Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas

Abstract EU biodiversity conservation policy is based on the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC), which aims that habitat types and species of Community interest should reach ‘favourable conservation status’. To this end, Member States are obliged to perform periodic assessment of species and habitat cons...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	A. S. Kallimanis, M. Panitsa, P. Dimopoulos
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2017
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/3108176991194241aedebb592f0508dd
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:3108176991194241aedebb592f0508dd
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:3108176991194241aedebb592f0508dd2021-12-02T16:06:44ZQuality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas10.1038/s41598-017-09316-92045-2322https://doaj.org/article/3108176991194241aedebb592f0508dd2017-08-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09316-9https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract EU biodiversity conservation policy is based on the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC), which aims that habitat types and species of Community interest should reach ‘favourable conservation status’. To this end, Member States are obliged to perform periodic assessment of species and habitat conservation status through biodiversity monitoring, which, in almost all cases, was performed by experts implementing standardized field protocols. Here, we examine the quality of data collected in the field by non-experts (citizen scientists) for the conservation status assessment of habitat types, and specifically for the criteria ‘typical species’, ‘specific structures and functions’, and ‘pressures and threats’. This task is complicated and demands different types of field data. We visited two Natura 2000 sites and investigated four habitat types (two in each site) with non-experts and compared their data to the data collected by experts for accuracy, completeness and spatial arrangement. The majority of the non-expert data were accurate (i.e. non-experts recorded information they observed in the field), but they were incomplete (i.e. non-experts detected less information than the experts). Also, non-experts chose their sampling locations closer to the edge of the habitat, i.e. in more marginal conditions and thus in potentially more degraded conditions, than experts.A. S. KallimanisM. PanitsaP. DimopoulosNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 7, Iss 1, Pp 1-10 (2017)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q A. S. Kallimanis M. Panitsa P. Dimopoulos Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas
description	Abstract EU biodiversity conservation policy is based on the Habitats Directive (92/43/EC), which aims that habitat types and species of Community interest should reach ‘favourable conservation status’. To this end, Member States are obliged to perform periodic assessment of species and habitat conservation status through biodiversity monitoring, which, in almost all cases, was performed by experts implementing standardized field protocols. Here, we examine the quality of data collected in the field by non-experts (citizen scientists) for the conservation status assessment of habitat types, and specifically for the criteria ‘typical species’, ‘specific structures and functions’, and ‘pressures and threats’. This task is complicated and demands different types of field data. We visited two Natura 2000 sites and investigated four habitat types (two in each site) with non-experts and compared their data to the data collected by experts for accuracy, completeness and spatial arrangement. The majority of the non-expert data were accurate (i.e. non-experts recorded information they observed in the field), but they were incomplete (i.e. non-experts detected less information than the experts). Also, non-experts chose their sampling locations closer to the edge of the habitat, i.e. in more marginal conditions and thus in potentially more degraded conditions, than experts.
format	article
author	A. S. Kallimanis M. Panitsa P. Dimopoulos
author_facet	A. S. Kallimanis M. Panitsa P. Dimopoulos
author_sort	A. S. Kallimanis
title	Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas
title_short	Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas
title_full	Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas
title_fullStr	Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas
title_full_unstemmed	Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas
title_sort	quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in natura 2000 protected areas
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2017
url	https://doaj.org/article/3108176991194241aedebb592f0508dd
work_keys_str_mv	AT askallimanis qualityofnonexpertcitizensciencedatacollectedforhabitattypeconservationstatusassessmentinnatura2000protectedareas AT mpanitsa qualityofnonexpertcitizensciencedatacollectedforhabitattypeconservationstatusassessmentinnatura2000protectedareas AT pdimopoulos qualityofnonexpertcitizensciencedatacollectedforhabitattypeconservationstatusassessmentinnatura2000protectedareas
_version_	1718384895137415168

Quality of non-expert citizen science data collected for habitat type conservation status assessment in Natura 2000 protected areas

Ejemplares similares