What are participation dynamics in a Citizen Observatory?

Why is it relevant?

Participation dynamics in a Citizen Observatories influence and shape the engagement of participants and other related stakeholders. Understanding these dynamics helps participants and practitioners design and implement effective strategies to foster meaningful participation, promote inclusion, ensure the sustained involvement of diverse stakeholders and ensure impact of project outputs. By examining motivations, interests, and expectations, as well as the barriers and facilitators of engagement, CO participants and practitioners can tailor their approaches, activities, and communication channels to better meet the needs and preferences of the respective CO community. This understanding also enables the identification of potential challenges, such as unequal power dynamics or underrepresented voices, allowing for the development of targeted interventions and the creation of more equitable and inclusive citizen observatories. Moreover, analysing participation dynamics allows for continuous learning, improvement, and adaptation of practices, resulting in stronger collaboration, increased data quality, and a greater sense of ownership and impact among participants.

What are Participation Dynamics in a Citizen Observatory?

Participation dynamics in a citizen observatory refer to the varied levels of engagement, involvement, and interactions among participants, stakeholders, and the CO initiative itself. As outlined in an analysis by Gharesifard et al. (2019) during the Ground Truth 2.0 project, these 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.

In order to understand participation dynamics, we need to understand how 'participation’ is understood in the context of the CO (Gharesifard et al., 2019). A range of typologies have been proposed to classify levels of participation within citizen engagement projects, based on factors such as the degree of involvement and engagement of participants (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.

Geographic scope plays a significant role in influencing participation dynamics in a citizen observatory. 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 of participants over time (Haklay, 2015; Roy et al., 2012; Wehn et al., 2015).

Participant groups are crucial elements in shaping participation dynamics. These groups consist of individuals, organisations, or stakeholders who are actively involved in various aspects of the citizen observatory, 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).

The 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 citizen observatory. Simultaneously, the support provided by the initiative's organisers, 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).

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).

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

References

Bonney, R., Ballard, H., Jordan, R., et al., (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., et al. 2013 Citizen observatories: the WeSenseIt vision. Presentation at the INSPIRE Conference 2013. Florence, Italy, 23–27 June.

Conrad, C.T. & Daoust, T., 2008. Community-based monitoring frameworks: increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environ. Manage. 41, 358–366.

Fung, A., 2006. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administ. Rev. 66, 66–75.

Gharesifard, M., Wehn, U., 2016a. To share or not to share: Drivers and barriers for sharing data via online amateur weather networks. J. Hydrol. 535, 181–190.

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.

Haklay, M., 2015. Citizen Science and Policy: A European Perspective. The Woodrow Wilson Center, Commons Lab, Washington, USA.

Kullenberg, C., Kasperowski, D., 2016. What Is citizen science? – a scientometric metaanalysis. PloS One 11, 1–16.

Liu, H.-Y., Kobernus, M., Broday, D., et al., 2014. A conceptual approach to a citizens’ observatory–supporting community-based environmental governance. Environ. Health 13, 107.

Roy, H., Pocock, M., Preston C, et al., 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., et al. (2015). Participation in flood risk management and the potential of citizen observatories: a governance analysis. Environ. Sci. Pol. 48, 225–236.