Data quality in citizen science urban tree inventories |
| |
| Institution: | 1. US Forest Service, Philadelphia Field Station, 100 N. 20th St., Suite 205, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA;2. University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point, College of Natural Resources, 800 Reserve Street, Stevens Point, WI 54481, USA;3. The Morton Arboretum, 4100 Illinois Route 53, Lisle IL 60532, USA;4. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, P.O. Box 66, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden;5. Friends of Grand Rapids Parks, PO Box 3199, Grand Rapids, MI 49501, USA;6. Davey Resource Group, 295 S Water Street, #300, Kent, OH 44240, USA;7. The Davey Institute and US Forest Service, Philadelphia Field Station, 100 N. 20th St., Suite 205, Philadelphia, PA 19103, USA;8. Department of Environmental Horticulture, CLCE, IFAS, University of Florida – Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, 14625 County Road 672, Wimauma, FL, 33598, USA;9. Technical Services and Research, Casey Trees, 3030 12th St. NE, Washington, DC 20017, USA;10. Human Ecology, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA;1. Department of Forest Biology, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand;2. Center for Advanced Studies in Tropical Natural Resources, National Research University-Kasetsart University, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand;3. Mid-Florida Research and Education Center in Apopka, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, FL, USA;1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1731 Research Park Dr., Davis, CA 95618, USA;2. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 800 Buchanan St. Albany, CA 94710, USA;3. University of California Davis, Information Center for the Environment, Davis, CA 95616, USA;1. Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Institute of Forest Growth and Forest Computer Sciences, Pienner Straße 8, 01737 Tharandt, Germany;2. Technische Universität Dresden, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Institute of Forest Botany and Forest Zoology, Pienner Straße 7, 01737 Tharandt, Germany;3. Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt Wald Schnee und Landschaft, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland;4. Technische Universität Dresden, Geodätisches Institut, Hülsse-Bau, Helmholtzstr. 10, 01069 Dresden, Germany;5. Technische Universität Dresden, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Technological Development, Helmholtzstraße 10, 01069 Dresden, Germany;6. Technische Universität Dresden, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Institute of Landscape Architecture, Helmholtzstraße 10, 01069 Dresden, Germany;7. The University of Kansas, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, 1465 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS 66045, United States;1. USDA Forest Service, Philadelphia Field Station, 100 N. 20th St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States;2. Fairmount Park Conservancy, 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1670, Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States;3. Canopy, 3921 E. Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303, United States;4. Apple Inc., 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014, United States;5. University City Green, 4613 Woodland Ave., Philadelphia, PA 19143, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Citizen science has been gaining popularity in ecological research and resource management in general and in urban forestry specifically. As municipalities and nonprofits engage volunteers in tree data collection, it is critical to understand data quality. We investigated observation error by comparing street tree data collected by experts to data collected by less experienced field crews in Lombard, IL; Grand Rapids, MI; Philadelphia, PA; and Malmö, Sweden. Participants occasionally missed trees (1.2%) or counted extra trees (1.0%). Participants were approximately 90% consistent with experts for site type, land use, dieback, and genus identification. Within correct genera, participants recorded species consistent with experts for 84.8% of trees. Mortality status was highly consistent (99.8% of live trees correctly reported as such), however, there were few standing dead trees overall to evaluate this issue. Crown transparency and wood condition had the poorest performance and participants expressed concerns with these variables; we conclude that these variables should be dropped from future citizen science projects. In measuring diameter at breast height (DBH), participants had challenges with multi-stemmed trees. For single-stem trees, DBH measured by participants matched expert values exactly for 20.2% of trees, within 0.254 cm for 54.4%, and within 2.54 cm for 93.3%. Participants’ DBH values were slightly larger than expert DBH on average (+0.33 cm), indicating systematic bias. Volunteer data collection may be a viable option for some urban forest management and research needs, particularly if genus-level identification and DBH at coarse precision are acceptable. To promote greater consistency among field crews, we suggest techniques to encourage consistent population counts, using simpler methods for multi-stemmed trees, providing more resources for species identification, and more photo examples for other variables. Citizen science urban forest inventory and monitoring projects should use data validation and quality assurance procedures to enhance and document data quality. |
| |
| Keywords: | Diameter at breast height Observation error Species misidentification Tree monitoring Urban forest Volunteer monitoring |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
