Free online map poster and wallpaper generator. Design custom, print-ready map art for any city or location — export as PNG, PDF, or SVG. No sign-up required.

I very much like the work of Gwen Ottinger, who is a professor at Drexel University. Gwen is a Science, Technology, and Society (STS) researcher, and among a group of researchers in STS who are researching community-led science, such as the Bucket Brigade. Her work is particularly important in the context of environmental justice (EJ), because the sites that she’s been focusing on are refineries and petrochemical factories, and their neighbouring communities (fenceline communities). With over 20 years of experience in researching the interactions between factories, local government, communities, and the science and scientists who are involved in these situations, the book **_The Science of Repair_** (https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197769867.001.0001) is offered as a guide for researchers who want to find their place, and do it in a moral and ethical way. I’m writing this post both as a way to capture my understanding of the book, to share reflections, and to find the points of contact with the work that I was involved in and other projects that I know. The name of the book might be slightly confusing, which is a shame. Science of repair might be understood as the importance of maintenance, or the right to repair, or the importance of repairing things instead of replacing them. However, the book is not about these notions of repair. The core of the argument of the book is a call for researchers who are working in cases of social and environmental justice to develop an approach to science and engagement that is aimed at repairing moral relationships within the context of the situation in which they are working. To understand this work of science of repair, I think that we need to understand the building blocks of her argument. The set of concepts that she’s using are: * A notion of a **moral community** – that’s a society or a community of people with shared values, ethical conduct, morality, and connections with a clear concept of what is right and wrong to do, and in particular how you should treat each other within the community. * The **moral relationships** between different actors, groups, and individuals within this moral community. It’s the expectation that members of the community will treat each other with care. You are supposed to notice when someone was wronged according to the framework of the community. * **Dysfunctional moral relationships** are happening when people decide that another group (or individuals) are not part of the moral community an do not deserve protection or to be considered as someone with a valid say within the moral community. Throughout the book, Gwen shows how dysfunctional moral relationships occur between groups in environmental justice cases, with the marginalised groups (who also suffer most of the harm) being excluded from the moral community, which justifies the harm in a way. _It’s the repair of these moral relationships that the book aims to address._ * A major part of a dysfunctional moral relationship is **abandonment** in which some group of people is not being treated well, and it is acceptable to treat them wrongly. In the book (and in her wider work), the examples for that are through paying more attention to the demands of the powerful companies who run the refineries, or paying more attention to the jobs and the economic benefits from industrial activities, while not recognising and dismissing health concerns of the people who live in fenceline communities. * Within the role of researchers and community researchers, Gwen explores the concept of **knowing well**. She defines knowing well as a form of knowing that “involves broad ideas about right and wrong that we can generally agree to. You should be honest about what you observe, for example. You should choose knowing over ignorance. You should not cause harm in your pursuit of knowledge.” (p. 36). * Knowing well doesn’t require scientific degrees and expertise, and can be developed by community members and activities. Knowing well also requires avoiding privileging **“really science”** when the data and science that is done by community members is valued only when it is done as if they were scientists. Gwen links it to “**scientific chauvinism** “: “Under scientific chauvinism, credentialed scientists are granted sole authority to establish and uphold norms for knowing. Questions of how to know well—essential to good moral relations—are reduced to assertions about what is “really science.”” (from the abstract of Ch. 2) With these concepts in place, the rest of the book continues to develop the idea of what a science of repair would look like and how it is practiced. Gwen pays attention especially to accountability of organisations and actors in the situation, including scientists; keeping possibilities open; and promoting inquisitiveness that can allow for repairing moral relationships. In each of these cases, she uses examples from her rich experience with fenceline communities to illustrate the issues in a nuanced, careful way. In each chapter, the final pages provide guidance to researchers who want to implement science of repair in this form – how to ask questions? How to work with different actors? In the final chapter, she also expands the guidance in discussing what scientific institutions should do. I was not familiar with the concept of moral repair from Margaret Urban Walker that Gwen Ottinger uses in her book. It was very valuable to learn about this perpective and how it can be used to understand community science and participatory research in environmental and social justice contexts. I find it always valuable to read about the refinery cases that Gwen covers, because although I’ve done different work under the title of environmental justice, ever since I started looking at the US vs UK cases, it was clear that becuase of historical harms, scale, power of corporations in politics, and structures of environmental regulations and their enforcement, the European cases are vastly different. For example, it is noticeable that if you look at UK research into environmental justice, you’ll see that many of them rely on the availability of national datasets and therefore they are based on studies that look at the whole country (such as https://rgs-ibg.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2010.00399.x) . The discussions are much more academic and policy-oriented. More generally, as Watt (2025) pointed out “In Europe, environmental issues are often viewed through a social and political lens, leading to stronger collective action and regulations aimed at reducing emissions. …In contrast, U.S. political culture emphasizes individual rights and free-market solutions, which has historically resulted in slower progress on environmental regulations.” Because of that, there is an implicit expectation that ‘someone from the government’ will monitor the situation and, in case of a problem, will address it. Also, with the precautionary principle, people assume that the levels and standards that are set and monitored by public authorities are designed to protect their health and their environment. That’s partially the reason why the huge pollution of rivers in the UK by water companies is such a shock. If you watch Dirty Business, a series about water pollution, you’ll notice a lot of attention to the failings of the Environment Agency, the governmental monitoring agency, and less on the business regulator (OfWat) or the water companies themselves. This difference means that the experiences that I had are very different from those in the book. The book provides, through the case studies, an insight into these different relationships. Yet, I could see a lot of comparisons between cases that I was involved in and know about and the analysis in the book. In the chapter that discusses the issue of “real science”, there is also a discussion about the way in which actors ostracise members of the marginalised community on the basis that they are activists and therefore can’t be trusted to do the science correctly. As Gwen mentions, this is based on the Mertonian norms, and it appeared in a Nature article about citizen science. If you follow the link, you’ll see that I wrote: ” There are two reasons for this: first, that scientists themselves have a complex set of motivations and are under the same ‘conflict of interests’ and secondly, if motivations having such an impact on science in general, then this is true for every science, not just citizen science.” The issue of data quality, in my view, is based on Scientific Chauvinism as described in the book. Another thought that the book provoked was about the value of continuous monitoring data, which is shown to be problematic to interpret and use by communities, although the book shows how the interpretation and the inquisitiveness around it provided value to community groups. This is something that I have frequently questioned about environmental information in the wider way. We even came across a case where an air quality monitoring station was set following a planning application and a commitment from the developer to install one. Yet, over 5 years later, when we carried out the study, the data was never accessed or downloaded. The same can be said about other monitoring data, which beyond the calculation of monthly averages or checking against established standards are not being used. I could also see the connection between the work that Gwen described on the struggles of making sense of the data, with the work that Christian Nold did with communities around Heathrow (especially when we knew that the noise monitoring app that we were using cannot be accurate), or the work of the Making Sense project in Barcelona. The example below, which is taken from the Crowd& the Cloud, is fitting within the framework of the book – althoug there are echoes of “real science” in it. The one aspect of science of repair that I have more questions on is how things will fit, is the whole issue of the established standards and the rules and regulations that are set for monitoring. The book focuses on community science and citizen science that happens during the operations or the changes in operation of an existing facility. However, at this stage, the standards are already set in regulations. These regulations and the decisions about what is acceptable and how things are measured is an important political and reparative problem. The way in which they are set by scientists (with scientific chauvinism) and industry means that the hands of the local activists are tied behind their back before they start doing anything. Add to this the epistocracy characteristics of environmental decision making, and you see a fundamental problem that requires a different scale of intervention and action by scientists. It is also very clear that The Science of Repair is highlighting that in environmental justice conditions and arguably beyond, the concept of the scientist as an honest broker is utterly inappropriate and immoral. I could see how many of the aspects that are covered in the book can fit very well within the framework of Post-Normal Science. The expectations that we used an extended peer-community, extended facts (instead of realy science only) and the different role of scientists can all work well. Overall, the book is very readable, and the ideas are being introduced and scaffolded in a way that it is easy to follow. The illustrated cases, including the example for the Crowd and the Cloud, which you can go and watch. With about 150 pages, it is very accessible, and the suggestions and recommendations are excellent for researchers who want to do research in the context of working with science and marginalised groups. The book is of interest for people in public health, geography, environment and society studies, and surely STS. ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

The online map uses intelligence reports of German air raids held in the National Archive.

The Portuguese Citizen Science Network is carrying out regular interviews about citizen science as part of their monhtly newsletter. At https://www.cienciacidada.pt/resources you can find interviews with, Maria Fernanda Rollo, Karen Soacha, Alan Irwing, an Carolina Doran. The interviews are published in Portuguese and English. I was invited to contribute to this series, and answered four questions that were posed to me: 1. You have been involved in citizen science since its earliest implementation at European level and have played a key role in its adoption and definition at international level. In your opinion, what have been the main changes over time, and what remain the biggest misconceptions surrounding this topic? 2. Your work many times refers to inequalities in terms of participation. Based on your experience, what makes participation meaningful for groups that are often more excluded from this type of participation in science? 3. Citizen science is increasingly linked to policy and decision-making, however, can we say that it is truly influencing institutions and policies? If so, in what way? And where do you see the greatest risks of this practice being reduced to a mere exercise of following trends? 4. Looking to the future, what role do you expect citizen science to play in the coming decade, and what boundaries do you believe this field needs to maintain in order to remain true to its values? After responding to these questions, Cristina Luis, who is the president of the network, translated my answers to Portuguese. You can find what I responded below. Talks CS Muki HaklayDownload ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

Academic life involves a lot of travel. Now that I’m based part of the time in Paris, journeys to Brussels are easy – only an hour and a half by train. In the last two weeks, I found myself visiting Brussels three times: first, for the PATTERN project final event on 14-15 April, where the results of the project were shared. Next, came the final event of the INCREASE project on 20th April, in which I gave a talk and participated in the policy panel. Finally, came the Marie Curie Alumni Association conference on 23-24 April. Because 24-27 April is the time for City Nature Challenge I had an unmissable opportunity to contribute to different efforts. I have started in Brussels. Since I was in the MCAA conference, I offered to run a City Nature Challenge session, and one participant joined me to collect observations near the conference site. Back in Paris, I started collecting in Puteaux, and on Sunday joined an event in the 17th Arrondissement, contributing a total of 66 observations. And since I’m not in London, where I usually participate, I contributed through identification of species that I’m confident about. There are things that City Nature Challenge teach you – you start noticing that the flora of the city is fairly similar, and that despite the distance, the wild flowers are common, as well as the birds. You also notice the impact of introduced species – the Rose-Ringed Parakeet is spreading in urban areas, and I’ve now learned to recognise its call. Anyhow, I’m pleased with this small achievement of contributing in three cities. I’m not aiming to be a top contributor but just to do my part! ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

The European Citizen Science Association 2026 conference is the sixth conference. The first conference was in 2016 in Berlin (see posts here), continued in 2018 in Geneva (see posts here), was supposed to be in Trieste for 2020, but then ended up pivoting online due to Covid-19, the 2022 edition was in Berlin again, with 2024 in Vienna (see posts here). I rejoined ECSA board in 2024, and when the conference was set to take place in Oulu, in the Arctic, in March, the thought by the organiser and the ECSA team was “let’s be realistic, and plan for 300-350 people”. Considering that about 400 came to Vienna, that sounded right. I’m so glad that we were wrong by 100%, but I can imagine the stress and effort that the conference organisers, Roger Norum and Thora Herrmann and their team experienced as they had to replan and organise everything. The end result was magnificent. * * * This was a week-long conference, with pre- and post- conference activities that provided experiences of the arctic, from tasting the food, encountering reindeer, to doing yoga in the snow. And a lot of art – films, poetry, performance sound and poetry and more… There are already several reflections and summaries that you can find. Here are some from Martin Brockelhurst, Gaston Remmers, Frederike Schmitz , Lucrina Stefanescu, and Thomas Kaarstad. Here are mine. The willingness of 650 researchers and practitioners to brave the journey to the Arctic and attend the conference shows the strength of the citizen science community in Europe. I had very intensive and engaging five days of citizen science (participatory research, community science – call it what you want!). The Oulu team have created a wonderful programme which attracted all the people to engage with each other. In my opening section of the conference, I’ve asked those who have been around for a long time (and participated in the first conference ten years ago) to stand up, and then the people who are joining ECSA for the first time to stand up – and for the two groups to start talking. Citizen science people are open and happy to engage with each other across languages, disciplines, and career stages. Throughout the conference, I’ve seen these conversations and meetings happening. I think that I met at least ten people that I haven’t met and engaged with before. I’ve also engaged with people who met me online. _We’re physical and social creatures – and for human connection and breaching awkward moments, we need to share spaces and be open to new engagements._ With all the regular online meetings that we got used to since Covid-19, there is something valuable in having a conference that is mostly face-to-face with only last resort online communication. This was valuable. As always, valuable discussions took place during lunch, coffee breaks, and in the corridors. The conference started with an **event for Early Career Researchers** , which was organised and run by Early Career Researchers. It was fantastic to see 35-40 people coming together and finding other people who are sharing their practices. The result is a shared document that calls for better support for this group, but you could see a network forming – I hope that it will continue and grow. It was also wonderful to see a group of undergraduate students from Konstanz presenting their project in sessions and in a poster. There was also a group of children from Nottingham that carried out research about engagement in the midst of the conference. It is good to **see citizen science integrated into all stages of education** and to have examples of it in the conference. We do have some issues of growth and the need to figure out how to keep on maximum engagement and participation. With over 110 posters and in some cases 11 parallel sessions, it feels like the conference is getting hard to grasp. I feel part of the problem. I have been involved in a poster, two sessions with Susanne Hecker, ECSA’s chair, and a session about the European Citizen Science Academy. In addition (and as part of the sponsorship of the AGU), I’ve coordinated the “meet the editors” session and run rapid review sessions. I was acutely aware at the conference about my own position in ECSA and in the field, and I wish I could have longer conversations and time to attend sessions. As the conference grows,**I think that we need to limit participation** , no matter who you are. We need to open up the space for Early Career Researchers and to those that we don’t hear from. Another noteworthy development of this conference is the presence of people from national research funders, senior staff from universities and research organisations, and project officers from the European Commission’s Research Executive Agency. I**t is fantastic to have champions of citizen science in these important positions** , and for them to value the conference and the information that is shared within it so they take the time to join it. It really part of the maturity of citizen science and its mainstreaming. It feels very different from the marginal position only 15 years ago. It is also impressive to learn about national networks in the area of participatory research and citizen science that are evolving around Europe, w**ith many countries establishing their own associations and organisations.** Some of them are very well established (such as the Austrian) but the new Italian network has shown presence, and the Portuguese network celebrated the hosting of the next conference. In addition, it is starting to look like **the calendar is filling up with citizen science activities** – and that it will be a good idea to start setting out the range of things that people can join at European and national levels. After all, the Special Eurobarometer surveys show us that the interest in joining a research project is bigger than the current number that participate. The presence of health citizen science is growing, and it was good to see how different institutions are addressing it. Sanni Helander description of the panel at the University of Turku was an example of setting up the infrastructure that will enable researchers to carry out more participatory research better. In the vision 2036 we had another example for health based engagement. With the growth of the citizen science in health conference, this is another area that is growing in citizen science. **The perennial question of “where are the citizen scientists?”** was not answered, as with all previous conferences. It is interesting for me to notice that the question comes up. It doesn’t come up in Geography conferences (though special guests are invited in participatory sessions). Also not in Science Communication conferences. ECSA conference always has a public event to engage locally. Standing around in a shopping centre in Oulu and talking about citizen science was supposed to be the answer. You could see in the conference, citizen scientists who cross the threshold and are organising projects and therefore want to get the latest knowledge. I don’t think that it’s a great idea to have participants on display, and I don’t know how to address this question. I’ve been involved in, maybe, 10 or more citizen science conferences, and haven’t seen a satisfying asnwer. There are also the topics that are appearing more and more (Artificial Intelligence, for example), but also aspects that used to be there, but have disappeared. For example, the whole low-cost sensors (apart from Air Quality) don’t feel prominent the way it used to be, and DIY biology is not to be seen, which is a shame. The ECSA conference was a corner of the world where people are trying to make things better, just a little. The environment of the snow and ice reminded us about our fragility and need to work together. It was a moment of engagement, reconnecting with all connections and starting new ones. Learning about a different place, and engaging in new ways. I hope that ECSA can continue and grow the impact of its conferences in Lisbon in 2028! ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

Eliza wrote about her experience and particularly about becoming the first lady of Iceland – the idea of wanting to contribute and learning to trust that what one wants to say is worth it. It can be intimidating to talk in a conference about science, but she learned about citizen science and the connection between her experience and ours: pushing against the norms. As a Canadian, who built her life in Iceland and it’s a storytelling nation. Her experience from a small town in Canada to being the spouse of a head of a different country. The story adds to a toolbox of experience that helps us to navigate life. We don’t necessarily work within the existing rules. One of the first rule in life is to follow the rules and read the manual. Even to school she was concern about being late on the first day of primary school. Know the lane that I should drive. In university, she tried debating and it was lighthearted and thought that she could do it wihtout a problem. Went to do a speach and it was cogent and it bombed. Even though it was clearly a flop, but had to go on for 5 minutes. That experience seard in her mind – the rule is: get back on the horse. Sometimes, you come across a bend in the road and find a way to push the rule. They talked about a guy from Iceland, and she linked. The men will draw a name from a cup to lead to: carpe diem. This lead to being a connection and engaged, and left England in 2003 to start life in Iceland. She started a journey of 100 day in Uzbekistan, they toasted to many things. Similar experience in Tokyo she also benefits from the kindness of strangers: she learned to persist – learned Icelandic and started running the Iceland Writers Retreat. Life was tiring or a full night sleep, but it was an experience while her husband was a professor at the University of Iceland. Then 10 months later, the Panama papers came out, which included a team from the Icelandic paper, and it implicated the prime minister and president of Iceland. Because her husband was on TV, he announced his participation in the election for president of Iceland. He took office in 2015 and she became the president’s wife. Suddenly, there are no rules and we need to make the rules. She needed to improvise – there is no official role for the spouse, no office or any staff linked. This is a challenging role in the way that it is an anti feminist role but she got the position because of her husband. If there is no rulebook, you can leverage opportunities – draw importance to important issues. She was a gentle sidekick – there are all sorts of things, like not expecting her to continue her work, but being a wife is not her main point. Clothing and appearance is not her strong side and it was a question about. The tension increased once she was in office. For example, using a charity shop, second hand closing – using a second-hand dress. Abroad, she tried to ware icelandic design. Later on, she started to give talks and speak in different occasions, and also in Iceland. It was important to speak with an accent. Lots of self doubt, that really – she didn’t belong. But the general response was positive. 2013, named as an ambassador of UN for sustainability. When Donaldtusk treated women as “light side” of G7, she wrote about the experience of first lady which is more than just joining her husband and put an article about it in the New York Times. We are interconnected than ever before, we bare responsibility to use our voices, to speak up about injustice, to call for more equitable world. The rule of Stretch Your Comfort Zone. In 2024, her husband decided to leave the job – but want to use the opportunity and continue to work with undefined paramers. Look for the Good – made her more of an optimist but came across many everyday acts that are making their communities a better place. You are creating new bonds and new ties. Your agency inspires others – we are all role models, you can still have a positive and lasting impact on the world. After craving a manual, by living life and showing persistence and curiosity, can make the most. The message from her talk: can be beauty in life’s uncertainty, in being an outsider. When we face a bend in the road, we should embrace it and we should help others to do that. You will make a difference – confound expectations. ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

These are notes from a session dedicated to the European Citizen Science Academy (ECS Academy) and to the Citizen Science Competency Framework (CitSciComp) at the ECSA 2026 conference in Oulu. Oulu Botanic Gardens Cléa Montanari started the session with an overview of the ECS Academy. The ECS academy started by creating a network of educators and trainers with 129 responses of people who are doing training and education in the field of citizen science. The people who said that they want to be part of the network contributed in workshops in Jan – Oct 2023 through workshops to create a blueprint for the ECS Academy. The ECS academy also has an evolving business plans, and different training were developed for different audiences – from BSc students all the way to working with national funders. An example of work is the collaboration with SciStarter to create training for public libraries. There were masterclasses for research libraries. There was a series of summer schools, from Mexico to Louvain, and training at UPCité. Another activity is the creation of a Network of researchers for citizen science (NR4CS) with the MCAA. There are 73 members. The members asked for the training that they want to carry out. We also carry workshops to prepare MSCA PF applications. With high-quality proposals that came out of it. The final big activity in the ECS Academy is the creation of a citizen science competency framework to allow the develop training paths. We’re using a consensus-based approach. Some of the challenges: the technical infrastructure that is needed – mailing list, Moodle, creating a business model for the academy and matching value. Acting as a European entity and working on different languages. There were less cases of exchange of resources – all the material is free to download and translate but we don’t see. **Elsabeth Schauermann OeAD Centre for Citizen Science: Teacher training in Citizen science (insight from Austria)** Working with schools, youth programmes etc. In Austria, there are the Sparking Science and Sparkling Science 2.0 programmes that are running since 2007. There are high scientific and educational standards. In Sparkling Science 2.0 there is an involvement of 120,000 pupils and 207 teachers. The reach is widening. For schools who don’t have capabilities, there is a citizen science award that allows for research competition. Been running since 2015, and allow schools, youth groups, individuals and families and librarians to be involved. Each year, the participants can contribute to projects from April to July. There is a young science congress – with prizes that is significant in incentivising participation. There is also a working group on citizen science with/at schools with a publication in 2021 and since 2024, there is teacher training. There are impacts on teachers, pupils and researchers in Soyer et al. 2018, which evaluated sparkling science. The training that is offered by OeAD is training for the citizen science award. Four introductory workshops as part of the Austrian citizen science conference and also in including it in CPD for teachers on day for natural science and other opportunities. The training credits for teachers are valuable. In workshops, they are presenting some existing projects that will be part of the award competition and experienced teachers are sharing their experience. The working group on citizen science also created general training on how to bring citizen science to schoole and it is done in collaboration with the University of Teacher Education in Vienna. The participants value lessons from experienced teachers. They provide stronger technical support for online training, also need to streamline the agenda, having exchanges with more than one project. And also provide further online resources to continue the self-studies and follow up. **Cristina Castracani: Building Bridges for Citizen Science** Cristina covers the EU Green University Alliance, which her university in Parma is part of. The collaboration is of mid-sized universities across Europe, part of the 65 university alliances. Participatory science works for sustainability in action, from a focus on co-creation, and in creating universit-community bridge. Projects like biouniversity will allow the documentation of biodiversity at the university and involve the different staff and people who are involved in the university. They are doing that with iNat. Each university has a sub-project that supports the project and a leaderboard between the universities. They are trying to improve the data quality in different universities – require better data collectors and committed identifiers. We can have taxonomic experts involved in the project. There is also a citizen science task force that is supported by Erasmus+, they are doing challenge-based learning. That is structured about short-term mobilities and other activities. There is a virtual part where students areintroduced to CS and then they can ask for a meeting if they need details. They also have in person part where the students are doing field-based learning and the students are presenting their work. They engaged 17 students in the task force with 5 teachers and 4 invited speakers. Used material from the ECS platform and the ECS Academy to engage with other teachers and use the online courses. At institutional levels, they want to move from local projects to institutional strategy and to move beyond the alliance. They are aiming to identify the projects that universities are doing and can be integrated into the activities of teaching. Using the ECS Academy self-assessment tool to help universities assess themselves in the level of integration of citizen science. **Giuliana Sinclair: upskilling facilitators – applying ECS academy insights.** Giuliana is working at the NHM in London, who want to enable scaling up from London to the whole country while giving benefits to all in the process. The focus on the upcaling – train the trainers, storytelling in citizen science, citizen science in the classroom, and the network of educators. The upkilling strategies – include placement students, museum staff and external consultants. The students were involved in a time sensitive projects to be as local ambassadors and could be hired remote from the museum. The direction of setting learning objectives helped in desining the work with the students. For the museum staff the purpose of the training was to enable them to deliver pollinator count with visitors. It is using an existing resource and ensuring quality data. The training was short, with clear objectives and ongoing communication. The reflective evlauation led to scaffolding resources and they are running this activity again. The external facilitator is the Nature Park which engage young people in all schools in England. To do that, need a lot of partners. Extensive getting to know people takes a lot of time. To do that, the user personas was useful and there are rgular meeting to keep in contact. The story telling help in identifying research story character and to be and not to be: what is and what is not citizen science. There are different types of scaling – geographicall, numbers, depth and resilience. The students allowed for indepth engagement. Projects that link multiple museums allow for scaling geographically. There is a potential for video lectures and live webinar, but also to be responsive and provide bespoke support. The meetings ot the netowrk on evlaution helped in bringing quizzes and people sharing knwoeldge. The citizen science in the classroom can allow for co-developing material with young people. Working with the museum staff can allow for more integration of storytelling. The courses challege her to do better, short but can work around work priorities and contribute to addressing work challenges. **Chiara Fedrigotti – the relevance of natural history museum and citizen science.** Muse is based in Trento and it has 555000 visitors a years with a lot of schools. Their training progammes are increasing with outdoor education and demands for citizen science – seen 30% increase in interest in field based activities. Their citizen sciecne activities are for teachers, nature professional and higher education, and volunteers – for each programme they plan specific material. For the teachers, it’s CS as educartionsal tool. A 2h session of basic concepts and examples. The second part is 6 hours and coveres for theoretical and practical aspects. For the nature professional staff that know scientifi methodology we focus on the design and management of citizen science project (about 6-8 hours) Also practical lesson to help on project design. Also focus on the definition of citizen science because the term is used incorrrectly. For volunteers, they do 6 hours trainig with theory about the target species, the field trip to support data collection and then impact evaluation. They see increasing interest in citizen science. There is a need to find a balance between supporting training and supporting the research. ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

**Camilla Brattland** – carrying out collaborative research projects into salmon fishing culture and linking indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge. Strong commitment to community and participation. Knowledge is something that we share and care. **Bente Sundsvold** – played a central role in engaged filmmaking, and more than human approach in social science. Looking at local knowledge with interaction between humans and other than humans. Bridging indigenous knowledge with citizen science – sami narratives of climate and biodiversity, UiT the Arctic University of Norway. Porsanger is a northen part of Norway. Making observations and how they are silenced in government databases. A picture from 1987 showing the invasion of seals to Billefjord – the seals’ invasion marked the time of the ability to live from the resources to find themselves, not being able to live with the local resources. There are projects such as Arctic Passion https://arcticpassion.eu/ and ways to learn about it. We can exemplify the local experience and the feeling of loss that is caused by ecological change. They are trying to show how different epistemologies are playing out in environmental management and through scientific practice. in the Porsanger Fjord, there was a change in the fishing of fjord of herring, and the fishery collapsed already in the 1950s. That was also catching Saith under a smaller size, and that collapsed in the 1980s. This is noted with a feeling of sadness and loss. In a project, they did 12 videos of people who share their local knowledge. Porsangerfjord back to life project in the early 2000s https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/47a01830c4dd43f0b593b1b8a9a8b918 and continue to capture through participatory mapping, citizen science – but that also risks creating an extraction effect. Story maps are being used to capture narrative and complex stories that go beyond the framework of citizen science. The close collaboration with Mearrasiida allowed to work with knowledge holders, and its a critique of the usual methods of mapping change in biodiversity. There is a Norwegian biodiversity mapping programme (Nature in Norway – Artsdatabanken). Relying on STS studies, and looking at the process of recording nature. Ecologist going through the landscape with tablets and by doing that, the information was sent immediately to the national database, but during this trip going through the landscape, they went through people’s backyards and then linked it to stories of field structure and the cultural landscape. But the ecologist was not asking local people for the knowledge; he said that they do that , but they don’t meet a lot of them because they are not guided to do that or given time and funding to do that. The landscape is shaped. The mapping by the ecologist is providing the baseline of the landscape, but this was a Sami cultural landscape and didn’t take into account the cultural diversity, and they need to be integrated and linked together. The challenges for the Sami community are challenges as datbases don’t use keywords and terms that they use to describe the landscape. The people in the fjord are sharing their knowledge about the use of the environment – eggs from birds, cloudberries. There are tensions about turning islands in the fjord to protected area, and people have been organising for 40 years to control foxes and protect species, and blame the local populations for the harm to the area. There is a whole set of interviews with knowledge holders where subsistence harvesting and fisheries have been run traditionally. The data set from the results of the effort was linked to sikt.no and then planned to be shared with GBIF. There is a tension between creating datasets that can travel and counter the critique of the extractiveness of indigenous knowledge. That allow to map the landscape and where local practices are being silenced. When conflicts between traditional harvesting and other forms of fishing conflict, the commercial interest usually dictates the outcome. Local people will have a good and very detailed understanding of the local landscape. Interviewing women and local people requires a long concent process. The whole consent process is complex and needs attention. Mapping nature’s contribution to people (ecosystem services) can also include interviews that are stored in the institute to provide a place. There is a research fatigue and it’s important to keep the relationship warm and active. Billefjord is a place where people speak Sami language – people are not always recognising as sami, but they have a strong local knowledge. The Finnmark is investigating Sámi rights to lands and waters and Porsanger was investigated and it is a resource that will allow people to control their environment and life, and traditions. A video can have a representation of the indigenous view in a meeting. ### Share this: * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Print (Opens in new window) Print * Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

Home HRB 2025 Prior Editions HRB 2024 HRB 2023 HRB 2022 HRB 2021 HRB 2020 X The Home River Bioblitz Join us for this world-wide citizen science event and celebrate your local river! Join the Home River Bioblitz From 19th to 21st of September 2025, people around the world will go out to explore their … Continue reading "The Home River Bioblitz"

Het CS-NL netwerk is een community van mensen die betrokken zijn bij Citizen Science, van professionele en vrijwillige onderzoekers tot actieve burgergroepen en organisaties uit alle delen van de samenleving, zoals universiteiten, bedrijven, de overheid, maatschappelijke organisaties en geïnteresseerde burgers.

These are notes from the first day of the summer school at Université de Louvain (UCLouvain) on 7-11 July 2025 in Louvain-la-Neuve, and funded by Circle-U university alliance. The course included teachers from the University of Amsterdam, Aarhus University, University Paris Cité, University of Vienna, and UCLouvain. **Jaqui Goldin** provided the first talk, exploring the ethics and practice of citizen science – and the principles of doing citizen science. Ethics as a set of moral principles that guide human actions, Jaqui pointed that values can be shared by artists, leaders and researchers. Ethics is what is right and what is wrong – there are different levels: personal, household, researcher, member of an organisation, citizen, etc. The 10 principles that she suggested for practitioners: low cost technology and appropriate instruments; second iterative training – slowly and repeating; one size doesn’t fit all and adapt to their needs; Verification, validation and visible – important to make the results visible; appreciate multiple stakeholders and the meshwork of relationships in the places where you are; share finding; methods to capture voice – art, voice etc.; recognition of champions and the people who become pattionate; cultural diversity; and purpose of making science accessible. The Diversity Research Umbrella Manual (DRUM) provides methods to give voice https://doy-community.sites.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/918/2025/03/Drum_presentation-Small.pdf Jaqui Goldin message to participants Jaqui’s 10 principles for practitioners **Gitte Kragh** covered the 10 principles of citizen science, going through each of them. Gitte emphasised the need to recognise that genuine science outcomes can take many shapes. In principle 3, the benefits can take different forms – from those that mostly benefit the scientists (data) to projects that benefit the community. Through covering different types of projects, Gitte demonstrated how the principles are implemented in different projects. Gitte introducing participants to the motivation, while hybrid participants are sharing their questions online on the screen **Didone Figerio** ran the session on the citizen scientists, starting with interest in birds in the 1850s, to make the school students think about how to do things when technology was not available. The postcards of bird observations were a serious and effective way to share and gather information. Observing natural phenomena that have also been going on for a very long time, with reporting to national or research bodies. In ornithology and natural phenomena, there is a sharing of knowledge between people. In the digital period, Foldit provides an example of the power of the internet (e.g. Galaxy Zoo) and the creativity of scientists, and working with other researchers in other areas. It was done through gamification. The participants then use case studies of citizen science projects (about half of them from Belgium) to explore questions about the challenge that was explored and identify who the citizen scientists and consider the added value. Didone guiding participants through an hybrid post-it exercise After lunch, **Cléa Montenary and I** covered the history and complex terminology of the field of citizen science and introduced four typologies (Shirk et al. 2012, Wiggins and Crowston 2013, Strasser et al, and Haklay, Mazumdar and Wardlaw 2018). We then followed by group work of participants who took different citizen science case studies that we have prepared for the summer school (such as WeCount, Isala, Leichens GO, etc.) and analysed how they would map to different typologies. Cléa introduces her personal journey to citizen science The second day started with **Gitte Kragh** covering the motivation and participation of citizen scientists in projects. Students explored the disrupters and enablers of participation. Steve Bers guide participants through science communication for citizen science **Jef Van Laer, Karen Verstraelen and Steve Bers** from SCivil covered aspects of science communication in the context of citizen science. An example of a very well-communicated project is Isala, which got many more participants than planned. Potential ways of carrying out communication activities for the project, such as the use of social media or stickers in the street. Scivil have a guide on communication in citizen science. Science communication and citizen science are intertwined but there are differences. They are both about informing people, but in CS it also try to get action: train, mobilise, and engage. To achieve that, you can have a communication plan instead of just getting to the project without considering it. The first thing in the communication plan is to clarify the project goals and why citizen science needs to play a part. How does it fit into the project and what is the added value. We can define the level of involvement that we want, from collecting information and data, but it is also possible to ask people to suggest research questions. There is a need to define the target audience and to map the motivation of the participants in the project. Then there is a need to engage and evaluate, not only to evaluate at the end, and consider follow-up during and after the project. Some recommended approaches include surfing the wave of existing networks, projects can link to existing societies and local history networks. Providing an enjoyable and fun experience to participants, such as bringing people to a historical building or special tours. Social media is also a powerful tool for engagement and outreach. Especially using interesting events and outcomes, for example, training people on how to find and identify spiders. Storytelling is a very good way of engaging and communicating. For example, if an interesting discovery is made during digitalisation, it can show how the work is interesting. This is also connected to gemification. The working with ambassadors or community volunteers who are becoming highly involved, they can spread the word. Consider how to keep things clear and uniform, how to connect it to relevant events and news. The guide of SCivil is at https://www.scivil.be/sites/default/files/paragraph/files/2020-01/Scivil%20Communication%20Guide.pdf The afternoon session, led by Noelia Valderrama focused on the data quality issues such as technology and material choice, secondly, the field setup and standardisation, thirdly, having some reference data and validation, and finally, data gathering and integrity. Different groups worked on these aspects of three projects – ATRAP, Lichens GO, and CurieuzeNeuzen projects and explored the data quality aspects of these projects. Considering data quality in **CurieuzenAir** through a game Noelia explains aspects of data quality The third day started with a discussion about successful and unsuccessful project, especially with identifying points of failure that can cause a problem of total failure of a project. Didone led the discussion, with Gitte and I contributing examples of failed projects. The last session of training explored the issue of trust in citizen science. **Mercy Ashept** led the session with the participants looking at three projects (ATRAP, Increase, and noise mapping) using their assessment to consider if they find the project successful. They rank projects from trustworthy to not. By considering the point of view of the public, the scientists, and the policy makers, it was possible to consider different factors that would influence the trustworthiness of the project. Mercy discuss with participants their observations The fourth day (and my last day of participation in the summer school) included covering, in depth, four projects. First, Mercy covered her analysis of participation in Global South projects and ATTRAP, then Jaqui covered the Diamond in the sole of their shoes project, Caroline covered HARISSA, and finally I covered Extreme Citizen Science and the applications of Sapelli. The projects showed common challenges of technology and the use of it in the field (breakage, theft) etc. Additional questions of ethics, political context, and other commonality were explored. Following that, the participants analysed the challenges (social, economic, and political) and the keys to implementation and potential solutions in the projects **Reflections of the summer school** First, the **use of case studies** , especially those where some of the teachers have a deep knowledge of, is very effective. Over the days of the summer school, the participants looked at these case studies and addressed different facets (engagement, motivation, working in Global South context). The case studies and the ability to learn more about them were an effective way to have well-worked examples of citizen science projects that the participants can explore and learn from. Instead of having preliminary ideas about potential projects, the case studies were more solid learning and teaching material. It is possible to prepare detailed case studies that address all the issues that are covered in the school, but even if they are not completely comprehensive, it is possible to find more information from the person who knows about it in the room or online. Second, the **mix of participants – including many PhD students, researchers, and academics** – worked well. The questions ranged from the very practical to the philosophical ones. As with all the previous summer schools that I joined, the several days of concentrated learning, longer coffee and lunch breaks, and group work created enough time for people to connect with each other and build an ability to respect each other views. There was a very large interdisciplinary mix, as is common in citizen science – from sociology to natural sciences and engineering. It was also very impressive to have about 55 participants – about 35 in the room and another 10 to 20 online. Third, **the potential and limitation of “discount hybridity”.** Luckily, the room of the summer school was set up for hybrid teaching, including two large screens, several microphones in the room and four self-focusing cameras. To make the summer school more accessible, we accepted remote students who can join online. As always with technologies, there are limitations and complexities – such as limitations in break-up rooms that require switching between Teams and Zoom. Running a hybrid course require to physically consider online participants (so standing and talking at some specific points in the room) as well as dedicated effort from the teaching team – we needed a person from the teaching team to be online and respond to the online participants – it was helpful to have the chat appearing on the screen so we can refer to it during discussions and from time to time allow online participants to join in. With an investment of design by Gitte, a MIRO board was created to allow collaboration and contributions from the online participants, and during the breakout sessions, a member of the teaching team was online to support the discussion of online participants. All in all, it means that it is possible but require a resource of two of the teaching team and a room set up that supports it. It was important not to compromise the face to face experience – see the data quality games. To allow participants an opportunity to explore their own projects, we set out two mentoring sessions and maybe it is useful to have an explicit session at the end or a follow up calls – we’ll see. A fourth observation is that **having a good facility** at UCLouvain helped a lot – we had breakout rooms and space for coffee and discussion throughout the summer school. The coffee area included fruit, biscuits and other lovely things that the UCLouvain team organised. Those aspects are important in creating a good atmosphere and giving the participants in the summer school a good opportunity to talk with other students or the tutors. The lunches also provided the time for such discussion, and as frequently happens, people become more relaxed and willing to explore issues with the teachers on the course by the end of the second day, and also starting to make cross connections between participants. Discussions over dinner, coffee, or beer are always good. It is actually those things that make a summer school and immersive and intensive learning experience. Fifth, I have noticed in the past year the increased willingness of trainers to **use game and game-like tools in the process of learning**. They do require planning, dedicated printing (card games) and props such as printed map, a playing dice etc. But they are creating an engaging and enjoyable session – especially suitable for a summer school. The ATRAP game Sixth, be aware that many participants in such a summer school **never participated in a citizen science activity**. While we included in the third day a session for experiencing citizen science (iNat, noise mapping, accessibility mapping with Wheelmap and Google Local Guides), in hindsight that could be a preparatory activity to ensure that people have some experience and ability to think like participants. The summer school was funded by a grant from **Circle U.** a university alliance that is part of a programme of facilitating knowledge exchange between universities across the European Union. Caoline Michellier, who led the project, was interested in raising awareness to citizen science at UCLouvain because of the apparent weakness of citizen science visibility and activities in Volunia (in comparison to Brussels or Flanders, where there is support and some outstanding projects). The summer school demonstrated the sharing of expertise across the university alliance and the ability to bring expertise. The activity also helped in making people at UCLouvain aware of citizen science and it helped in making people in different parts of the university aware of this area and its potential. Following the model of TIME4CS, this might be the first stage in encouraging institutional support at UCLouvain. Running a summer school is a high effort and intense investment – it requires planning, session development, creation of class activities and case studies. The logistics are also complex and it was done in an excellent, welcoming, and seamless manner by the UCLouvain team. There is now a LinkedIn group for the people who participated and I hope that it will help in developing citizen science at the university. ### Share this: * Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Click to print (Opens in new window) Print * Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

CAPS 2025, like the previous conferences of the Association for Advancing Participatory Science (AAPS, formerly the Citizen Science Association), was an opportunity to learn about the state of citizen science in the USA. The conference took place in Portland, Oregon, where 13 years ago the first conference of what will become the CSA took place. At that time, the term **Public Participation in Scientific Research (PPSR)** was used to describe the field, with about 300 participants. A similar number showed up this time – despite the hopes of the AAPS for about 600 or even more. Worth noticing how, within 15 years, three varieties of terminology were used to bring people from the field together: Public Participation in Scientific Research, Citizen Science, and now Participatory Science. It is also worth noticing that the face-to-face conferences of the AAPS, which take place every two years, ended with a similar number of participants (if I’m not mistaken), not matching the growth of the European conferences over the same time. Unsurprisingly, the deep cuts in federal funding, with an indiscriminate and deliberate destruction of all areas of research were felt throughout the conference. There was an absence of funders that were central to the field in the past: the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the informal education division in the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Institute for Health (NIH). Only NASA was represented, and news about the severe risk of their citizen science demise came shortly after the conference. Researchers who had their funding cancelled couldn’t show up. Even the philanthropic funders that were at the conference emphasised that they are not in a position to be a replacement for the federal science funding. These impacts were felt and influenced the conference and the mood – a lot of questions about the future of the field were circulating. Despite that, the people that attended the conference were optimistic and active in their efforts to engage more people actively in scientific research. In contrast to the European conference, there is better participation and representation from practitioners who are running citizen science activities, from monitoring streams for water quality, to studying biodiversity. The stunning growth of iNaturalist, which was recognised in a keynote at the conference, is a reason for celebration. Over the last decade, it has replaced many other platforms that were developed around the early 2000s to become a central tool for biodiversity data collection and sharing. The activities of the university extensions (part of a university system with a dedicated mission to address agriculture and local rural environmental needs through cooperative action research) create many opportunities for citizen science. There are a lot of experience that comes from practitioners and that are shared at the conference, and that also give the conference a regional flavour, with more people who work on stream monitoring or biodiversity monitoring coming to it from the local community. This might mean (and I don’t know enough about the reality) that there is a large national community of participatory research practitioners that can be part of AAPS. The conference includes many topics that are somewhat similar to those that appeared in previous years, which is natural when the focus is on the participation of practitioners who share their experiences and case studies. Some of the new topics that emerged include the challenges and opportunities of utilising artificial intelligence. On the other hand, there was no longer attention to Do-It-Yourself scientific tools which were noted in the past. There were many sessions dedicated to education – from schools to universities. The presentations and discussions that were organised by European representatives who shared their experiences provided a demonstration of the maturity of the field in Europe and the value in sharing and discussing these with other communities. Another valuable insight was given from local indigenous voices. While the conference in North Carolina brought up the challenges of mostly black communities, the context of the Pacific Northwest brought the experiences of local tribes with somewhat better legal structure. However, the challenges of collaboration and equitable work between researchers and communities were comparable. It seems to me that the squeeze on universities’ research budgets can open up some opportunities for novel ways to collaborate with alternative sources of funding that might allow more equitable work than the traditional research funders. Compared to other areas of science, participatory researchers are used to working with very limited budgets, and while this will undoubtedly limit the innovations and the development of research in the field, it will allow some activities to continue. It was also good to see the increasing roles of universities – form research libraries to public ones, in contributing to citizen science and supporting their communities. The sessions about the journals in citizen science – Citizen Science: Theory and Practice and Community Science – received attention and gave opportunities, especially for early career researchers to understand how to shape their work so it is suitable for publishing. The poster and the talk sessions demonstrated that there are many students at MSc and PhD levels with an interest in participatory methods. The change of name from citizen science to participatory science perhaps attracted people from more research areas, including from social science – although the ecological and environmental areas were still dominant. An example for that was a session about participatory digital research from people who work on issues such as misinformation and disinformation and thought that the conference might be a good place for them to present. It was also valuable to hear the ideas of researchers on future papers and research in the workshop and sessions that I was involved in. I was involved in running a workshop on the integration of citizen science/participatory research within funding applications, and about 10 participants joined in, sharing their experience and attempting to implement some of the concepts that were covered in the workshop. This was one of several workshops and sessions that were led by European researchers, sharing experiences and learning with the benefits of the European funding, which is far from secure for the future. Many thanks for the teams at AAPS, Portland State University and Oregon State University that organised and run the conference – it was run very well and there was clearly a lot of planning behind it! ### Share this: * Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Click to print (Opens in new window) Print * Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

1. Jeremy FiveCrows (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission) 2. Gabe Sheoships Friends of Tryon Creek State Park, director 3. Lili Yazzie (Diné) Friends of Tryon Creek State Park, Green Leaders Workforce Coordinator. 4. Darius Yaw (PSU) Indigenous Traditional Ecological & Cultural Knowledge 5. Lu Whitebear (Assistant Professor, Indigenous Studies, Oregon State University) and Tim Hecox (World Forestry Center) Examples of partnerships – the issue of supporting fire that is done by bringing cultural fire and considering how to do a controlled burn, but it is also done in understanding the landscape and learning about the fire. In contrast, cultural burn was an intergenerational element and some of the safety aspects are blocking learning. It’s a cultural event of importance. Sometimes, when inviting a single person doesn’t work for people who are working as a community, so even a personal invitation becomes something that several people show up. Concepts of othering the idea of tribes (e.g. are you still living in a tipi). It’s a certain dehumanisation (and that also reflected in the concept of what food is relevant to them etc.) . Ignoring indigenous knowledge looks odd of ignoring thousands of years of knowledge, and reflect dehumanisation or racism. Collaboration around a specific project, say stream restoration can be healing and bring together people and realising that they can learn from indigenous people. Issues of identity and recognition of the identity by other people come up a lot. Also, the reluctance of people who are interested in understanding indigenous knowledge is that they feel they can’t join and learn. Misconception about research and research methodologies – for example, reading decolonising methodology. The issue with indigenous literature allows to unlock the mind and approach. Misconceptions that anthropologists have the right to speak about other people when they are around. Activities such as basket weaving is not the act itself but the use and demonstration of ancestral knowledge. Pan-indigeneity – things that there are commonalities across all indigenous groups, but this is a wrong idea and a lack of acceptance of the variabilities. Connection to the land and also sharing and moving with indigenous knowledge but living in another place came up. Misconceptions are also created through the educational system, lacking in recognising tribal culture and its contribution. A view that they were in the past and are not around anymore. A need to be able to learn and listen to different forms of understanding and see the world. Accepting sovereignty and respect – remembers that tribes are tapped a lot and they might have different priorities. Coming from spaces of intergenerational learning. Consider inclusion from the beginning and building the bridges. In the US and Canada, there are aspects of sovereignty and trusts that need to be taken into account. Need to consider intertribal spaces. Approaching the knowledge of people who have been living in the place with humility. Issues of learning about atrocities, trauma and it is needed for healing and rebuilding. Embracing indigenous communities within a settler colonialist society – learn about those aspects and learn about the history and background before you approach. Colonialism continues to happen to communities and needs to be considered. ### Share this: * Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Click to print (Opens in new window) Print * Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_

This week it’s the Association for Advancing Participatory Science conference (27-30 May 2025). The opening keynote was given by iNaturalist Scott Loarie, the executive director of iNaturalist. Scott covered **5 lessons from iNat**. It started as an MSc project, and has been going in for 17 years. It’s growing over time, about 8m observation. Seasonality of the northern hemisphere. Starting slow, and COVID provided a boost. It takes time to get off the ground. iNat is about focus on a critical challenge – the specific niche is try to give a spotlite on the species, there are not enough scientists to name species, describe, document and study them. We are going to lose one in three species. Can people document and protect species. Second point – make it fun and make it enjoyable. Get people to go outside and post, don’t make it too complicated and not fun to do. A student in Ecuador found a new type of butterfly. In Papua New Guinea, a bird that hasn’t been seen for a long time. Lesson three – make it social: CS involve people – it’s a feature, not a bug. Bioblitz in Sri lanca. City nature challenge is the biggest recording of biology on earth. CNC over million observation. 1 in 40 species in the world were recorded. A big celebration of life on earth. Build a new kind of scientific instrument and make it open – it’s a new tool that allows things to be seen in a way that wasn’t possible before. By making the tool open, it’s now got 6000 publications that are based on iNat. Make it easy. We can see changes in species distribution because of the temporal aspect. There is also an increase in invasive species that get into new areas and can be found in recording. There are also indications of other species that contract in terms of coverage. Papers that are utilising iNaturalist are also discovering information within a photo, noticing aspects about morphology, phenology, evidence for food consumption, and the photo can provide insights into changes. The many 100m of photos allow for the AI tool to work on them. Computer vision is providing a new journey. DNA is also linked to photo and sequencing the DNA that is also posted on iNat, and discovering new mushrooms. Last lesson – don’t just crowdsource science, crowdsource solutions. The process is not to assume that the linear pipeline from scientists to policy makers, but actually, you go into dealing with conservation – what is the theory of change to get people to deal with a problem. There are cases of restoring habitat based on observation – skip the scientific publication and go for the solution. Also, noticing newts through a community-based process to create a crossing for newts. Comparing lessons from SEEK to iNat and finding a route between the two. Generative AI is possible because of sharing information together and AI will need curious people sharing stuff on the internet. Humans in the loop of AI and as a way to use it for open scientific commenting and can help navigate the crazy AI. There is a concern about falsifying data and putting images that have been created through AI. Partnership of iNat, one of the key decisions of iNat is the ability to create projects – it’s a reason for scaling, and that feature allows lowering the barrier to entry to use iNat for their aim and to use it as a tool. CNC can bring iNat down and require planning – trying to keep servers that run on $480K a year and need to grow but keep it lean. They are building a long-term scientific infrastructure, but that is supposed to continue. GBiF exist as a place to share data is incredible, and it doesn’t have an equivalent in other areas. Assessing the impact of iNat requires more studying and analysing,g and trying to build a better system to tell the story. Ambition – 100m people participating in monitoring nature, and can we build a tool that can help move from recording to stewardship. ### Share this: * Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X * Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest * Click to print (Opens in new window) Print * Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email * Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram * Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr * Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp * Like Loading... ### _Related_