When Concerned People Produce Environmental Information: A Need to Re-Think Existing Legal Frameworks and Governance Models?

SPECIAL COLLECTION:

LAW

RESEARCH PAPER

When Concerned People

Produce Environmental

Information: A Need

to Re-Think Existing

Legal Frameworks and

Governance Models?

ANNA BERTI SUMAN

MARA BALESTRINI

MUKI HAKLAY

SVEN SCHADE

ABSTRACT

When faced with an environmental problem, locals are often among the ﬁrst to act.

Citizen science is increasingly one of the forms of participation in which people take

action to help solve environmental problems that concern them. This implies, for

example, using methods and instruments with scientiﬁc validity to collect and analyse

data and evidence to understand the problem and its causes. Can the contribution

of environmental data by citizens be articulated as a right? In this article, we explore

these forms of productive engagement with a local matter of concern, focussing on

their potential to challenge traditional allocations of responsibilities. Taking mostly the

perspective of the European legal context, we identify an existing gap between the right

to obtain environmental information, granted at present by the Aarhus Convention, and

“a right to contribute information” and have that information considered by appointed

institutions. We also explore what would be required to effectively practise this right in

terms of legal and governance processes, capacities, and infrastructures, and we propose

a ﬂexible framework to implement it. Situated at the intersection of legal and governance

studies, this article builds on existing literature on environmental citizen science, and on

its interplay with law and governance. Our methodological approach combines literature

review with legal analysis of the relevant conventions and national rules. We conclude by

reﬂecting on the implications of our analysis, and on the beneﬁts of this legal innovation,

potentially fostering data altruism and an active citizenship, and shielding ordinary people

against possible legal risks.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:

Anna Berti Suman

European Commission – Joint

Research Centre (JRC), IT

[email protected]opa.

KEYWORDS:

Citizen-generated data;

environmental citizen

science; environmental rights;

environmental law; the Aarhus

Convention; governance

TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:

Berti Suman, A, Balestrini,

M, Haklay, M and Schade,

S. 2023. When Concerned

People Produce Environmental

Information: A Need to Re-

Think Existing Legal Frameworks

and Governance Models? Citizen

Science: Theory and Practice,

8(1): 10, pp. 1–13. DOI: https://

doi.org/10.5334/cstp.496

*Author afﬁliations can be found in the back matter of this article

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

INTRODUCTION

From detecting suspicious odours in the air to inquiring

about chemicals in waters and collecting soil samples,

concerned local residents are often among the ﬁrst social

actors to notice and act upon an environmental problem.

They often do so by spontaneously tracking an issue,

through collecting and analysing data that will be used

to make sense of the issue at stake and to potentially

support claims. This shall be considered a manifestation

of citizen science, that is, the active engagement of

ordinary people in scientiﬁc research (Irwin 2018). Citizen

science is a term with manifold deﬁnitions, depending

on the context, of which we regard as key components

“the generation of scientiﬁc data,” engaging volunteers,

and addressing “a politically relevant issue” (Haklay et al.

2021, pp. 13, 15).

In this article, we focus on the data gathering stage of

citizen science as we posit that through data collection,

engaged people aim to contribute to the framing of or

offer a different perspective on an environmental issue

they care about. We take stock of studies that have

discussed how informational innovations in monitoring

are changing the way we deal with environmental

issues and have consequences for democracy and

power relations (Mol 2008). These forms of productive

engagement with a local environmental issue—such

as self-organizing in communities, hypothesizing about

the causes of the problem, and collecting and analysing

data—can substantially challenge traditional allocations

of responsibilities, suggesting an eventual need to re-

think existing legal frameworks and governance models.

However, instead of being regarded as an occasion to

regenerate the system, citizen-led efforts are often resisted

or disregarded as not valid or not legitimate by institutions.

Several authors have begun to explore the possible

intersections of environmental citizen science with the

legal system, questioning its effect on legal provisions and

on human entitlements (for example Berti Suman 2020a

and 2020b; Aragão 2019; Haklay and Francis 2018; Smith

2014). In parallel, studies into the impact of actions and

environmental data ﬂows from below on governance

models are multiplying (Balestrini et al. 2017; Bio

Innovation Service 2018; Wyeth et al. 2019). Especially in

the United States (US), literature often deals with the legal

implications of volunteered geographic information (VGI)

(Foody et al. 2017; Cho 2014; Cuff et al. 2008), including

the exposure to liability that the volunteers may face (Rak

et al. 2012).

Situated at the intersection of legal and governance

studies, this article examines the growing trend of

concerned people seeking to produce environmental

information (Berti Suman, Schade, and Abe 2020) and

to see these data included in decision-making. We

identify an existing gap between the right to obtain

environmental information—granted at present by the

Aarhus Convention

—and a right to provide information

and have that information considered by appointed

institutions. Further, we elaborate on the opportunity to

re-think existing legal frameworks and governance models

to ﬁt these transformations and to ensure that the civic

ability to offer data from below is properly accommodated

rather than resisted.

In summary, the article is guided by two key questions:

• From the combined interpretation of the rights

recognized under the Aarhus Convention, should a right

to meaningfully contribute environmental information

be derived, and (if so) under which conditions?

• What would be required to effectively practise this

right, in terms of legal and governance processes,

capacities, and infrastructures, and which of these

requirements are still lacking?

Our approach combines grey and academic literature

review with legal analysis of the relevant conventions

and national rules. We, the authors, also bring in our

own experiences as we have been involved in multiple

citizen science interventions. Based on these sources,

we deﬁne three scenarios that are a simpliﬁcation of a

multifaceted reality. We analyse the scenarios according

to theory-informed categories and extract ﬁndings. We

identify three case studies that best illustrate the outlined

scenarios.

The structure of the paper is as follows. We start from

acknowledging a trend and interpreting it through the

Aarhus Convention, which could possibly open an avenue

for a fourth right. We address the promises and perils of

introducing a new right. From there, we propose a set of

governance adaptations that are required to enforce such

a right. We primarily focus on Europe to narrow down the

legal and governance context. Based on the above, we

identify different possible scenarios of interplay between

citizen-generated data (CGD) and the institutional system,

pinpoint cases illustrative of each scenario, and outline

their strengths and weaknesses. We subsequently deﬁne

a framework for integration of CGD in the institutional

system. We stress the implications of our analysis for

communities, researchers, and practitioners. We conclude

with a reﬂection on how this legal innovation could foster

data altruism and an active citizenship, and shield ordinary

people producing CGD against legal risks.

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

LEGAL AND GOVERNANCE MODELS

UNDER PRESSURE?

CGD deriving from broader citizen science practises could

be used in many different forms within environmental

governance. Community-based water quality monitoring,

for example, can provide a way to maintain regulatory

oversight under conditions of reduced funding (Kimura

and Kinchy 2019). In other cases, CGD can challenge

ofﬁcial and industry-reported data, especially in the case of

shortcomings in ofﬁcial monitoring. This could contribute

to detecting violations of the law and infringements on

human environmental rights. Yet, to date, no substantial

evidence of legal adaptation to this trend has emerged

across Europe, whereas internationally and in the US more

explicitly a right to submit data exists, as illustrated below.

As the legal traditions and the existence of mechanisms

such as the Aarhus Convention differ substantially from the

US to Europe, in this article, we will note the US experiences

but focus primarily on European cases.

The opening statement of Chapter 40 of Agenda

21, stemming from the 1992 United Nations (UN) Rio

Conference can be interpreted as supporting citizen-

led data production. The chapter states: “in sustainable

development, everyone is a user and provider of

information considered in the broad sense. That includes

data, information, appropriately packaged experience, and

knowledge.” [emphasis added]. This can be understood as

a recognition that local knowledge (also in the forms of

CGD) should be integrated into decision-making.

Another legacy of the Rio Conference is in Principle 10

of its outcome declaration, which highlights three pillars

of participation in environmental decision-making: the

right to access environmental information, the right to

participate in decision-making, and the right to access

justice.

The principle evolved in the UN Economic Commission

for Europe (UNECE) Aarhus Convention,

or in its full name,

the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public

Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice

in Environmental Matters. It was signed on the 25

June 1998 in the city of Aarhus in Denmark and entered

into force in October 2001. It is considered a leading

international agreement on environmental democracy as

it guarantees the public three key rights on environmental

issues: i) access to information, which refers to the public’s

right to receive information about the environment that

are held by public authorities; ii) public participation, which

refers to the public’s right to participate in environmental

decision-making; and iii) access to justice, which refers to

the public’s right to review by a court or an independent

body to ensure that public authorities respect the rights

to access environmental information and to public

participation in environmental decisions.

As with Principle 10 of the Rio Conference, the Aarhus

Convention recognizes only the right to access (already

existing and ofﬁcially provided) environmental information.

The Convention does not recognise forms of spontaneous

environmental data production from ordinary people,

although some provisions may justify an extensive

interpretation of the notion of environmental information

to also include CGD in case of ofﬁcial governmental or

industry failures to duly report (Berti Suman 2020b).

Yet, despite this declaration, for most of the past three

decades, environmental information that was used in

decision-making was created by professional scientists and

technicians in government and industry. Some examples of

legal recognition for data generation by nongovernmental

actors are represented by the US Crowdsourcing and Citizen

Science Act (15 USC 3724) and by the Ecuadorean Organic

Law of the Amazonian Special Territorial Circumscription

(Ley Organica de la Circunscripcion Territorial Especial

Amazonica), which in Article 58 endorses community

environmental monitoring mechanisms.

At the level of governmental practice, noteworthy is the

US notice and comment process for agency rulemaking

(and other processes such as permitting and environmental

impact review).

The process requires government agencies

to use informal rulemaking procedures when creating new

rules or when modifying or repealing existing ones. The

agency must notify the public of the proposed change and

accept public comments. Agencies are obliged to consider

all material presented (including environmental CGD)

during the comment period, and they must respond to all

comments received but are not obliged to amend the rule

itself considering these comments. Thus, an explicit right to

submit information and advice by the public exists across

the US at the federal and state level.

Furthermore, a duty to consider data fed by the public

also exists as it is implied in the notice-and-comment

process: Agencies must justify why data were disregarded,

and those who submit data can request an independent

audit. This all suggests that even an adaptation of the

Aarhus Convention foreseeing a right to submit information

alone is not sufﬁcient if authorities are not compelled to

consider the information (they still can discount it but must

explain). Yet, even in the instance of such an obligation,

the US experience reveals that often CGD is not actually

considered seriously or acted upon for a variety of reasons.

This motivates us to recommend that legal interventions

must be ﬂanked by governance changes.

Against this background, the goal of this paper is

twofold. First, we aim to explore a potential need to adapt

the Aarhus Convention to include a civic “right to contribute

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

environmental information” as a fourth pillar, in particular

when institutions fail or struggle to fulﬁl their duties. We

question who should oversee amending the Convention

and national laws implementing it, that is, whether

only appointed institutions or society at large through

participatory and consensus processes. We use throughout

the piece the word (right to) “contribute” because people

do generate data all the time, but we aim to recognize a

different entitlement to meaningfully contribute to inform

policy-making with the data generated. Indeed, submitting

data is of limited value if there is not a duty to consider

and respond from the competent authorities. Second, we

propose possible governance adaptation scenarios that

may be needed, especially from competent authorities,

if such a right is recognized. We also examine at which

administrative level such governance adaptations should

occur.

ZOOMING IN ON DISTINCTIVE TRENDS

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK ADAPTATION

Building on Haklay’s (2017) categorization, traditionally,

environmental data ﬂows occur between experts and

scientists to be used by other experts and scientists (a

ﬁrst era); following that, we have witnessed the opening

up of environmental information to the public while

production stays with experts and scientists (second era).

With the advent of the Web and the mass use of mobile

devices with sensing capabilities, information has become

increasingly available online. The traditional scheme

became outdated as emerging ﬂows—less formalized and

less unidirectional—moved the other way around. Today,

we are indeed in a third era in which the production and

consumption of environmental information is no longer

done only by experts and scientists, but also by the public

(Haklay 2017). The legal framework has been responding

to these developments only to a certain extent. Indeed,

to date, the law crystallizes and protects the rights of

citizens to receive (environmental) information held by

authorities but does not recognize the contribution that

citizens can bring to the formation of the evidentiary pool

on environmental matters. As we highlight in the following

section, governance models had (and have) to be adapted

to mirror such transformations.

While the Aarhus Convention is an opportunity for

those civic actors wishing to claim breaches of their

environmental rights, it recognizes only traditional and

unidirectional data ﬂows from governmental actors to

citizens. In fact, the environmental information that citizens

are entitled to access are only those held by authorities

(and not, for example, by private actors—although they

are forced to report to the authorities under the Pollutant

Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) established by

the Kyiv Protocol of 2009. There is no recognition of a

gap-ﬁlling or complementary role that citizen-generated

environmental data can play. Building on previous work

(Berti Suman 2020b), we question whether the Aarhus

Convention can and shall be updated to recognize a civic

right to meaningfully contribute environmental information

and a consequent duty of authorities to consider such

information.

Remarkably, discussions touched upon this new right

during the 7

Meeting of the Parties (MoPs) of the Aarhus

Convention held in Geneva in fall 2021.

In a keynote by the

European Eco Forum on Access to Information, including

electronic information tools, Christian Schaible from the

European Environmental Bureau

afﬁrmed: “Citizen science

opens up for the parties of the convention a new source,

and we might envisage a right to produce environmental

information by citizens, which if it is produced at

appropriate standards and rigor, needs to be accepted

by the authorities. This can ﬁll the data gaps and support

monitoring efforts.”

A discussion on a new right is even more urgent

considering the threats that environmental defenders

frequently experience, as was also stressed during the

MoPs. We refer to the session organized by the Czech

nongovernmental organization Arnika, “Defending the

defenders 2021: Persecution of environmental activists.”

Discussions also revolved around the non-compliance with

the Convention that recurs in Europe and especially affects

civil society. Citizen science can be a powerful tool to spot

such instances.

Citizen science entered the MoPs in several other

instances, including a session in which the civic nuclear

radiation monitoring initiative Safecast

intervened and a

side event titled “Using citizen science effectively within

the Aarhus context.”

Formal outcomes of the Meeting

endorsed citizen science, namely the Strategic Plan

for the Convention’s Parties for 2022 to 2030

and the

Recommendations on the more effective use of electronic

information tools.

Because a new right with no enforcement mechanism

would be pointless, we explore the adaptation of existing

legal frameworks to accommodate this development and

to ensure that it is respected, considering that already the

Aarhus Convention is often not respected.

We do so in

the framework that we propose, with an eye to the actual

enforcement of such a new entitlement. We consider it

compelling to also assess to what extent the law is lagging,

in the sense that this right is de facto already in place in

practice and at a policy level (for example, in dedicated

programs by the European Union (EU), such as the Horizon

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

Europe “Mutual Learning Exercise on Citizen Science” and

the “Science with and for Society” programme of Horizon

2020).

GOVERNANCE MODELS RESHAPED

The governance of environment-related issues relies

heavily on public institutions (Lemos and Agrawal 2006;

Bennet and Satterﬁeld 2018). This governance structure

is embedded in the general multi-governance framework

spanning the globe—from global actors (such as the UN)

via regional actors (such as the EU) and national actors

(ministries and agencies), all the way to sub-national

(including local actors). Overall, we can identify a global

trend to follow more holistic and participatory governance

approaches (Nesbit et al. 2019), in which environment-

related matters are more closely integrated across different

sectors, ﬁelds, and services (one can look to the framework

for monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs]

and the European Green Deal).

In line with the increased integration of environmental

matters in political topics that were traditionally less

environmentally aware, measures supporting a healthier

environment are emerging in other ﬁelds. These

developments go hand in hand with similar trends in

health policies, where, for example, the “Health in All

Policies” approach spans sectors (Pan American Health

Organization 2015). Collaborations between authorities

that are traditionally responsible for environmental issues

and institutions dealing with other policy areas multiply.

Complementarily, another trend is emerging—a more

active citizenship, including citizen science practices. In

many countries, we witness not only changes in voting

behaviour and social (environmental) activism in the form

of protests,

but also more active engagements aimed

at voluntary monitoring of the environment. Whereas

different scenarios on how citizen science contributes to

(public) governance have recently been explored by Göbel

et al. (2019), we also see dedicated methods and tools for

integrating citizen science in environmental data collection

at different levels of administration as a means to co-

design, co-develop, and co-deliver solutions.

Policymakers can learn from scientists in this regard.

In ﬁelds such as meteorology and biology, there is a

long history of public participation in data creation, and

it is common for scientists and consultants, who provide

advice on environmental decision-making, to use data that

originate from volunteers’ observations (Pocock et al. 2015,

2017; WMO 2001). In most cases, the data provided by

the public is not used directly, but it is ﬁrst organised and

reviewed by an expert who will work as an intermediary.

The output from the expert is coming with their own and

their institutions’ credentials. In some cases, the source

of the data is not even openly acknowledged (Cooper et

al. 2014). This could suggest that CGD is accepted and

routinely used within existing processes of environmental

research, being considered ﬁt-for-purpose also in terms of

data quality. However, it can also signal an obfuscation of

the civic contribution.

When civic actors’ contribution is acknowledged and

they can collaborate with policymakers in shared spaces,

this can stimulate mutual trust and change traditional

allocation of roles. Citizens learn how to contribute to

data generation, analysis, and interpretation, while trust

is generated for policymakers to ofﬁcially adopt the data.

It has been estimated that such data have the potential

to contribute up to 33% of SDGs monitoring efforts (Fraisl

et al. 2020). Moreover, shared agendas

are developed.

Governance models should become more ﬂexible to ensure

the acceptance, integration, and acknowledgement of

these data within ofﬁcial data. These interventions are

in part already occurring in light with ﬁve principles for

good governance: openness, participation, accountability,

effectiveness, and coherence as recognized by the EU.

However, to date, similar interventions are episodic and left

to the good will of governors.

GOVERNANCE ENCOUNTERS THE LAW

As governance adaptation is occurring but in a non-

systematic way, one may wonder if a legal intervention

should be needed to make these occurrences structural

and to regulate them. CGD, to be heard by decision-

makers, needs to enter through the channels put in place

by authorities. Having a set of (legally binding) rules that all

civic initiatives must follow to have their data considered

could ensure more equality and transparency in how CGD

is integrated. We argue further why this could be a way

forward.

Governance adaptations are, at present, a way to give

space to dimensions that are not allowed by the law.

However, this clearly creates disparity and imbalances. In

principle, every scientiﬁcally sound local monitoring initiative

should be taken into account (whether a constructive,

cooperative input or a disruptive, counter-system initiative)

and, eventually, should provoke authorities to act upon a

matter of concern for the people that can be associated

with a governmental failure. As there is no legal obligation

to consider CGD, it remains at the discretion of authorities.

Existing initiatives already integrated in formal

monitoring processes in multiple ways could lead this legal

innovation. For example, the European bird indexes

were

designed from their very beginning in the 1980s as a data

ﬂow that relies on volunteer bird watching and strict quality

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

assurance. They remain one of the strongest indicators for

biodiversity in Europe and are used to support policies. In

the Netherlands, another leading example is an integrated

platform hosted by an independent governmental agency

to collect and compare air quality data from many different

sources.

Here, ofﬁcial data is complemented by data

from citizen scientists and others. The Mosquito Atlas in

Germany is another good example as it is entirely based

on volunteer data collection and it replaces previous

monitoring mechanisms.

These examples demonstrate a practice of CGD

contribution. Such best practices have been analysed in

an ofﬁcial document of the European Commission in 2020

(European Commission 2020). The document proposes

a set of guidelines to systemise the support of citizen

science approaches for environmental monitoring and

data sharing, which can be regarded as a ﬁrst step towards

the ofﬁcial recognition of a right to contribute. Indeed,

the guidelines also come with a set of possible actions

to allow for a more systematic and enduring support to

citizen science. A consolidated response by the network

of Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA) in Europe was

prepared (Rubio-Iglesias et al. 2020) and delivered to the

EPA Network Interest group on Citizen Science.

Earlier, the

European Environment Agency (EEA) published a report on

how air quality could be assessed through contributions

from citizen science (EEA 2019).

In the next section, we explore the conditions under

which the recognition of a right to contribute is desirable

and should be infrastructured, in the sense of providing

the legal and organizational interventions that are needed

to implement it. We consider scenarios as sets of possible

situations in which the interactions between civic data

production and institutional settings manifest.

FROM SCENARIOS TO A FRAMEWORK

MIRRORING THE RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTE

SCENARIOS OF INTEGRATION

In this section, we outline hypothetical but realistic scenarios

of interaction between CGD and existing environmental

governance and legal structures. Parameters that we deem

should matter in a systematization towards integration

include

• the type of initiative producing CGD, from counter-

system to cooperative initiatives;

• the initiator, whether they are state-, citizen-, or

jointly-initiated, etc. efforts to acquire CGD (while

acknowledging that often a combination of top-down

and bottom-up efforts occurs;

• the institutional attitude towards the initiative (different

from, although related to, who initiated the effort);

• the presence of national legal provisions regulating CGD

production;

• the existence of a legal obligation by authorities to

consider CGD; and

• the existence of a platform open to CGD and its

ownership (whether the infrastructure and the data

therein is owned by the authority/the citizens/a third

party/jointly between two or more of these actors).

Additionally, we conceive that different types of initiatives

(from more reactive to more cooperative) will require

different levels of integration (from less to more pervasive)

of the civic data within ofﬁcial infrastructures. In addition,

the maturity of the recipient authority in terms of experience

relying on CGD will have to be taken into account in

designing the different levels of integration. We argue that

any integrative framework should not exclude the more

counter-system initiatives, which should ﬁnd their own way

to be part of the debate. Recognizing a right to contribute

to ofﬁcial environmental monitoring could ensure a more

systematic and transparent adoption of CGD, but it also

risks excluding initiatives that do not manage to meet the

needed conditions. Nevertheless, we believe that such CGD

can still impact policymakers in informal, spontaneous

ways.

Another layer of complexity—which cannot be properly

addressed here—is the fact that a right is understood and

codiﬁed differently in different contexts. Also, what we

understand governance to mean may vary substantially.

In taking Europe as the main context for the scenarios that

we outline, we try to mitigate this challenge of context-

dependency. We assume that a certain homogeneity

can be identiﬁed across different European countries. The

three scenarios represented in Figure 1 should therefore be

considered as situated in the context of European countries.

Figure 1 illustrates three possible scenarios from a

cooperative and high-integration instance, where a right

to contribute is recognized or derived from existing norms,

to the least integrated scenario in which there is no legal

recognition of CGD, authorities and citizens are in conﬂict,

and the existing infrastructures do not make room for

CGD. In the middle, we situate a middle-ground scenario

mirroring all the other possible conﬁgurations, with

nuances that go beyond what we can capture in a ﬁgure.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASES OF THE THREE SCENARIOS

We examine three case studies that help us illustrate the

different conceptual positions, but they are by no means

representative of the whole set of cases that each scenario

can encompass. We selected these cases using our own

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

previous knowledge rather than through a systematic

analysis of a sample of cases. Future research may

quantitatively assess the occurrence of the three scenarios

in the citizen science reality out there. A brief analysis of

each case follows, whereas a more extensive illustration

of each case in light of the characteristics of the three

scenarios can be found in Supplemental File 1: Appendix 1.

CGD on odour pollution. D-NOSES (Scenario 1)

Type of initiative: This is an EU-funded initiative tackling

odour pollution through citizen science and co-creation of

joint solutions to odour pollution-related issues.

Initiator: The initiator is a researcher with civic concern

who launched the ﬁrst odour monitoring pilot.

Authority’s attitude: The project received attention and

recognition by environmental protection authorities at

national (Spain) and international (EU, Africa, and Latin

America) levels. For example, thanks to D-NOSES’ advocacy,

in 2022, the European Committee of the Regions adopted

an Opinion “EU Action Plan: Towards Zero Pollution for Air,

Water and Soil,” recognizing the importance of citizen

science for tackling odour pollution.

Existence of a legal provision supporting CGD: The

initiative supports compliance with Principle 10 of the Rio

Declaration and aims to go beyond it through a right to

contribute data.

In this case, the recognition of a right

to contribute and its conditions may be useful to foster

transparency and equity.

Public dataset for environmental data open to public

contribution: The initiative feeds CGD into the International

Odour Observatory,

where all relevant data are made

available both for citizens and for authorities.

Ownership of the infrastructure: The infrastructure is

owned by the initiative, but partners of the project include

local administration and public bodies.

CGD on air quality. Samen Meten (Scenario 2)

Type of initiative: Samen Meten is an initiative supported by

the Dutch Institute for Public Health and the Environment

(RIVM) consisting of a knowledge portal

and a related

portal for data access.

The two portals provide capacity-

building facilities and a supportive infrastructure for

environmental citizen science.

Initiator: Samen Meten was initiated by RIVM, an

independent Dutch agency. This is therefore a government-

led effort that invites civic submission of data (Rubio-

Iglesias et al. 2020; Volten et al. 2018).

Authority’s attitude: RIVM demonstrates an open and

transparent approach. Any community can enter the

partnership and connect their air quality measurements as

incoming raw data. RIVM corrects and calibrates the data

to make them more useful. The CGD from the portals are

not (yet) directly used for ofﬁcial air quality monitoring

purposes, although this is the ambition (Ponti and Craglia

2020). The data have already served early detection and

near-real-time mapping of cross-border air pollution

Figure 1 Possible scenarios of interplay between a civic initiative and public institutions.

Scenario 1

Type of the initiative: cooperative

Initiator: civic, with initial EU funding

Authority’s attitude: champion

Existing of a legal provision supporting CGD: yes

Public dataset for environmental data open to public contribution: yes

Ownership of the infrastructure: co-owned by the authority and by the

citizens/by the initiative

Scenario 2

Type of the initiative: critical but open-minded

Initiator: an independent governmental agency

Authority’s attitude: in transformation

Existing of a legal provision supporting CGD: not, but derivable from

interpretation of existing norms or from case law

Public dataset for environmental data open to public contribution: in

potential (infrastructure in place but not yet contributed by the citizens)

Ownership of the infrastructure: owned by the authority

Scenario 3

Type of the initiative: counter-system, reactive, distrusting

Initiator:

a collective of local citizens funded through crowdfunding

Authority’s attitude: in conflict with the citizens

Existing of a legal provision supporting CGD: no

Public dataset for environmental data open to public contribution: no

Ownership of the infrastructure: NA

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

(Wesseling et al. 2019), and are being used for ofﬁcial

experimental modelling (Ponti and Craglia 2020).

Existence of a legal provision supporting CGD: There is no

speciﬁc provision focussed on CGD, but legal requirements

for monitoring air quality exist, and supportive provisions

can be derived from there. In this case, the recognition of a

right to contribute would be an incentive for institutions to

adopt CGD systematically.

Public dataset for environmental data open to public

contribution: In the model of Samen Meten, citizen

scientists buy and assemble, following instructions

provided by the initiative partners, low-cost sensors. These

partners bring in their own communities and develop

data infrastructures. RIVM offers the integration of these

datasets in the platform, where all data are published and

shared openly.

Ownership of the infrastructure: Ownership is institutional

(owned by RIVM), offering a central and sustained resource

for interested communities and individuals.

CGD on oil extraction externalities. Analyze

Basilicata (Scenario 3)

Type of initiative: The Analyze Basilicata initiative is a citizen

science initiative by the association CovaContro aimed at

collecting data on environmental externalities associated

with oil extraction in Basilicata, in the south of Italy.

The

case is counter-system, reactive, and distrusting.

Initiator: Analyze Basillicata is a collective of

independent, crowdfunded local citizens.

Authority’s attitude: The public sector at present does

not ofﬁcially recognize the initiative or the data collected,

nor does it offer the participants any support. However,

there were instances in which the initiative served as an

alert for institutions, media, and public prosecutors’ ofﬁces

(Berti Suman 2022).

Existence of a legal provision supporting CGD: There is

no speciﬁc provision, although the Italian Constitution

recognizes the preservation of the environment and of

human health and promotes civic forms of organization. In

this case, the recognition of a right to contribute may not

be effective, as there are not the conditions to implement it.

Already existing legal guarantees should ﬁrst be respected.

Public dataset for environmental data open to public

contribution: Each actor has its own platform. Speciﬁc

environmental information is published on the Val d’Agri

Environmental Observatory, but the Analyze Basilicata

initiative does not trust it and created a counter-knowledge

base.

Ownership of the infrastructure: Ownership is not

shared, and single infrastructures (private, public, and civic)

are separated and owned by each actor.

THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF EACH

SCENARIO

Scenario 1 has the key strength of maximizing resources

allocation as competences and tasks are divided among

citizen scientists and competent institutions with a

cooperative mindset. Losses of energy due to conﬂicts and

distrust is low. However, as a downside, the citizen science

initiative can be at risk of (perceived or actual) government

capture in the sense that peer citizens may perceive that

the initiative is no longer representing the interests of

the general citizens and has lost its independence, being

instead at the service of the authority. In situations such as

Scenario 1, the recognition of a right to contribute through

a legal intervention may not be needed as existing legal

and governance structures accommodate the cooperation.

However, we deem that having an open deﬁnition of the

criteria under which CGD will be considered by authorities

may be useful to foster transparency and equity in this

scenario. Citizens and institutions co-own the platform

on which the civic and public data are published. This,

however, can also be problematic (Kimura and Kinchy

2019). For example, especially when such a scenario

emerges informally, a supportive champion may leave the

organisation, and previous collaborations can collapse.

Another risk is that without legally binding structures, the

citizen-generated data could be at risk of being accepted

when it does not challenge power, while dismissed when it

bothers the establishment.

The strong point of Scenario 2 is that it is in evolution

and therefore has a considerable potential in terms of

social and governmental innovation. The ﬂuidity of the

situation can promote creative solutions and innovative

adaptation schemes. However, it may be hard for actors

operating in such an evolving context to make decisions

due to uncertainties. The recognition of a right to contribute

here would be particularly beneﬁcial to push institutions

to adopt systematically CGD. In addition, the presence

of legal recognition would incentivize the offer of CGD to

authorities. Interestingly, Scenario 2 can lead to stability in

the long term, generating mutual recognition and setting

an agreement on the standards to which the data should

adhere. However, such early legal closure might lead to a

lack of ﬂexibility and agility that instead Scenario 1 affords.

The weakest allocation of resources is in Scenario 3, in

which the conﬂict and distrust drain the energy of all actors

involved and prevent shared interventions. From another

perspective, however, conﬂicts and distrust attitudes can

also stimulate a sense of responsibility among the citizens

to watch over governments’ actions and, in reverse,

stimulate institutional actors to improve the transparency

and effectiveness of their interventions. In Scenario 3, the

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

recognition of a right to contribute may not be effective,

as there are not the conditions to implement it, given

that even a public database for publishing environmental

information coming from the citizens is lacking, and

citizens and authorities are in conﬂict. Here, the ﬁrst step

would be to ensure that already existing guarantees, such

as the Aarhus Convention, are respected and enforced, and

only when the situation evolves to Scenario 2, a right to

contribute could be implemented. Yet, as we stress further,

the open recognition by agencies of the conditions for their

consideration of CGD can be beneﬁcial also in Scenario 3 as

it can mitigate conﬂicts and encourage a more constructive

relationship.

TOWARDS A SUPPORTING FRAMEWORK

The analysis presented in this paper suggests possible

scenarios of integration (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2). In both

scenarios, the initiative producing CGD wants integration

(Berti Suman 2020a, p. 83, Figure 3–2). In Scenario 3,

inﬂuence on policy- and decision-making can still occur

at the levels of early warning and problem deﬁnition, and

mediators fostering dialogue between the initiative and

policymakers are of key importance (more in Berti Suman

2020a, p. 79). Despite a legal intervention recognizing a

right to contribute is more game-changing in Scenario 2.

In Scenario 1, the actors are already at a level of maturity

that a legal intervention is not so needed or is already in

place/in formation, whereas in Scenario 3, the civic actors

are opposing institutions. Nonetheless, we argue that in

all scenarios a legal intervention can be valuable to create

the expectation that under set conditions CGD will be

considered by authorities. A clear and transparent deﬁnition

of these conditions can foster mutual understanding

between citizens and authorities.

In the absence of an explicit recognition, a disconnect

remains between overarching vertical regulations (usually

not specifying the role of CGD, i.e., neither excluding nor

including it) with horizontal civic rights (remaining general

and thus open to interpretation). This can de facto hamper

but also leave an informal yet accepted space for inclusion.

On this fertile ground, co-created decisional processes and

shared agendas should tend to the framing of a right to

contribute as a fourth pillar of the Aarhus Convention, to

be accompanied by a set of overarching implementation

guidelines. Such an intervention could provide a common

regulatory framework at the European level. Once the

right is deﬁned, the implementation should come both at

a legal level, through adaptation of national legal systems

adhering to the Aarhus Convention, and at a governance

level.

Possible steps to adapt governance structures should

include: (i) the creation of spaces where public and

civic actors can meet and compare data, facilitated by

mediators; (ii) the joint curation of public databases that can

include CGD; (iii) the incorporation of CGD in agency portals

such as in the case of RIVM but with a direct use by the

agency; and (iv) a set of guidelines setting the standards on

the type of CGD (including data quality and methodology)

that can be used and for which decisions. This way, actors

producing CGD will know under which conditions their

data can be considered, in the spirit of a “match-making

between knowledge needs for environment policy and

citizen science activities” (Recommendation 5.1, European

Commission 2020).

This guided and integrative approach is similar to

programs in some US states in which, for example, citizens

are involved in water quality monitoring and produce data

that are used in formal regulatory determinations provided

that they respect set criteria. Yet this approach may not be

viable in all cases as it depends on agreement among all the

parties on the correct process for gathering and evaluating

data. Such agreement may be difﬁcult for environmental

justice communities with a history of distrust and friction

with governmental authorities, especially where data is

gathered using low-cost devices or procedures different

from those normally used by government agencies.

Nevertheless, a right to have data considered could still be

the basis for managing expectations and for stimulating

more constructive relationships between citizens and

authorities.

Guidelines and policy structures should be put in place

deﬁning key aspects, including ownership of the CGD and the

platform for managing the data. We favour co-ownership

between civic and policy actors of data and platforms,

in a commons fashion, but with authorities assuring

sustainable technical and organisational infrastructure.

In addition, technical standards for the methodology and

data quality of the CGD should be deﬁned, setting the

conditions under which authorities have an obligation to

act upon or accept the CGD (on this point see also Berti

Suman 2020a). Inspirations can be taken from the example

that we provided for Scenario 2.

SUMMARY, IMPLICATIONS, AND FUTURE

DIRECTIONS

In the article, we build on the three rights guaranteed by

the Aarhus Convention, which are also known as the pillars

of environmental democracy: access to information, public

participation, and access to justice. We argue in favour

of recognising a fourth right: the “right to meaningfully

contribute” data. We discuss existing literature, hinting

at ongoing legal and governance adaptation processes

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

to use environmental CGD for institutional interventions,

and we reﬂect on our own experiences of organising and

researching citizen science interventions. We highlight

gaps and complement existing literature with a scenario-

building exercise and with cases that challenge existing

legal frameworks and allocation of responsibilities. Our

scenarios offer an illustration of various levels of integration

and cooperation between civic initiatives producing

environmental CGD and authorities.

A legal intervention, based on already ongoing

governance adaptations, is advisable for all three scenarios

to set expectations, although for the middle scenario,

potential for transformation is the highest. Having a set

of rules that all civic initiatives must comply with to have

their data considered could ensure more equality and

transparency in how CGD is integrated. This could be a

way forward, although it is very demanding as authorities

are often reluctant to openly inform the public of the

conditions under which the data they may submit would

be considered by these same authorities.

A recognition of CGD, to be practically realized

through the insertion of a fourth right under the Aarhus

Convention (binding for its signing Parties), could ensure

that the conditions under which the data produced by the

citizens will be considered by authorities are transparently

disclosed. In short, the right should operate when:

• the matter is not duly monitored or addressed by the

competent authorities; or

• access to information obligations is not (properly)

complied with by the authorities; or

• in any instance in which the CGD produced is of quality

and robustness that can reasonably complement and

contribute to ofﬁcial data, keeping as a principle that

CGD does not need to be technically equivalent to

government data because even less precise data can

provide useful complementary information.

For their part, authorities will have the duty to open their

data pool to such contributions and i) either incorporate

the civic data in their ofﬁcial portal (as in the Samen Meten

case) or ii) provide the resources for setting a co-owned

platform (as in the D-NOSES case). In both cases, authorities

should also offer regulatory guidance, knowledge, and

infrastructures to ensure that the consequent data ﬂows

respect data protection and privacy principles, especially

when sensitive (e.g., health) data are at stake.

Competent

institutions should also provide support to prevent fake

information, possibly acting as (or engaging experts to act

as) gatekeepers. Lastly, authorities should also ensure that

the new right is balanced with other recognized interests. A

recent Science for Policy Brief by the European Commission

(Berti Suman 2023) offers guidance to policy- and decision-

makers, making a case for how civic monitoring can

contribute to ofﬁcial law enforcement and to the provision

of public services.

Here, we have identiﬁed gaps in existing legal and

governance structures for managing environmental

information and have explored the challenges of integrating

publicly contributed information into institutional

responses. Our analysis is limited as our scenarios and any

proposed framing efforts oversimplify the complexity of a

multifaceted reality. Yet, we trust that our work makes a

convincing case for establishing a new right to contribute

and provides an important steppingstone in the creation of

the required facilitating framework.

NOTES

All web pages have been accessed for the last time on 18 September

2022

UNECE Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public

Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in

Environmental Matters (25 June 1998) 38 ILM 517. An informative

page on the Aarhus Convention can be found at https://unece.

org/environment-policy/public-participation/aarhus-convention/

introduction.

Ibid.

3 See https://www.justia.com/administrative-law/rulemaking-

writing-agency-regulations/notice-and-comment/.

See https://unece.org/environmental-policy/events/Aarhus_

Convention_MoP7.

See https://eeb.org/who-we-are/staff/.

See https://english.arnika.org/events/defending-the-defenders-

2021-protecting-environmental-activists-from-persecution.

See https://safecast.org/.

See recordings at https://youtu.be/it-EGGVS7Po.

See https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/ECE_

MP.PP_2021_22_E.pdf.

See https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-08/ECE_

MP.PP_2021_20_E.pdf.

See https://www.clientearth.org/media/fesgdu3u/clientearth_

guide_2021_gb_bat.pdf.

See https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/statistics/

policy-support-facility/psf-challenge/mutual-learning-exercise-

citizen-science-initiatives-policy-and-practice and https://data.

europa.eu/doi/10.2777/32018.

See https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.

php?page=view&type=400&nr=2013&menu=35.

See https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/

european-green-deal_en.

See https://theconversation.com/greta-thunberg-effect-people-

familiar-with-young-climate-activist-may-be-more-likely-to-

act-154146.

See, for example, the tool kits developed by the projects Making

Sense (http://making-sense.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/

Citizen-Sensing-A-Toolkit.pdf) and ACTION (https://actionproject.

eu/toolkit/), the engagement methodology developed by the

D-NOSES project (https://dnoses.eu/), and the future roadmap

provided by the WeObserve project (https://zenodo.org/

record/4646774#.YaZ1md_TWUn).

See for example, the experience of the shared agendas by the

Catalan government (http://catalunya2020.gencat.cat/web/.

content/00_catalunya2020/Documents/angles/fitxers/shared-

agendas.pdf).

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

18 Among the others, by the 2001 White Paper on Governance,

see https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/

TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM%3Al10109.

See https://pecbms.info/.

See https://samenmeten.rivm.nl/dataportaal/.

See https://mueckenatlas.com/.

See https://epanet.eea.europa.eu/reports-letters/epa-network-

interest-group-on-citizen-science/epa-network-interest-

group-on-citizen-science. We could also review the document

“Recommendations to Heads of EPAs following the European

Commission’s Best Practices in Citizen Science for Environmental

Monitoring” presented at the 37th EPA Network plenary meeting,

12-13 May 2022 , Paris.

For an analysis of scenarios from an US perspective, see

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/

epatoolswebinar_citizen_science_final_0.pdf.

See https://dnoses.eu/.

Exchange with Rosa Arias, D-NOSES Project Coordinator and CEO of

Science for Change, in fall 2021.

See https://odourobservatory.org/.

See https://www.samenmetenaanluchtkwaliteit.nl/ and https://

www.samenmetenaanluchtkwaliteit.nl/international.

See https://samenmeten.rivm.nl/dataportaal/.

The page of the initiative https://covacontro.org/la-

campagna/. Accessed 28 September 2021. The website is only

in Italian but Berti Suman (2022) provides an English account

of the project.

30 See reflections by the DECODE project, https://decodeproject.

eu/publications/final-report-barcelona-pilots-evaluations-

barcelonanow-and-sustainability-plans. Experiences offering

models of civic data governance include Salus Coop (Europe)

(https://www.saluscoop.org/) and the Louisville Data Commons

initiative (US) (https://louisvilledatacommons.org/).

SUPPLEMENTAL FILE

The supplementary File for this article can be found as

follows:

• Appendix 1. Case studies illustrating each scenario

discussed. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.496.s1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution

of Rosa Arias, D-NOSES Project Coordinator and CEO of

Science for Change, for her inputs and exchanges which

were very valuable to shape the D-NOSES case study. The

authors are also grateful to the editors and reviewers for

their constructive feedback.

FUNDING INFORMATION

Author Anna Berti Suman was supported by the Marie

Skłodowska-Curie grant n. 891513, awarded under

European Union’s Horizon 2020. Author Muki Haklay

was supported by the European Union’s ERC Advanced

Grant project ‘European Citizen Science: Analysis and

Visualisation’, under grant agreement n. 694767; and the

European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research And Innovation

Programme EU-Citizen.Science and TIME4CS projects,

under grant agreement n. 824580 and 101006201.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors contributed to the research design,

implementation and writing and to the methodological

aspects of the manuscript. The ﬁrst author took the lead in

coordinating the writing and review process.

DISCLAIMER

Views and opinions expressed in this article by authors

Anna Berti Suman and Sven Schade are those of the

authors only and do not necessarily reﬂect those of the

European Commission.

AUTHOR AFFILIATIONS

Anna Berti Suman orcid.org/0000-0002-8973-8436

European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), IT

Mara Balestrini

orcid.org/0000-0003-1064-3512

ESADE-Ramon Llull University, ESADEGov Center for Public

Governance, ES

Muki Haklay

orcid.org/0000-0001-6117-3026

University College London, GB

Sven Schade

orcid.org/0000-0001-5677-5209

European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), IT

REFERENCES

Aragão, A. 2019. When feelings become scientiﬁc facts:

valuing cultural ecosystem services and taking them into

account in public decision-making. In Squintani, L (ed.),

Managing Facts and Feelings in Environmental Governance,

53–80. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.4337/9781788976176.00010

Balestrini, M, Rogers, Y, Hassan, C, Creus, J, King, M and

Marshall, P. 2017, May. A city in common: a framework to

orchestrate large-scale citizen engagement around urban

issues. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems, 2282–2294. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1145/3025453.3025915

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

Bennett, NJ and Satterﬁeld, T. 2018. Environmental governance:

a practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and

analysis. Conservation Letters, 11: 1–13. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1111/conl.12600

Berti Suman, A. 2020a. Sensing the risk. A case for integrating

citizen sensing into risk governance. Tilburg: Wolf Legal

Publishers and Open Press TiU.

Berti Suman, A. 2020b. Citizen sensing from a legal standpoint:

legitimizing the practice under the Aarhus framework. The

Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 18(1–2):

8–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-18010003

Berti Suman, A. 2022. Striving for Good Environmental

Information: Civic Sentinels of Oil Pollution in the South of

the North. Law, Environment and Development Journal, 17.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53962/k5e5-t1dn

Berti Suman, A. 2023. Civic monitoring for environmental

enforcement. Exploring the potential and use of evidence

gathered by lay people. European Commission Science for

Policy Brief, JRC132206.

Berti Suman, A, Schade, S and Abe, Y. 2020. Exploring

legitimization strategies for contested uses of citizen-

generated data for policy. In Richardson, B (ed.), From

Student Strikes to the Extinction Rebellion. New Protest

Movements Shaping our Future, 74–102. Cheltenham: Edward

Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800881099.00008

Bio Innovation Service. 2018. Citizen science for environmental

policy: development of an EU-wide inventory and analysis of

selected practices. Final report for the European Commission,

DG Environment under the contract 070203/2017/768879/

ETU/ENV.A.3

Cho, G. 2014. Some legal concerns with the use of crowd-sourced

Geospatial Information. IOP Conference Series: Earth and

Environmental Science 20(1): 012040. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1088/1755-1315/20/1/012040

Cooper, CB, Shirk, J and Zuckerberg, B. 2014. The invisible

prevalence of citizen science in global research: migratory

birds and climate change. PloS one, 9(9): e106508. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106508

Cuff, D, Hansen, M and Kang, J. 2008. Urban sensing: out of

the woods. Communications of the ACM, 51(3): 24–33. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1145/1325555.1325562

European Commission. 2020. Best Practices in Citizen

Science for Environmental Monitoring. Staff Working

Document 149 ﬁnal. Brussels, Belgium: The European

Commission [online access at https://circabc.europa.eu/

ui/group/c1a5a4e9-7563-4d0e-9697-68d9cd24ed34/

library/d08a6ffd-2a91-437e-a473-84c47bb74c7c/

details?download=true last accessed 16 January 2023].

European Environment Agency (EEA). 2019. Assessing Air Quality

Through Citizen Science. EEA Report. Copenhagen, Denmark:

European Environment Agency.

Foody, G, See, L, Fritz, S, Mooney, P, Olteanu-Raimond, A, Costa

Fonte, C and Antoniou, V. (eds.) 2017. Mapping and the

Citizen Sensor. London: Ubiquity Press.

Fraisl, D, Campbell, J, See, L, Wehn, U, Wardlaw, J, Gold, M,

Moorthy, I, Arias, R, Piera, J, Oliver, JL, Masó, J, Penker,

M and Fritz, S. 2020. Mapping citizen science contributions

to the UN sustainable development goals. Sustainability

Science, 15: 1735-1751. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/

s11625-020-00833-7

Göbel, C, Nold, C. Berditchevskaia, A and Haklay, M. 2019. How

Does Citizen Science “Do” Governance? Reﬂections from the

DITOs Project. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 4(1): 1–13.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.204

Haklay, M. 2017. The three eras of environmental information:

The roles of experts and the public. In Loreto, V, et al. (eds.),

Participatory sensing, opinions and collective awareness,

163–179. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

3-319-25658-0_8

Haklay, M, Dörler, D, Heigl, F, Manzoni, M, Hecker, S and

Vohland, K. 2021. What Is Citizen Science? The Challenges

of Deﬁnition. In Vohland, K, et al. (eds.), The Science of

Citizen Science, 13–33. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_2

Haklay, M and Francis, L. 2018. Participatory GIS and

community-based citizen science for environmental

justice action. In Chakraborty, J, Walker, G and Holiﬁeld,

R (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Environmental

Justice, 297–308. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.4324/9781315678986-24

Irwin, A. 2018. No PhDs needed: how citizen science is

transforming research. Nature, 23 October [online access at

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07106-5 last

accessed 18 November 2021]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/

d41586-018-07106-5

Kimura, AH and Kinchy, A. 2019. Science by the people:

Participation, power, and the politics of environmental

knowledge. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813595115

Lemos, MC and Agrawal, A. 2006. Environmental

governance. Annual Review of Environmental Resources,

31: 297–325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.

energy.31.042605.135621

Mol, A. 2008. Environmental Reform in the Information Age:

The Contours of Informational Governance. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/

CBO9780511491030

Nesbit, M, Filipova, T, Stainfort, T, Nyman, J, Lucha, C, Best,

A, Stochhaus, H and Stec, S. 2019. Development of an

assessment framework on environmental governance in

the EU Member States. No 07.0203/2017/764990/SER/

ENV.E.4.

Berti Suman et al. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice DOI: 10.5334/cstp.496

TO CITE THIS ARTICLE:

Berti Suman, A, Balestrini, M, Haklay, M and Schade, S. 2023. When Concerned People Produce Environmental Information: A Need to

Re-Think Existing Legal Frameworks and Governance Models? Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 8(1): 10, pp. 1–13. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.5334/cstp.496

Submitted: 12 January 2022 Accepted: 09 February 2023 Published: 20 March 2023

License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source

are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Citizen Science: Theory and Practice is a peer-reviewed open access journal published by Ubiquity Press.

Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). 2015. Advancing the

Health in All Policies Approach in the Americas: What Is the Health

Sector’s Role? A Brief Guide and Recommendations for Promoting

Intersectoral Collaboration. Washington, DC, US: PAHO.

Pocock, MJ, Roy, HE, Preston, CD and Roy, DB. 2015. The

Biological Records Centre: a pioneer of citizen science.

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 115(3): 475–493.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12548

Pocock, MJ, Tweddle, JC, Savage, J, Robinson, LD and Roy,

HE. 2017. The diversity and evolution of ecological and

environmental citizen science. PloS one, 12(4): e0172579.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172579

Ponti, M and Craglia, M. 2020. Citizen-generated data for

public policy. European Commission, Ispra, JRC120231. In

particular, ‘Samen Meten’ project box.

Rak, A, Coleman, D and Nichols, S. 2012. Legal liability concerns

surrounding volunteered geographic information applicable

to Canada. In Rajabifard, A and Coleman, D (eds.), Spatially

enabling government, industry and citizens, 125–143. GSDI

Association Press.

Rubio-Iglesias, JM, Edovald, T, Grew, R, Kark, T, Kideys, AE, Peltola,

T and Volten, H. 2020. Citizen Science and Environmental

Protection Agencies: Engaging Citizens to Address Key

Environmental Challenges. Frontiers in Climate, 2(600998):

1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.600998

Smith, B. 2014. Agency Liability Stemming from Citizen-Generated

Data. Policy Memo Series Vol 3. Washington, DC: The Wilson

Center.

Volten, H, Devilee, J, Apituley, A, Carton, L, Grothe, M, Keller,

C, Kresin, F, Land-Zandstra, A, Noordijk, E, van Putten, E,

Rietjens, J, Snik, F, Tielemans, E, Vonk, J, Voogt, M and

Wesseling, J. 2018. Enhancing national environmental

monitoring through local citizen science. In Hecker, S, et al.

(eds.), Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Policy and

Society, 337–352. London, UK: UCL Press. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.2307/j.ctv550cf2.30

Wesseling, J, de Ruiter, H, Blokhuis, C, Drukker, D, Weijers,

E, Volten, H, Vonk, J, Gast, L, Voogt, M, Zandveld, P,

van Ratingen, S and Tielemans, E. Development and

implementation of a platform for public Information on

Air Quality, Sensor Measurements, and Citizen Science.

Atmosphere 10(445): 1–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/

atmos10080445

World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). 2001. Volunteers for

Weather, Climate and Water. No. 919. Geneva, Switzerland:

WMO.

Wyeth, G, Paddock, LC, Parker, A, Glicksman, RL and Williams,

J. 2019. “The Impact of Citizen Environmental Science in

the United States”. The Environmental Law Reporter, 3(49):

10237–10263.