Nature Conservation 48: 31—56 (2022) ~ ae ha ee
doi: 10.3897/natureconservation.48.79936 RESEARCH ARTICLE Or ES Sao

https:/ / natureconservation. pen soft. net Launched to accelerate biodiversity conservation

Environmental citizen science in Greece:
perceptions and attitudes of key actors

Chrysostomos Galanos’, Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis”?

| Department of Geoinformation for Environmental Management, CIHEAM-MAICh, Greece 2 Faculty of
Pure and Applied Sciences, Open University of Cyprus, Cyprus 3 Department of Environmental and Earth
Sciences, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy

Corresponding author: Ioannis N. Vogiatzakis (ioannis.vogiatzakis@ouc.ac.cy)

Academic editor: J. Tzanopoulos | Received 29 December 2021 | Accepted 10 March 2022 | Published 7 April 2022
Attp://zoobank.org/1 C1 161C5-FBFF-4C80-A8C6-FDB74C46951A

Citation: Galanos C, Vogiatzakis IN (2022) Environmental citizen science in Greece: perceptions and attitudes of key

actors. Nature Conservation 48: 31—56. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.48.79936

Abstract

Citizen Science (CS), the voluntary participation of lay people in scientific work, is well-established in
the fields of nature conservation and biodiversity monitoring due to its potential to create large environ-
mental datasets. This study aims to understand the familiarity, perceptions and attitudes towards CS of
the key environmental actors in Greece. The target group consisted of employees and/or representatives of
Environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (ENGOs), scientists and civil servants related to nature
conservation. Quantitative data were collected using an electronic questionnaire, 178 fully completed
questionnaires and subsequently eight semi-structured interviews with experts were conducted. Descrip-
tive statistics were used to measure the familiarity and attitude of the actors, as well as the obstacles to the
development of CS in Greece. We used Cronbach’s test to measure the reliability of the used Likert scale
and Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test to identify significant differences amongst the three groups of ac-
tors. Qualitative data were analysed following a Thematic Analysis methodology. The results show that ca.
40% of the key actors are familiar with the terms and CS practice while over 65% with the concept. The
general attitude of the actors towards CS is positive although concerns about data quality collected were
highlighted. “Lack of cooperation culture”, “Ignorance of the existence of the phenomenon” and “Lack
of know-how” emerged as the most important obstacles to CS development in Greece. Although CS is
present in Greece, it is not visible enough. The main reasons are that relevant projects employ different
terms, are under-represented in the formal literature and include limited, if at all, project dissemination.
There are significant differences regarding familiarity and the attitude towards CS between actors, but also
similarities concerning the main obstacles. The study sets a baseline which can be employed to improve

and further expand Environmental Citizen Science (ECS) in Greece.

Copyright C. Galanos & I. N.Vogiatzakis. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

32 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31—56 (2022)

Keywords

Academia, government, mixed methods, nature conservation, NGOs, survey

Introduction

Public participation and knowledge production can take many forms (Shanley et al.
2019) with Citizen Science being, perhaps, the most widely used and better under-
stood by the public. In fact, the practice of Citizen Science (CS) is not new, since for
most of the recorded history, it was the public that advanced science - often by just
observing nature (Miller-Rushing et al. 2012). The history of amateurs conducting
research and collecting environmental data from the field is very old and expands from
Norway to France, Japan to China and US (Miller-Rushing et al. 2012). Undoubtedly,
the current concept of CS, that is, the involvement of the public in scientific work, has
evolved primarily over the past two decades (Cohn 2008). This is obvious by a num-
ber of indicators, such as the steep rise in the biodiversity-orientated CS projects over
the last 30 years (Theobald et al. 2015), the expansion of scientific reports and peer-
reviewed articles resulting from CS project data (Bonney et al. 2014; Vann-Sander et
al. 2016) and the establishment of professional CS organisations around the world, es-
pecially in the US, Europe and Australia (Ellwood et al. 2017). Moreover, CS projects
cover a breadth of scientific disciplines from biology and biodiversity data collection,
to the interpretation of astronomic images, archaeology and chemistry (Dickinson et
al. 2010; Conrad and Hilchey 2011; Franzoni and Sauermann 2014; Kullenberg and
Kasperowski 2016).

There are certain factors which enabled the proliferation of CS during the last dec-
ades. One of the most important drivers is the technological breakthrough and all the
new possibilities for data gathering and dissemination of information from the public
(Silvertown 2009; Dickinson et al. 2012). These technological innovations include the
internet, smartphones, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), web geographic informa-
tion system applications, the increased availability of domestic internet connections
and the reduction of costs for computer storage. On one hand, the increasing realisa-
tion amongst professional scientists that the public can provide free labour, skills, com-
puting power and even funding and, on the other hand, the growing demands from
large research funders for public engagement led to new and innovative CS projects
(Cohn 2008; Silvertown 2009). In addition to technological factors, social factors also
played an important role in the expansion of CS. Two of those prevail. The first one
is the growth in the population of well-educated individuals who possess the skills to
perform scientific tasks, but do not use their knowledge in their daily life. The second
factor is the increase in leisure activities as a result of the reduction in working hours in
advanced economies (Haklay 2013).

CS is best established in biological sciences and, in particular, in biodiversity and
natural resources monitoring (Follett and Strezov 2015; Kullenberg and Kasperowski
2016; Schade and Tsinaraki 2016; Pettibone et al. 2017; Pocock et al. 2017). Nowa-
days, probably the principal reason for this dominance of biology-related CS projects

Environmental citizen science in Greece 33

is the realisation of scientists that CS is perhaps the only practical way to gather data at
large geographical scales, time periods and private lands. Such large datasets are neces-
sary for biologists to understand the processes and to address ecological questions, such
as climate change, patterns of migration and spread of diseases (Dickinson et al. 2010).

In recent years, a number of studies reviewed the field of Environmental Citizen
Science (ECS), to determine the effective use of the data collected in biodiversity re-
search (Theobald et al. 2015; Chandler et al. 2017), to assess the diversity and evolu-
tion of the ECS field (Pocock et al. 2017), to understand the diversity of CS in specific
countries (Pettibone et al. 2017) or to assess projects that can be of relevance to envi-
ronmental European policy (Bio Innovation Service 2018).

Studies about CS as a social phenomenon have dealt mainly with how the citizens
react, participate and understand it, with emphasis mainly on motivations (Alender
2016; Domroese and Johnson 2017) or barriers to participation (Martin et al. 2016).
For example, information from interviews with representatives of biodiversity-record-
ing organisations shed light on motivations of citizens to participate in biodiversity-
monitoring CS projects and demonstrated that people from socio-economically de-
prived areas are under-represented in those schemes (Hobbs and White 2012). Dur-
ing recent years, emphasis is given in motivation to participate in online CS projects
(Raddick et al. 2010; Nov et al. 2014), the use of smartphones (Land-Zandstra et al.
2016b) and gamification strategies (Greenhill et al. 2016) to enhance citizens’ partici-
pation. What remains limited though, are insights about the main initiators/groups of
actors of ECS projects (ENGOs, scientists, governmental organisations) and interac-
tion between those engaged (Rotman et al. 2012; Weng 2015). Motivation and data
collection are perceived differently by citizens and groups of actors (Jiang et al. 2018)
with scientists more concerned about the quality of data and peers’ approval (Riesch
and Potter 2014; Burgess et al. 2017) rather than the opinion and needs of citizens
when engaging in ECS projects.

In Greece, most of the examples of ECS projects are usually initiated by ENGOs,
such as the Hellenic Ornithological Society (HOS) or the Hellenic Marine Environ-
ment Protection Association (HELMEPA). The country may benefit from such pro-
jects given that: a) its biodiversity is considered to be one of the richest in endemism
in Europe and in the Mediterranean (Georghiou and Delipetrou 2010) and that: b)
due to the recent economic crisis, the adoption of an austerity programme (Matsaganis
2014) has weakened environmental administration and surveillance mechanisms, add-
ing extra threats to Greek biodiversity (Lekakis and Kousis 2013). Therefore, CS has
a distinct role to play as a mechanism to support nature conservation as well as public
engagement with nature and science (Devictor et al. 2010). Nevertheless, the specific
cultural and socio-economic characteristics of each country play a decisive role in the
success or failure of such projects. These might be expressed through past environmen-
tal history, collaborative culture, legal frameworks and organisational context. Recom-
mendations exist in literature, but most studies come from relatively rich, industrialised
countries and little knowledge exists for the specific challenges of initiating monitoring
schemes in different contexts (Danielsen et al. 2003) with few perhaps exceptions (e.g.
Loos et al. 2015). Although users’ profiles are important factors in shaping citizen

34 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

science (Amarasinghe et al. 2021; Aristeidou et al. 2021), this study focuses on three
specific sectors (Public bodies, Research/Academic Community, ENGOs) since they
are the ones which deal with conservation on a day-to-day basis, can formulate policies
and/or influence decision-making.

The aim of the study is to understand the perceptions and attitudes of the main
actors engaged in environmental management and nature conservation in Greece to-
wards CS. ‘Three target groups, environmental data collection actors, from ENGOs,
research centres and/or higher educational institutions (Universities/Technological In-
stitutes) and government sectors were selected. ‘To achieve this aim, five key questions
were addressed:

¢ to what extent are the three groups of actors familiar with the term, the con-
cept and practice of CS?

e what is the attitude of the actors towards CS?

e which are the main obstacles to the development of CS in Greece?

e which are the main reasons for the reduced visibility of the term in Greece?

e are there significant differences amongst the actors in relation to the above-
mentioned questions?

Materials and methods

The research approach was based on mixed methods and, more specifically, an explana-
tory sequential, where a quantitative step was first conducted, followed by a qualitative
part to elucidate the most interesting findings. In the first quantitative phase of the
study, survey data were collected from a number of respondents using an electronic
questionnaire (Appendix 1 Questionnaire). The sample was drawn from a population
of professionals within the field of environmental monitoring and nature conservation:
employees and members of ENGOs, environmental scientists working on research
centres and higher educational institutions (Universities/Technological institutes) and
civil servants and government authorities all engaged in the topic of environmental
conservation. This represents a convenient sampling technique; thus, our results can-
not be considered representative and cannot be generalised. However, for exploratory
studies like this one, convenience samples are considered sufficient (Sue and Ritter
2007, 25).

Our sample comprised 644 emails, both personal and organisational. Contact de-
tails including e-mail addresses used in this study were publicly available on the inter-
net through the organisations’ official website (for researchers and civil servants) and
the database for ENGOS maintained and regularly updated by the National Centre for
Social Research in Greece (1 EKKE/IAAK. (n.d.). Retrieved 17 February 2019, from
http://ekke.gr/estia/eng pages/eng index.htm)

The questionnaire included questions on demographics, familiarity with the term,
the concept and the practice of CS, using a Likert-scale with an aim to capture the
perceptions and attitudes of the actors towards CS. The statements expanded from the

Environmental citizen science in Greece 35

most cited positive effects of the practice (Devictor et al. 2010; Dickinson et al. 2010;
Roy et al. 2012; Science Communication Unit 2013; Pocock et al. 2014) up to the
most common reasons for reluctance to accept it, for example, data quality (Rotman
et al. 2012, 2014; Hyder et al. 2015; Minkman et al. 2015; Geoghegan et al. 2016;
Burgess et al. 2017; Haklay et al. 2017), as well as a question about the main obstacles
to the development of CS in Greece. All the questions of the survey were compulsory,
except for a question about the name of the organisation and the last field where the
respondents were asked to provide their e-mails in case they were also willing to pro-
vide an interview. For the compulsory questions, the option “I do not know / | do not
answer or “| do not answer” was also given to the respondents.

We piloted the questionnaire by distributing to six researchers, one representative
of an ENGO and a public servant who provided initial feedback. Their answers were
not included in the final dataset, while those respondents did not answer the final ver-
sion of the questionnaire. The survey was initiated on the 23 April 2018 and it was
closed on the 17 May 2018. The software used to publish the survey and collect the
responses was LimeSurvey Version 2.06, an open-source online survey tool installed
on the servers of CIHEAM-MAICh. The questionnaire was designed to take approxi-
mately ten minutes.

Those quantitative data were used to answer four out of the five research questions.
The quantitative data from the survey were imported and analysed in Rstudio Version
1.1.453 (R version 3.3.3). Ggplot2, reshape2 and sjp.likert functions in R were used to
produce the graphs. Descriptive statistics, such as summaries, percentages, means and
standard deviations, were also calculated.

After the initial data analysis, the fourth research question was formulated. The
qualitative phase was conducted to help answer the fourth research question and ex-
plain the most important results of the third research question. For the second phase
of the study, semi-structured interviews of eight experts were conducted.

For the purposes of the qualitative part of the research, a smaller sample of 30
possible interviewees was created after an initial analysis of the questionnaire data.
The possible interviewees were selected on the basis of two criteria: they were familiar
with the term and/or the practice of CS and they had responded positively in the final
question of the survey concerning their availability for a telephone interview. First, the
participants that met the above-mentioned criteria were identified and then ten for
each group of actors were randomly selected. Even if the aim of the semi-structured in-
terviews was to interview representatives from all three groups of actors, unfortunately,
we did not receive a positive reply from any representative of the public sector. Thus
we interviewed five employees/representatives from ENGOs and three scientists from
the research/academic sector.

The interviews were undertaken from 26 June to 17 July 2018. The interview
guide was composed of one introductory question, two main topics of discussion and
a closing part where the interviewees were asked to write anything additional which
they considered important. The introductory question was how the interviewee’s work
is related to environmental monitoring and nature conservation. One main topic of
discussion was about possible reasons for the non-visibility of CS in Greece. Regarding

36 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

the other topic, the interviewees were asked to provide their opinion about the first two
obstacles to the development of CS in Greece as depicted from the survey.

In particular, the methods used to answer the research questions were as follows:
for the first research question, we calculated percentages from questions B3, B4 and B5
of the questionnaire (see Appendix 1). For the second research question, we employed
questions C1 and C3 of the questionnaire (Appendix 1). Question Cl was a Likert-
scale question of eighteen statements. Alpha function was used to calculate Cronbach's
a for reliability analysis. To measure the positive or negative attitude of the respondents
towards the Likert statements, we assigned numeric values from 1 up to 4 correspond-
ing to their level of agreement (Not at all (1), A little (2), Significantly (3), A lot (4)).
The negative wording statements were reversed. Then the sum for each statement was
divided by the number of the respondents minus the “I! don’t know / | don’t answer”
cases. Summing the means of all the 18 statements, we concluded with a score between
18 and 72, depicting the attitude of the respondents towards CS. Then this score was
converted to a 0-100 scale to facilitate interpretation. The same process was followed
for all the respondents and for each group of actors. From question C3, a table of per-
centages was produced.

For the third research question, at first, we employed question C2 of the ques-
tionnaire and percentages were calculated. During the semi-structured interviews (see
Appendix 2 for the list of interviewees), some clarification concerning the first two
main obstacles was asked by the experts. The answers were analysed using a Thematic
Analysis approach (Attride-Stirling 2001).

For the fourth research question, we analysed the transcribed experts’ interviews
using a thematic network analysis approach (Attride-Stirling 2001) to RQDA soft-
ware. In total, 125 codes were generated. Out of these codes, fourteen categories, or
themes, emerged in relation to the reasons for the non-visibility of the practice in
Greece and to interpret better the two main obstacles in the development of the CS in
Greece according to the actors.

Finally, for the fifth research question, comparisons amongst the three groups of
actors were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by post-hoc pairwise
comparisons with the Dunn-Bonferroni approach.

Results

Out of the 644 e-mails sent, we received 80 delivery failures with 564 emails reaching
their target. The survey resulted in 178 fully completed questionnaires, so a return rate
of about 30% which is the usual response rate for web-based surveys (Sue and Ritter
2007, 8). From the survey respondents, 16.9% work or represent an ENGO, 30.9%
are researchers and 52.2% are working in public bodies.

Regarding familiarity of the actors with the term (see question B3), 41.6% of
the respondents answered “Yes”, 57.9% answered “No” and 0.6% choose the option
“] don't know/I don't answer’. The percentages differed significantly when we exam-
ine the results within the three different groups of actors. Researchers were the most

Environmental citizen science in Greece 37

familiar group with 72.7% answering that they know the term CS, followed by the
representatives from ENGOs with 53.3% and then the public servants with 19.4%.

To investigate the familiarity of the actors with the concept, we employed question
B4, with 34.8% of the respondents answering “None of the above”, which means that
the remaining 65.2% knew at least one of the terms which relate to CS (Fig. 1).

The researchers are the ones who were most familiar with the concept of CS since
they had the lowest percentage (16.4%) for the option “None of the above” when
asked if they know the terms. The second familiar group was the NGOs with 23.3%
followed by the public sector with 49.5% (Fig. 2).

50% - _48,3%

Figure |. Responses to question B4 “Do you know any of the following terms” (all respondents).

Ss ENGO's
@ Public Bodies
@ Researchers

T T T
Public participation Crowdsourcing Volunteered Geographic Crowd Science Community-based None of the above
In scientific research (PPSR) Information (VGI) Environmental monitoring

Figure 2. Responses to question B4 “Do you know any of the following terms” (per group of actors).

38 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

Finally, regarding the familiarity of the actors with the actual practice of CS, we em-
ployed question B5 for which 39.3% of the respondents answered “Yes” to that ques-
tion, 57.3% answered “No” and 3.4% chose the option “I don’t know/| don't answer”.

In order to answer the second research question of this study, we analysed the re-
sponses to question Cl and C3 of the questionnaire. The Likert scale used in C1 had
internal reliability: Cronbach's a = 0.79. As a general rule of thumb, reliabilities with
Cronbach's a above 0.7 are considered acceptable (Cortina 1993).

For the analysis of the Likert scale, numeric values were assigned to the levels of
agreement of the respondents and then the mean was calculated for each item and a
total sum of all the items. Since the range of the numeric values that we chose to assign
was from 1 up to 4, the mean of each item falls within this range. According to this
rationale, an item with a mean close to the upper (4) or lower (1) value has a clearer
depiction (positive or negative) of the attitude of the actors towards the relevant state-
ment. On the other hand, items with a mean value around 2.5 are statements more
debatable that divide the respondents. Moreover, the scores of the negative wording
statements have been reversed. The sum of the items - for all the respondents and for
each group separately - was converted to a 0-100 scale for better interpretation. The
scores for all the respondents and for each group of actors are presented in Table 1.

Finally, regarding the attitude of the actors towards CS, question C3, 76.4% of the
respondents answered “Yes”, 6.7% answered “No” and the remaining 16.9% chose the
option “I don’t know/I don’t answer”.

Within the groups of actors, the researchers and the employees/representatives of
the NGOs had very similar answers. Around 90% believe that a CS programme would
be a positive addition to their activities. The majority of the public sector (63.4%) was
also positive; 26.9% answered “I don’t know/| don't answer” and 9.7% chose the op-
tion “No” (Fig. 3).

To answer the third research question of this study, we used the responses to ques-
tion C2. The results are presented in Fig. 4 for all the respondents and Fig. 5 for each
group of actors. In these two figures, the dark green colour represents the three most
important obstacles while light green shows the obstacles above 20%. The three most
important obstacles for all the respondents were “Lack of cooperative culture”, “Ig-
norance of the existence of the phenomenon” and “Lack of know-how”. The first two
obstacles stand out from the rest with 53.9% and 45.5%, respectively. The third ob-
stacle was selected in ca. 30% of the responses, while the rest of the obstacles received
under 25%.

Table 2 presents all the obstacles above 20% - for all the respondents and for each
group of actors. From this table, it becomes obvious that five obstacles are very im-
portant for all the actors while some obstacles are of importance mainly for the public
bodies and the researchers.

Following the quantitative analysis, we aimed to further clarify the first two obsta-
cles. Therefore, during the interviews, we asked the experts what they believe the rea-
sons were for those obstacles. Regarding the first obstacle “lack of cooperation culture”,
one important reason that was mentioned by the majority of the interviewees was the
problematic operation of the State. This statement refers to a range of activities, such

Environmental citizen science in Greece 39

as inconsistent policies and official committees that never function, the absence of
participatory processes, no continuity in the priorities of the ministries due to political
changes and long delays. Some other reasons were: the absence of volunteering men-
tality in Greece, types of behaviour that make difficult the relationships between the
research community and the NGOs, lack of proper information and finally, the lack of
a culture of acknowledgment by both the State and the researchers creates problems in
possible collaborations with the public and NGOs.

Regarding the second obstacle “Ignorance of the existence of the phenomenon’,
two main reasons emerged through the interviews. We termed the first one “Lack of
external stimulus” to refer to bureaucratic organisations with no motivation for partici-
patory research or practices. The second reason was that the actors (ENGOs, research-
ers, public bodies) have not communicated the term successfully to the general public,
so there is a lack of relevant information.

Table |. Mean values per statement of the Likert scale and total sum of the means.

Statements All NGOs Public Bodies Researchers
CS can support the collection of environmental data on a large geo- 3.04 3.39 2.83 3.19
graphic scale
Data gathered by citizens is not sufficiently reliable to use for public 2.48 3.00 2.34 2.44
policy
CS can help environmental awareness of ordinary citizens 3.46 3.62 3.27, 3.69
The quality of environmental data collected by non-professionals is 29) 9 FANT 2.41 2.49
inadequate for scientific research
CS can contribute to the collection of environmental data in cases of 3.14 3.46 3.08 3.07
limited resources (Time, Money)
Increasing the phenomenon of CS may pose a threat to some jobs of 3.45 3.79 3.31 3.49
professional scientists
CS can support government agencies in collecting environmental data 2.61 2.86 2.60 2.51
as a cost-effective alternative
CS can help democratise science through the involvement of citizens in 2.64 3.07 2.47 2.70
scientific processes
The collection of environmental data with low-cost devices such as Brlta— B56 2.99 owl
smartphone sensors is un-acceptable in the context of scientific research
CS can help create social cohesion through voluntary engagement of 3.12 3.48 2.97 3.16
citizens, building skills and engaging in problem-solving processes
Citizens do not have enough incentives to volunteer in scientific 2310 210 229 2.45
research
Citizens cannot follow the protocols required by the collection of envi- 2.52 2.59 2.50 2.58
ronmental data in the context of scientific work
CS can help to involve different stakeholders in policy design and 2.93 3.24 2.75 3.05
management of local ecosystems
CS can help to create creative activity for people outside the labour 01'S 5.28 2.87 3.09
market, for example, retirees
With appropriate training, ordinary citizens can collect environmental 3.15 3.62 299 3.18
data of satisfactory quality
CS can support local communities to protect the environment S227” BS B12 3.36
Collaboration with volunteers from the general public is usually 2:83 ~ 3:03 2.67 3.00
problematic
The resources required (time, money) for a citizens’ science programme 3.01 3.32 2.85 3.04

are excessive in relation to the results it generates
Sum (range 18-72) 52.67 58.05 50.30 53.68
Sum (conversion 0-100 range) 64.21 74.16 59.82 66.08

40 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

100,0%
90,0% 90,9% Yes
90,0%
No
80,0% mtdon't
know /
70,0% Idon't |
63,4% answer
60,0% —
50,0%
40,0%
30,0% — 26,9%
20,0% —
9.7%
10,0% — 67% ae 55%
iy (1) 7 ‘0
Jo Ly mE

ENGO’'s Public Bodies Researchers

Figure 3. Responses to question C3 of the questionnaire (per groups of actors)
“Do you think that a Citizen Science programme would offer something positive to your organisation's

activities or to the research you are conducting?”

60.0% =

53.9%

40.0% =

29.8%
23.0% oli! Dp
20,0% « 9, 18.5%
16.9% 14.6% 15.7%
ae) 1%
al Seta
“Sop ss “204 <a¢y Loy, £36, % Pe More, Oss, tH.
ve ta oF oF te %e sg Sp! p, ™ ms
~ ‘Go, .
Qe fap, Ris. ty, Ces ad “a te Col? ng eh WS,
by vin, % ad “6, Cf >, cots In
ee % J & a) Weng! Or er, ¢
We “hg, No, 23, aA Sea Com, Sgp ne,
ye “Cop "ey, OF. "A ps Props "6
% Yor Wey, a i
gy “es sey, py:
” “io Ns

Figure 4. Main obstacles to the development of Citizen Science in Greece (all respondents). Dark green
shows the first three obstacles, light green obstacles above 20%.

During the semi-structured interviews, the interviewees were asked their opinion
about the main reasons for the reduced visibility of the term in Greece. A reason that
was reported is that the researchers who participate in CS projects often do not publish
due to data quality issues. Another reason is that CS within the organisations, if it ex-
ists, is a side-line activity, amongst others. Thus, it is not easy to be promoted because
promotion needs extra time and effort and the resources normally are scarce. In ad-
dition, most of the CS projects that are initiated with some form of EU funding (e.g.

Environmental citizen science in Greece 4]

Horizon or LIFE+ programmes), do not continue once the funding is over (usually
the end of the project). Therefore, there is insufficient time to develop and disseminate
their added value in the society. Finally, the majority of the interviewees mentioned
that the term is not so visible in Greece because organisations that run relevant projects
do not use the term Citizen Science.

The familiarity with the term, the concept and the practice of CS differed signifi-
cantly amongst the three groups of actors as demonstrated by the Kruskal-Wallis test
(Table 3). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons, using the Dunn-Bonferroni test, revealed
that respondents from public bodies are significantly less familiar with CS than re-
spondents from ENGOs and the researchers.

From the eighteen statements of the Likert scale, the Kruskal-Wallis test depicted
eight statements as statistically significant (Table 4). The most contradictory pair of
actors is "ENGOS-public bodes" which is statistically significantly different in seven
statements from the eighteen of the scale. Then the pair “researchers-public bodies”
is significantly different in three statements and lastly, the “ENGOs-researchers” pair
differs significantly on two occasions.

NGOs
60% - 56.7% aie

% 6.

,. —_— | ae eee 223 33%

Public bodies
609 rapt
40% 25.8%
20.4% 20.4% :

20% 12.9% 11.8% c f 15.17% 10.8%

ae Ea 3.2% 1.1%

Researchers.

te 29.1%
oni 25.5% al 18.2% 255% 20% 20% 21.8% rae
fs f é d ra ay, ca)
Chg 7h hoy *M fe ses "8a, _ Oo gity "Spy, = Nop Mor
Mey bi 8s, Ge 4 ‘85 9, 2)
it fa) a ts) pe. Vey ay Ue)
“ake? be, Mi, Cy oe o ous, iy, or Bo Ooi’ mg 4 ts Ps wy
“ip ye nglOr (ty Fo, % the Pap, ;: Cops 4 Ne, f
Ut : ap Chis 2p apy “tia, Cop, Og hg,
S é me e M op: We
“@ oF. -} 12S oF p Y py an cn Ja
ep “hep, om 4 Sip, Coys
(a) a Prog Sit
5
Op, = Ce “ion

Figure 5. Main obstacles to the development of Citizen Science in Greece (per group of actors). Dark
green shows the first three obstacles, light green obstacles above 20%.

Table 2. Obstacles over 20% for all the respondents and per group.

Obstacles All Public Bodies Researchers

ENGOs

53.9% (1*)

60% (1*)

45.2% (1*)

Lack of cooperation culture

Ignorance of the existence of the phenomenon

Lack of know-how

Low levels of trust from citizens to the institutions
Lack of incentives on the part of citizens

Internal issues of organisational nature

Lack of incentives on the part of the institutions
Typical requirements for compliance to specific data
collection protocols

45.5% (274)
29.8% (3°)
24.7% (4")
23.0% (5")
21.3% (6")

56.7% (2"*)
26.7% (4")
36.7% (3")
26.7% (4")

44.1% (2°)
31.2% (3°)
20.4% (5*)
20.4% (5")
25.8% (4*)
20.4% (5)

25.8% (4")

65.5% (1")
41.8% (2”*)
29.1% (3*)
25.5% (4")
25.5% (4")
20.0% (6")
20.0% (6")
21.8% (5")

Insufficient legal framework

42 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

Table 3. Comparisons of familiarity with Citizen Science using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by pair-

wise comparisons using the Dunn-Bonferroni test.

Familiarity Kruskal-Wallis test Pairwise comparisons
H df P-Value Pairs P-Value r

With the term 426 2 0.000 ENGOs — Public Bodies 0.0014* 33
ENGOs — Researchers 0.1302 -1.71
Researchers — Public Bodies 0.0000* -6.36

With the concept 18.68 2 0.000 ENGOs — Public Bodies 0.0138* -2.6
ENGOs — Researchers 0.7806 0.64

Researchers — Public Bodies 0.0001* 4.07

With the practice 17.02 2 0.000 ENGOs — Public Bodies 0.0193* 2.49
ENGOs — Researchers 0.8105 -0.61
Researchers — Public Bodies 0.0002* -3.89

*: Statistically significant difference detected at p < alpha/2, alpha = 0.05 (after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple
comparisons).

Table 4. Statistically significant Likert-scale statements using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by pairwise

comparisons using the Dunn-Bonferroni test.

Familiarity Kruskal-Wallis test Pairwise comparisons
H_ df P-Value Pairs P-Value rr
CS can support the collection of environmen- 11.52 2 0.003 © ENGOs-— Public Bodies 0.0072* -2.82
tal data on a large geographic scale ENGOs — Researchers 0.8027 0.62

Researchers — Public Bodies 0.0120* -2.65
Data gathered by citizens is not sufficiently 11.24 2 0.004 ENGOs- Public Bodies 0.0021* -3.2
reliable to use for public policy ENGOs — Researchers 0.0047* -2.95
Researchers — Public Bodies 1 0.01
The quality of environmental data collected by 12.81 2 0.002 | ENGOs- Public Bodies 0.0026* 3.14

non-professionals is inadequate for scientific ENGOs-— Researchers 0.0009* -3.43
research Researchers — Public Bodies 0.7264 -0.7
CS can help democratise science through the 6.99 2 0.030 © ENGOs- Public Bodies 0.0175* 2.52
involvement of citizens in scientific processes ENGOs — Researchers O3469% v1.2
Researchers — Public 0.1942 -1.52
The collection of environmental data with TB9. td. W0019 ENGOs — Public 0.0091* -2.74
low-cost devices, such as smartphone sensors, ENGOs — Researchers 0.206 -1.49
is un- acceptable in the context of scientific Researchers Public Bodies “02406. 4
research
CS can help create social cohesion through 6.55 2 0.038 | ENGOs-— Public Bodies 0.0229* 2.43
voluntary engagement of citizens, build- ENGOs — Researchers 0.3989 1.11
ing skills and engaging in problem-solving Reserchess aPabite 0.1967. -1.51
processes
CS can help to involve different stakehold- 15.37 2 0.000 ENGOs — Public 0.0027* 3.13
ers in policy design and management of local ENGOs — Researchers 0.9311 0.49
ecosyeteis Researchers — Public 0.0021* -3.2
Collaboration with volunteers from the general 10.13 2 0.006 ENGOs — Public 0.0408 -2.21
public is usually problematic ENGOs — Researchers 1 0.09

Researchers — Public Bodies 0.0066* 2.85

*: Statistically significant difference detected at p < alpha/2, alpha = 0.05 (after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple
comparisons).

Environmental citizen science in Greece 43

Table 5. Statistically significant obstacles using the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by pairwise comparisons

using the Dunn-Bonferroni test.

Obstacle Kruskal-Wallis test Pairwise comparisons
H df P-Value Pairs P-Value r

Insufficient legal framework 1237-5 2 0.002 ENGOs — Public Bodies 0.1703 -1.58
ENGOs — Researchers 0.3826 1.14

Researchers — Public Bodies 0.0008* 3.47

Lack of cooperation culture 18.68 2 0.000 ENGOs — Public Bodies 0.2361 1.41
ENGOs — Researchers 0.946 -0.48

Researchers — Public Bodies 0.0255 =239

*: Statistically significant difference detected at p < alpha/2, alpha = 0.05 (after Bonferroni adjustment for multiple
comparisons)

Lastly, two obstacles were statistically significant amongst the three groups of ac-
tors: “Insufficient legal framework” and “Lack of cooperation culture” (Table 5). After
the Dunn-Bonferroni post-hoc pairwise comparisons, only the obstacle about the in-
sufficient legal framework revealed a significantly differed pair. This pair was research-
ers vs public sector employees, with 3.6% of the former and 25.8% of the latter choos-
ing "Insufficient legal framework” as one of the main obstacles to the development of

CS in Greece.

Discussion

This study's aim was to understand the perspectives of the three main groups of envi-
ronmental actors in Greece towards CS. Similar studies about the main initiators of
ECS projects (ENGOs, researchers, governmental organisations) are limited.

To our knowledge, no other comparative studies between the main initiating ac-
tors of ECS projects (ENGOS, researchers and relevant public bodies) have been con-
ducted in Greece to date. Our initial hypothesis was that the majority of the actors in
Greece would not be familiar with the practice. After the completion of the quantita-
tive part of the study, it became evident that the reality in the field was rather differ-
ent. Therefore, the findings that the three groups of actors have significant differences
amongst them (Tables 3, 4 and 5), with researchers being more familiar amongst the
three groups, with the most positive group towards CS coming from ENGOs, can be
considered as the first of this kind.

Regarding the familiarity with CS, we are not aware of another study that quan-
titatively depicts the knowledge of the actors concerning the term, the concept or the
practice of CS. Nevertheless, at a survey of public familiarity with the CS term and
concept, we read “...we found that less than half of respondents were familiar with the
term “citizen science,” but over 70% were familiar with the concept by another name.
(Lewandowski et al. 2017). This is very similar to our questionnaire results where
41.6% knew the term, 65.2% knew the concept and 39.3% have participated in a
project with CS characteristics.

44 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

We found that, in Greece, the term “Public participation in scientific research”
(PPSR) is the most familiar amongst the representatives of the actors and this comes in
contradiction with the notion expressed in other studies that PPSR has proven to be
difficult to use and that the term “citizen science” is already well-established (Eitzel et
al. 2017). Regarding the positive attitude of the actors towards CS, our findings are in
agreement with previous studies. For example, Minkman et al. (2017) found that wa-
ter practitioners in The Netherlands are willing to embrace CS while Riesch and Potter
(2014) found that, for scientists participating in Open Air Laboratories (OPAL), CS
projects have been a very positive experience.

The term crowdsourcing and crowd science were those for which the actors who
took part in the study demonstrated less familiarity (Fig. 1). This is despite the increas-
ing use of participatory research during the past 20 years. Although not synonymous,
the terms are part of the gradient in participatory research where science meets society.
Both CS and crowdsourcing may facilitate the dialogue between researchers and public
and increase the influence of citizens on research agenda formulation. However, there
have been increased concerns about crowdsourcing taking over citizen science which
may result in displacing other forms of participatory research (Eitzel et al. 2017).

The concerns about data quality collected by citizens are well reported in litera-
ture (Burgess et al. 2017) and our study is no exception. Moreover, Riesch and Potter
(2014), in exploring the perceptions of scientists about CS, found that the concern of
scientists for any disapproval by their colleagues in case they use citizens’ data might
discourage them from doing so. Nevertheless, the actors in Greece believe, similarly
to other studies (Danielsen et al. 2005; Bio Innovation Service 2018), that, with ap-
propriate training, citizens can collect quality environmental data.

Although previous studies suggest that, very often, the main motivation for citizen
scientists’ involvement is to contribute to science (Raddick et al. 2013; Alender 2016;
Land-Zandstra et al. 2016a), according to the opinion of the actors in our study “citi-
zens do not have enough incentives to volunteer/engage in scientific research’. Either the
actors are right that the public in Greece have low incentives for engaging in general
or the actors are failing to recognise volunteers’ prevalent motivations (Rotman et al.
2012). Previous studies support strongly the opinion of the actors regarding the low
levels of volunteering trust and social capital in Greece (Lyberaki and Paraskevopoulos
2002). For example, according to the 2008 European Social Survey, the percentage of
Greeks who believe that one needs to be cautious of others and thus not trust them was
almost double compared to the European average (Clarke et al. 2015, 11). Many stud-
ies have emphasized the crucial importance of trust-based relationships and credibility
for a sustainable collaborative environment (Rotman et al. 2012; Stone et al. 2014;
Vann-Sander et al. 2016). Such an environment is a must for ECS projects to flourish.

Semi-structured interviews revealed two possible causes regarding the first obsta-
cle i.e. “Lack of cooperation culture”. The first is the relationships amongst the three
groups of actors (issues of trust, recognition, reward) and the second, a luck of culture
of volunteering in Greek society. Those are in agreement with previous studies that
argue for the low levels of trust, volunteerism and social capital in Greece (Clarke et al.

Environmental citizen science in Greece 45

2015, 10-11). If we will consider that the fourth and fifth obstacle, “Low levels of trust
from citizens to the institutions” (24.7%) and “Lack of incentives on the part of citi-
zens” (23%), respectively, are somehow related with the issue of trust, we understand
the multi-faceted influence of this factor.

Finally, our findings regarding the basic reasons of the reduced visibility of CS
in Greece are in agreement with previous studies. More specifically, the first reason
emerging from the semi-structured interviews conducted with the Greek actors was
the under-representation of CS in formal literature. This possibility is well docu-
mented in the literature and has mainly two causes. The first one is related to the
scientists’ concerns about data quality (Burgess et al. 2017) and their perceptions
that CS data will not be well received by other scientists (Riesch and Potter 2014).
The second one is that some CS projects do not have as their objective peer-reviewed
publication, for example, NGO projects that mainly aim to educate or affect policy
(Burgess et al. 2017). The other reason for reduced visibility of the term in Greece
was the usage of different terms in relevant projects. This finding is also in agree-
ment with other studies reporting on a variety of terms used to describe data arising
from citizens (Shirk et al. 2012; Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016; See et al. 2016;
Eitzel et al. 2017). The third obstacle about problematic or no promotion of relevant
projects, for example, no website, no relevant articles in the press, is mentioned in a
report by Roy et al. (2012), but also by other authors who tried to create indexes of
CS projects (Chandler et al. 2017; Pettibone et al. 2017; Pocock et al. 2017; Bio In-
novation Service 2018).

Implications for Future CS Attempts and Further Work

A key finding of this study was that a significant percentage of actors in Greece, who
are professionally involved in the environmental data collection procedure, are famil-
iar with the term, the concept or the practice of CS. This finding can have important
implications for future ECS attempts since it makes clear that familiarity with CS is
not the main issue amongst the actors. A practical step following this finding could be
the organisation of a congress or a forum about ECS in Greece. Such an event would
be important in order to build synergies and trust amongst the actors, that is partly,
the number one obstacle to the development of CS in Greece according to the actors.

Since we know which terms are the most familiar within the groups of actors, a
possible implication is that the concept of CS can be communicated more effectively in
order to be understood by the audience. For example, if we want to communicate the
idea to a governmental institution, it is advisable to mention also the terms “commu-
nity - based environmental monitoring” or “public participation in scientific research”
since our chances to convey the concept will significantly increase. The same goes for the
ENGOs, mainly for the term “public participation in scientific research’.

Our findings showed that all the groups of actors (ENGOs, researchers, public
bodies) are positive towards CS, although to varying degrees. This information could
be important if we would like to follow the advice of Bonney et al. (2009) “A successful

46 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

CS project requires a development team comprising multiple disciplines. ... Small groups
or organisations that do not have internal access to all disciplines can partner with other
organisations or adapt national CS projects for use at local or regional scales.” . In Greece,
the majority of the organisations are small to medium size, so the idea of partnerships
probably is the most viable one. Of course, the issue of trust and the consequent lack
of cooperation culture in Greece are the main obstacles to the development of CS in
the country. However, a practical result of this study is the specific information arising
about each group of actors and which can be used for future efforts. For example, we
identified the existence of a legal framework as important factor for the public bodies
and compliance to specific data collection protocols important for scientists. Moreo-
ver, from the analysis of the Likert scale, we can observe differences amongst the groups
of actors in greater detail.

In addition to similarities, the study also highlighted significant differences
amongst the group of actors who usually initiate ECS projects. These actors are char-
acterised by different levels of familiarity with CS and relevant terms, they prioritise
differently the obstacles and they are more positive or negative towards different as-
pects of CS. Further studies are needed to understand the motivations of scientists
and citizens to engage in collaborative projects. For example, Rotman et al. (2012)
found that the motivations of participants shift over time and often the scientists are
unaware or mistaken about those. Another study showed that the perceptions about
CS between experts and citizens can differ and this can lead to conflicts and distrust
(Weng 2015) or that the experts and the citizens have different views of formal and
informal environmental sensing data (Jiang et al. 2018). These studies can be support-
ive especially for building synergies and interdisciplinary ECS working groups. More
in-depth research in the direction of assessing the perspectives of the actors towards
possible collaborations, needs assessment for building ECS projects, mapping the dif-
ferent organisational skills and aligning them with the needs within the framework of
synergies could be of much help for the development of the field. Moreover, research
on case studies of ECS projects that are collaborations of ENGOs, governmental or-
ganisations and research institutes we believe are of high importance. Lessons learned
and best practices could be of much support, especially for similar contexts to Greece
where organisations are of small size without specialised know-how. Future qualitative
research should be conducted regarding civil servants and especially their point of view
for the main obstacle to the development of CS in Greece that was “Lack of coopera-
tive culture”. Despite our efforts, their point of view is missing in this study. We believe
that is of great importance if we want to understand better the relationships amongst
the actors.

The factors that influence the application of CS are diverse and include the specific
socio-economic characteristics of each country and geographical regions, history and
culture of volunteerism, NGO activity, social capital etc. (Burgess et al. 2017). This
study was an exploratory one for Greece and we are aware of at least one in a similar
context in Romania (Loos et al. 2015). Despite the fact that the interviews and the
questionnaire were carried out in 2018 and significant progress in CS has been made

Environmental citizen science in Greece 47

since then, the results set a baseline for further similar studies in Greece as a means to
monitor progress in a fast-expanding field.

The daily use of mobile apps, social media and online platforms has increased
familiarity of lay persons with similar tools engaged in CS nowadays (Willis et al.
2017; Zotos and Vogiatzakis 2018). This familiarisation became a necessity during the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and resulted in a fast-paced mass digital transition.
The ability of the actors in Greece and elsewhere to take advantage of this transition,
so to create CS online projects, is an important parameter that we have not explored
in this study.

As CS advances, new challenges emerge, such as the participants’ personal data
protection in CS projects (Suman and Pierce 2018). In the European Union, the legal
context is quite advanced with General Data Protection Regulation (G.D.P.R) being
the main legal text since 2016 (European Parliament and the Council of 27, 2016).
However, the level of familiarity and compliance of the actors with G.D.PR obliga-
tions is still variable and should be the focus of future research.

There is a need for more regional studies if we want to better understand the spe-
cific challenges to the development of CS - and of citizen engagement in biodiversity
and conservation science in general - in modern societies.

Conclusions

Contrary to our initial hypothesis, we demonstrated that the actors in Greece are fa-
miliar with and have a positive view of CS to a great extent (majority of respondents in
Academia and ENGOs and ca. 50% of public servants). We found significant differ-
ences amongst the groups of actors regarding aspects of CS - such as familiarity with it
- but also similarities, for example, concerning the main obstacles to the development
of CS. We argue for the importance of comparative studies amongst the actors in terms
of building knowledge to support synergies and interdisciplinary working groups. The
main reasons for the reduced visibility of the term CS in Greece became obvious and
are in agreement with previous research. ‘The specific historical and socio-economic
context which characterises a country or a geographically-defined area underpins the
adoption and implementation of CS. We argue that more studies in different socio-
economical contexts and possible comparisons between them, would be of scientific
interest and of practical use to formulate public policies. For example, a study from
Romania exploring the challenges to initiate a new CS monitoring scheme (Loos et al.
2015) would be of more relevance with the Greek context rather than studies from the
US or UK. In addition and given that “ignorance of the existence of the phenomenon”
was ranked the second most important obstacle by the actors for the development of
CS, there is a need for raising public awareness of CS itself. Towards that direction, a
web portal would support further the development of CS in the country by dissemi-
nating results beyond the end of each project and create a web presence for projects
which currently lack one.

48 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the eight interviewees for the willingness and time to partici-
pate in this study, namely: Giorgos Theodoridis, Stelios Kazantzis, Christos Arvanitidis,
Giorgos Kalliampetsos, Christos Georgiadis, Christina Contaxi, Manolia Vougiouka-
lou and Thomi Vlachogianni. In addition, we are grateful to all those who responded
to the questionnaire.

References

Alender B (2016) Understanding volunteer motivations to participate in citizen science projects:
a deeper look at water quality monitoring. Journal of Science Communication, Special Is-
sue: Citizen Science, Part II 15(3): A04. [19 pp] https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15030204

Amarasinghe I, Manske S, Hoppe HU, Santos P, Hernandez-Leo D (2021) Using network
analysis to characterize participation and interaction in a citizen science online commu-
nity. In International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Social Computing.
Springer, Cham, 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85071-5_5

Aristeidou M, Herodotou C, Ballard HL, Young AN, Miller AE, Higgins L, Johnson RF (2021)
Exploring the participation of young citizen scientists in scientific research: The case of
iNaturalist. PLoS ONE 16(1): e0245682. https://doi.org/10.137 1/journal.pone.0245682

Attride-Stirling J (2001) Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualita-
tive Research 1(3): 385-405. https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410100100307

Bio Innovation Service (2018) Citizen science for environmental policy: development of an
EU-wide inventory and analysis of selected practices. Final report for the European Com-
mission, DG Environment under the contract 070203/2017/768879/ETU/ENV.A.3, in
collaboration with Fundacion Ibercivis and The Natural History Museum, 98 pp.

Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg KV, Shirk J (2009) Citi-
zen Science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy.
Bioscience 59(11): 977-984. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9

Bonney R, Shirk JL, Phillips TB, Wiggins A, Ballard HL, Miller-Rushing AJ, Parrish JK (2014)
Next steps for citizen science. Science 343(6178): 1436-1437. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.1251554

Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Froehlich HE, Schmidt N, Theobald EJ, Ettinger AK, Theobald J,
Tewksbury J, Parrish JK (2017) The science of citizen science: Exploring barriers to use as
a primary research tool. Biological Conservation 208: 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2016.05.014

Chandler M, See L, Copas K, Bonde AMZ, Lopez BC, Danielsen EK, Legind JK, Masinde S,
Miller-Rushing AJ, Newman G, Rosemartin A, Turak E (2017) Contribution of citizen
science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biological Conservation 213: 280-
294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.09.004

Clarke J, Huliaras A, Sotéropoulos DA (2015) Austerity and the third sector in Greece: civil
society at the European frontline. Ashgate Publishing Company, Farnham, Surrey, Surrey,
England; Burlington, VT, 273 pp.

Environmental citizen science in Greece 49

Cohn JP (2008) Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? A.I.B.S. Bulletin 58: 192—
197. https://doi.org/10.1641/B580303

Conrad CC, Hilchey KG (2011) A review of citizen science and community-based environ-
mental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
176(1-4): 273-291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5

Cortina JM (1993) What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. The
Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

Danielsen F Mendoza MM, Alviola P, Balete DS, Enghoff M, Poulsen MK, Jensen AE (2003)
Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: What are we trying to achieve? Oryx
37 (04): 407-409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000735

Danielsen FE, Burgess ND, Balmford A (2005) Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of
locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11): 2507-2542. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10531-005-8375-0

Devictor V, Whittaker RJ, Beltrame C (2010) Beyond scarcity: citizen science programmes as useful
tools for conservation biogeography: Citizen science and conservation biogeography. Diver-
sity & Distributions 16(3): 354-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00615.x

Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN (2010) Citizen science as an ecological research tool:
Challenges and benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41(1):
149-172. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636

Dickinson JL, Shirk J, Bonter D, Bonney R, Crain RL, Martin J, Phillips T, Purcell K (2012) The
current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Fron-
tiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(6): 291-297. https://doi.org/10.1890/110236

Domroese MC, Johnson EA (2017) Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volun-
teers in the Great Pollinator Project. Biological Conservation 208: 40-47. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.020

Eitzel MV, Cappadonna JL, Santos-Lang C, Duerr RE, Virapongse A, West SE, Kyba CCM,
Bowser A, Cooper CB, Sforzi A, Metcalfe AN, Harris ES, Thiel M, Haklay M, Ponciano
L, Roche J, Ceccaroni L, Shilling FM, Dorler D, Heigl F, Kiessling T, Davis BY, Jiang Q
(2017) Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory
and Practice 2(1): el. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96

Ellwood ER, Crimmins TM, Miller-Rushing AJ (2017) Citizen science and conservation: Rec-
ommendations for a rapidly moving field. Biological Conservation 208: 1-4. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.014

European Parliament and the Council of 27 (2016) Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the Euro-
pean Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons
with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and
repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
Follett R, Strezov V (2015) An analysis of citizen science based research: Usage and publication
patterns. PLoS ONE 10: e0143687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143687
Franzoni C, Sauermann H (2014) Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in
open collaborative projects. Research Policy 43(1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.re-
spol.2013.07.005

Geoghegan H, Dyke A, Pateman R, West S, Everett G (2016) Understanding motivations
for citizen science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm

50 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England. UK
Environmental Observation Framework.

Georghiou K, Delipetrou P (2010) Patterns and traits of the endemic plants of Greece. Bo-
tanical Journal of the Linnean Society 162(2): 130-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-
8339.2010.01025.x

Greenhill A, Holmes K, Woodcock J, Lintott C, Simmons BD, Graham G, Cox J, Oh EY,
Masters K (2016) Playing with science: Exploring how game activity motivates users par-
ticipation on an online citizen science platform. Aslib Journal of Information Management
68(3): 306-325. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-11-2015-0182

Haklay M (2013) Neogeography and the delusion of democratisation. Environment & Plan-
ning A 45(1): 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1068/a45184

Haklay M, Antoniou V, Basiouka S, Soden R, Deparday V, Ryan M, Mooney P (2017) Iden-
tifying success factors in crowdsourced geographic information use in government. Global
Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery. WorldBank.

Hobbs SJ, White PCL (2012) Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation
in biodiversity recording. Journal for Nature Conservation 20(6): 364-373. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jnc.2012.08.002

Hyder K, Townhill B, Anderson LG, Delany J, Pinnegar JK (2015) Can citizen science con-
tribute to the evidence-base that underpins marine policy? Marine Policy 59: 112-120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.04.022

Jiang Q, Bregt AK, Kooistra L (2018) Formal and informal environmental sensing data and
integration potential: Perceptions of citizens and experts. The Science of the Total Environ-
ment 619-620: 1133-1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.329

Kullenberg C, Kasperowski D (2016) What is citizen science? — A scientometric meta-analysis.
PLoS ONE 11: e0147152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152

Land-Zandstra AM, van Beusekom M, Koppeschaar C, van den Broek J (2016a) Motivation
and learning impact of Dutch flu-trackers. Journal of Science Communication 15(01):
A04. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15010204

Land-Zandstra AM, Devilee JL, Snik EK Buurmeijer EF van den Broek JM (2016b) Citizen
science on a smartphone: Participants’ motivations and learning. Public Understanding
of Science (Bristol, England) 25(1): 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515602406

Lekakis JN, Kousis M (2013) Economic crisis, troika and the environment in Greece. South Eu-
ropean Society & Politics 18(3): 305-331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13608746.2013.799731

Lewandowski E, Caldwell W, Elmquist D, Oberhauser K (2017) Public perceptions of citizen
science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 2(1): e3. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.77

Loos J, Horcea-Milcu Al, Kirkland P, Hartel T, Osvath-Ferencz M, Fischer J (2015) Challenges
for biodiversity monitoring using citizen science in transitioning social—ecological systems.
Journal for Nature Conservation 26: 45—48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.05.001

Lyberaki A, Paraskevopoulos CJ (2002) Social capital measurement in Greece. In International
Conference of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
London, 25-27.

Martin V, Smith L, Bowling A, Christidis L, Lloyd D, Pecl G (2016) Citizens as scientists:
What influences public contributions to marine research? Science Communication 38(4):

495-522. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016656191

Environmental citizen science in Greece >.

Matsaganis M (2014) The catastrophic Greek crisis. Current History (New York, N.Y.)
113(761): 110-116. https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2014.113.761.110

Miller-Rushing A, Primack R, Bonney R (2012) The history of public participation in eco-
logical research. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10(6): 285-290. https://doi.
org/10.1890/110278

Minkman E, van Overloop PJ, van der Sanden MCA (2015) Citizen science in water qual-
ity monitoring: mobile crowd sensing for water management in The Netherlands.
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015, 1399-1408. https://doi.
org/10.1061/9780784479 162.138

Minkman E, van der Sanden M, Rutten M (2017) Practitioners’ viewpoints on citizen sci-
ence in water management: A case study in Dutch regional water resource management.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 21(1): 153-167. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-
153-2017

Nov O, Arazy O, Anderson D (2014) Scientists@Home: What drives the quantity and quality
of online citizen science participation? PLoS ONE 9: e90375. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0090375

Pettibone L, Vohland K, Ziegler D (2017) Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institu-
tional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria.
PLoS ONE 12: e0178778. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178778

Pocock MJO, Chapman DS, Sheppard LJ, Roy HE (2014) A strategic framework to sup-
port the implementation of citizen science for environmental monitoring. Final Report to
SEPA. Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxfordshire. An edited version of
parts 1: e4.

Pocock MJO, Tweddle JC, Savage J, Robinson LD, Roy HE (2017) The diversity and evolution
of ecological and environmental citizen science. Achal V (Ed.). PLoS ONE 12: e0172579.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172579

Raddick MJ, Bracey G, Gay PL, Lintott CJ, Murray P, Schawinski K, Szalay AS, Vandenberg
J (2010) Galaxy Zoo: Exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. Astronomy
Education Review 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3847/AER2009036

Raddick MJ, Bracey G, Gay PL, Lintott CJ, Cardamone C, Murray P, Schawinski K, Szalay
AS, Vandenberg J (2013) Galaxy Zoo: Motivations of citizen scientists. arXiv preprint
arXiv: 1303.6886.

Riesch H, Potter C (2014) Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemo-
logical and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England) 23(1):
107-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625 13497324

Rotman D, Preece J, Hammock J, Procita K, Hansen D, Parr C, Lewis D, Jacobs D (2012)
Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. Proceedings of
the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, 217-226.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145238

Rotman D, Hammock J, Preece JJ, Boston CL, Hansen DL, Bowser A, He Y (2014) Does
motivation in citizen science change with time and culture? ACM Press, 229-232. https://
doi.org/10.1145/2556420.2556492

Roy HE, Pocock MJO, Preston CD, Roy DB, Savage J, Tweddle JC, Robinson LD (2012) Under-

standing citizen science & environmental monitoring. Final Report on behalf of UK-EOF

52 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

Schade S, Tsinaraki C (2016) Survey report: data management in citizen science projects. Pub-
lications Office, Luxembourg. http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?targets=EUB:NOTICE:LB
NA27920:EN:HTML

Science Communication Unit (2013) Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report: Envi-
ronmental Citizen Science. University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. Report pro-
duced for the European Commission DG Environment.

See L, Mooney P, Foody G, Bastin L, Comber A, Estima J, Fritz S, Kerle N, Jiang B, Laakso
M, Liu H-Y, Milcinski G, Niksi¢ M, Painho M, Péd6r A, Olteanu-Raimond A-M, Rutz-
inger M (2016) Crowdsourcing, citizen science or volunteered geographic information?
The current state of crowdsourced geographic information. ISPRS International Journal of
Geo-Information 5(5): e55. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi5050055

Shanley LA, Parker A, Schade S, Bonn A (2019) Policy perspectives on citizen science and crowd-
sourcing. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 4(1): e30. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.293

Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, McCallie E, Minarchek
M, Lewenstein BV, Krasny ME, Bonney R (2012) Public participation in scientific re-
search: A framework for deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17(2): art29. https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-04705-170229

Silvertown J (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24(9):
467-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017

Stone J, Barclay J, Simmons P, Cole PD, Loughlin SC, Ramon P, Mothes P (2014) Risk reduc-
tion through community-based monitoring: The vigias of Tungurahua, Ecuador. Journal of
Applied Volcanology 3(1): e11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13617-014-0011-9

Sue VM, Ritter LA (2007) Conducting online surveys. SAGE Publications, Los Angeles,
194 pp. https://doi.org/10.4135/978 1412983754

Suman AB, Pierce R (2018) Challenges for citizen science and the EU Open Science agenda
under the GDPR. European Data Protection Law Review 4(3): 284-295. https://doi.
org/10.21552/edpl/2018/3/7

Theobald EJ, Ettinger AK, Burgess HK, DeBey LB, Schmidt NR, Froehlich HE, Wagner C,
HilleRisLambers J, Tewksbury J, Harsch MA, Parrish JK (2015) Global change and local
solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Bio-
logical Conservation 181: 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.10.021

Vann-Sander S, Clifton J, Harvey E (2016) Can citizen science work? Perceptions of the role
and utility of citizen science in a marine policy and management context. Marine Policy
72: 82-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.026

Weng Y-C (2015) Contrasting visions of science in ecological restoration: Expert-lay dynamics
between professional practitioners and volunteers. Geoforum 65: 134-145. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.023

Willis CG, Law E, Williams AC, Franzone BF, Bernardos R, Bruno L, Hopkins C, Schorn C,
Weber E, Park DS, Davis CC (2017) CrowdCurio: An online crowdsourcing platform to
facilitate climate change studies using herbarium specimens. The New Phytologist 215(1):
479-488. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14535

Zotos S, Vogiatzakis IN (2018) CyROS: Towards a common methodological framework
for roadkills recording in Cyprus. Ecologia Mediterranea 44(1): 109-114. https://doi.
org/10.3406/ecmed.2018.2033

Environmental citizen science in Greece a3

Appendix |

Questionnaire

Demographics

A1(Q1). What is the type of organisation you represent or work with? (List (radio))
¢ Environmental NGO

¢ University / Technological institute

e Research Centre

¢ Protected area management body

¢ Decentralised administration / local government
° Ministry

e Natural History Museum

Other

A2(Q2). Name of the organisation you represent or work with (Short free text)
A3(Q3). Working area (List with comment)

e Athens

° Thessaloniki

¢ Other city (10,000 + residents)

¢ Town (2,000 up to 10,000 residents)

e Village (up to 2,000 residents)

e | don’t answer

A4(Q4). Gender (List (radio))

e Man

e Woman

e | don’t answer

A5(Q5). Age (List (radio))

° 18-24

¢ 25-34

° 35-44

e 45-54

° 55-64

¢ 65 and above

¢ | don’t answer

A6(Q6). Education level (List (radio))

¢ | didn’t go to school at all

¢ Secondary education graduation

¢ Private Institute for Vocational Training

¢ Public Institute for Vocational Training

¢ University / Technological institute

¢ Postgraduate / Doctorate

General questions related to the Citizen Science phenomenon
B1(Q7). As an institution (or as a researcher), have you been involved in an environ-
mental data collection activity? (List (radio))

e Yes

54 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

¢ No

¢ | don’t know / | don’t answer

B2(Q§8). As an institution (or as a researcher), have you ever involved ordinary citizens
as volunteers in environmental actions that you have organised? (List (radio))

e Yes

¢ No

¢ | don’t know / | don’t answer

B3(Q9). Did you know the term ’Citizen Science’ before completing the question-
naire? (List (radio))

e Yes

¢ No

¢ | don’t know / | don't answer

B4(Q10). Do you know any of the following terms? (Multiple choice)

¢ Public participation in scientific research (PPSR)

¢ Crowdsourcing

¢ Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI)

¢ Crowd science

¢ Community-based environmental monitoring

¢ None of the above

B5(Q11). As an institution (or as a researcher), have you been involved in a scientific
programme for collecting environmental data with Citizen Science features i.e. involv-
ing ordinary citizens?

(List (radio))

e Yes

¢ No

¢ | don’t know / | don't answer

Attitudes, Perceptions, Obstacles

C1(Q12). How much do you agree with the following statements? - A lot, Signifi-
cantly, a little, not at all, | don’t know / | don’t answer - (By the term Citizen Science, we
mean scientific activities in which ordinary citizens participate voluntarily in the col-
lection of data and/or in the analysis and/or dissemination of a scientific work) (Array)
¢ Citizen Science can support the collection of environmental data on a large geo-
graphic scale

¢ Data gathered by citizens is not sufficiently reliable to use for public policy

¢ Citizen Science can help environmental awareness of ordinary citizens

¢ The quality of environmental data collected by non-professionals (ordinary citizens)
is inadequate for scientific research

¢ Citizen Science can contribute to the collection of environmental data in cases of
limited resources (Time, Money)

¢ Increasing the phenomenon of citizen science may pose a threat to some jobs of
professional scientists

¢ Citizen Science can support government agencies in collecting environmental data as
a cost-effective alternative

Environmental citizen science in Greece 55

¢ Citizen Science can help democratise science through the involvement of citizens in
scientific processes

¢ The collection of environmental data with low-cost devices, such as smartphone sen-
sors, is unacceptable in the context of scientific research

¢ Citizen Science can help create social cohesion through voluntary engagement of
citizens, building skills and engaging in problem-solving processes

¢ Citizens do not have enough incentives to volunteer in scientific research

¢ Citizens cannot follow the protocols required by the collection of environmental data
in the context of scientific work

¢ Citizen Science can help to involve different stakeholders in policy design and man-
agement of local ecosystems

¢ Citizen Science can help to create creative activity for people outside the labour mar-
ket, for example, retirees

e With appropriate training, ordinary citizens can collect environmental data of satis-
factory quality

¢ Citizen Science can support local communities to protect the environment

¢ Collaboration with volunteers from the general public is usually problematic

e The resources required (time, money) for a citizens’ science programme are excessive
in relation to the results it generates

C2(Q13). What do you think are the main obstacles to the development of the Citizen
Science phenomenon in Greece? Please select no more than 3 replies (Multiple choice)
¢ Insufficient legal framework

¢ Ignorance of the existence of the phenomenon

¢ Lack of cooperation culture

¢ Disapproving types of behaviour and attitudes by members/employees, for example,
negative attitude from the management

¢ Lack of incentives on the part of citizens

¢ Lack of know-how (technical issues, volunteer management ...)

¢ Lack of resources (time, money)

¢ Low levels of trust from citizens to the institutions

e Lack of incentives on the part of the institutions (distrust of the results of such a
programme, for example, data quality)

¢ Internal issues of organisational nature (e.g. rigidity, bureaucracy)

¢ Typical requirements for compliance to specific data collection protocols

¢ Possible conflicts of interest, for example, employees who are employed in data col-
lection to treat it as a threat

¢ I do not know / I do not answer

¢ Other

C3(Q14). Do you think that a Citizen Science programme would offer something
positive to your organisation’s activities or to the research you are conducting? (List
with comment)

° Yes

° No

56 C. Galanos & I. N. Vogiatzakis / Nature Conservation 48: 31-56 (2022)

¢ | don’t know / | don’t answer

Question for interview

D1(Q15). In the case of a telephone interview for the purposes of this diploma thesis
(duration of 30' up to 60' minutes) (List with comment)

¢ I would probably be positive

¢ Maybe

e In no case

D2. Contact info, email (Short free text)

Appendix 2

Table Al. List of Interviewees.

Interviewee number Role Date
Interviewee | Employee at the Environmental Organisation for Wildlife and Nature CAL- 26 June 2018
LISTO

Interviewee 2 Member of environmental NGO “Ecological Collaboration” 28 June 2018

Interviewee 3 Programme/ Policy Officer at The Mediterranean Information Office for Envi- 17 June2018
ronment, Culture & Sustainable Development (MIO-ECSDE)

Interviewee 4 Associate researcher Institute of Environmental Physics and Sustainable Devel- 27 June 2018

opment, National Observatory of Athens, Greece

Interviewee 5 Senior Researcher at Institute of Marine Biology, Biotechnology and Aquacul- 27 June 2018
ture (IMBBC), Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR)

Interviewee 6 Researcher at Museum of Zoology of the National and Kapodistrian Univer- 28 June 2018

sity of Athens
Interviewee 7 Employee at the environmental NGO Hellenic Ornithological Society 6 July 2018

Interviewee 8 Director of environmental NGO MEDITERRANEAN SOS Network 5 July 2018