Citizen Science in Action: FLOW Project Mobilizes Communities for Stream Conservation
Within PathOS we are collecting stories on how Open Science (Open Access to publications, Open/FAIR data and software, collaborations with citizens) has made a positive or negative impact. Our ultimate aim is to highlight stories of Open Science practices and how these are linked to impactful outcomes. In this way, we hope to foster a learning experience and to inspire others to follow. Join us and read the first Open Science stories!
Could you briefly introduce yourself and what your Open Science story is about, including its time (e.g. year range) and location?
I am Julia von Gönner, I'm working at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany, and at iDiv, the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv). In my PhD, I developed the FLOW project, together with many partners from NGOs and my institute.
The FLOW project started in 2021, and it has now been going on for three years. The aim of the project is to motivate and train citizen groups to explore and record the health of streams.
Citizen science has the potential to create scientific and societal impact... It allows you to exchange with many motivated people from different backgrounds´.
What was the context or background in which this Open Science practice was used? What were the goals or expected outcomes?
Most of the freshwater ecosystems, the rivers and streams in Europe are in a bad ecological condition, but, in fact, we lack data on small streams. The very small streams with catchment areas below 10 square kilometres, which make up a really big part of the freshwater network in Germany for example, are not officially monitored. The official freshwater monitoring framework in Europe (Water Framework Directive (WFD) only looks at the larger streams. So, with our project, we want to analyse the small streams which are not covered by the WFD and fill this data gap. We also want to motivate citizens who might live close to a stream or might have an interest in aquatic biodiversity to engage in our project, to collect data, and thereby, to advance freshwater science. We aim to create a community that is trained and that can contribute to freshwater science by collecting this evidence.
What was your role or relationship to this Open Science practice? Were you a direct participant, an observer, or something else?
I studied to become a biology teacher, then, I became interested in Citizen Science. I started my PhD in which I developed and implemented the FLOW project together with my partners, which I’m now coordinating. Because citizen science is such a complex, interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary field, you need a team of different experts to successfully run a project. In FLOW, we worked in a team with my supervisors and colleagues from two scientific working groups, with my colleagues from the mobile labs “Umweltmobile Planaria” in Saxony, and an environmental NGO (Friends of the Earth Germany, BUND e.V.).
As project coordinator, I organize participant registration, training, monitoring events, data collection, data entry, and data analysis. I've also been involved in the development of our data management system and led the studies published on the FLOW project as part of my PhD thesis.
How was this Open Science practice implemented, to your knowledge? Who were the key actors involved?
For the first two years, we did a scoping study, and I developed the materials and the monitoring methods in close exchange with my colleagues who were already experts in that field. We networked with different actors active in freshwater ecology, and found a lot of partners who supported us (e.g., environmental foundations and regional agencies, schools, regional groups of environmental and angling associations). Then, the second phase started in 2021 when we got funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Since then, we were able to expand the project to implement it all over Germany, working with the NGO ‘Friends of the Earth Germany’ (BUND e.V.), who have a huge volunteer network and were responsible for volunteer coordination.
Were there any quantifiable outcomes or measurable successes linked to this practice? What metrics or indicators were used to evaluate these outcomes, if any?
First, we have developed training and education materials, video tutorials, a website, a web application, so a lot of instruments that will help to motivate and enable people to participate in freshwater monitoring. Until now, we have mobilised and trained over 90 groups with over 900 participants all over Germany for stream monitoring, and thereby helped to develop an important societal capacity that will help freshwater science. As a result of our monitoring activities, we have started to create a citizen science database on the ecological status of small streams in Germany. We have published two papers in Open Access format so that colleagues and different actors from science and society can use the data and results.
What impacts, both expected and unexpected, did this practise have? Were there any surprising developments or results?
On a societal level, FLOW brings together different people and actors who are interested in environmental monitoring, so that they can network, and contribute their many different skills to advance freshwater science. There are several participants who reported that their groups had formed as a result of the project, so FLOW is actually a project that builds communities at the local level. We also saw in our participant survey that people really felt motivated by the fact that FLOW has developed a Germany-wide network of people who are really engaged and want to help freshwater ecosystems.
So far we have done monitoring, and at the same time many citizen science groups now want to get active and actually implement stream restoration measures after seeing that their streams are not in a good condition. Some groups have already started to contact environmental agencies and their municipality to initiate restoration measures. But this is of course a really complex process involving a lot of different stakeholders. So, in the next project phase, we want to work on this more in detail and support the citizen science groups to actually use their data and evidence to implement stream restoration measures.
In addition, our participant survey showed that the training sessions and monitoring events actually increased participants’ knowledge, their skills for freshwater monitoring and motivated some of them to take collective action to protect streams. We have several expert volunteers but the majority of participants got involved in the project without ever having sampled a stream before. After the FLOW training sessions, the participants felt much more competent and much more able to assess stream health. So, training seems to be a really essential part of the project, for knowledge and skill acquisition, but also for exchange and feedback among new and experienced participants, and among citizen scientists and full-time researchers.
We also have had some scientific impact by publishing two studies. First, one paper on FLOW data accuracy, where we compared the citizen science stream data with professional data and found that they agree quite well, so the data can actually be used to complement the official stream monitoring. As a second paper, we now also published the results of our monitoring for the last three years and received quite a lot of media attention. So, I think the FLOW project is starting to have a tangible impact. We are currently applying for funding to continue the project so that it can develop its potential long-term impact over time.
What challenges were associated with this practice, from your perspective? What lessons can be drawn from its implementation?
One of the main challenge was juggling the roles of researcher, project coordinator and community manager. For the actual work with citizen scientists, it's really important to be enthusiastic about the scientific work we’re doing together with the different community members, and to be open and take time to exchange with the participants. For many citizen scientists, the most important form of recognition is the personal exchange and discussions with researchers.
An additional challenge was the data quality assurance. We invested a lot of time and resources in a study on FLOW data quality and compared the citizen science data with the professional data to find out how accurate the data actually are. We could only publish our papers because we used standardised protocols, trained participants and could show that the data was suitable to complement scientific and regulatory monitoring.
Then also the time frame generated some challenges: overall, it takes a lot of time to develop a citizen science project in a standardized way and to recruit citizens, earn their trust and build a network. Of course, our NGO partners and participants wanted to see and make use of the results as early as possible, but it takes some time to adhere to scientific standards, collect, analyse and publish the data. Finally, a citizen science project is a good way to experience the different ways of working and thinking of the various partners involved. It always challenged us to change perspectives and develop a common strategy that everyone could support.
How do you perceive this practice's influence on the wider scientific community or society? Has it affected your own views or approaches to research?
I had the opportunity to learn from a lot of colleagues in the German-speaking Citizen Science community. Together, we wrote the White Paper Strategy Citizen Science for Germany. On that occasion, I learned a lot about the challenges and opportunities of Citizen Science, for instance on data quality and data management, the data lifecycle, and how important it is to establish a good systematic data management and to publish Open Access to have an impact, and to be credible and transparent.
All in all, to run successful citizen science projects, we really need this collaboration between civil society actors and scientific actors working together. For instance, as in our case, a research institute and an NGO who really has the experience and networks for professional community management.
Based on your experience or observation, would you recommend this practise to others? Why or why not?
I'm really convinced that citizen science has the potential to create scientific and societal impact. If you’re eager to contribute to transformative change and environmental protection, citizen science is a passionate field to work in. It allows you to exchange with many motivated people from different backgrounds. Nonetheless, realising the different citizen science potentials for science, participants and societal processes requires a lot of effort and resources, and it's hardly possible to implement them all at once. They're always trade-offs to negotiate, and it helps to be well organized and to have experienced partners from research and educational institutions, NGOs, and citizen initiatives on board.
