What are participation dynamics in a Citizen Observatory?

Why is it relevant?

What are participation dynamics in a CO?

Participation dynamics in your CO refer to the different ways participants, stakeholders, and the CO initiative engage and interact with one another. In other words, participation dynamics describe what it means to participate in a CO (Gharesifard et al., 2019). There is a range of participation levels within citizen engagement projects, based on factors such as the degree of involvement and engagement of participants in the different activities that the CO undertakes (Bonney et al., 2009a; Haklay, 2015; Kullenberg and Kasperowski, 2016). Some COs may require in-depth participant involvement in the design, running and monitoring of activities, while others involve participants only in data collection. It is therefore important to understand the level of participation expected of participants when examining participation dynamics. The explicit or implicit goals and objectives of a CO provide a key reference point when aiming to understand participation dynamics.

Deep Dive: Participation Dynamics

As outlined in an analysis by Gharesifard et al. (2019) during the Ground Truth 2.0 project, participation dynamics are diverse, and can be impacted by a range of factors, such as the goals and objectives of COs, extent of participation, geographic scope, participant groups, effort required to participate, support offered for participation, communication patterns, and methods of engagement.

To make participation dynamics more tangible, we outline the following aspects as entry points for understanding:

• Effort and support: what participants are required to do to take part, and how this is facilitated

• Participant groups: how participants come together, collaborate, and organise within the CO

• Activities: the kinds of tasks participants are involved in (e.g., data collection, analysis, decision-making)

• Outcomes: how participation links to both individual benefits and the broader goals of the CO

Τhe effort required to participate and the support offered for participation are two interrelated factors that significantly influence participation dynamics. The level of effort needed from participants, such as time, expertise, or monetary investments, can impact their willingness and ability to engage in the CO. Simultaneously, the support provided by the initiative's organisers (or other community members), including communication methods, user-friendly platforms, incentives, and training materials, can enhance participants' engagement and facilitate their active involvement in the initiative (Conrad and Daoust, 2008; Ciravegna et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2014; Gharesifard and Wehn, 2016).

Deep Dive: Communication Patterns

Communication patterns within a CO significantly shape participation dynamics. The initiative often acts as a medium for facilitating communication between various stakeholders, and understanding existing communication channels and information flow patterns is essential. Identifying patterns of unidirectional, bidirectional, or interactive communication helps assess how the CO affects and mediates interaction among participants, data aggregators, and policymakers (Liu et al., 2014; Wehn et al., 2015).

Participant groups play a crucial role in shaping participation dynamics in your CO. As the name suggests, participants groups are the groups of individuals, organisations, or stakeholders who are actively involved in various aspects of the CO, including data collection, sharing, analysis, and utilising outputs for decision-making processes. Understanding the composition of participant groups allows for a deeper understanding of inclusion, representation, and potential gaps in stakeholder involvement, which can ultimately influence the effectiveness and outcomes of the initiative (Wehn et al., 2015; Ciravegna et al., 2013; Conrad and Daoust, 2008).

Deep Dive: Geographic Scope

Geographic scope plays a significant role in influencing participation dynamics in a CO. The breadth of focus of an initiative determines the range of stakeholders involved and affected by the initiative, thus impacting the potential pool of participants. Changes in the geographic scope, whether due to growth or a shift in focus, can alter the composition and engagement

Methods of participation in your CO are vital factors influencing participation dynamics. Different modes of communication and decision-making, such as expressing preferences, developing preferences, deliberating and negotiating, and utilising technical expertise, shape how participants interact within the CO. Analysing these methods before and after the initiation of your CO (as explained in the following section 3.2) provides insights into how participants previously engaged in discussions and decisions related to the environmental issue at hand and how the CO may have influenced or altered these interactions (Fung, 2006; Wehn et al., 2015).

References

Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., McCallie, E., Phillips, T., Shirk, J., & Wilderman, C. C. (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE inquiry group report. Online Submission.

Ciravegna, F., Huwald, H., Lanfranchi, V., & Wehn de Montalvo, U. (2013, June 23–27). Citizen observatories: The WeSenseIt vision. Presentation at the INSPIRE Conference, Florence, Italy.

Conrad, C. T., & Daoust, T. (2008). Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environmental Management, 41(3), 358–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-007-9042

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667

Gharesifard, M., & Wehn, U. (2016). To share or not to share: Drivers and barriers for sharing data via online amateur weather networks. Journal of Hydrology, 535, 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.036

Gharesifard, M., Wehn, U., & van der Zaag, P. (2019). What influences the establishment and functioning of community-based monitoring initiatives of water and environment? A conceptual framework. Journal of Hydrology, 579, 124033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124033

Haklay, M. (2015). Citizen science and policy: A European perspective. Woodrow Wilson Center, Commons Lab.

Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 11(1), e0147152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152

Liu, H.-Y., Kobernus, M., Broday, D., & Bartonova, A. (2014). A conceptual approach to a citizens’ observatory: Supporting community-based environmental governance. Environmental Health, 13, 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-107

Roy, H. E., Pocock, M. J. O., Preston, C. D., Roy, D. B., Savage, J., Tweddle, J. C., & Robinson, L. D. (2012). Understanding citizen science and environmental monitoring: Final report on behalf of UK-EOF. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Natural History Museum.

Wehn, U., Rusca, M., Evers, J., & Lanfranchi, V. (2015). Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: A governance analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.017