Data, Technology & Verification Systems
Citizen science
The involvement of volunteers in scientific research — from biodiversity sightings to air-quality sensing — now a recognised data source for environmental monitoring and the SDGs.
Expert review openNo editor-accepted expert review yetDefinition
The non-professional involvement of volunteers in the scientific process — most commonly data collection, but also quality assurance, analysis, problem definition and dissemination. In sustainability it spans biodiversity recording, air and water quality sensing, waste auditing and community-based natural-resource monitoring.
References
Definition (non-professional volunteer involvement across the scientific process); role in Green Deal monitoring; Aarhus Convention link.
~33% of SDG indicators addressable; 63% of MEA indicators; Paris Agreement, Sendai and GBF monitoring potential.
Overview
What it means
Citizen science converts distributed public participation into monitoring capacity that official statistics lack. Research mapping its contributions found citizen-science data are contributing, or could contribute, to monitoring roughly a third of SDG indicators, and 63% of indicators across 12 multilateral environmental agreements.
EU institutions treat it as a complementary evidence base for the European Green Deal — biodiversity strategy, zero-pollution ambition, circular-economy monitoring — and as a vehicle for the Aarhus Convention's participatory rights. Persistent challenges: data quality assurance, representativeness, and integration into official statistical systems.
How it is used
Environmental agencies blend citizen data with reference monitoring (air quality, species occurrence); platforms (iNaturalist, eBird, sensor networks) feed research and reporting; regulators and NGOs use citizen-generated data for accountability where official data are absent or contested.
Why it matters
Citizen science democratises environmental evidence — filling monitoring gaps for the SDGs and biodiversity frameworks while building the public engagement that environmental governance depends on.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and verification.
Submitted reviews stay private until accepted.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.