| PPSR model, by degree of participation | |||
| Contributory | Collaborative | Co-created | |
| Outcomes for: | |||
| Individuals | Low potential for enhancing stakeholder capacities*; increased content knowledge and science inquiry skills§; participant appreciation of complexity of ecosystems and ecosystem monitoring‡; indications of changes in attitudes across constituent groups‡; increased technical monitoring skills‡. | Some potential for enhancing stakeholder capacities*; individuals develop intimate knowledge of place and strong sense of stewardship|; participant appreciation of complexity of ecosystems and ecosystem monitoring‡; indications of changes in attitudes across constituent groups‡; increased technical monitoring skills‡; increased participant confidence§; increased knowledge of science concepts and processes§; increased awareness of environmental issues§; increased appreciation of data collection concerns§. | High potential for enhancing stakeholder capacities*; individual capacity to develop protocols, interpret data, and present results|; strong sense of community, commitment|; strong understanding of meaning of data|; meaningful participation in advocacy and decision making|; participant appreciation of complexity of ecosystems and ecosystem monitoring‡; indications of changes in attitudes across constituent groups‡; increased technical monitoring skills‡; increased science content knowledge§; increased science process skills, particularly for refining questions and interpreting data. |
| Science | In developing countries, acknowledgement that local knowledge can be necessary for accessing data*; data precision and accuracy high*; high capacity to inform large-scale monitoring schemes*. | In developing countries, acknowledgement that local knowledge can be necessary for accessing data*; data precision and accuracy high*; high capacity to inform large-scale monitoring schemes*; presentations at professional conferences|; efficient data collection at large scale|. | Intermediate expectations of data precision and accuracy*; intermediate capacity to inform large-scale monitoring schemes*; laboratory experience for students|. |
| Social–ecological systems | Decision-making slow to result*; increased understanding of the impact of management practices‡; fostered shared understanding of ecosystem assessments‡; some degree of increased trust among stakeholders‡; informal communication of monitoring results to community members‡; formal communication of monitoring results to partner agencies‡; some stewardship action and behavior change§. | Decision-making slow to result*; citizens used data to testify at state-level hearings|; agencies used data to revise management practices|; participant gains in knowledge of community structure, environmental regulation, and management strategies§; agency acknowledgement of participant knowledge and credibility§; increased understanding of the impact of management practices‡; fostered shared understanding of ecosystem assessments‡; increased trust among stakeholders‡; formal and informal communication of monitoring results to community‡; increased social capital§. | High potential for prompt decision-making*; outcomes including conservation easements, best management practices, and restoration projects|; funding secured for community initiatives|; increased capacity of university program to partner with community organizations|; participant gains in knowledge of community structure, environmental regulation, and management strategies§; increased understanding of the impact of management practices‡; fostered shared understanding of ecosystem assessments‡; increased trust among stakeholders‡; formal and informal communication of monitoring results to community‡. |
| Costs to: | |||
|
Individuals/ communities |
Intermediate* | Intermediate*; resource intensive†; | High*; responsible for volunteer recruitment and retention|; requires commitment to intensive consensus building process for goal setting|; responsible for planning for action outcomes during design phase, and implementing plan| |
| Researchers | Intermediate* | Intermediate*; resource intensive†; responsible for volunteer recruitment and retention, data analysis, interpretation, and dissemination|; limited technical training and support necessary| | High to establish, low to maintain*; responsible for intensive support of community goal setting|; provide intensive technical training and support|; development of support strategies for community data analysis| |
| Compromises | Data quality can decline if volunteers become complacent after repetitive tasks†; projects designed primarily by agencies or researchers have fewer opportunities for building trust, community, and social outcomes across stakeholder groups‡ | May need to choose between precision and reliability, between data collection for scientific validity and data collection for education and empowerment† | Likely a slower process|; outcomes more aligned with social change than with scientific precision|; projects designed primarily by citizens have fewer opportunities for building trust, community, and social outcomes across stakeholder groups‡ |
|
* Danielsen et al. (2009). Synthesis of
robust outcomes data. Context: natural resource monitoring. † Lawrence (2006). Case studies. Context: voluntary biological monitoring. ‡ Fernandez-Gimenez et al. (2008). Case studies. Context: community-based forestry. § Bonney et al. (2009a). Case studies, focused on informal science education outcomes. Context: public participation in scientific research. | Wilderman et al. (2004). Observed outcomes across projects. Context: volunteer water quality monitoring. |
|||