Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/11596
Title: Can Volunteers Collect Data that are Comparable to Professional Scientists? A Study of Variables Used in Monitoring the Outcomes of Ecosystem Rehabilitation
Contributor(s): Gollan, John  (author); Lobry De Bruyn, Lisa  (author)orcid ; Reid, Nick  (author)orcid ; Wilkie, Lance (author)
Publication Date: 2012
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9924-4
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/11596
Abstract: Having volunteers collect data can be a cost-effective strategy to complement or replace those collected by scientists. The quality of these data is essential where field-collected data are used to monitor progress against predetermined standards because they provide decision makers with confidence that choices they make will not cause more harm than good. The integrity of volunteer-collected data is often doubted. In this study, we made estimates of seven vegetation attributes and a composite measure of six of those seven, to simulate benchmark values. These attributes are routinely recorded as part of rehabilitation projects in Australia and elsewhere in the world. The degree of agreement in data collected by volunteers was compared with those recorded by professional scientists. Combined results showed that scientists collected data that was in closer agreement with benchmarks than those of volunteers, but when data collected by individuals were analyzed, some volunteers collected data that were in similar or closer agreement, than scientists. Both groups' estimates were in closer agreement for particular attributes than others, suggesting that some attributes are more difficult to estimate than others, or that some are more subjective than others. There are a number of ways in which higher degrees of agreement could be achieved and introducing these will no doubt result in better, more effective programs, to monitor rehabilitation activities. Alternatively, less subjective measures should be sought when developing monitoring protocols. Quality assurance should be part of developing monitoring methods and explicitly budgeted for in project planning to prevent misleading declarations of rehabilitation success.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: Environmental Management, 50(5), p. 969-978
Publisher: Springer New York LLC
Place of Publication: United States of America
ISSN: 1432-1009
0364-152X
Fields of Research (FoR) 2008: 050205 Environmental Management
050207 Environmental Rehabilitation (excl Bioremediation)
050203 Environmental Education and Extension
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 410404 Environmental management
410405 Environmental rehabilitation and restoration
410403 Environmental education and extension
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2008: 960609 Sustainability Indicators
960604 Environmental Management Systems
960508 Ecosystem Assessment and Management of Mining Environments
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: 190209 Sustainability indicators
189999 Other environmental management not elsewhere classified
180601 Assessment and management of terrestrial ecosystems
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Environmental and Rural Science

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

54
checked on Jul 20, 2024

Page view(s)

1,444
checked on Apr 28, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.