Community science最新文献

When participants share data to a central entity, those who have taken on the responsibility of accepting the data and handling its management may also have control of decisions about the data, including its use, re-use, accessibility, and more. Such concentrated control of data is often a default practice across many forms of participatory sciences, which can be extractive in some contexts and a way to protect participants in other contexts. To avoid extractive practices and related harms, projects can adopt structures so that those who make decisions about the data set and/or each datum are different from those responsible for executing the subsequent decisions about data management. We propose two alternative models for improving equity in data governance, each model representing a spectrum of options. With an individualized control model, each participant can place their data in a central repository while still retaining control of it, such as through simple opt-in or opt-out features or through blockchain technology. With a shared control model, representatives of salient participant groups, such as through participant advisory boards, collectively make decisions on behalf of their constituents. These equitable models are relevant to all participatory science systems, and particularly necessary in contexts where dominant-culture institutions engage marginalized peoples.

Co-production practices are increasingly being adopted in research conducted for the purpose of societal impact. However, the ways in which co-production is conducted can perpetuate long-standing inequity and inequality. This study investigates which principles of co-production design are perceived to advance more equitable processes and outcomes based on the experiences of participants in three projects funded by U.S. federal programs that support decision-relevant climate science, along with others engaged in co-production efforts. We found three distinct perspectives: (a) Ways of Knowing and Power; (b) Participants and Interactions; and (c) Science as Capacity Building. Each viewpoint differentially weights the salience of statements associated with five dimensions of co-production practices: (a) outcomes; (b) power; (c) place-based, community rights and respect; (d) audiences and participation; and (e) interactions. In the final stage of the study, we hosted a workshop of participants representing various roles in co-production efforts to vet and discuss each perspective. We found that the perspectives remained distinct after each of the groups selected core statements that reflect their views. The degree of variation across the three perspectives suggests that co-production processes would benefit from an initial discussion of, and decisions about, rules of engagement to ensure that participants view the process as equitable.

This paper details the operating experience about a case study carried out as a citizen science approach to monitor magnetic particulate matter (PM) in a street canyon in Montpellier, France. A total of 60 passive filters and 12 Hedera Helix pot plants were deployed in 29 households for a period of 3 months, from December 2020 to March 2021. This street canyon was chosen by the academic team because dwellers were already mobilized against the street traffic and its adverse environmental effect on air quality, and because they were in conflict on this issue with policy makers. Despite the project aimed at including all the stakeholders through co-construction, dwellers, elected officials, and staff from technical department of the city were not fully embedded. The announcement of the closure of the street to through traffic during the metrological campaign and the absence of agreement curbed their involvement and motivation. However, the feedbacks from the citizen partners promote the fact that this study supported their claims and brought them a deeper understanding on the micro-scale air quality monitoring. Indeed, it is increasingly difficult for citizens, who seemed specifically interested in what is happening right outside their front door, to understand this measure with the emergence of ever more low-cost sensors. For that reason, we examined the citizen's degree of confidence in magnetic monitoring of air quality and how can this technique be useful in their claims. The results show that magnetism can be a measurement technique favorable to citizen participation because it provides a large amount of data at the micro-scale of the street, while the data from the certified associations for monitoring air quality requires a spatial interpolation to map variations on a neighborhood scale. In this study, we proposed a magnetic air quality index to standardize and democratize the magnetic monitoring of air quality to facilitate the dialogue with all stakeholders.

California is one of the only states actively managing trash in its rivers. Several community groups in Pinole, CA, USA collaborated on a Thriving Earth Exchange community science project. Its purpose was to assess the trash in Pinole Creek and identify policy development opportunities for the community. The key scientific questions were: how much trash was in the creek at the time of the study, what types of trash were most abundant, and where should the community be most concerned about trash in the creek? The team enlisted additional community volunteers at local events. A randomized sampling design and a community science-adapted version of The San Francisco Estuary Institute's Trash Monitoring Playbook was used to survey the trash in the creek. The Thriving Earth Team estimated there were 37 m³ and 47,820 pieces of total trash in the creek channel with an average concentration of 2 m³ per km and 2,697 pieces per km. The community gained an understanding of the scale of the problem. Plastic and single-use trash were most abundant, and the community members expressed high concern about plastic single-use food packaging and tobacco-related waste. The community identified locations in the creek where trash was abundant and prioritized follow-up study locations. Seven new recommendations were presented to the Pinole City Council. The City Council unanimously voted to further discuss ordinance-related recommendations. And that was when community science contributed to local policy development.

Calls for community science as a mechanism to strengthen the connection between the public and science are on the rise (Dwivedi et al., 2022). A Web of Science search for the keyword dimer “community science” in the topic field suggests that this sector of peer-reviewed literature is exploding, from just three papers published in 2015 to over 145 in 2022 (for the data wonks, that's an exponential curve with an R² = 0.9494). This year, 2022, also marks the start of the Community Science Exchange (communityscienceexchange.org/), a collaborative effort of six scholarly societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU), to elevate and celebrate community science in traditional (the peer-reviewed journal Community Science) and novel (web clearinghouse known as the Hub) ways. The Thriving Earth Exchange, one instantiation of community science within the geosciences supported by the AGU, now boasts over 100 projects. These waypoints on the road to making science a more inclusive space in both person and approach suggest we are becoming successful.

But, are we?

Cooper et al. (2021) assert that the apparent rise of community science may be more about renaming than actual community-level inclusion. As organizations from science museums to government agencies attempt to rebrand their public engagement in science programming, community science has become a politically acceptable moniker. But Cooper et al. (2021) point out that the roots of community science lie in social justice, and are deeply enmeshed in the environmental justice movement. In its original form, community science was an umbrella term stretching over participatory action research, community-based participatory research, community-engaged research, and community-owned and managed research. All of these approaches share the features of being from and for the local community. That is, a specific geographic place; often with a shared culture, heritage or lived experience; occasionally with a shared knowledge and skill set (i.e., a community of practice); and almost always underrepresented in and underserved by academic science. Under this definition, community science is an inherently local endeavor often mediated by a boundary spanner with one foot in the world of mainstream science and the other in community (Harris et al., 2021); where discovery science may take a back seat to actionable science; and where the work is co-created by community members and science professionals willing to share the thought, work, and credit space.

Of the 145 articles published in 2022 with “community science” somewhere in the topic fields, 62 were classifiable as primary research (i.e., generating new knowledge). Although all of these papers directly involved publics (i.e., people in general) in the work, only 10 involved specific named communities in co-created, co-produced ways, only three of those

Community-level actions addressing anthropogenic climate change are paramount to survival. However, there are limitations to the current binary approach which considers adaptation and mitigation as mutually exclusive actions. Drawing from research in the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan, this commentary demonstrates: (a) Indigenous knowledge, emerging from a deep connectivity to habitat, cumulative over generations, and empirically-based, is the foundation of ecological calendars; (b) ecological calendars build anticipatory capacity, the ability to envision possible and sustainable futures, for anthropogenic climate change; and (c) this anticipatory approach engages adaptive and mitigative actions to climate change working in tandem to ensure wellbeing and food security. This paper maintains that the adaptation-mitigation continuum involves foresight and action today in preparation for future change. Furthermore, context-specific ecological calendars represent an effective mechanism for communities to build and retain knowledge across generations and deep connections to their habitat. Finally, further modeling needs to be undertaken with participation and leadership from Indigenous and rural communities to understand how they use the adaptation-mitigation continuum for anticipatory action to develop multiple optimal solutions to address environmental change.

The expanding field of community science offers the possibility to augment the way science is done, making closer, two-way connections between researchers, communities, and community members. It enriches and improves science through broadening the scope of problem and hypothesis formulation to include practitioners who will use the results of scientific investigation. It enriches the communities involved through access to and participation in scientific investigations aimed at their own challenges. In this article, we describe a new facility—the Community Science Exchange—that offers venues for both researchers and community practitioners to publish and share their work to the benefit of both science and communities.

Over the past two decades, scientific research on the connections between the health and resilience of marine ecosystems and human health, well-being, and community prosperity has expanded and evolved into a distinct “metadiscipline” known as Oceans and Human Health (OHH), recognized by the scientific community as well as policy makers. OHH goals are diverse and seek to improve public health outcomes, promote sustainable use of aquatic systems and resources, and strengthen community resilience. OHH research has historically included some level of community outreach and partner involvement; however, the increasing disruption of aquatic environments and urgency of public health impacts calls for a more systematic approach to effectively identify and engage with community partners to achieve project goals and outcomes. Herein, we present a strategic framework developed collaboratively by community engagement personnel from the four recently established U.S. Centers for Oceans and Human Health (COHH). This framework supports researchers in defining levels of community engagement and in aligning partners, purpose, activities, and approaches intentionally in their community engagement efforts. Specifically, we describe: (a) a framework for a range of outreach and engagement approaches; (b) the need for identifying partners, purpose, activities, and approaches; and (c) the importance of making intentional alignment among them. Misalignment across these dimensions may lead to wasting time or resources, eroding public trust, or failing to achieve intended outcomes. We illustrate the framework with examples from current COHH case studies and conclude with future directions for strategic community engagement in OHH and other environmental health contexts.