Head: Tobias Reckling, University of Vienna

In the course of creating quality criteria for citizen science projects on Österreich forscht, it soon became apparent that for certain areas recommendations for existing and new citizen science projects were needed, which could be used as a guideline for the project leaders. A very important area is legal issues, which often come up to project leaders for the first time in the context of citizen science projects::

• What is personal data and what is sensitive data?
• How must data be secured?
• May I use the data of my participants for my research?
• May I use images that my participants upload and/or send in the context of the project to promote the project?

These and many more questions are frequently asked by prospective project leaders. And often a project idea is not pursued further due to insufficient knowledge, half-truths or false information and the resulting fears of legal uncertainty.

For this reason, the working group for legal aspects in citizen science is developing a catalog of recommendations for general legal questions in the context of citizen science projects. It is based on the questions of ongoing projects in Austria and the input of lawyers who have specifically dealt with this topic. These recommendations also take into account the new Data Protection Regulations, which will come into force in May 2018, and are intended to provide guidance for starting or revising citizen science projects. However, the recommendations are no substitute for an intensive examination of the topic and, above all, for legal advice, as they can only be elaborated at a very general level.

The results of this working group will now be made freely available to all after completion here on Österreich forscht. If you have any questions about the working group, please feel free to contact us at any time at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. 

Event: "Citizen Science & Law, part 1"

On June 27, 2018, an event on the topic of citizen science and law was held in cooperation with the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, the University of Vienna and the Center for citizen science. The main focus of the event was on the effects of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which had come into force one month earlier, on citizen science projects. You will find the presentation of the speaker Dipl. Ing. Annemarie Hofer at the bottom of the page under the point "Download Attachments". The presentation is based on a master thesis.

A catalogue of recommendations for citizen science projects for implementing GDPR can be found on the Website "Zenodo".

The working group was coordinated in cooperation with Wissenstransferzentrum Ost (WTZ Ost).

Event: "Citizen Science & Law, part 2"

Citizen science thrives on the cooperation between a large number of participants, who bring with them a wealth of experience and a wide range of know-how. By including the potentials and knowledge of the participants, projects are made possible that would otherwise not be conceivable. The cooperation of different people in a research project is accompanied by a great responsibility in terms of data protection and compliance with legal regulations. In addition to the provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), other regulations, such as copyrights (e.g. when creating texts or images) or licensing rights (e.g. when using texts or images) must be observed.

In a joint event on 28 May 2019, the Center for Citizen Science, the Citizen Science Network Austria and the Open Science Network Austria (OANA), as well as the Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Research invited project managers to learn more about “rights to images”, copyright law and licensing law in citizen science projects, among other subjects, and to discuss these with experts.

A report on the event can be downloaded on the website of the OeAD Centre for Citizen Science.

The working group for quality criteria was established to create criteria for the platform that are as objective, traceable and, above all, publicly visible as possible.

Head: Florian Heigl and Daniel Dörler, BOKU University

At the annual platform meeting of Österreich forscht on 1 March 2017, the partners decided to set up a working group on quality criteria for citizen science projects. This became necessary because, due to new funding programmes and the level of awareness of citizen science that has been achieved in the meantime, more and more projects consider themselves as citizen science, which also requested to be included in Österreich forscht. Up to this point, projects were examined by the platform coordinators for consistency with the different definitions of citizen science before they were accepted. In order to create objective, comprehensible and, above all, transparent criteria for the future, the working group for quality criteria was founded. The working group consists of project leaders and partners of Österreich forscht and is headed by Florian Heigl and Daniel Dörler.

Goals

1. Development of binding quality criteria for citizen science projects on Österreich forscht - successfully completed
   At the Austrian Citizen Science Conference 2018, the finalised quality criteria were presented. From March 2017 to February 2018, a total of 20 criteria were created to which all projects on Österreich forscht had to adapt. You can read about how this process was designed and what impact it had on Österreich forscht in an article in Citizen Science:Theory and Practice.
2. Continuous assessment of incoming project listings on Österreich forscht - ongoing
   After the criteria were finalised, the listing process was described transparently on Österreich forscht. The working group has set itself the goal of continuously reviewing the incoming applications for listing and providing assistance in fulfilling the criteria. The aim is to conduct a dialogue with the project leaders, which will lead to a positive result.
3. Creation of assistance and development of a mentoring network on Österreich forscht - ongoing
   In order to prevent misunderstandings in the interpretation of the criteria and to make the listing process as simple as possible, assistance (e.g. FAQs) should be developed. In addition, a mentoring network is to be created in Austria, in which experienced project leaders as well as AG members will support new projects in fulfilling the criteria.

Mentoring programme

In order to facilitate the implementation of the quality criteria in one's own project, a mentoring programme has been launched. The people listed in the mentoring programme are happy to provide support with questions about the quality criteria and citizen science in general. They have experience in the implementation of the criteria and were partly involved in the formulation of the criteria themselves. If you would like to list a project on Österreich forscht and receive support, please write to a mentor who best fits your questions.

Publications of the working group for quality criteria

• You can download the quality criteria in German and English, as well as the corresponding questionnaire in German and English.
• You can find a blogpost on the quality criteria in the Nature scientific journal from 8 November 2017.
• You can find a blogpost on our article on the quality criteria in the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) scientific journal from 23 April 2019. This also includes a Letter to the Editor by Auerbach et al., as well as our reply by Heigl et al.
• You can find our article on the development process of the criteria in Citizen Science:Theory and Practice.

More links

Quality criteria for citizen science projects at the University of Münster

Criteria for Citizen Science Projects at the Citizen Science Center of the University of Zurich and ETH Zurich

If you have any questions about the quality criteria, please feel free to contact us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Head: Florian Heigl, BOKU University

During the annual platform meeting of the Citizen Science Network Austria on 31.01.2018, the participating partners decided to establish a working group on open biodiversity databases.
The following points have encouraged us to deal with this topic:

1. An ethical dilemma arises when data that has been collected together with the population is stored in a locked database.
2. In the future, certain funding programs will often require that the data collected in the course of the project be made available as open data.
3. The EU GDPR requires us to reconsider and update our handling of personal data in the near future.
4. Consideration of the topic on the part of the project operators shows the progressive thinking in the field of citizen science.
5. If we identify the challenges/problems together, it is easier to find arguments for/against opening the databases in citizen science projects.
6. Technical developments in the field of infrastructure offer new opportunities to publish research data (e.g. https://www.gbif.org/).

Just to emphasize: the WG should not be a missionary for the opening of biodiversity databases. We want to show objectively which problems/challenges will arise if the databases are opened and which ways there might be to protect vested interests or sensitive data on protected goods and still openly provide data.

The following goals are to be achieved in the working group:

1. Development of a questionnaire to help assess the feasibility/sensitivity of opening specific citizen science biodiversity databases (tested in existing and theoretical projects).
2. An implementation report or case study from an Austrian citizen science project that opened its biodiversity database.

If you are interested in this topic and would like to join the working group, then please contact Florian Heigl at any time (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

Catalogue of questions for project managers:

The catalogue of questions for project managers version 1.0 can be downloaded for free in German and English.

Report on implementation and experience

In the Roadkill project of the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna, 912 Citizen Scientists reported 17,163 roadkills from 2014-2020. This Austrian citizen science project was selected to try to open up its biodiversity database and to document the hurdles that had to be overcome.

The first step was to identify which repository, i.e. public database, would be most suitable for the collected roadkill data. We decided to publish the highest quality data on GBIF. GBIF - the Global Biodiversity Information Facility - is an international network and data infrastructure funded by the world's governments that aims to provide open access to data on all species of life on Earth to anyone, anywhere. We wanted to publish the quality level 2 data on Zenodo. Zenodo is an open-discipline repository, based at CERN and funded by the European Commission. 

In contrast to GBIF, Zenodo does not have any specifications regarding the properties or formats of the data. Publishing data via Zenodo is therefore very simple and straightforward. GBIF currently only allows organisations to publish data, and only data that meets the strict biodiversity data standards accepted by GBIF. 

The first hurdle was to find an organisation that was willing to publish the data from the Roadkill project. We finally found this in the Biology Centre of the Upper Austrian State Museum, which runs the database ZOBODAT, whose data are also feed into GBIF. Besides the Biology Centre, there are many other organisations in Austria that publish data in GBIF. Another way would be to register your own organisation on GBIF and host the data yourself.

The second hurdle was to bring the collected data into a data standard requested by GBIF. This required a lot of time resources and could be avoided by introducing the appropriate standard for data collection at the start of the project.

Another important step was to describe exactly how the published data was collected and checked for accuracy, so that researchers and other interested parties could understand how the published data was collected and then use it for their own research or conservation actions. We have published this description of the data in the form of a data paper in the international scientific journal Scientific Data. Such a publication is optional and does not have to be done via a peer-reviewed journal. One can also add such a description in an abbreviated form directly in GBIF.

The experiences described above show that the publishing of biodiversity data from citizen science projects can be challenging if the data were not collected according to the specifications of the respective repository. If possible, the repository in which the data is to be published should be determined at the start of the project in order to simplify the publication process. It remains to be seen which advantages will result from publication. However, we are convinced that the publication will contribute to the fact that the time invested by citizen scientists in data collection will be even more appreciated, as the data can now be used not only for the Roadkill project but also for other research projects, thus creating added value.

In very simplified terms, in citizen science, scientific projects are carried out with the assistance or completely by interested amateurs [lat. amator "lover"]. The Citizen Scientists formulate research questions, report observations, carry out measurements, evaluate data and/or write publications. Compliance with scientific criteria is a prerequisite. Projects are carried out in all areas of research, from the natural sciences, humanities and social sciences to the arts and cultural studies. This not only makes new scientific projects and new findings possible, but also enables a dialogue between science and society that is otherwise impossible or very difficult.

More precisely, citizen science is not yet uniformly defined at present. This was already evident in the mid-1990s, when Alan Irwin (UK) and Rick Bonney (USA) independently used this term and each coined it for themselves.

In Alan Irwin's view, citizen science means the development of a knowledge society in which science and research policy open up towards society. Irwin wanted to state that science should not be indifferent to the needs of society, and that citizens themselves can also do sound science.

Rick Bonney defined citizen science as the participation of amateurs in scientific projects for the purpose of data collection (crowdsourcing).

These two currents are still present today. A 2017 research article tries to map the global discussion on the definition of citizen science. We have written a blog entry on this here. There was also a discussion about the definition of citizen science itself, which, based on an article from Austria, led to an in-depth international investigation into the diversity of citizen science.

Since this discussion is very broad and will certainly continue for some time, we have set up the working group for quality criteria for the Österreich forscht platform, which has developed criteria that can be viewed on the working group's page. The criteria developed ensure and increase the quality of the citizen science projects on the platform on the one hand and on the other hand offer citizens the certainty that all projects listed on Österreich forscht are carried out according to objective and comprehensible quality criteria.

At the end of this post, we offer a short overview of different concepts in Austria with a video series that was produced during the Austrian Citizen Science Conference 2017. In the following you will find different forms of participation in citizen science projects according to Muki Haklay and the White Paper on Citizen Science by Sanz and colleagues.

By which principles are citizen science projects characterised?

According to the White Paper on Citizen Science in Europe

In contrast to the above-mentioned classification by Haklay (2013), the white paper that emerged from the "Socientize" project distinguishes between several equally valid forms of participation by amateurs in scientific projects. In the field of Collective Intelligence, the main focus is on pattern recognition. The Zooniverse projects mentioned above fall under this category.

Pooling of resources is mainly about interested people making resources available, such as unused computing power from their smartphones or computers. This is then used to carry out complicated computing processes distributed over thousands of devices in a short time. Here again, the seti@home project mentioned above should be mentioned.

In Data Collection projects, amateurs collect data and make it available to the project leaders in various forms. Good examples from Austria for projects in this category would be the StadtWildTiere project or ornitho.at. This is currently one of the most widespread methods of participation.

In the Analysis Task, amateurs are involved to varying degrees, especially in the analysis, i. e. the evaluation of the data. The City Country Child project, for example, analysed and interpreted images of longing for the countryside at the Volkskundemuseum Wien together with the citizen scientists in intergenerational image discussions and photo expeditions

In the field of serious games, there has been a great development in recent years. In this concept, also known as Gamification, the participants contribute to the scientific projects by actively playing, which usually consists of solving tricky problems or recognising patterns. On the one hand, better algorithms can be developed by analysing the solution paths, on the other hand, data can also be collected directly in this way. A well-known international example of such projects would be Fotoquest Go, in which participants were sent to specific locations throughout Austria to document land use at these locations, just like in Pokemon Go. 

In Participatory Experiments, the participants are already involved in the development of the research question and in further project phases. Often these projects are locally limited or aimed at clearly defined target groups. In the Roadkill project, for example, citizens are involved throughout the course of the project, i.e. they can help define research questions, collect and interpret data, carry out analyses themselves and also co-author publications.

Grassroots activities are mainly found in the DIY (Do It Yourself) movement. They are often carried out by communities or associations, often have a social component and can also be carried out entirely by amateurs. The Safecast project from Japan has caused a stir internationally in this field.

As according to Muki Haklay (2013)

Here, several levels of participation in professional science by so-called amateurs are usually distinguished. In contrast to the previous categorisation according to the White Paper on Citizen Science, the different levels create a sometimes unintentional hierarchy and thus a ranking of the forms of participation.

The simplest form of participation is found on level 1, "crowdsourcing", where citizens wear sensors that send data to professional scientists or they simply make the computing power of their computers or smartphones available. The participants in such projects do not have to perform any cognitive work. One example of this is seti@home.

At level 2, "distributed intelligence", participants are challenged more. Here, participants are confronted with simple tasks that computers are not yet able to carry out and would therefore take up a lot of time if scientists had to do them alone, such as analysing photos from photo traps. Projects that fall into this category are, for example, the projects on Zooniverse.

Level 3 "Participatory science" means the involvement of the population already in the development of the question or problem and/or the collection of data. Amateur*s perceive environmental changes in their environment very quickly and can pass this data on to scientists through citizen science projects, where it is processed and published accordingly, or passed on to responsible authorities after analysis and interpretation. Thus, cooperation in a citizen science project can contribute to a quick solution of a problem or to the efficient recognition of a change in the public. Examples would be identifying animal or plant species (Roadkill project, naturbeobachtung.at), doing genealogy (GenTeam) or contributing to historical research (Topotheque).

Level 4 is called "extreme citizen science", as amateurs are involved in all steps from problem definition to data collection and analysis. Examples are few, but can be found mainly in astronomy or ornithology, as these fields have a long tradition of citizen science.

History of Citizen Science

Citizen science is often interpreted as a return of professional science to its roots, since science was initially done by amateurs and only later became academicised and institutionalised at universities. Under the term citizen science, amateurs are now "allowed" to do science again - "back to the roots", so to speak (Silvertown 2009; Finke 2014; Bonney et al. 2014). It should be pointed out that scientific research was only integrated into universities in the second half of the 19th century through the Humboldtian ideal of education, but until then people without a higher level of education were only able to do science, let alone publish results, in the most exceptional cases. No farmer or craftsman had the time and money to devote to science. In connection with citizen science, Charles Darwin is often described as the best-known amateur who did science (e.g. Silvertown, 2009). Darwin also attended lectures on botany, zoology and geology out of interest as part of his medical and later theological studies. When Darwin embarked on his famous voyage on HMS Beagle, he was employed as a scientifically trained companion, although formally he was actually a theologian (Engels 2007). Thus Darwin can be described as an amateur with extensive biological knowledge.

It is only through the combination of citizen science, Web 2.0 and the open access movement that it is now possible for significantly more people to participate in science than the extremely privileged few in Darwin's time; they collect, analyse and even publish on their own (e. g. Kalheber 2003).

Austria also has a long tradition of cooperation between science and the general public. In the book ‘Populäres Wissen - Von der Laienforschung des 19. Jahrhunderts zur heutigen Citizen Science - eine Annäherung’ (2023), 29 authors from a wide range of Austrian institutions, including associations, universities, public authorities and museums, have worked through the history of citizen science in Austria from the 19th century to the present day on the initiative of Österreich forscht and under the guidance of the editor Dr Christian Stifter. Since this history of ‘lay research’ in Austria is so incredibly diverse, the 17 chapters can only be an approximation. There is also a short review on Österreich forscht.

Series of interviews on citizen science in Austria

The following videos were created during the 2017 Austrian citizen science conference. Although these videos are already several years old, they still provide a good first insight into Citizen Science. All videos are in German.

What is citizen science?

Challenges in citizen science

Added value of citizen science

Future of citizen science

More information on citizen science in Austria and other countries can be found under the heading Worldwide.

Have you ever seen a sparrow hawk in Vienna? Did a badger cross your path on your way home at night? Or do you have swallow nests at your housing complex? We are interested in your observations in Austrian cities!

The project works specifically in urban areas. With the help of Austrian city dwellers we want to get an overview of the distribution and way of life of mammals and birds in urban areas. We hope to obtain a broad data base based on sighting reports in order to better assess the distribution of diverse birds and other wildlife in Austria's cities.

Research platform

On the internet platform "www.stadtwildtiere.at" you can report your observations and view other observations. Find out about current sightings in your area and obtain further information on the biology of wild animals and their distribution in the city. You can also call up assistance in cases of conflict and for finding helpless or injured wild animals. We will also be happy to assist you with questions regarding your observation. The platform is so far unique in Austria: specialised in the occurrence of birds and wildlife in urban habitats and linked to scientific research.

Where pathways cross …

Understanding the city as an important habitat for humans and animals and creating a good coexistence - this is what we want to make possible with the establishment of the project "StadtWildTiere " and our research platform. Our goal is also to be able to provide adequate management proposals in the event of conflict or damage.

Become part of our research project!

In the Science Interview with Eva with Richard Zink and Theresa Walter, you can get a look behind the scenes of the project. (in German)

You can also find StadtWildTiere on Facebook.

Podcast episode

For the Österreich forscht podcast's first birthday, Peter Kovar, a dedicated Citizen Scientist in the project, gave interesting insights into the project in March 2023 - tune in! (in German)

Citizen Science Seminar

In 2022, poject coordinator Richard Zink held a lecture about StadtWildTiere and Wilde Nachbarn (in German) as part of the lecture series "Citizen Science Seminar" at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU). At the end of this page, you can watch the video recording of the lecture.