Preprint Article Version 1 This version is not peer-reviewed

Earth Observation for Citizen Science Validation, or, Citizen Science for Earth Observation Validation? The Role of Quality Assurance of Volunteered Observations

Version 1 : Received: 3 October 2017 / Approved: 3 October 2017 / Online: 3 October 2017 (13:52:29 CEST)

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

Leibovici, D.G.; Williams, J.; Rosser, J.F.; Hodges, C.; Chapman, C.; Higgins, C.; Jackson, M.J. Earth Observation for Citizen Science Validation, or Citizen Science for Earth Observation Validation? The Role of Quality Assurance of Volunteered Observations. Data 2017, 2, 35. Leibovici, D.G.; Williams, J.; Rosser, J.F.; Hodges, C.; Chapman, C.; Higgins, C.; Jackson, M.J. Earth Observation for Citizen Science Validation, or Citizen Science for Earth Observation Validation? The Role of Quality Assurance of Volunteered Observations. Data 2017, 2, 35.

Journal reference: Data 2017, 2, 35
DOI: 10.3390/data2040035

Abstract

Environmental policy involving citizen science (CS) is of growing interest. In support of this open data stream, validation or quality assessment of the CS data and their appropriate usage for evidence-based policy making, needs a flexible and easily adaptable data curation process ensuring transparency. Addressing these needs, this paper describes an approach for automatic quality assurance as proposed by the Citizen OBservatory WEB (COBWEB) FP7 project. This approach is based upon a workflow composition that combines different quality controls, each belonging to seven categories or ‘pillars’. Each pillar focuses on a specific dimension in the types of reasoning algorithms for CS data qualification. These pillars attribute values to a range of quality elements belonging to three complementary quality models. Additional data from various sources, such as Earth Observation (EO) data, are often included as part of the inputs of quality controls within the pillars. However, qualified CS data can also contribute to the validation of EO data. Therefore, the question of validation can be considered as ‘two sides of the same coin’. Based on an invasive species CS study, concerning Fallopia japonica (Japanese knotweed), the paper discusses the flexibility and usefulness of qualifying CS data, either when using an EO data for the validation within the quality assurance process, or validating an EO data product that describes the risk of occurrence of the plant. Both validation paths are found to be improved by quality assurance of the CS data. Addressing the reliability of CS open data, issues and limitations of the role of quality assurance for validation, due to the quality of secondary data used within the automatic workflow, are described, e.g. error propagation, paving the route to improvements in the approach.

Subject Areas

citizen science; volunteered geographical information; metadata; data quality; quality assurance; scientific workflow; provenance; metaquality; open data

Readers' Comments and Ratings (0)

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Rate this article
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Metrics 0
Leave a public comment

×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.