuals www.zooniverse.org/projects/tedcheese/whales-as-individuals Wildbook for Whale Sharks www.whaleshark.org All websites last accessed 24 June 2019 by the authors References Branchini S, Pensa F, Neri P et al (2015) Using a citizen science program to monitor coral reef biodiversity through space and time. Biodivers Conserv 24:319–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0810-7 Adams CM, Shumway SE, Whitlatch RB et al (2011) Biofouling in Bravo M, Gallardo M, Luna-Jorquera G et al (2009) Anthropogenic marine molluscan shellfish aquaculture: a survey assessing the busi- debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): results from a national ness and economic implications of mitigation. J World Aquacult Soc survey supported by volunteers. Mar Pollut Bull 58:1718–1726. 42:242–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2011.00460.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.06.017 Avens L, Taylor JC, Goshe LR et al (2009) Use of skeletochronological Brightsmith DJ, Stronza A, Holle K (2008) Ecotourism, conserva- analysis to estimate the age of leatherback sea turtles Dermochelys tion biology, and volunteer tourism: a mutually beneficial trium- coriacea in the western North Atlantic. Endanger Species Res virate. Biol Conserv 141:2832–2842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 8:165–177. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00202 biocon.2008.08.020 Bax N, Carlton JT, Mathews-Amos A et al (2001) The control of bio- Bruce E, Albright L, Sheehan S et al (2014) Distribution patterns logical invasions in the world’s oceans. Conserv Biol 15:1234– of migrating humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in 1246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99487.x Jervis Bay, Australia: a spatial analysis using geographical citi- Bear M (2016) Perspectives in marine citizen science. J Microbiol Biol zen science data. Appl Geogr 54:83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Educ 17(1):56–59. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v17i1.1037 apgeog.2014.06.014 Bell JJ (2007) The use of volunteers for conducting sponge biodiver- Bunker FSPD, Brodie JA, Maggs CA et al (2017) Seaweeds of sity assessments and monitoring using a morphological approach Britain and Ireland, Seasearch guides, 2nd edn. Wild Nature Press, on Indo-Pacific coral reefs. Aquat Conserv 17:133–145. https://doi. Plymouth org/10.1002/aqc.789 Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Froehlich HE et al (2017) The science of Bird TJ, Bates AE, Lefcheck JS et al (2014) Statistical solutions for citizen science: exploring barriers to use as a primary research error and bias in global citizen science datasets. Biol Conserv tool. Biol Conserv 208:113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 173:144–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.037 biocon.2016.05.014 Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J et al (2009) Citizen science: a Campbell LM, Smith C (2006) What makes them pay? Values of vol- developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific unteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation. Environ Manag literacy. Bioscience 59(11):977–984. https://doi.org/10.1525/ 38:84–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0188-0 bio.2009.59.11.9 Cerrano C, Di Camillo CG, Milanese M et al (2012) Education through Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB et al (2014) Next steps for citizen participation: the role of citizen science in marine habitat conserva- science. Science 343(6178):1436–1437. https://doi.org/10.1126/ tion. PIXEL New perspectives in science education, Florence science.1251554 Cerrano C, Milanese M, Ponti M (2017) Diving for science – science Bonney R, Phillips TB, Ballard HL et al (2016a) Can citizen science for diving: volunteer scuba divers support science and conservation enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst Sci in the Mediterranean Sea. Aquat Conserv 27:303–323. https://doi. 25(1):2–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406 org/10.1002/aqc.2663 Bonney R, Cooper C, Ballard HL (2016b) The theory and practice of Chamberlain J (2018) Purple octopus. http://www.purpleoctopus.org/ citizen science: launching a new journal. CSTP 1(1):1–4. https:// groupsourcing/. Accessed 9 Oct 2018 doi.org/10.5334/cstp.65 Cheung WW, Lam VW, Sarmiento JL et al (2009) Projecting Bowen S, Goodwin C, Kipling D et al (2011) Sea squirts and sponges of global marine biodiversity impacts under climate Britain and Ireland. Seasearch guides. Wild Nature Press, Plymouth 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 17 change scenarios. Fish Fish 10(3):235–251. https://doi. Earp HS, Vye SR, West V et al (2018b) Do you see what I see? org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2008.00315.x Quantifying inter-observer variability in an intertidal disturbance Cigliano JA, Ballard HL (2018) Citizen science for coastal and marine experiment. Poster presented at YOUMARES 9, University of conservation. Routledge, Abingdon Oldenburg, Germany, 11–14 September 2018 Cigliano JA, Meyer R, Ballard HL et al (2015) Making marine and Edgar GJ, Stuart-Smith RD (2009) Ecological effects of marine pro- coastal citizen science matter. Ocean Coast Manage 115:77–87. tected areas on rocky reef communitie – a continental-scale analysis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.012 Mar Ecol Prog Ser 388:51–62. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps08149 Cohen CS, McCann L, Davis T et al (2011) Discovery and signifi- Embling CB, Walters AEM, Dolman SJ (2015) How much effort is cance of the colonial tunicate Didemnum vexillum in Alaska. Aquat enough? The power of citizen science to monitor trends in coastal Invasions 6(3):263–271. https://doi.org/10.3391/ai.2011.6.3 cetacean species. Glob Ecol Conserv 3:867–877. https://doi. Cohn JP (2008) Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.04.003 Bioscience 58(3):192–197. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580303 Eriksen M, Lebreton LCM, Carson HS et al (2014) Plastic pollution Conrad CT, Daoust T (2008) Community-based monitoring frame- in the world’s oceans: more than 5 trillion plastic pieces weighing works: increasing the effectiveness of environmental steward- over 250,000 tons afloat at sea. PLoS One 9:e111913. https://doi. ship. Environ Manag 41(3):358–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/ org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111913 s00267-007-9042-x Evans SM, Gebbels S, Stockill JM (2008) ‘Our shared responsibility’: Conrad CC, Hilchey KG (2011) A review of citizen science and participation in ecological projects as a means of empowering com- community- based environmental monitoring: issues and oppor- munities to contribute to coastal management processes. Mar Pollut tunities. Environ Monit Assess 176(1–4):273–291. https://doi. Bull 57:3–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.04.014 org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5 Fore LS, Paulsen K, O’Laughlin K (2001) Assessing the performance Courter JR, Johnson RJ, Stuyck CM et al (2013) Weekend bias in of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshw Biol 46(1):109–123. citizen science data reporting: implications for phenology stud- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2001.00640.x ies. Int J Biometeorol 57(5):715–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Forrester G, Baily P, Conetta D et al (2015) Comparing monitoring s00484-012-0598-7 data collected by volunteers and professionals shows that citizen Cox TE, Philippoff J, Baumgartner E et al (2012) Expert variability pro- scientists can detect long-term change on coral reefs. J Nat Conserv vides perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of citizen-driven 24:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.01.002 intertidal monitoring program. Ecol Appl 22(4):1201–1212. https:// Foster-Smith J, Evans SM (2003) The value of marine ecological data doi.org/10.1890/11-1614.1 collected by volunteers. Biol Conserv 113(2):199–213. https://doi. Cox J, Oh EY, Simmons B et al (2015) Defining and measuring suc- org/10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00373-7 cess in online citizen science: a case study of Zooniverse proj- Garcia-Soto C, van der Meeren GI, Busch JA et al (2017) Advancing ects. Comput Sci Eng 17(4):28–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/ citizen science for coastal and ocean research. In: French V, Kellett MCSE.2015.65 P, Delany J et al (eds) Position Paper 23 of the European Marine Crabbe MJC (2012) From citizen science to policy development Board, Ostend, Belgium on the coral reefs of Jamaica. Int J Zool:102350. https://doi. Geller JB, Walton ED, Grosholz ED et al (1997) Cryptic invasions of org/10.1155/2012/102350 the crab Carcinus detected by molecular phylogeography. Mol Ecol Culver CS, Schroeter SC, Page HM et al (2010) Essential fishery infor- 6:901–906. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.00256.x mation for trap-based fisheries: development of a framework for Gouraguine A, Moranta J, Ruiz-Frau A et al (2019) Citizen science in collaborative data collection. Mar Coast Fish 2:98–114. https://doi. data and resource-limited areas: A tool to detect long-term ecosys- org/10.1577/C09-007.1 tem changes. PloS One 14 (1):e0210007. https://doi.org/10.1371/ Danielsen F, Pirhofer-Walzl K, Adrian TP et al (2013) Linking pub- journal.pone.0210007 lic participation in scientific research to the indicators and needs of Haklay M (2015) Citizen science and policy: a European perspective. international environmental agreements. Conserv Lett 7(1):12–24. The Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12024 Hidalgo-Ruz V, Thiel M (2013) Distribution and abundance of small Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS et al (2008) Marine invasive plastic debris on beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): a study sup- species: validation of citizen science and implications for national ported by a citizen science project. Mar Environ Res 87:12–18. monitoring networks. Biol Invasions 10(1):117–128. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2013.02.015 org/10.1007/s10530-007-9114-0 Hidalgo-Ruz V, Thiel M (2015) The contribution of citizen scientists to Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen sci- the monitoring of marine litter. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages ence as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. M (eds) Marine anthropogenic litter. Springer, Cham, pp 429–447 Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:149–172. https://doi.org/10.1146/ Hobson B (2000) Recreation specialization revisited. J Leis Res annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636 32:18–21 Dickinson JL, Shirk J, Bonter D et al (2012) The current state of citizen Hochachka WM, Wells JV, Rosenberg KV (1999) Irruptive migration science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. of common redpolls. Condor 101:195–204 Front Ecol Environ 10(6):291–297. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236 Hochachka WM, Fink D, Hutchinson RA et al (2012) Data-intensive Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol (2008) Establishing a framework for community action in the 27(2):130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.11.006 field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Holt BG, Rioja-Nieto R, MacNeil MA et al (2013) Comparing diversity Directive). Off J Eur Union 164:19–40 data collected using a protocol designed for volunteers with results Done T, Roelfsema C, Harvey A et al (2017) Reliability and utility from a professional alternative. Methods Ecol Evol 4:383–392. of citizen science reef monitoring data collected by Reef Check https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12031 Australia, 2002–2015. Mar Pollut Bull 117(1–2):148–155. https:// Hyder K, Townhill B, Anderson LG et al (2015) Can citizen science doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.01.054 contribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Mar Earp HS, Prinz N, Cziesielski MJ et al (2018a) For a world without bound- Policy 59:112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.022 aries: connectivity between marine tropical ecosystems in times Jarvis RM, Breen BB, Krägeloh CU et al (2015) Citizen science and of change. In: Jungblut S, Liebich V, Bode M (eds) YOUMARES the power of public participation in marine spatial planning. Mar 8 – oceans across boundaries: learning from each other. Springer, Policy 57:21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.011 Cham, pp 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93284-2_9 18 H. S. Earp and A. Liconti Jiguet F (2009) Method learning caused a first-time observer effect in OED Online (2018a) “citizen, n. and adj.”. Oxford University Press. a newly started breeding bird survey. Bird Study 56(2):253–258. www.oed.com/view/Entry/33513?redirectedFrom=citizen+science. https://doi.org/10.1080/00063650902791991 Accessed 22 Apr 2018 Jordan R, Crall A, Gray S et al (2015) Citizen science as a distinct OED Online (2018b) “voluntourism, n.”. Oxford University Press. field of inquiry. Bioscience 65(2):208–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/ www.oed.com/view/Entry/34245729#eid1151399030. Accessed 3 biosci/biu217 Oct 2018 Kay P, Dipper F (2018) A field guide to marine fishes of wales and adja- OSPAR (2010) Guideline for monitoring marine litter on the beaches cent waters. Marine Conservation Society and Countryside Council in the OSPAR maritime area. OSPAR Commission. www.ospar.org/ for Wales, Marine Wildlife, Conwy ospar-data/10-02e_beachlitter%20guideline_english%20only.pdf. Kerson R (1989) Lab for the environment. MITS Technol Rev Accessed 30 May 2018 92(1):11–12 Parmesan C, Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A et al (2016) Assessing data quality change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421:37–42. https:// in citizen science. Front Ecol Environ 14(10):551–560. https://doi. doi.org/10.1038/nature01286 org/10.1002/fee.1436 Parr J, Sewell J (2017) Citizen sentinels: the role of citizen scientists in Koss RS, Kingsley JY (2010) Volunteer health and emotional wellbeing reporting and monitoring invasive non-native species. In: Cigliano in marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manag 53:447–453. https:// JA, Ballard HL (eds) Citizen science for coastal and marine conser- doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.06.002 vation. Routledge, London, pp 59–76 Kullenberg C, Kasperowski D (2016) What is citizen science? A sci- Ponti M, Rossi G, Bertolino M et al (2011a) Reef Check: involvement entometric meta-analysis. PLoS One 11(1):e0147152. https://doi. of SCUBA diver volunteers in the Coastal Environment Monitoring org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152 Protocol for the Mediterranean Sea Abstracts of the 9th International Lima S (1995) Back to the basics of anti-predatory vigilance: Temperate Reefs Symposium, Plymouth, p 164 the group-size effect. Anim Behav 49(1):11–20. https://doi. Ponti M, Leoni G, Abbiati M (2011b) Geographical analysis of marine org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80149-9 species distribution data provided by diver volunteers. Biol Mar Lohrer AM (2001) The invasion by Hemigrapsus sanguineus in eastern Mediterr 18:282–283 North America: a review. Aquat Invaders 12(3):1–11 Prestopnik NR, Crowston K (2011) Gaming for (citizen) science: Markantonatou V, Meidinger M, Sano M et al (2013) Stakeholder par- exploring motivation and data quality in the context of crowdsourced ticipation and the use of web technology for MPA management. science through the design and evaluation of a social-computational Adv Oceanogr Limnol 4:260–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/194757 system. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on 21.2013.851117 e-Science Workshops, IEE Computer Society, Stockholm, pp 28–33 Marshall NJ, Kleine DA, Dean AJ (2012) CoralWatch: education, Reef Check (2018) EcoDiver courses and products. www.reefcheck. monitoring, and sustainability through citizen science. Front Ecol org/ecodiver/reef-check-ecodiver. Accessed 18 May 2018 Environ 10(6):332–334. https://doi.org/10.1890/110266 Ribic CA (1998) Use of indicator items to monitor marine debris on a Martin JM (2013) Marine debris removal: one year of effort by the New Jersey beach from 1991 to 1996. Mar Pollut Bull 36:887–891 Georgia Sea turtle-center-marine debris initiative. Mar Pollut Bull Ribic CA, Sheavly SB, Rugg DJ (2011) Trends in marine debris in the 74:165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.009 US Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico 1996–2003. JICZM/RGCI Martin VY, Christidis L, Pecl GT (2016) Public interest in marine citi- 11:7–19 zen science: is there potential for growth? Bioscience 66(8):683– Ricciardi A, Mack RN, Steiner WM et al (2000) Toward a global infor- 692. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw070 mation system for invasive species. Bioscience 50:239–244 McGehee NG (2014) Volunteer tourism: evolution, issues and futures. Riesch H, Potter C (2014) Citizen science as seen by scientists: meth- J Sustain Tour 22(6):847–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2 odological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Underst 014.907299 Sci 23(1):107–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513497324 McGovern B, Culloch RM, O’Connell M et al (2016) Temporal and Robertson MP, Cumming GS, Erasmus BFN (2010) Getting the spatial trends in stranding records of cetaceans on the Irish coast, most out of atlas data. Divers Distrib 16(3):363–375. https://doi. 2002–2014. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 98(5):977–989. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00639.x org/10.1017/S0025315416001594 Root T, Alpert P (1994) Volunteers and the NBS. Science McKinley E, Fletcher S (2012) Improving marine environmental health 263(5151):1205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.263.5151.1205 through marine citizenship: a call for debate. Mar Policy 36:839– Rotman D, Preece J, Hammock J et al (2012) Dynamic changes in 843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.11.001 motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. In: Proceedings McKinley DC, Miller-Rushing AJ, Ballard HL et al (2017) Citizen of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, science can improve conservation science, natural resource man- CSCW, Seattle, pp 217–226 agement, and environmental protection. Biol Conserv 208:15–28. Roy HE, Pocock MJ, Preston CD et al (2012) Understanding citizen https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015 science and environmental monitoring: final report on behalf of Mieszkowska N, Sugden H, Firth LB et al (2014) The role of sus- UK-EOF. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Natural tained observations in tracking impacts of environmental change History Museum, London, pp 1–170 on marine biodiversity and ecosystems. Philos Trans R Soc A Ruiz GM, Hines AH, Carlton JT et al (1997) Global invasions of marine 372(2025):20130339. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0339 and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous species: mechanisms, Nelms SE, Coombes C, Foster LC et al (2017) Marine anthropogenic extent, and consequences. Integr Comp Biol 37:621–632 litter on British beaches: a 10-year nationwide assessment using Ryan PG, Moore CJ, van Franeker JA et al (2009) Monitoring the abun- citizen science data. Sci Total Environ 579:1399–1409. https://doi. dance of plastic debris in the marine environment. Philos Trans R org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.137 Soc B 364:1999–2012. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0207 Newman S, Watkins E, Farmer A et al (2015) The economics of marine Schläppy ML, Loder J, Salmond J et al (2017) Making waves: marine litter. In: Bergmann M, Gutow L, Klages M (eds) Marine anthropo- citizen science for impact. Front Mar Sci 4:146. https://doi. genic litter. Springer, Cham, pp 367–394 org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00146 Ocean Networks Canada (2018) Digital fishers. www.oceannetworks. Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, ca/learning/get-involved/citizen-science/digital-fishers. Accessed Bristol (2013) Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report: 24 Sept 2018 Environmental Citizen Science. Report produced for the European 1 Science for the Future: The Use of Citizen Science in Marine Research and Conservation 19 Commission DG Environment, December 2013. Available at: www. Tulloch AI, Possingham HP, Joseph LN et al (2013) Realising the full ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy potential of citizen science monitoring programs. Biol Conserv Seasearch (2018) Seasearch diving. www.seasearch.org.uk/diving. 165:128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.05.025 html. Accessed 18 May 2018 Turicchia E, Ponti M, Abbiati M et al (2015) Citizen science as a tool Silvertown J (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol for the environmental quality assessment of Mediterranean Marine 24(9):467–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017 Protected Areas. In: Cerrano C, Henocque Y, Hogg K et al (eds) Southward AJ, Langmead O, Hardman-Mountford NJ et al (2005) Proceedings of the MMMPA/CIESM international joint conference Long-term oceanographic and ecological research in the Western on Mediterranean marine protected areas: integrated management English Channel. Adv Mar Biol 47:1–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/ as a response to ecosystem threats. Ancona, Italy, p 29 S0065-2881(04)47001-1 Turicchia E, Abbiati M, Cerrano C et al (2017) May citizen science Stafford R, Hart AG, Collins L et al (2010) Eu-social science: the effectively support underwater monitoring programs? 3rd European role of internet social networks in the collection of bee biodiver- conference on scientific diving book of abstracts. Funchal, Portugal, sity data. PLoS One 5(12):e14381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. p 46 pone.0014381 UNCTADstat (2018) United Nations conference on trade and devel- Sundlov T, Graham M, Davis T et al (2016) Sea squirt Invades BLM opment. Country classifications. unctadstat.unctad.org/EN/ submerged lands in Southeast Alaska. U.S. Department of the Classifications.html. Accessed 9 Oct 2018 Interior: Bureau of Land Management. www.blm.gov/blog/2016- van der Velde T, Milton DA, Lawson TJ et al (2017) Comparison of 10-14/sea-squirt-invades-blm-submerged-lands-southeast-alaska. marine debris data collected by researchers and citizen scientists: Accessed 9 Apr 2018 is citizen science data worth the effort? Biol Conserv 208:127–138. Teleki KA (2012) Power of the people? Aquatic Conserv 22(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.025 https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2219 Van Franeker JA, Blaize C, Danielsen J et al (2011) Monitoring plastic Theobald EJ, Ettinger AK, Burgess HK et al (2015) Global change and ingestion by the northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North local solutions: tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science Sea. Environ Pollut 159:2609–2615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. for biodiversity research. Biol Conserv 181:236–244. https://doi. envpol.2011.06.008 org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021 Visser ME, Both C (2005) Shifts in phenology due to global cli- Thiel M, Penna-Díaz MA, Luna-Jorquera G et al (2014) Citizen sci- mate change: the need for a yardstick. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol entists and marine research: volunteer participants, their contribu- 272(1581):2561–2569. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2005.3356 tions, and projection for the future. Oceanogr Mar Biol 52:257–314. Watson DI, Shumway SE, Whitlatch RB (2009) Biofouling and the https://doi.org/10.1201/b17143-6 shellfish industry. In: Shumway SE, Rodrick GE (eds) Shellfish Thomas LM, Gunawardene N, Horton K et al (2017) Many eyes on the safety and quality. Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge ground: citizen science is an effective early detection tool for bios- Wiggins A, Crowston K (2011) From conservation to crowdsourcing: ecurity. Biol Invasions 19(9):2751–2765. https://doi.org/10.1007/ a typology of citizen science. HICSS ’11 Proceedings of the 44th s10530-017-1481-6 Hawaii international conference on system sciences, pp 1–10 Tonachella N, Nastasi A, Kaufman G et al (2012) Predicting trends in Worthington JP, Silvertown J, Cook L et al (2012) Evolution MegaLab: humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) abundance using citi- a case study in citizen science methods. Methods Ecol Evol zen science. Pac Conserv Biol 18(4):297–309 3(2):303–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00164.x Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropri- ate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statu- tory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. A Literature Review on Stakeholder Participation in Coastal and Marine 2 Fisheries Heike Schwermer, Fanny Barz, and Yury Zablotski Abstract coastal and marine fisheries requires definitions of who is Stakeholder participation is a fundamental component of considered a stakeholder and the form of participation many states’ and local agencies’ fisheries legislations applied. worldwide. The European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as one example, increasingly adopted a holistic Keywords approach to managing marine living resources. An impor- Case survey method · Stakeholder types · Participatory tant component of such an ecosystem-based management methods · Multiple Correspondence Analysis approach is the consideration of knowledge, values, needs and social interactions of stakeholders in decision-making processes. However, despite that stakeholder participation is a widely used term, a great variety of definitions exist, 2.1 Introduction which often cause misunderstanding. Stakeholder partici- pation is often used as part of conducting research on Stakeholder participation is a fundamental component of stakeholders but not in the context of their participation in many states´ and local agencies’ fisheries legislations world- resource management. Here, we present the results of a wide (NOAA 2015). As an example, the Common Fisheries comprehensive literature review on the topic stakeholder Policy of the European Union increasingly adopted a holistic participation in coastal and marine fisheries. We identi- approach to managing marine living resources (Commission fied 286 scientific publications in Web of Science of which of the European Communities 2013). An important compo- 50 were relevant for our research questions. Publications nent of such an ecosystem-based management (EBM) were analysed regarding (i) definition of stakeholder par- approach is the consideration of knowledge, values, needs ticipation, (ii) analysis of participating stakeholders, (iii) and social interactions of resource users and other interest applied participatory methods and (iv) intention for par- groups in decision-making processes (Long et al. 2015). ticipation. Stakeholder types addressed in the publica- Aanesen et al. (2014) established that in the case of fisheries tions included, e.g. fishery (fishers and direct management, this implies having access to local ecological representatives, N = 48), politics (policymakers and man- knowledge of fishers to complement scientific data which is agers, N = 31), science (N = 25) and environmental non- often very limited. Furthermore, involving stakeholders is governmental organizations (eNGOs, N = 24). In total, 24 expected to increase the legitimacy of the management by publications labelled their studies as stakeholder partici- creating understanding and support among the stakeholders pation, while stakeholders were only used as a study for management measures such as new regulations (Aanesen object. We conclude that improving science and the prac- et al. 2014). Moreover, stakeholders represent varying pref- tice of including stakeholders in the management of erences about a resource and, therefore, ideally enable pro- cesses to reach sustainable management on different levels, H. Schwermer (*) such as ecological and social. But the terms ‘stakeholder’ Institute for Marine Ecosystem and Fisheries Science, Center for and ‘participation’ have become ‘buzz words’ in environ- Earth System Research and Sustainability, University of Hamburg mental management (Voinov and Bousquet 2010). Deviating Germany, Hamburg, Germany definitions and explanations of both terms occur, and it is e-mail: [email protected] often unclear what is actually meant by these concepts. F. Barz · Y. Zablotski Thünen-Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries, Rostock, Germany © The Author(s) 2020 21 S. Jungblut et al. (eds.), YOUMARES 9 - The Oceans: Our Research, Our Future, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20389-4_2 22 H. Schwermer et al. We here reviewed worldwide case studies to investigate 2.2 Material and Methods how stakeholder participation is applied in research projects concerning coastal and marine fisheries. The literature We conducted a systematic literature review using the case review creates an overview of current meanings and methods survey method (Newig and Fritsch 2009), i.e. one article rep- applied in this research field. The aim of our study is to high- resented one analysis unit. Here, qualitative studies were light and to critically discuss the application of the term transformed into semi-quantitative data, applying a coding stakeholder participation and the significance of these find- scheme and expert judgements by multiple coders. The case ings for future research projects in general and particular in survey method allowed us to synthesize case-based knowl- the field of coastal and marine fisheries. In our study, we edge using at least two coders. We translated our research developed and applied nine questions to review and analyse steps (RS) into a research protocol, adapted after Brandt relevant publications. First, we investigated the publications et al. (2013), making RS repeatable and transparent. Our regarding the use of the term stakeholder. Here, we focused study included five working steps (WS): data gathering (WS on term definition, approach of analysing stakeholders as 1), data screening (WS 2), data cleaning (WS 3), paper well as on the stakeholder types involved in the case study. reviews (WS 4) and a statistical analysis of the collected data Subsequently, we reviewed the publications in relation to the (WS 5) (Table 2.1). term participation, again first focusing on term definition, In WS 1 we derived relevant publications from the Web of methods used related to the participation of stakeholders, Science (WoS; www.isiknowledge.com), an extensive and description and intention for participation. Finally, we anal- multidisciplinary database covering a large number of ysed all publications to evaluate whether the publications scientific journals, books and proceedings in the field of nat- used participation as a tool for researching stakeholders ural science and technique, arts, humanities and social sci- (research tool) or for conducting true stakeholder participa- ences (ETH Zürich 2018). We extracted articles published tion (participation tool). within the period from 2000 to 2018, considering the estab- Our study revealed that only few publications in the lishment of participation in (environmental) decision-mak- research field of coastal and marine fisheries clearly defined ing processes as a democratic right by the United Nations the terms stakeholder and participation. Furthermore, the Economic Commission for Europe’s 1998 Arhus Convention majority of publications labelled their studies as stakeholder and an increased use (Reed 2008). To ensure an establish- participation, while stakeholders were only used as a study ment in research publications, we started the review two years object. We conclude that improving the science and the prac- later. Publications were collected by using the basic search tice of including stakeholders in the management of coastal routine in the WoS (date of search: 16 May 2018) applying and marine fisheries requires definitions of who is consid- the following keyword strings: (i) stakeholder – participa- ered a stakeholder and the form of participation applied. tion – fishery, (ii) stakeholder – involvement – fishery and Table 2.1 The five working steps (WS) of our literature review on stakeholder participation in the field of coastal and marine fisheries consisted of data gathering, data screening, data cleaning, paper review and statistical analysis. The review procedure and the results are presented for each WS Working step (WS) Review procedure Result 1. Data Definition of Web of Science query (keywords: Bibliographical information of 286 potentially relevant gathering stakeholder, participation/engagement/involvement, publications fishery; 16 May 2018) 2. Data Screening of publications guided by the question: A total of 81 publications were identified screening Are all three keywords listed within the title, abstract or keywords of the publication? 3. Data Cleaning of publications guided by the questions: A total of 50 relevant publications were identified cleaning i) Does the publication focus on coastal and marine fisheries? ii) Are the publications case studies? 4. Paper Content analysis of relevant publications using a set of Different definitions and methods regarding the topic review nine research questions concerning the term stakeholder stakeholder participation in the field of coastal and marine participation fisheries were identified 5. Statistical Analysis of data using multiple correspondence analysis in Results are presented in this review publication analysis R 2 A Literature Review on Stakeholder Participation in Coastal and Marine Fisheries 23 (iii) stakeholder – engagement – fishery. We additionally 5–8) first separately and subsequently in combination (ques- used the string ‘fisheries’ instead of ‘fishery’. tion 9). The list of questions is shown in Table 2.2. We In WS 2 we screened all publications derived in WS 1; applied a quantitative approach to investigate naming and we only further considered the publications that included definition of both terms (questions 1–8, Table 2.2). all three keywords stakeholder, participation/involvement/ Furthermore, we applied an inductive approach to generate engagement and fishery in (i) the title, (ii) the abstract or categories for analysing derived data to elicit which type of (iii) the keywords. We also included publications that stakeholders, participation tools and intention categories for either used the noun, the verb, i.e. to fish, to participate/ participation were part of the research projects (questions 2, involve/engage, or the adverb of the keyword, like ‘fishing 6 and 8, Table 2.2) (Mayring 1988). Eight stakeholder types community’. were distinguished in our analysis, i.e. science, politics, envi- For the data cleaning (WS 3), we used an inductive ronmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs), fisher- approach to identify key issues of selected publications ies, fishery-related industry, recreational fisheries, public and based on two characteristics: others. Although we excluded publications that focus on rec- reational fisheries, this stakeholder type was part of the case 1. Focus of the publication – fisheries, freshwater or estua- studies focusing on coastal and marine fisheries and, there- rine ecosystems, recreational fisheries or marine pro- fore, was included as one stakeholder type within our analy- tected areas; management (e.g. fishery, coastal sis. The category ‘others’ included stakeholders that did not management, EBM) or policy (e.g. Common Fisheries fit into any of the other categories but have been explicitly Policy (CFP), Marine Strategy Framework Directives mentioned separately from them. We similarly analysed (MSFD)) questions 6 and 8. Here, we distinguished between 11 par- 2. Study type of publication – a participation case study, a ticipatory methods, i.e. workshop, interview, meeting, dis- meta-analysis of participation studies or participation cussion, survey, questionnaire, modelling, coordination, framework description mapping, presentation and conversation, and 10 intention categories, i.e. analysis, assessment, definition, description, We here described policy as a set of rules or an estab- development, establishment, evaluation, feedback, identifi- lished framework; management was defined by general envi- cation and improvement. Related to the description in the ronmental management approaches (e.g. ecosystem-based publications, we distinguished between active and passive management (EBM), coastal management) or explicit man- participatory methods: active ones describing methods that agement measures. directly involved stakeholders in decision-making processes; In WS 3 we excluded publications with focus on freshwa- passive participatory methods had been described to support ter or estuarine ecosystems, recreational fisheries and marine the participatory process but not to involve the stakeholders protected areas. In addition, we discarded publications with focus on coastal management and EBM as well as publica- Table 2.2 Nine questions used to review the identified case studies in tions looking at political frameworks (CFP, MSFD). All coastal and marine fisheries management. The terms stakeholder (ques- tions 1–4) and participation (questions 5–8) were investigated sepa- remaining publications focused on coastal and marine rately and in combination, i.e. stakeholder participation (question 9) fisheries. Term Question We further only analysed publications that presented a Stakeholder 1. How is the term stakeholder defined? case study; in WS 3 we discarded studies that represented a 2. Which types of stakeholder are part of the meta-analysis or theoretical participation framework descrip- research project? tion. We here defined a case study as “[…], analyses of per- 3. Was a systematic approach used to analyse sons, events, decisions, periods, projects, policies, stakeholders? institutions, or other systems that are studied holistically by 4. Which stakeholder analysis approach was used? one or more methods. The case that is the subject of the Participation 5. Was the term participation/engagement/ inquiry will be an instance of a class of phenomena that pro- involvement defined? vides an analytical frame — an object — within which the 6. Which participation/engagement/involvement study is conducted and which the case illuminates and expli- methods were mentioned? cates” (Thomas 2011). For an evaluation of the regional dis- 7. How was the participation/engagement/ tribution, we also extracted the continent where the case involvement method described? 8. What was the aim of using participation within study has been conducted. this project? In WS 4 we analysed the content of the finally selected Stakeholder 9. Is the described participation/engagement/ papers applying a mixed-method approach. We evaluated the participation involvement tool used for analysing stakeholders publications based on 9s questions, investigating the terms (research tool) or for involving stakeholders stakeholder (questions 1–4) and participation (questions (participation tool)? 24 H. Schwermer et al. Fig. 2.1 Number of research publications published from 2000 to 2018 dealing with case studies in coastal and marine fisheries as found by Web of Science (keywords: stakeholder, participation/ engagement/involvement, fishery) as of May 2018. Black line represents the linear regression with 95% confidence intervals; the grey area indicates the confidence band (R2 = 0.6045, p = 0.000645) in research or management (decision-making processes). 2.3 Results Participatory methods and intention categories were extracted according to the mention in the publications. We identified in total 286 scientific publications, which we fur- Related to the participatory methods, we also determined ther analysed according to our review protocol (see Sect. 2). whether preparatory work was done using an inductive Of 286 publications, in total 81 contained all keywords of approach. which 56 publications had their emphasis on coastal and Eventually, we investigated whether (i) the case studies marine fisheries. 50 publications out of 56 were categorized conducted participation to gather knowledge from stake- as case studies and were further analysed in our study holders but without engaging these stakeholders in a (detailed description in Table 2.A1 of the Supplementary decision-making process (research tool) or (ii) stakeholders Material). had a direct influence on data interpretation and decision- The number of publications that focused on stakeholder making processes (participation tool). participation significantly increased within the last 18 years In the final working step (WS 5 – statistical analysis), we (Fig. 2.1). In 2015, a maximum value of eight was reached. used Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) to explore The majority of the case studies was conducted in Europe the relationships between stakeholder types. MCA is able to (N = 18), North America (N = 11) and Australia (N = 9). uncover correlations (i.e. similarities, grouping) in otherwise inconvenient survey data (Higgs 1991) and was designed to apply on multiple binary (or nominal) variables (e.g. our cat- 2.3.1 Paper Review: Stakeholders egories stakeholder ‘science’: absent = 0, present = 1; stake- holder ‘public’: absent = 0, present = 1), all of which had the 2.3.1.1 Term Definition same status (Abdi and Valentin 2007). MCA explores the We identified four publications defining the term stakeholder patterns in data by measuring the geometric proximity (Brzezinski et al. 2010; Haapasaari et al. 2013; Tiller et al. between stakeholder types (e.g. science and public) using 2015; Kinds et al. 2016) (Fig. 2.2a). Even though they weighted least squares (Abdi and Valentin 2007) and graphi- defined the term more indirectly and in general, Brzezinski cally represents the proximity of the categories on a simple et al. (2010) stated stakeholders as members of a particular plane, i.e. correspondence map. Thus, MCA allows finding group that hold a personal stake. They referred to Olson similarities between categories based on the chi-square dis- (1965) to suggest that the increase of the personal stake of tance between them and using the percentage of the explained these members will lead to an increase of their participation variance to the new (reduced) dimensions. More details in regulatory processes. Haapasaari et al. (2013) described related to the method of MCA can be found in the original stakeholders as a group of people having a stake and contrib- work Greenacre (1984). We used MCA to answer the ques- uting towards a knowledge base for fisheries management. tion: Which stakeholder types often appear together in the On the other hand, Kinds et al. (2016) focused on stakehold- reviewed publications? ers as all people and organizations (here producer organiza- tions), which are actively involved in the fishing sector. Tiller
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-