Decolonizing Digital Citizen Science: Applying the Bridge Framework for Climate Change Preparedness and Adaptation

Inverting social innovation to transform health system responses to climate change adaptation and mitigation in the global south

Systems thinking is aimed at understanding and solving complex problems that cut across sectors, an approach that requires accurate, timely, and multisectoral data. Citizen-driven big data can advance systems thinking, considering the widespread use of digital devices. Using digital platforms, data from these devices can transform health systems to predict and prevent global health crises and respond rapidly to emerging crises by providing citizens with real-time support. For example, citizens can obtain real-time support to help with public health risks via a digital app, which can predict evolving risks. These big data can be aggregated and visualized on digital dashboards, which can provide decision-makers with advanced data analytics to facilitate jurisdiction-level rapid responses to evolving climate change impacts (e.g., direct public health crisis communication). In the context of climate change, digital platforms can strengthen rapid responses by integrating information across systems (e.g., food, health, and social services) via citizen big data. More importantly, these big data can be used for rapid decision-making,a paradigm-changing approach that can invert social innovation, which we define as co-conceptualizing societal solutions with vulnerable communities to improve economic development with a focus on community wellbeing. However, to foster equitable and inclusive digital partnerships that invert social innovation, it is critical to avoid top-down approaches that sometimes result when researchers in the Global North and South collaborate. Equitable Global South-North partnerships can be built by combining digital citizen science and community-based participatory research to ethically leverage citizen-driven big data for rapid responses across international jurisdictions.

Children in All Policies (CAP) 2030 Citizen Science for Climate Change Resilience: a cross-sectional pilot study engaging adolescents to study climate hazards, biodiversity and nutrition in rural Nepal

Background

Young people will suffer most from climate change yet are rarely engaged in dialogue about it. Citizen science offers a method for collecting policy-relevant data, whilst promoting awareness and capacity building. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of engaging Nepalese adolescents in climate change and health-related citizen science.

Methods

We purposively selected 33 adolescents from two secondary schools in one remote and one relatively accessible district of Nepal. We contextualised existing apps and developed bespoke apps to survey climate hazards, waste and water management, local biodiversity, nutrition and sociodemographic information. We analysed and presented quantitative data using a descriptive analysis. We captured perceptions and learnings via focus group discussions and analysed qualitative data using thematic analysis. We shared findings with data collectors using tables, graphs, data dashboards and maps.

Results

Adolescents collected 1667 biodiversity observations, identified 72 climate-change related hazards, and mapped 644 geolocations. They recorded 286 weights, 248 heights and 340 dietary recalls. Adolescents enjoyed learning how to collect the data and interpret the findings and gained an appreciation of local biodiversity which engendered 'environmental stewardship'. Data highlighted the prevalence of failing crops and landslides, revealed both under- and over-nutrition and demonstrated that children consume more junk foods than adults. Adolescents learnt about the impacts of climate change and the importance of eating a diverse diet of locally grown foods. A lack of a pre-established sampling frame, multiple records of the same observation and spurious nutrition data entries by unsupervised adolescents limited data quality and utility. Lack of internet access severely impacted feasibility, especially of apps which provide online feedback.

Conclusions

Citizen science was largely acceptable, educational and empowering for adolescents, although not always feasible without internet access. Future projects could improve data quality and integrate youth leadership training to enable climate-change advocacy with local leaders.

Best practice guidelines for citizen science in mental health research: systematic review and evidence synthesis

Partnering with people most affected by mental health problems can transform mental health outcomes. Citizen science as a research approach enables partnering with the public at a substantial scale, but there is scarce guidance on its use in mental health research. To develop best practise guidelines for conducting and reporting research, we conducted a systematic review of studies reporting mental health citizen science research. Documents were identified from electronic databases (n = 10), grey literature, conference proceedings, hand searching of specific journals and citation tracking. Document content was organised in NVIVO using the ten European Citizen Science Association (ECSA) citizen science principles. Best practise guidelines were developed by (a) identifying approaches specific to mental health research or where citizen science and mental health practises differ, (b) identifying relevant published reporting guidelines and methodologies already used in mental health research, and (c) identifying specific elements to include in reporting studies. A total of 14,063 documents were screened. Nine studies were included, from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, the UK, and the United States. Citizen scientists with lived experience of mental health problems were involved in data collection, analysis, project design, leadership, and dissemination of results. Most studies reported against some ECSA principles but reporting against these principles was often unclear and unstated. Best practise guidelines were developed, which identified mental health-specific issues relevant to citizen science, and reporting recommendations. These included citizen science as a mechanism for empowering people affected by mental health problems, attending to safeguarding issues such as health-related advice being shared between contributors, the use of existing health research reporting guidelines, evaluating the benefits for contributors and impact on researchers, explicit reporting of participation at each research stage, naming the citizen science platform and data repository, and clear reporting of consent processes, data ownership, and data sharing arrangements. We conclude that citizen science is feasible in mental health and can be complementary to other participatory approaches. It can contribute to active involvement, engagement, and knowledge production with the public. The proposed guidelines will support the quality of citizen science reporting.

Citizen Science in Deliberative Systems: Participation, Epistemic Injustice, and Civic Empowerment

In this paper, we bring together the literature on citizen science and on deliberative democracy and epistemic injustice. We argue that citizen science can be seen as one element of "deliberative systems," as described by Mansbridge et al. But in order to fulfil its democratic potential, citizen science needs to be attentive to various forms of exclusion and epistemic injustice, as analyzed by Fricker, Medina and others. Moreover, to tap the potentials of citizen science from the perspective of deliberative democracy, it needs to move towards a more empowered approach, in which citizens do not only deliver data points, but also, in invited or uninvited settings, participate in discussions about the goals and implications of research. Integrating citizen science into the deliberative systems approach embeds it in a broader framework of democratic theory and suggests the transmission of certain practical strategies (e.g., randomized sampling). It can also contribute to realism about both the potentials and the limits of citizen science. As part of a deliberative system, citizen science cannot, and need not, be the only place in which reforms are necessary for creating stronger ties between science and society and for aligning science with democratic values.