| Title |
Delineating the contours of citizen science: development of the ECSA characteristics of citizen science |
| Authors |
Fraisl, Dilek ; Haklay, Muki ; Hager, Gerid ; Wehn, Uta ; See, Linda ; Hecker, Susanne ; Tzovaras, Bastian Greshake ; Gold, Margaret ; Ceccaroni, Luigi ; Kieslinger, Barbara ; Woods, Sasha ; Nold, Christian ; Balázs, Bálint ; Mazzonetto, Marzia ; Rüfenacht, Simone ; Shanley, Lea A ; Motion, Alice ; Sforzi, Andrea ; Dörler, Daniel ; Heigl, Florian ; Vohland, Katrin ; Wagenknecht, Katherin ; Schaefer, Teresa ; Riemenschneider, Dorte ; Lindner, Ariel B ; Weißpflug, Maike ; Mačiulienė, Monika |
| DOI |
10.12688/openreseurope.19411.2 |
| Full Text |
|
| Is Part of |
Open research Europe.. [S.l.] : F1000. 2026, vol. 5, art. no. 128, p. 1-16.. ISSN 2732-5121 |
| Keywords [eng] |
ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science ; citizen science ; citizen science terms and definitions |
| Abstract [eng] |
BACKGROUND: Citizen science is increasingly recognized as a valuable scientific approach across disciplines, contexts, and research areas. However, its rapid expansion and diverse methodologies make it challenging to establish a single definition or universal criteria for what constitutes citizen science. This paper introduces the ECSA Characteristics of Citizen Science, offering a nuanced exploration of the field to support stakeholders, including policymakers and research funders, in understanding and applying citizen science effectively. METHODS: We developed the ECSA Characteristics through a vignette study, a survey method that captures diverse perspectives on complex topics. We then reviewed the ECSA 10 Principles of Citizen Science, a broad framework for best practices in citizen science, to identify its gaps and limitations, showing how the ECSA Characteristics can help address them. RESULTS: The results highlight the disciplinary distinctions as well as ambiguities surrounding various citizen science practices. Two challenges exist when defining citizen science. A very strict definition could exclude valuable practices, hindering innovation and discouraging public participation. Conversely, a loose definition might make it difficult for specific audiences to apply it effectively in their own contexts. Therefore, it is beneficial to adopt an inclusive approach and language that allows the audience to define its own criteria depending on its needs, intended use and specific circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: The ECSA Characteristics were developed in a spirit of openness; identifying areas with diverse and even conflicting views was central to this practice. We recommend their use as a whole set and contend that no one area or characteristic is more important than the other. They should be considered as a toolkit with examples that can guide efforts towards defining citizen science for a specific context and purpose. They are built on the ECSA 10 Principles, addressing some of their gaps and limitations, while at the same time acknowledging the need to update and improve the 10 Principles based on developments in the field. |
| Published |
[S.l.] : F1000 |
| Type |
Journal article |
| Language |
English |
| Publication date |
2026 |
| CC license |
|
