Content uploaded by Silke L Voigt-Heucke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Silke L Voigt-Heucke on Jun 29, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
COLLECTION:
CONTRIBUTIONS OF
CITIZEN SCIENCE TO
THE UN SDGS
RESEARCH PAPER
How Citizen Science
Projects Contribute to Urban
Biodiversity Monitoring
and Conservation
Frameworks—A German
Case Study
SILKE L. VOIGT-HEUCKE
MORITZ MÜLLER
JULIA ROSTIN
ABSTRACT
Urban ecosystems provide diverse habitats for plants and animals. Policies can protect
these ecosystems. To do this, policy frameworks need robust datasets to monitor and
report on trends. Citizen science (CS) projects can make a valuable contribution by helping
to build, refine, and supplement datasets. The overall aim of this study was to identify
and characterize the contribution of CS projects to urban biodiversity monitoring and
conservation frameworks in Germany. To gain an overview of the CS landscape in relation
to urban biodiversity, we first examined German project platforms and were able to
identify a geographical concentration in Berlin. We then focused on the contribution of
CS to biodiversity monitoring in Berlin. We created an online questionnaire and conducted
interviews with 22 Berlin-based CS project coordinators. In particular, we asked: How does
their CS project contribute to the monitoring and conservation of urban biodiversity? What
is the type of citizen engagement? What are the objectives of their CS projects, and what
are their challenges? What are the outputs of their CS projects, and how do they publish
their data? Finally, what is their knowledge of global, national, and local conservation
frameworks? Our findings show that CS projects in Berlin are making a meaningful
contribution to biodiversity monitoring. However, there is considerable potential for
development, particularly in terms of awareness of policy frameworks and the sharing
of data. We recommend increasing opportunities for exchange between policymakers
and practitioners, and creating interfaces for data sharing to unlock the potential of CS
projects for urban biodiversity conservation.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Silke L. Voigt-Heucke
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin,
Leibniz Institute for Evolution
and Biodiversity Science, Berlin,
Germany
silke.voigt-heucke@mfn.berlin
KEYWORDS:
Sustainable Development Goals;
BioDiv; Convention on Biological
Diversity; IPBES; urban nature
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Voigt-Heucke, SL, Müller, M
and Rostin, J. 2023. How
Citizen Science Projects
Contribute to Urban Biodiversity
Monitoring and Conservation
Frameworks—A German Case
Study. Citizen Science: Theory
and Practice, 8(1): 30, pp. 1–12.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/
cstp.585
*Author affiliations can be found in the back matter of this article
2Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
INTRODUCTION
The human impact on the world’s ecosystem is of such
importance that the term Anthropocene has been
introduced as a new and predominant geological age
(Crutzen 2002). At the present time, according to the Federal
Agency for Nature Conservation, more than two thirds of
the total German population live in densely populated areas
(BfN 2018). Looking at developments worldwide, estimates
suggest that the trend of urbanization will continue well into
the 21st century (Brockerhoff 2000). To consolidate existing
strategies and develop innovative ideas, it is necessary
to harness the knowledge of humankind and involve the
public. One powerful approach to do so is citizen science
(CS) (e.g., Hecker et al. 2018; Hyder et al. 2015; Phillips et
al. 2019). It has been highlighted as a valuable method to
generate research for conservation efforts (e.g., Turrini et al.
2018; Cooper et al. 2007), and has great potential in urban
biodiversity research (Wang Wei et al. 2016; Theobald et
al. 2014). At the same time, it strengthens citizens’ trust in
science, promotes understanding of the respective research
topic, and thus also contributes to the education of the
participating citizens (Haywood and Besley 2014; Roche
and Davis 2017; Shirk et al. 2012). In addition, environment-
related citizen science projects can increase participants’
awareness of environmental issues and foster their sense of
ecological responsibility (e.g., Ballard et al. 2017; Bonney et
al. 2014; Shirk et al. 2012). Citizen science has already played
an important role in providing support and information for
biodiversity programmes and frameworks. In Germany, for
example, the so-called Krefeld study of insect mortality
by the Entomological Society Krefeld has attracted public
attention: This long-term study involves citizen scientists in
the development and data collection. One of the project’s
findings was recently published, highlighting that surveys in
63 German protected areas between 1989 and 2016 found
a decline of 76 per cent (up to 82 per cent in midsummer)
in the biomass of flying insects (Hallmann et al. 2017). The
study highlighted that access to data and insights from
citizen scientists is essential for biodiversity monitoring and
conservation—not only for science, but also for assessing
environmental impacts as part of policy action programmes
and strategies.
In order to preserve and protect biodiversity at a
global, local, and regional level, policy frameworks with
measures and strategies have been developed. As early as
1992, the importance of biological diversity and its global
endangerment was addressed at the UN Conference in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) was adopted. It contains binding targets under
international law for conservation, but also for the equitable
and sustainable use of biological diversity. Germany has
agreed to this convention and developed the National
Strategy for Biodiversity (NBS) in accordance with Article 6 of
the CBD (BMU 2007). This was approved in 2007 and contains
general measures for the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity (BMU 2007). At the state level,
for example, Berlin as the German capital also adopted
the Berlin Biodiversity Strategy in 2012 (SenStadtUm Berlin
2012). Conceptually, the Berlin strategy echoes the German
NBS, but goes into greater depth on the importance and
protection of urban areas. According to its own formulation,
the Berlin strategy “[...] shows exemplary ways in which
biological diversity can be preserved and promoted in a
modern metropolis—for the benefit of the people living
here” (SenStadtUm Berlin 2012). The Berlin strategy, for
example, directly addresses increased support in the field of
environmental education and nature conservation with “Goal
38 Social Engagement.” The statement clearly articulates
that the social engagement of volunteers contributes
significantly to the conservation of biodiversity (SenStadtUm
Berlin 2012). The German NBS also takes up the term citizen
science and illustrates the contribution to monitoring tasks
with concrete project examples (BMU 2007).
Given that policy frameworks at global and local
levels are in critical need of biodiversity data to meet
their reporting obligations (Geijzendorffer et al. 2015),
community engagement in biodiversity monitoring should
not be limited to a few lighthouse projects, such as the
Krefeld study, but needs to be established on a broad
scale. This is particularly true for urban ecosystems, where
conservation is inextricably linked to the engagement of
densely populated urban communities. We therefore aimed
to conduct a study to assess and better understand the
contribution of citizen science projects and the knowledge
of project coordinators in relation to urban biodiversity
monitoring and conservation frameworks in Germany.
First, we conducted a desktop search to obtain a
general overview of the German CS landscape in relation to
biodiversity in urban areas. We surveyed different platforms
for urban biodiversity CS projects and systematically
categorized them according to organizational structure,
project initiators, geographical location, and disciplines. The
question of potential initiators for CS projects in general has
been addressed several times in the scientific community
prior to our study (e.g., Ballard et al. 2017, Pettibone et al.
2017; Phillips et al. 2021, and Sforzi et al. 2018). An analysis
by Pettibone et al. (2017) of the German citizen science
project platform Bürger schaffen Wissen showed that most
projects were initiated with or by non-university institutions,
followed by NGOs, and in third place by or together with
universities. However, according to our research, there
has been no geographic analysis of CS projects related to
urban biodiversity research. It is likely that it is in densely
populated areas that the public’s need for urban nature
is most apparent, and that a variety of opportunities to
3Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
explore and protect it arise for CS projects. Thus, potential
initiators of CS projects, such as universities, research
institutions, and NGOs, may also benefit from engaging
with urban communities in particular. To better explore the
potential of citizen science in relation to urban nature, it is
necessary to analyse existing projects in detail. In general,
previous studies focusing on the overall CS landscape have
shown a focus of CS projects in the life sciences, especially
in the subfields of biology, ecology, and conservation (e.g.,
Hecker et al. 2018; Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016).
However, to the best of our knowledge, we are not aware of
research to date that focuses exclusively on understanding
the structure of CS projects that focus on biodiversity
monitoring in urban areas.
Second, using Berlin as an example, we aimed to
specifically identify and categorize the contribution of
CS projects to biodiversity monitoring and conservation.
The German capital Berlin is not only home to 3.7 million
people (Amt für Statistik Berlin—Brandenburg 2019), but
also to about 20,000 additional animal and plant species
(SenStadtUm Berlin 2012; SenUVK Berlin 2019). Despite
the establishment of biodiversity programs and strategies
such as the European Habitat-Directive, the Natura 2000
Network, and the regional Berlin Biodiversity Strategy (2012),
biodiversity in Berlin is under pressure. With about 44% of
all occurring animal and plant species, a higher proportion
is endangered than at the federal level (Saure and Kielhorn
2005). To assess the contribution of CS projects to urban
biodiversity monitoring, we examined the structure and
objectives of CS projects, the dissemination of results and
data, and the knowledge of project coordinators about
global, national, and regional biodiversity frameworks.
METHODS
IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR RESEARCH AND
STUDY PERIOD
We conducted a two-fold study, desktop research, and an
online questionnaire among CS projects in Germany and
Berlin from March 2021 to February 2022. All data and
information on CS platforms and CS projects in Germany
and Berlin refer to this period.
DESKTOP RESEARCH ON CITIZEN SCIENCE
PROJECTS RELATED TO URBAN BIODIVERSITY
MONITORING AND CONSERVATION IN GERMANY
A survey of citizen science platforms for projects
related to urban biodiversity monitoring and
conservation in Germany
We systematically surveyed the platforms Bürger schaffen
Wissen, GoNature and GoVolunteer for CS projects related to
the protection and monitoring of urban biodiversity. While
Bürger schaffen Wissen is aimed directly at citizen science,
GoNature and GoVolunteer are aimed at volunteers. The
GoNature platform focuses specifically on volunteer tasks
in nature and species conservation. Subsequently, an
expansion of the desktop search was carried out for projects
that are not listed on an official German project platform.
In the course of the search, another project platform
explicitly for volunteer nature conservation projects in
Berlin was included: Freiwillick Grün—Das Ehrenamtsportal
für Umweltschutz. We set exclusion criteria for selecting
projects to decide whether we classify a project as citizen
science, following the definition of the German Green
Book Citizen Science (Bonn et al. 2016). We therefore used
the following criteria to choose projects for our further
research. In the given project, (1) citizen scientists work on
a voluntary basis, (2) new scientific knowledge is actively
generated, and a scientific question is posed, and (3)
the engagement of citizen scientists is an important and
essential part of the project. If a project fulfilled all the
requirements, it was included in a results’ table together
with further information such as the names of the project
initiators, the geographical location, and the presence on a
project platform.
A categorization by scientific discipline of citizen
science projects for monitoring urban biodiversity
and conservation in Germany
We classified all identified projects according to their
biological discipline, following existing literature (e.g.,
Pettibone et al. 2017) and using the disciplines of zoology,
botany, biodiversity, and environmental science. Following
Moczek et al. (2021), we based our categorization of project
initiators into overarching categories on a previously tested
categorization by Bürger schaffen Wissen. The initiators
were classified based on the project-related information
on the project platforms Bürger schaffen Wissen, GoNature,
and GoVolunteer.
ONLINE INTERVIEWS WITH PROJECT
COORDINATORS OF BERLIN CITIZEN SCIENCE
PROJECTS RELATED TO URBAN BIODIVERSITY
MONITORING AND CONSERVATION
Design of the structured online interviews with
citizen science coordinators
To better understand the contribution of CS projects to urban
biodiversity monitoring and policy frameworks, we created
a structured online interview for project coordinators and
conducted face-to-face interviews via video calls. We used
Berlin as a case study because we had previously found a high
number of projects with a broad spectrum in the German
capital during our desktop research. The questionnaire was
created online with the in-house programme “survey-tool”
of the Museum für Naturkunde Berlin (MfN). Individual
4Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
questions could be skipped at any time if a project coordinator
requested. There were no mandatory answers. All online
interviews were conducted by a single interviewer, Julia
Rostin. All figures and graphs were created using R.studio.
The online questionnaire included: (1) the project
coordinators’ assessment of their CS project’s contribution
to biodiversity monitoring and urban biodiversity
conservation, (2) questions about the nature of citizen
engagement, (3) the project’s objectives, (4) the project’s
challenges, (5) the publication of results and data sharing,
(6) the project coordinators’ personal views on citizen
science and urban biodiversity conservation, and (7) the
project coordinators’ awareness of policies and frameworks.
Project coordinators were first asked to make a
statement about whether their project contributed to
urban biodiversity monitoring and conservation in Berlin
through citizen science. The concept of biodiversity was
explained and clearly defined based on the CBD definition
(CBD 2016).
The online questionnaire then consisted of a series of
closed-ended questions. Depending on the question, the
option to answer these questions varied. For example,
questions about the type of citizen participation allowed
multiple answers. In terms of the objectives of CS projects,
only two objectives could be chosen.
The questionnaire contained two questions with scalable
responses. The first question asked the project coordinator
to rate general statements about CS and the conservation of
biodiversity. A Likert scale was used to measure participants’
personal attitudes. The scale consisted of a multi-level
ranking: (1) agree; (2) rather agree; (3) neutral, (4) rather
disagree; (5) disagree. The questions on personal attitudes
allowed project coordinators to answer at their own discretion
and without reference to a project. The second question
asked about the project coordinators’ personal knowledge of
international (SDGs: UN Sustainable Development Goals, CBD:
UN Convention on Biological Diversity, EU Biodiversity Strategy
for 2030), national (National Strategy for Biodiversity, Urban
Nature Master Plan), and local (Berlin Biodiversity Strategy,
Strategy for Bees and other Pollinators in Berlin, Strategy
Urban Landscape Berlin, Charter for Berlin Urban Green)
conservation frameworks. The question was differentiated
with the following response options: (1) I know the policy
framework, and its content is known to me; (2) I know the
name, but the content is unknown to me; (3) Neither the
content nor the policy framework is known to me.
Categorization of the type of engagement of citizen
scientists and project objectives
Our categorization of the type of engagement of citizen
scientists and the overall project objectives were based
on a previously conducted survey on CS projects in Bürger
schaffen Wissen (Moczek et al. 2021). This ensured that the
data obtained from the online interview questionnaire were
comparable to the results of the survey by Moczek et al. (2021).
RESULTS
DESKTOP RESEARCH ON CITIZEN SCIENCE
PROJECTS ON URBAN BIODIVERSITY
MONITORING AND CONSERVATION IN GERMANY
Our analysis of the Bürger schaffen Wissen, GoVolunteer,
and GoNature platforms revealed a total of 32 CS projects in
Germany related to urban biodiversity. An extension of our
desktop research added three more projects that were not
mentioned on any of the platforms. This increased the total
number of CS projects involved in monitoring and conserving
urban biodiversity to 35. The proportion of CS projects
related to urban nature on GoVolunteer and GoNature was
very low compared with the total number of participation
opportunities presented on each platform. GoNature listed
12 projects in the urban biodiversity category at the time
of our survey. On the GoVolunteer project platform, there
was no separate section on urban biodiversity or CS. Bürger
schaffen Wissen was the most frequently represented
platform. Thus, out of 35 projects, 33 (91%) were on the
platform. GoNature (6%), GoVolunteer (9%), and Freiwillick
Grün (3%) had a much smaller share. Three projects (9%)
could not be found on any project platform so far. Looking
at the total number (n = 35) of projects related to urban
nature in Germany, 13 projects (37%) had an indirect
reference, while 22 projects (63%) could be directly related
to nature in the city.
Categorization of disciplines of citizen science
projects
Our categorization of biological disciplines revealed a focus
of CS projects on monitoring and conserving biodiversity
in zoology. About half of the 35 projects (54%) had a
zoological focus. Seven projects (20%) could be classified
as environmental sciences. Five projects (14%) focused
on biodiversity research. Four projects (12%) dealt with
botanical research issues.
Categorization of initiating institutions of citizen
science projects
The majority of projects (14 projects, 40%) were initiated by
research institutions (e.g., the Leibniz Association). Nine of the
projects (26%) were initiated by organizations belonging to
the categories “associations, NGOs, foundations” and three
projects (9 %) by “universities.” Six projects could be assigned
to the categories “educational institutions” and “private
individuals.” None of the projects were initiated by the media.
5Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
Categorization of locations of citizen science projects
There are 16 federal states in Germany. We assigned the
location of the projects to the respective federal state. Our
analysis showed that 19 projects (46 %) had not only local,
but also a nationwide scope. Eleven of the projects (11%)
were located in the federal state and also the capital of
Germany, Berlin. The rest of the projects were distributed
among the federal states of North Rhine-Westphalia (9 %; n
= 3), Baden-Württemberg (6 %; n = 2) and one project each
in Hesse, Bavaria; and Hamburg. Of the 16 federal states,
ten were without a CS project with an urban biodiversity
reference.
ONLINE INTERVIEWS WITH CITIZEN SCIENCE
PROJECT COORDINATORS IN BERLIN
Based on our desktop research and further enquiries, we
were able to contact a total of 23 CS projects related to
urban biodiversity and operating in Berlin. We received
a response from 22 of them (96% response rate). Their
22 project coordinators then completed the online
questionnaire about their respective CS projects and shared
their personal attitudes: Three questionnaires (14%) were
completed online by the project coordinators themselves,
and 19 (86%) were conducted online in a Zoom interview.
The project coordinator’s assessment of their citizen
science project’s contribution
Twenty-one project coordinators agreed that their project
made a valuable contribution to the monitoring and
conservation of urban biodiversity. One project coordinator
decided not to answer this question.
The type of engagement of citizen scientists
Citizen scientists were most often involved in data collection
(91%), followed by communication of results (41%) and
scientific analysis (32%). Three projects (14%) involved
citizens in project development (Figure 1). In eight of the
CS projects (36%), citizen scientists were involved in only
one activity, while in 14 projects (64%), more than one type
of engagement of citizen scientists was reported (multiple
answers were possible; Figure 1).
The overall objectives of citizen science projects
When asked for a maximum of two overarching project
objectives, 18 project coordinators indicated that their
projects contributed to “environmental education and
awareness” (82%), 13 project coordinators chose “doing
science,” that is, working on a scientific issue (59%), and
9 chose “opening up science through participation” (41%;
Figure 2). None of the 22 project coordinators indicated
that their project was strengthening civil society or creating
innovation (Figure 2).
The challenges in citizen science projects
When asked if the CS approach brings challenges to the
research project, the majority (68%) of project coordinators
(n = 15) agreed (Figure 3). The project coordinators most
frequently assigned the identified hurdles in the area of time
management (55%) and resource management (41%),
and legal issues and research methods were mentioned
as challenges by four project coordinators (18%). No one
stated that the complexity of the research question was a
barrier to the project (Figure 3).
Data publication, dissemination, and sharing with
authorities of citizen science projects
Most project coordinators (n = 16; 73%) stated that their
CS project uses its own project website to publish data.
This was followed by the use of scientific publications
(59%) and contributing to open databases (50%). Thirteen
project coordinators (59%) agreed to share their data upon
request. One project (5 %) had not yet published any data.
Figure 1 Types of engagement of citizen scientists in citizen science projects related to urban biodiversity in Berlin. Frequencies and
percentages (multiple answers possible, n = 22).
6Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
Eleven project coordinators (50%) responded that they
had shared their project’s data with authorities (Figure 4).
When asked with which authority the data was shared, the
Berlin Senate Department for the Environment, Transport
and Climate Protection (the supreme nature conservation
authority in Berlin) was named most frequently (n = 9). This
was followed by the lower nature conservation authorities
in Berlin (n = 7), the German Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation (BfN; n = 3), and the Federal Ministry for the
Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and
Consumer Protection (BMU) and the Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF) with one mention each.
One project coordinator was unable to make a statement.
Ten projects (45%) had not shared their data with any
authority at the point of our questionnaire (Figure 4).
Personal opinions of citizen science project
coordinators
The majority of project coordinators agreed with
the statements that CS projects make an important
contribution to research (82%) and conservation (55%) of
urban biodiversity (Figure 5). Their opinion on the adequate
dissemination of data to authorities was much more
negative; only two respondents (9%) fully agreed with this
statement. The statement about sufficient awareness of
biodiversity conservation among the population was shared
by only one person (5%). The statement about the availability
of data was much more mixed. The majority of respondents
answered this question neutrally. No statement was made
by one person (5%) in each case about the data obtained
from data dissemination and the degree of awareness of
the urgency of biodiversity conservation (Figure 5).
Awareness of policy frameworks of citizen science
project coordinators
All project coordinators participating in the online interview
questionnaire (n = 22) were aware of some policy framework
related to urban nature and biodiversity (Figure 6). With
regard to the knowledge of individual frameworks and
strategies, most participants were familiar with the content
Figure 2 Objectives of citizen science projects related to urban biodiversity in Berlin. Frequencies and percentages (maximum of two
answers possible, n = 22).
Figure 3 Project coordinators’ assessments of the challenges in their citizen science projects in Berlin. Frequencies and percentages
(multiple answers possible, n = 22).
7Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
Figure 4 German public authorities with which citizen science projects related to urban biodiversity in Berlin are sharing their data.
Frequencies and percentages (multiple answers possible, n = 12).
Figure 5 Personal opinions of project coordinators on citizen science practices, urban biodiversity monitoring, and data management.
Percentages (5-Point-Likert-Scale, n = 22).
Figure 6 Knowledge of international (SDGs: UN Sustainable Development Goals, CBD: UN Convention on Biological Diversity, EU Biodiversity
Strategy for 2030), national (German National Strategy for Biodiversity, German Urban Nature Master Plan), and local (Berlin Biodiversity
Strategy, Strategy for Bees and other Pollinators in Berlin, Strategy Urban Landscape Berlin, Charter for Berlin Urban Green) policy
frameworks and strategies related to urban biodiversity monitoring and conservation by project coordinators. Percentages (n = 22).
8Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
of the German National Strategy for Biodiversity with 16
statements of familiarity (73%) and the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) with 15 statements of familiarity
(68%). The Berlin Biodiversity Strategy was known content-
wise to only 13 project coordinators (59%). However, the
German Urban Nature Master Plan (45%) and the Urban
Landscape Strategy in Berlin (68%) were not known at all
to many project coordinators (Figure 6).
DISCUSSION
In this study, we first conducted a desktop search
for urban biodiversity CS projects on German project
platforms, and then assessed and classified the
contribution of CS projects in Berlin using an online
questionnaire. We also assessed the CS data shared
with authorities and the knowledge of Berlin-based CS
coordinators of conservation frameworks in Germany.
To the best of our knowledge, this has not yet been put
together in a publication in this form.
We found an interesting accumulation of CS projects
related to urban biodiversity in the federal state and German
capital, Berlin. This is not surprising given that Berlin is one
of the most productive centres of higher education and
research in the world. It has the largest concentration of
universities and colleges in Germany, with 4 universities and
27 colleges offering a wide range of research disciplines. And
although Berlin is the most populous city in Germany, it has
a high level of biodiversity with around 20,000 animal and
plant species (SenStadtUm Berlin 2012; SenUVK Berlin 2019).
It is known as a capital with lots of green spaces, parks, rivers,
and forests, reflected in the many nature-related CS projects.
In our desktop research of the platform, we found that
more than 50% of the CS projects on monitoring and
protecting urban biodiversity examined animal species and,
to a much lesser extent, focused on botanical questions.
This difference has already been substantiated by previous
surveys of citizen science projects and evaluations of project
platforms (e.g., Heinisch 2019; Moczek et al. 2021). It is a
common pattern that more CS projects focus on zoological
questions than botanical ones. There are many reasons
why there are more zoological than botanical projects.
Zoology may be more accessible and visible to the public
than botany. According to Dickinson et al. (2010), botanical
identification is more difficult than animal identification
because plant species are generally more numerous, more
variable in morphology, and less well known. This can make
it more difficult to design effective botanical citizen science
projects that can be undertaken by non-experts.
In our questionnaire among Berlin-based CS projects,
the majority of project coordinators agreed that CS makes
an important contribution to urban biodiversity monitoring
and conservation. The two most frequently chosen
objectives of the projects were environmental education
and raising awareness, followed by scientific work and
addressing a scientific issue. Other surveys of German-
language CS projects (e.g., Turrini et al. 2018) also came
to the same conclusion. Considering the coordinators’
assessment of the aim of environmental education in their
projects, it seems that CS projects in general could be an
excellent way to introduce citizens to the issue and to
create or increase awareness of biodiversity loss. Regular
monitoring of flora and fauna is essential for effective
biodiversity conservation (Geschke et al. 2019). One way to
support monitoring and improve data is via CS (e.g., Pocock
et al. 2018). CS volunteers are already making a significant
contribution to the compilation of Red Lists for threatened
animal and plant species in Germany (BfN 2021). In our
online interview, Red List work was also mentioned as a
contribution to biodiversity monitoring and conservation.
Visualizing data flows from CS projects to local authorities
and into (national or international) biodiversity frameworks
could be a useful way of incentivizing data sharing, for
example, through network or flow diagrams.
An interesting finding of our questionnaire was the
assessment of CS project coordinators that time and
resource management was by far the greatest challenge
in their CS projects. There may be several reasons for this.
Projects rely on volunteers to donate their time for data
collection or other tasks. However, citizen scientists may
have limited availability due to work or family commitments,
which can make it difficult to coordinate schedules and
tasks in a timely manner. In addition, CS projects often
involve volunteers with different levels of experience and
expertise. This can make it challenging to distribute tasks
and ensure that they are completed efficiently. Finally, and
most importantly, CS projects often have limited funding,
which restricts the number of employed staff that could
help mitigate these challenges.
Only 50% of projects in our survey reported sharing data
with authorities. We can only speculate whether this is a
representative figure for citizen science as a research field.
There may be many reasons why CS projects do not share
their data, either with authorities or the public: (1) Lack of
awareness: Some CS projects may not be aware that they
can share their data with authorities, or may not know
how to do so. (2) Lack of resources: CS projects are often
volunteer-driven and may not have the resources to share
their data with authorities. (3) Privacy concerns: CS projects
may collect data about sensitive species or locations, and
may be reluctant to share this data due to privacy concerns.
(4) Intellectual property concerns: In some cases, CS projects
may be conducting research that they hope to publish
9Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
in high-ranking journals, and may be reluctant to share
their data out of concern that it could be used by others
without their permission. (5) Political considerations: Some
CS projects may be conducting research on controversial
topics and may be reluctant to share their data out of
concern for how it might be used otherwise.
It is important to note that 50% of the projects in our study
did share their data with authorities. And, out of these projects,
most shared their data with local authorities. Interestingly,
the project coordinators we interviewed were more familiar
with larger policies and frameworks, such as the CBD, the EU
Biodiversity Strategy 2030, or the SDG framework. Few, for
example, were aware of Berlin’s Urban Landscape Strategy,
even though the data from the CS projects they coordinate
may be used to make informed decisions within this strategy.
Local biodiversity polices and frameworks may be (more)
unknown, as local governments and communities lack the
resources or capacity to disseminate and implement these
strategies. This may be due to limited funding, expertise,
or time of authorities. Moreover, biodiversity conservation
may not be seen as a priority by local politicians or decision-
makers, who may prioritize other issues that are seen as
more pressing or urgent.
The fact that policy frameworks such as the German
National Strategy for Biodiversity already address the value
of CS projects in the field of monitoring, however, illustrates
great potential from the perspective of policymakers.
Hecker et al. (2019) were able to illustrate a general interest
in CS in political programmes and strategies. Biodiversity
policy frameworks and strategies inevitably require
monitoring data to verify their effectiveness. Despite the
existing potential, CS data have rarely been incorporated
into societal and policy decision-making processes (Hecker
et al. 2018; Nascimento et al. 2018). In the CS projects we
surveyed, the most common type of citizen involvement
was data collection. This was also the result of a previous
survey in German-speaking countries (Turrini et al. 2018).
An important reason for the prevailing approach of involving
citizen scientists mainly in data collection may be that these
projects are presumably easier to design and implement,
and can involve a higher number of participants (e.g.,
Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016; Theobald et al. 2014).
We would like to point out that our study has
addressed only project coordinators of CS projects and
not, additionally, citizen scientists themselves. Possibly,
the contribution of CS could be elaborated if both project
coordinators and citizen scientists were included. Especially
with regard to examples on the protection of biodiversity,
it would be interesting to find out whether attitudes
towards the environment, environmental knowledge, or
environmental awareness change measurably in citizen
scientists through participation in a CS project. Studies on
the impact of CS projects do exist, but evaluations often
suggest that more sensitive metrics need to be developed
to demonstrate, for example, a significant change in the
attitudes of citizen scientists towards the environment
(Brossard et al. 2005). Showing the impact of biodiversity
CS projects on participating citizen scientists, however, is
crucial to provide evidence-based justifications for funding
and policy decisions, as well as to increase public awareness
and support for conservation efforts.
CONCLUSION
CS projects can be used as a powerful tool for monitoring
urban biodiversity and providing a framework for
conservation. Our results show that CS projects are making
valuable contributions in Berlin, but that this contribution
can be increased. In the opinion of the project coordinators
we interviewed, the contribution of the project is
particularly important in terms of providing scientific
knowledge, engaging in environmental education, and
raising awareness. To further increase the contribution of
CS projects, one possible goal is to further encourage and
expand data sharing with authorities. Only half of the
projects surveyed shared data with government agencies
to contribute to policies and strategies. Through CS projects,
both researchers and policymakers could be empowered
and enabled to use citizen-generated data to identify key
threats to urban biodiversity and to develop strategies for
its conservation.
Creating interfaces between CS projects and government
agencies could be a way to facilitate or enable networking
as well as data sharing on both sides. Public research
institutions, such as natural history museums, may play a
significant role in this respect. For example, the natural history
museum in Berlin (Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, MfN) is in
the process of establishing a Citizen Science Center and could
therefore provide a suitable interface. Possible instruments
for networking are workshops for CS project staff on the topic
of data management, dissemination, and sharing.
It is critical to emphasize that the responsibility of sharing
data should not lie solely with one actor in CS projects, either
initiators or responsible authorities. Instead, the interest in
sharing and sustainable use of the data obtained should
be shared equally by all parties involved. Another premise
for the sustainable use of data obtained in CS projects is
greater recognition of CS data. We believe that CS data on
biodiversity, however, should not be seen as a substitute
for academic biodiversity research, but rather as a valuable
addition. Regarding the current quality debate, one must
be aware of and accept the existing limitations of CS (Jäckel
et al. 2023). Recognition of CS data could and should yet
10Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
be increased by establishing and communicating clear
standards for data (quality), and encouraging collaboration
between CS stakeholders and authorities.
In addition to the goal of contributing to research, our online
questionnaire showed that CS projects name environmental
education and awareness-raising as objectives. With regard
to the acute and anthropogenically caused loss of biodiversity,
there is an urgent need to educate the public. CS represents
a promising approach to urban biodiversity monitoring and
conservation that combines the power of scientific research
with the passion and expertise of local communities. As cities
continue to grow and urbanization intensifies, CS projects are
likely to become even more important in efforts to protect
urban biodiversity and create sustainable, resilient cities for
future generations.
DATA ACCESSIBILITY STATEMENT
In order to protect the confidentiality of the responses of
the Berlin citizen science project coordinators, the data
analysed in this paper is not available.
ETHICS AND CONSENT
Ethical approval was not required at our institution for this
study, as we worked closely with our data protection officer
to provide all participants (i.e., project coordinators of Berlin
citizen science projects) with detailed information about
the conditions. They could take part in the surveys only if
they agreed to these conditions. Specifically, we explained
that participation was voluntary, that questions could be
skipped, that participation in the study could be terminated
at any time, and that information already stored could
be completely deleted. Publication of the results does
not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the project
or individuals. The data were stored in a database at the
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin for research purposes only.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank Gerlind Lehmann and Johannes Vogel for their
support in conducting the study. We would like to thank
Nicola Moczek for her advice in preparing and interpreting
the results of the online questionnaire. We would like to
express our sincere gratitude to Kiona Keil for her helpful
proofreading and commenting on the article. Furthermore,
we would like to thank all participants of the online
questionnaire as well as all interviewed experts for their
valuable time and interest in our work.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS
Silke L. Voigt-Heucke orcid.org/0000-0002-0960-8069
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and
Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany
Moritz Müller orcid.org/0009-0001-4824-3912
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and
Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany
Julia Rostin orcid.org/0009-0008-9091-520X
Museum für Naturkunde Berlin, Leibniz Institute for Evolution and
Biodiversity Science, Berlin, Germany
REFERENCES
Amt für Statistik Berlin- Brandenburg (Hrsg.). 2019. Zahlen und
Fakten. https://www.berlin.de/berlin-im-ueberblick/zahlen-
und-fakten/.
Ballard, HL, Robinson, LD, Young, AN, Pauly, GB, Higgins, LM,
Johnson, RF and Tweddle, JC. 2017. Contributions to
conservation outcomes by natural history museum-led
citizen science: Examining evidence and next steps. Biological
Conservation, 208: 87–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2016.08.040
Bonn, A, Richter, A, Vohland, K, Pettibone, L, Brandt, M,
Feldmann, R, Goebel, C, Grefe, C, Hecker, S, Hennen, L,
Hofer, H, Kiefer, S, Klotz, S, Kluttig, T, Krause, J, Küsel, K,
Liedtke, C, Mahla, A, Neumeier, V, Premke-Kraus, M, Rillig,
MC, Röller, O, Schäffler, L, Schmalzbauer, B, Schneidewind,
U, Schumann, A, Settele, J, Tochtermann, K, Tockner, K,
Vogel, J, Volkmann, W, von Unger, H, Walter, D, Weisskopf,
M, Wirth, C, Witt, T, Wolst, D and Ziegler, D. 2016. Green
paper citizen science strategy 2020 for Germany. Helmholtz
Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), German Centre
for integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-
Leipzig, Leipzig, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin. Leibniz
Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity Science (MfN), Berlin-
Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research
(BBIB): Berlin, Germany, 13–19. https://nbn-resolving.org/
urn:nbn:de:101:1-20160621985.
Bonney, R, Shirk, JL, Phillips, TB, Wiggins, A, Ballard, HL, Miller-
Rushing, AJ and Parrish, JK. 2014. Next steps for citizen
science. Science, 343(6178): 1436–1437. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1251554
Brockerhoff, M. 2000. An Urbanizing World (Vol. 55, No. 3).
Washington, DC, USA: Population Reference Bureau.
Brossard, D, Lewenstein, B and Bonney, R. 2005. Scientific
knowledge and attitude change: The impact of
a citizen science project. International Journal of
11Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
Science Education, 27(9): 1099–1121. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1080/09500690500069483
Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) (Hrsg.). 2018. Stadt und
Natur – Dynamische Stadtentwicklung. https://www.bfn.de/
themen/planung/siedlungsbereich/stadt-und-natur.html.
Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN) (Hrsg.). 2021. Rote Liste der
Säugetiere 2020. https://www.rote-liste-zentrum.de/files/
NaBiV_170_2_1_RL_Saeugetiere_2020_20210421-0804.pdf.
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und
Reaktorsicherheit (BMU) (Hrsg.). 2007. Nationale Strategie
zur biologischen Vielfalt. Berlin: Eigenverlag.
CBD (UN Convention on Biological Diversity). 2016. Text of the
convention: https://www.cbd.int/convention/.
Cooper, CB, Dickinson, J, Phillips, T and Bonney, R. 2007. Citizen
science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems.
Ecology and Society, 12(2). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26267
884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02197-120211
Crutzen, PJ. 2002. Geology of mankind. Paul J. Crutzen:
A pioneer on atmospheric chemistry and climate
change in the Anthropocene, 211–215. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1038/415023a
Dickinson, JL, Zuckerberg, B and Bonter, DN. 2010. Citizen
science as an ecological research tool: challenges
and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics, 41: 149–172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636
Geijzendorffer, IR, Regan, EC, Pereira, HM, Brotons, L,
Brummitt, N, Gavish, Y, Haase, P, Martin, CS, Mihoub,
J-B, Secades, C, Schmeller, DS, Stoll, S, Wetzel, FT and
Walters, M. 2016. Bridging the gap between biodiversity
data and policy reporting needs: An Essential Biodiversity
Variables perspective. Journal of Applied Ecology,
53(5): 1341–1350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-
2664.12417
Geschke, J, Vohland, K, Bonn, A, Dauber, J, Gessner, MO, Henle,
K, Nieschulze, J, Schmeller, D, Settele, J, Sommerwerk,
N and Wetzel, F. 2019. Biodiversitätsmonitoring in
Deutschland: Wie Wissenschaft, Politik und Zivilgesellschaft
ein nationales Monitoring unterstützen können. GAIA-
Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 28(3):
265–270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.28.3.6
Hallmann, CA, Sorg, M, Jongejans, E, Siepel, H, Hofland, N,
Schwan, H, Stenmans, W, Müller, A, Sumser, H, Hörren, T,
Goulson, D and de Kroon, H. 2017. More than 75 percent
decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in
protected areas. PLoS ONE, 12(10): e0185809. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
Haywood, BK and Besley, JC. 2014. Education, outreach, and
inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of
successful program outcomes in participatory science. Public
Understanding of Science, 23(1): 92–106. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1177/0963662513494560
Hecker, S, Bonney, R, Haklay, M, Hölker, F, Hofer, H, Goebel,
C, Gold, M, Makuch, Z, Ponti, M, Richter, A, Robinson, L,
Iglesias, JR, Owen, R, Peltola, T, Sforzi, A, Shirk, J, Vogel,
J, Vohland, K, Witt, T and Bonn, A. 2018. Innovation in
Citizen Science – Perspectives on Science-Policy Advances.
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 3(1): 4. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.5334/cstp.114
Hecker, S, Garbe, L and Bonn, A. 2018. The European citizen
science landscape – a snapshot. In: Hecker, S, Haklay, M,
Bowser, A, Makuch, Z, Vogel, J, Bonn, A (Hrsg.) Citizen science.
Innovation in open science, society and policy. London: UCL
Press. pp. 190–200. eISBN:978-1-78735-233-9. DOI: https://
doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv550cf2.20
Hecker, S, Wicke, N, Haklay, M and Bonn, A. 2019. How does
policy conceptualise citizen science? A qualitative content
analysis of international policy documents. Citizen Science:
Theory and Practice, 4(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/
cstp.230
Heinisch, B. 2019. Vorherrschende Wissenschaftszweige
auf deutsch-und englischsprachigen Citizen Science-
Projektplattformen. Konferenzband des Forum Citizen Science
2019. S40–52.
Hyder, K, Townhill, B, Anderson, LG, Delany, J and Pinnegar, JK.
2015. Can citizen science contribute to the evidence-base
that underpins marine policy? Marine Policy, 59: 112–120.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.022
Jäckel, D, Mortega, KG, Darwin, S, Brockmeyer, U, Sturm, U,
Lasseck, M, Moczek, N, Lehmann, G and Voigt-Heucke,
SL. 2023. Community engagement and data quality: best
practices and lessons learned from a citizen science project
on birdsong. Journal of Ornithology, 164(1): 233–244. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-022-02018-8
Kullenberg, C and Kasperowski, D. 2016. What is citizen
science?–A scientometric meta-analysis. PloS ONE,
11(1): e0147152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0147152
Moczek, N, Hecker, S and Voigt-Heucke, SL. 2021. The known
unknowns: what citizen science projects in Germany
know about their volunteers—and what they don’t know.
Sustainability, 13(20): 11553. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/
su132011553
Nascimento, S, Iglesias, JMR, Owen, R, Schade, S and Shanley,
L. 2018. Citizen Science for policy formulation and
implementation. In: Hecker, S, Haklay, M, Bowser, A, Makuch,
Z, Vogel, J and Bonn, A (eds.) Citizen Science: Innovation in
Open Science, Society and Policy. London: UCL Press. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339
Pettibone, L, Vohland, K and Ziegler, D. 2017. Understanding
the (inter) disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen
science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria.
PloS ONE, 12(6): e0178778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0178778
12Voigt-Heucke et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.585
TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:
Voigt-Heucke, SL, Müller, M and Rostin, J. 2023. How Citizen Science Projects Contribute to Urban Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation
Frameworks—A German Case Study. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 8(1): 30, pp. 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.585
Submitted: 30 September 2022 Accepted: 03 April 2023 Published: 27 June 2023
COPYRIGHT:
© 2023 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press.
Phillips, TB, Ballard, HL, Lewenstein, BV and Bonney, R. 2019.
Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving
beyond data collection. Science Education, 103(3): 665–690.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21501
Phillips, TB, Parker, A, Bowser, A and Haklay, M. 2021. Publicly
generated data: the role of citizen science for knowledge
production, action, and public engagement. Closing
the Knowledge-Implementation Gap in Conservation
Science: Interdisciplinary Evidence Transfer across Sectors
and Spatiotemporal Scales, 83–107. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-030-81085-6_4
Pocock, MJO, Chandler, M, Bonney, R, Thornhill, I, Albin, A,
August, T, Bachman, S, Brown, PMJ, Gasparini Fernandes
Cunha, D, Grez, A, Jackson, C, Peters, M, Romer Rabarijaon,
N, Roy, HE, Zaviezo, T and Danielsen, F. 2018. A vision
for global biodiversity monitoring with citizen science. In
Advances in Ecological Research, 59: 169–223. Academic Press.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2018.06.003
Roche, J and Davis, N. 2017. Citizen science: an emerging
professional field united in truth-seeking. Journal of
Science Communication, 16(4): R01. http://hdl.handle.
net/2262/81809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22323/2.16040601
Saure, C. 2005. Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste der
Kamelhalsfliegen, Schlammfliegen und Netzflügler
(Raphidioptera, Megaloptera, Neuroptera) von Berlin. Der
Landesbeauftragte für Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege/
Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung (Hrsg.): Rote Listen
der gefährdeten Pflanzen und Tiere von Berlin.
Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt
(SenStadtUm Berlin) (Hrsg.). 2012. Berliner Strategie zur
Biologischen Vielfalt – Begründung, Themenfelder und Ziele.
Senatsverwaltung für Umwelt, Verkehr und Klimaschutz (SenUVK
Berlin) (Hrsg.). 2019. Charta für das Berliner Stadtgrün.
Sforzi, A, Tweddle, J, Vogel, J, Lois, G, Wägele, W, Lakeman-
Fraser, P and Vohland, K. 2018. Citizen science and the
role of natural history museums. In Hecker, S, Haklay,
M, Bowser, A, Makuch, Z, Vogel, J and Bonn, A (eds.),
Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and
Policy, 429–444. London: UCL Press. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.14324/111.9781787352339
Shirk, JL, Ballard, HL, Wilderman, CC, Phillips, T, Wiggins, A,
Jordan, R, McCallie, E, Minarchek, M, Lewenstein, BW,
Krasny, ME and Bonney, R. 2012. Public participation in
scientific research: a framework for deliberate design.
Ecology and Society, 17(2): 29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-04705-170229
Theobald, EJ, Ettinger, AK, Burgess, HK, DeBey, LB, Schmidt,
NR, Froehlich, HE, Wagner, C, HilleRisLambers, J,
Tewksbury, J, Harsch, MA and Parrish, JK. 2014. Global
change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential
of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biological
Conservation, 181: 236–244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2014.10.021
Turrini, T, Dörler, D, Richter, A, Heigl, F and Bonn, A. 2018.
The threefold potential of environmental citizen science-
Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and
enabling civic participation. Biological Conservation, 225:
176–186. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.03.024
Wang Wei, J, Lee, BPY and Bing Wen, L. 2016. Citizen science
and the urban ecology of birds and butterflies—a systematic
review. PloS ONE, 11(6): e0156425. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156425
