See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301634317

The contribution of community wisdom to

conservation ecology

Article in Conservation Biology · April 2016

DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12698

CITATIONS READS

2 165

7 authors, including:

Daniel Lunney Ben Hope

204 PUBLICATIONS 2,709 CITATIONS Office of Environment and Heritage
3 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Eleanor Stalenberg Mathew Crowther

Australian National University University of Sydney
6 PUBLICATIONS 56 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 1,305 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Animal personality in ecology View project

Koala water supplementation study in the Liverpool Plains, NSW View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mathew Crowther on 11 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Special Section: Moving from Citizen to Civic Science to Address Wicked Conservation
Problems

The contribution of community wisdom

to conservation ecology
Martin Predavec,∗ ¶ Daniel Lunney,∗ † Ben Hope,∗ Eleanor Stalenberg,‡ Ian Shannon,∗
Mathew S. Crowther,† and Indrie Miller∗
∗
Ecosystem Management Science Branch, Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, P.O. Box 1967, Hurstville, NSW 2220, Australia
†School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
‡Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia

Abstract: Scientists have traditionally collected data on whether a population is increasing, decreasing, or
staying the same, but such studies are often limited by geographic scale and time frame. This means that for
many species, understanding of trends comes from only part of their ranges at particular periods. Working
with citizen scientists has the potential to overcome these limits. Citizen science has the added benefit of
exposing citizens to the scientific process and engaging them in management outcomes. We examined a
different way of using citizen scientists (instead of data collection). We asked community members to answer
a question directly and thus examined whether community wisdom can inform conservation. We reviewed
the results of 3 mail-in surveys that asked community members to say whether they thought koala populations
were increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. We then compared the survey results with population trends
derived from more traditional research. Population trends identified through community wisdom were similar
to the trends identified by traditional research. The community wisdom surveys, however, allowed the question
to be addressed at much broader geographical scales and time frames. Studies that apply community wisdom
have the benefit of engaging a broad section of the community in conservation research and education and
therefore in the political process of conserving species.

Keywords: citizen science, community science, community surveys, koala, wisdom of the crowd
La Contribución de la Sabidurı́a Comunitaria a la Ecologı́a de la Conservación
Resumen: Tradicionalmente, los cientı́ficos han recolectado datos sobre si una población está incremen-
tando, disminuyendo o si se mantiene igual, pero dichos estudios generalmente están limitados por la escala
geográfica y el marco de tiempo. Esto significa que para muchas especies, el entendimiento de las tendencias
viene solamente de una parte de su extensión en periodos particulares. Trabajar con cientı́ficos ciudadanos
tiene el potencial de sobrepasar estos lı́mites. La ciencia ciudadana tiene el beneficio añadido de exponer a
los ciudadanos a los procesos cientı́ficos y de comprometerlos con el resultado del manejo. Examinamos una
forma diferente de usar a los cientı́ficos ciudadanos (en lugar de la colecta de datos). Pedimos a los miembros
de la comunidad que respondieron una pregunta de manera directa y ası́ examinamos si la sabidurı́a
comunitaria puede informar a la conservación. Revisamos los resultados de tres encuestas por correo, las
cuales preguntaban a los miembros de la comunidad si pensaban que las poblaciones de koalas estaban
incrementando, disminuyendo o si permanecı́an iguales. Después comparamos los resultados de la encuesta
con las tendencias poblacionales derivadas de una investigación más tradicional. Las encuestas de sabidurı́a
comunitaria, sin embargo, permitieron que la pregunta fuera dirigida a una escala geográfica y a un marco
de tiempo más amplio. Los estudios que aplican la sabidurı́a comunitaria tienen el beneficio de comprometer
a una sección extensa de la comunidad en la investigación de la conservación y en la educación, y por lo
tanto, en el proceso polı́tico de la conservación de especies.

Palabras Clave: ciencia ciudadana, ciencia comunitaria, encuestas comunitarias, koala, sabidurı́a de la multitud

¶email martin.predavec@environment.nsw.gov.au
Paper submitted March 9, 2015; revised manuscript accepted August 27, 2015.
496
Conservation Biology, Volume 30, No. 3, 496–505
⃝
C 2016 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12698
Predavec et al.
Introduction
Conservation ecology is concerned with population
decline and scarcity (Krebs 2008), with a fundamental
question being whether a population is increasing,
decreasing, or staying the same. This question relates
to determining the status of populations and the
effectiveness of management actions. We categorized
the methods used to answer this question into 4 broad
groups based on the way in which data are collected,
the extent to which the method collects new field data,
and the level of scientific training of participants (Fig. 1):
traditional research, inclusion of citizen scientists, expert
elicitation, and wisdom of crowds.
In traditional research, data collection is largely field
based and consists of counting numbers of animals in
repeat samples to determine population change. Highly
trained scientists collect these data. Often such studies
apply mark-recapture (Krebs 1989) or distance sampling
(Buckland 2001) methods, the data from which require
complex statistical tests. Such studies tend to be costly to
implement, particularly if they cover a large geographic
area or are long term. As a result, traditional research
is often limited to studies over small geographic areas
conducted within limited time frames.
Recently, there has been a move toward including citi-
zens in data collection: citizen science (Silvertown 2009;
Tulloch et al. 2013). In such studies, the level of scien-
tific training is not as great as in traditional research, but
the inclusion of citizens allows a larger geographic area
to be surveyed usually at a reduced cost (Dickinson &
Bonney 2012). Research that includes citizen science has
the added benefits of including the public in science and
giving people greater exposure to conservation issues
(Bonney et al. 2009). Furthermore, the importance of in-
corporating public opinion and values into conservation
decisions is increasingly recognized (Lunney et al. 2000b;
Miller & McGee 2001), and citizen science provides a
mechanism to integrate public opinion and scientific out-
comes. Bird atlas projects (e.g., Robertson et al. 2010;
Tulloch et al. 2013) are examples of the effectiveness of
citizen science.
With expert workshops (Fig. 1) or expert elicitation
(Martin et al. 2012), no new field data are collected and
conclusions are based on the collective knowledge of the
expert group. The group may rely on previous studies,
with data collected through a variety of means, including
traditional research and citizen science, but the conclu-
sions are derived through the expert interpretation of
such data. Preparation of threatened species lists, such as
the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red
List, is often conducted through expert workshops (e.g.,
McBride et al. 2012).
Although the first 3 methods have been used ex-
tensively in conservation, the 4th (defined below) has
497
received little attention. It is similar to the expert work-
shop in that no new data are collected and it relies on
existing knowledge to derive a conclusion, but it differs
in that the collective knowledge comes from a general
community, where scientific training is irrelevant. This
is referred to as the “wisdom of crowds” (Surowiecki
2005). Discussed extensively in relation to economics
and business processes, the wisdom of crowds posits
that each person within a group will bring a variety of
experiences and knowledge to a question. Although the
answer of any individual may be correct or incorrect,
the combined answer of the group is often correct and
more accurate than the answer given by an expert. This
method has great promise in conservation because it can
be easily applied over a wide geographic area and can
assess population change over long periods. The poten-
tial for community engagement and education in such
projects is also high.
We examined information on koala (Phascolarctos
cinereus) population change sourced from local commu-
nities (community wisdom) and compared it with pop-
ulation change determined through traditional methods.
We hypothesized that citizen scientists, as a group, can
provide reliable data related to conservation questions
and provide reliable answers to questions usually put to
experts. That is, can community wisdom provide answers
to the fundamental question of whether a population is
increasing, decreasing, or staying the same? We examined
what factors of community demographics, such as age
and gender of the participant and the length of residency
in an area, influence the answer. We tested our hypoth-
esis with a case study of community wisdom related to
the koala.
Methods
The Koala and Study Background
Koalas are iconic tree-dwelling marsupials (Jackson 2007)
found largely on fertile lands in the eastern and southern
parts of Australia. In New South Wales (NSW), the koala
is listed as vulnerable under both state and federal leg-
islation. While formerly widespread in NSW, remaining
populations of koalas are concentrated on the north, mid-
north, and central coasts and inland in the northern part
of the state (Department of Environment and Climate
Change 2008).
From 1986 to 1987, the NSW government conducted
a statewide koala survey as a part of a program initiated
by the federal government to determine the status of
Australia’s koala population (Reed et al. 1990). During
the planning phase, it became clear that it would be
immensely difficult to survey all of NSW on a small bud-
get. Hence, a postal sample survey of residents of NSW
was undertaken that included the question of whether
Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016
498 Community Wisdom in Conservation

Field locations Citizen Science Traditional Research

recorded (sample collection)

e.g., Koala community surveys (e.g., e.g., Koala Spot Assessment

Lunney et al. 2016a) Technique (e.g., Lunney et al. 2016a)
• Can cover a large area • Costly

Increasing extent of field data collection

• Requires recognition of • Time-consuming
species in question • Difficult over large
• Can examine patterns geographic areas
through time • Data robust
• Provides engagement of the • Well accepted
community in conservation

Citizen Science
(Wisdom of Crowds) Expert Workshops

e.g., Community wisdom (this study) e.g., ACEAS expert workshop

(McAlpine et al. 2015)
• Cheap
• Can cover a large area
• Can cover a large area
• Low spatial resolution • Often there is a limited range
of opinion
• Brings in a range of novel
opinions • Does not engage the
community in the outcomes
• Brings in community
perceptions that are
important for political and
community engagement
No field survey
— opinion only

Increasing level of ecological training of scientist

General community member Trained ecologist — species

(citizen) — Citizen Scientist expert

Figure 1. Conservation research categorized based on the level of training of participants (x-axis) and the extent
of new field data collected (y-axis). Wisdom of Crowds relates to asking the broad community, whose members
have varying degrees of ecological training, to answer questions relating to population trends.

the population was increasing, decreasing, or staying the koala) as required under the legislation. Even the advice
same. The findings were dramatic: based on the distri- provided to the federal environment minister by the Sci-
bution of koala records from the survey, about 50–75% entific Committee underpinning the 2012 koala listing
of the koala population of NSW had disappeared since states that “data available for [the] assessment remain ex-
European settlement, and the citizens of NSW believed tremely patchy, inconsistent, and incomplete.” Utilizing
that the population was declining. At the time, the value the citizen scientist perceptions of population change
of the communities’ perceptions of population change may help overcome patchiness of and inconsistencies in
was not fully recognized, although the government was the data.
so concerned about the findings that it asked for a koala We examined a series of community-based citizen sci-
summit to be held (Lunney et al. 1990). One immediate ence studies related to the koala carried out over the last
outcome of the summit was the initiation of a series of 30 years. We compared the findings with more traditional
intense local studies looking for trends and causes of population-trend data sets to determine the effectiveness
change (Lunney et al. 2000a, 2000b, 2002b, 2007). of applying community wisdom as part of a broader cit-
In 2012, the combined koala populations of Queens- izen science toolbox. The comparisons are qualitative
land, NSW, and Australian Capital Territory were listed because the studies we examined were not designed for
as vulnerable under federal legislation. This listing came direct comparison with other methods.
after a campaign by conservation groups, 2 unsuccessful
nominations for listing, and an Australian Government
2006 Statewide Mail-Out Survey
senate enquiry (Environment and Communications Ref-
erences Committee 2011). The earlier nominations were As part of a statewide, map-based survey of 10 wildlife
unsuccessful in part because the federal Scientific Com- species, we sent out 213,685 survey forms by mail across
mittee believed that there were insufficient data available rural NSW in 2006. The form included a questionnaire
to determine whether koala populations had declined by asking whether the species occurred in their local area
>30% over 3 generations (20 years in the case of the and whether respondents thought that the population

Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016
Predavec et al.
had increased, decreased, or stayed the same in number.
The survey form included a color map to mark sight-
ings of animals (Lunney et al. 2009). We received 16,526
replies to the survey, and respondents reported 4,909
koala sightings.
We summarized and mapped the responses to the
population-trend question by local government area
(LGA). We calculated the population trend in each LGA
as the number of respondents who believed that the pop-
ulation was increasing minus the number of respondents
who believed that the population was decreasing, all di-
vided by the total number of respondents. We mapped
responses in LGAs that had 20 or more replies and com-
pared the distribution of koala population trends across
the state with the results of known and published stud-
ies of koala population changes derived through more
traditional methods.
Comparison of Perceived Population Trends in 2 Periods
Coffs Harbour LGA (Fig. 2) was identified as a local area
worthy of further koala study (Lunney et al. 1990), and
it was the first LGA to have a Comprehensive Koala Plan
of Management (CKPoM) approved (Lunney et al. 1999).
A community survey, completed in early 1991, was an
integral part of data collection leading to the preparation
of the CKPoM (Lunney et al. 1999). It was a postal sur-
vey designed to provide information on koala sighting
locations and on the community’s perception of changes
in koala abundance. The 1990 survey generated 2018
responses and provided a record of 3159 koala sightings
(Lunney et al. 2000b, 2001).
The koala population in Port Stephens LGA (Fig. 2) has
also been the subject of much work (Knott et al. 1998;
Lunney et al. 1998, 2001), including work leading to the
preparation of a CKPoM (Port Stephens Council 2002).
In 1992, a community-based koala survey was distributed
to each of the 16,500 residences within the LGA. The
survey included maps on which residents were asked
to record the location of koala sightings and questions
regarding their perceptions of population trends. The sur-
vey resulted in 2995 forms being returned (Port Stephens
Council 2002).
We compared the distribution of responses to the koala
population trend question from the early 1990s surveys in
Coffs Harbour (1990) and Port Stephens (1992) with the
responses returned for each LGA in 2006. This allowed us
to investigate how community responses changed over
time.
Influence of Community Demographics on Responses
In the 2006 community survey, respondents were asked
demographic questions including their age, sex, and how
long they had lived in their current local area. For each of
the 3 demographic aspects, we compared the distribution
499
of responses to the koala population trend question with
chi-squared analyses. We grouped respondents into 2 age
classes for comparison: !55 years old or <55. For time in
the local area, we classified respondents as experienced
if they had lived in the area for !10 years and inexperi-
enced if they had lived in the area for <10 years. For each
of the 3 demographic aspects, we analyzed responses
from across NSW and responses from Coffs Harbour, Port
Stephens, Eden, and Gunnedah LGAs separately (Fig. 2).
Results
Community wisdom relating to population trends in the
koala match accepted patterns of population change both
spatially and temporally. In the 2006 statewide survey,
3047 respondents (18% of the total) indicated that koalas
existed in their local area. Of this number, 756 (25%)
did not respond to the population trend question. Of
the 2291 respondents who did answer the question, the
majority (53%) indicated that their local koala popula-
tions were staying the same. Thirty-three percent indi-
cated that the koala populations were decreasing, and
13% indicated that the populations were increasing. This
finding appears to contrast with the listing of koalas as
a threatened species under both state and federal leg-
islation, and in particular with the 2012 listing of the
koala population under federal legislation. This listing
was based on a decline of >30% over 3 generations.
However, the decline in the listing was based largely
on the decline in available habitat (i.e., distribution) and
few data were available relating to numbers (Threatened
Species Scientific Committee 2012).
The background documents to the 2012 listing also
recognized that the pattern of decline is not con-
sistent across NSW. This can be seen when looking
at the responses to the population trend question at
the scale of an LGA (Fig. 2). On average, respon-
dents thought koala populations were decreasing on
the northern, central, and southern coasts (Fig. 2). Re-
spondents from Gunnedah, to the west of the Great
Dividing Range, thought that there was an overall in-
crease, whereas respondents from other areas, for which
there were sufficient data, thought that the popula-
tion was staying the same (Fig. 2). Statewide patterns
of population change for comparison with the pattern
derived from community wisdom were available only
from data collected by citizen scientists or from expert
elicitation. The likelihood of detecting koalas across the
state at a 10-km resolution (Lunney et al. 2009), derived
from map-based citizen science surveys, indicated that
for the majority of the state, there was no measureable
difference in the likelihood of observing koalas. How-
ever, survey cells within Gunnedah and areas on the
northern coast showed an increase in likelihood. The
statewide pattern derived from community wisdom was
Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016
500
consistent with the pattern resulting from an expert elic-
itation workshop (McAlpine et al. 2015), which showed
that populations of koalas in coastal regions of NSW are
declining. However, several populations (e.g., Lismore,
Campbelltown, and Southern Highlands) appeared to be
relatively stable. In northwestern NSW, the Gunnedah
population declined sharply in 2009 due to drought and
heat waves (Lunney et al. 2012), although this occurred
after the 2006 citizen science survey. The patterns of pop-
ulation change at the LGA scale were also consistent with
more local studies of koala population change, including
in the Eden region (Lunney et al. 2014), Lismore, on the
north coast (Biolink Ecological Consultants 2011), and
Campbelltown, a periurban population to the southwest
of Sydney (Lunney et al. 2010; Close et al. 2015).
The timing of the surveys was important in deter-
mining the pattern of population change. For 2 LGAs
(Port Stephens and Coffs Harbour), repeated field sur-
veys were conducted (initial surveys in the 1990s and
the 2006 statewide survey) (Table 1). In both surveys in
Port Stephens, respondents thought, on average, that the
population was decreasing, although a similar percentage
of respondents said the koala population was decreasing
as those saying it was staying the same. The distribution
of respondents across the 3 responses in the 2 periods
did not differ. In Coffs Harbour, on average, respondents
thought that the koala population was declining in both
1990 and 2006 (Table 1). The distribution of respondents
for the 2 periods did not differ; 60% of respondents
thought that the population was decreasing in 1990, and
Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016
Community Wisdom in Conservation
Figure 2. Community perceptions
of koala population trends
(decreasing, increasing, and
staying the same) from 2004
through 2006 within New South
Wales local government areas.
in 2006, 45% thought that the population was decreas-
ing. The decrease corresponded with an increase in the
percentage of respondents thinking that the population
was staying the same (Table 1).
The suggested pattern of population change in Port
Stephens and Coffs Harbour was consistent with what is
known of these 2 areas from other data sources. Within
Coffs Harbour, the decline in koala populations appears
to have largely coincided with rapid urban expansion
in the 1970s and 1980s (Lunney et al. 1999, 2000a,
2016b). Following that decline, the koala population was
relatively stable between 1990 and 2011 as determined
through repeated field surveys in 1996 and 2011 (i.e.,
using traditional survey methods) (Lunney et al. 2016a).
Within Port Stephens, the major decline in koalas coin-
cided with rapid urban expansion, but this occurred from
the 1940s to the 1960s, so by the time of the initial survey
in 1992, the population decline was likely to have already
occurred (Port Stephens Council 2002). As a result, re-
spondents to the survey would view the koala population
as being a combination of declining and staying the same.
A population staying the same is not necessarily a healthy
population because the population trends say nothing
about absolute numbers: a stable population may have
already declined with numbers subsequently remaining
low and stable or at such a level as to not allow change
to be detected.
There was a significant difference in the distribution
of data across NSW relative to the age of the respondents
(Fig. 3). More respondents !55 years old thought that
Predavec et al.
Table 1. The number and percentage of citizen scientist responses for each koala population trend category.
Local
government Survey Increasing
area period (%)
Coffs Harbour 1990 34 (7)
2006 10 (7)
Port Stephens 1992 60 (6)
2006 5 (5)
a Calculated as (increasing – decreasing)/total responses. A trend value between −1 and −0.25 = population is decreasing (Dec); between −0.24
and 0.24 = population is staying the same; and between 0.25 and 1 = population is increasing.
b Significant at p < 0.001.
c Not significant at p = 0.05.
the population was increasing or staying the same than
respondents <55 years old, although the overall pattern
was similar (Fig. 3a). The differences were not consis-
tent across the state, and this was particularly evident
in Coffs Harbour (Fig. 3c) and Gunnedah (Fig. 3d). A
similar pattern was seen relative to the gender of the
respondents across the state (Fig. 4a); the greatest differ-
ences occurred in Coffs Harbour (Fig. 4c) and Gunnedah
(Fig. 4d). Finally, there was a relationship between the
length of time a respondent lived in the area and the
respondent’s perception of the koala population change
(Fig. 5), although the pattern was not consistent across
the state. The spatial differences observed reflected the
spatial differences in the population trends (Fig. 2) and
suggest that demographics of the community should be
considered when interpreting the results. Careful con-
sideration of the demographics of the community of re-
spondents can provide more information relating to the
ecological question. For example, the higher proportion
of long-term residents of Gunnedah thinking that the
koala population has increased (Fig. 5d) is an indication
of when the koala population increased.
Discussion
We have presented a novel way of using citizens to ad-
dress conservation questions. Instead of asking citizens to
collect data that apply to an ecological question, such as
the location of animals, we asked them to answer a ques-
tion directly, namely, what they thought the population
trend was. This is analogous to using expert elicitation
(Martin et al. 2012) rather than data collection. We found
that community wisdom provided useful answers that
corresponded well with population trend data collected
by more traditional methods. Information from commu-
nity members can be collected and combined as commu-
nity wisdom across a range of spatial and temporal scales
that would be difficult to survey with traditional methods.
It also provides access to privately owned lands, which
are difficult to survey. Furthermore, a single survey can
provide information on trends in the population, whereas
traditional survey methods require repeated surveys. In
501
Population
Decreasing Staying
(%) the same (%) χ2 Trenda
285 (60) 155 (33) 17.0b (−0.52) Dec
67 (45) 73 (49) (−0.38) Dec
509 (47) 509 (47) 0.2c (−0.41) Dec
52 (48) 51 (47) (−0.43) Dec
effect, we found that citizens, combined as a group, can
provide useful answers to conservation questions.
We are not the first to apply collective knowledge of
citizens to questions of population change, but gener-
ally where it has been applied, the citizens come from
groups that have a considerable knowledge regarding the
animals in question. For example, questions have been
asked of recreational fishers (Rochet et al. 2008; Daw
et al. 2011), long-term residents of rainforests in northern
Australia with knowledge of tree kangaroos (Kanowski
et al. 2001), and long-term urban residents regarding ur-
ban species (FitzGibbon & Jones 2006). In these cases,
the citizens had direct knowledge of the species in ques-
tion and tend more toward the expert end of the spec-
trum (Fig. 1). In our surveys, we solicited responses from
a broad section of the community over a large area, and
we expected a broad range of experiences and opinions
relating to the koala.
Based on review of examples of wise and irrational
crowds, Surowiecki (2005) determined 4 key criteria
separate wise crowds from irrational ones. First, there
must be diversity of opinion: each person should have
private information even if it is just an eccentric inter-
pretation of the facts. Within our study, the community
was self-selected (i.e., respondents chose to respond to
our surveys), but our sample size was large enough to
encompass a range of opinions. Second, there must be
independence in the responses: people’s opinions are
not determined by the opinions of those around them. In
our study, it is likely that the knowledge that individuals
held contributed to the knowledge of their neighbors,
but because the information was collected through postal
returns, individual opinions could be expressed. Third,
there should be decentralization of the responses: peo-
ple are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
In our study, we asked people about koala populations
within their local area, leaving it to the individual to de-
termine what constituted a local area. This meant that
respondents were able to answer the question relating
to a geographic area that they felt comfortable providing
an answer in relation to. Asking people about a specific
geographic area (e.g., the state as a whole) would likely
result in more people responding that they do not know.
Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016
502 Community Wisdom in Conservation

(a) 60 (a)

40
Response (%)

20

0
(b) 60
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same (b)

40
Response (%)

20

0
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same
(c) (c)
80
60
Response (%)

40
20
0
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same
(d)
60 (d)

40
Response (%)

20

0
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same
(e) (e)
60
Response (%)

40

20

0
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same

Community percep!on of popula!on change

Figure 3. Influence of age on community perceptions Figure 4. Influence of gender on community

of koala population trends (grey, !55 years old;
black, <55 years old): (a) all of New South Wales
(n = 4293 respondents; χ 2 = 48.9, p < 0.001), (b)
Port Stevens (n = 159; χ 2 = 1.0, not significant), (c)
Coffs Harbour (n = 216; χ 2 = 14.4, p < 0.001), (d)
Gunnedah (n = 367; χ 2 = 29.8, p < 0.001), and (e)
Eden (n = 110; χ 2 = 2.0, not significant).
perceptions of koala population trends (gray, female;
black, male): (a) all of New South Wales (n = 3936
respondents; χ 2 = 103.9, p < 0.001), (b) Port Stephens
(n = 153; χ 2 = 3.0, not significant), (c) Coffs Harbour
(n = 205; χ 2 = 15.1, p < 0.001), (d) Gunnedah
(n = 367; χ 2 = 10.3, p < 0.001), and (e) Eden
(n = 103, χ 2 = 4.1, not significant).

Finally, there must be a means by which data can be
aggregated. In our surveys, the questions were designed
by wildlife biologists and were aggregated and analyzed as
part of this study. Our study fits these 4 criteria well, so it
is not surprising that the community can provide valuable
information relating to population change of koalas.
The fact that we studied the koala has undoubtedly con-
tributed to our successful outcomes. Koalas are instantly
recognizable and cannot be confused with other species
when seen in the wild (Jackson 2007). Koala sightings
are well remembered, and it is likely that members of
the public will have opinions on the species. This is not
the same for all animals, and species that are difficult
to identify, such as bats and rodents, or species that are
rarely seen, will not lend themselves to such studies.
However, the same can be said of most citizen science
studies that rely on the identification skills of the citizens
(Dickinson & Bonney 2012). The high profile of the koala

Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016
Predavec et al. 503

(a) 80 overriding the broader position of a decline presented by

the media.
Response (%) 60
40
20 Limitations
0
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same Our method is not without limitations. It is important
(b) 60 to recognize how the makeup of the community of re-
spondents can influence the results. We demonstrated
40 that age, gender, and length of residency can influence
Response (%)

the responses and that this finding is not consistent at

20 all spatial scales. It may not be possible to select the
0 subgroup with the correct answer, but the larger the
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same group and the more diverse the opinion, the better
(c) 80 the answer is likely to be.
It is also important to have the input of trained ecol-
60
Response (%)

ogist when interpreting the results to ensure that the

40 results are robust and reliable. The best citizen science
20 studies will have a good design and a good interpretation
0 (Robertson et al. 2010; Tulloch et al. 2013). In fact, like
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same any scientific study, poor design leads to unusable results.
(d) 60 The community, the citizen scientists, can feel let down
if their work does not result in a reliable outcome that
40 is sufficiently robust to address the initial questions. The
Response (%)

interpretation of community wisdom relating to popula-

20
tion change is particularly important in recognizing that
0 a population staying the same should not necessarily be
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same taken as a sustainable population owing to lack of abso-
(e) lute numbers that cannot be provided by the community-
60
wisdom approach.
40
Response (%)

There are limits on the level of detail that can be asked

20
0 themselves. If the question is ecologically simple, then
Increasing Decreasing Staying the same
Community percep!on of popula!on change
Figure 5. Influence of length of time
living in the community on community perceptions
of koala population trends (gray, !10 years
in community; black, "10 years): (a) all of New South
Wales (n = 4293 respondents; χ 2 = 161, p < 0.001),
(b) Port Stephens (n = 159; χ 2 = 0.1, not significant),
(c) Coffs Harbour (n = 216; χ 2 = 1.4, not significant),
(d) Gunnedah (n = 367; χ 2 = 148.4, p < 0.001),
and (e) Eden (n = 110, χ 2 = 2.0, not significant).
means that many people in the community will have been
exposed to media reports about the plight of the species.
The focus of the survey on the local area overcame some
of these potential biases created by media reports focus-
ing on the status of the koala at a broader geographic
scale. Our finding that the koala population of Gunnedah
is increasing is a good example of community wisdom
of community members. One can ask about trends in
population numbers, but one cannot ask about numbers
the results of community wisdom can be robust. This con-
tention does not undervalue the collective knowledge
of the community because scientists themselves struggle
with assessing the nature of decline. For example, the
NSW Scientific Committee (2012) found that “population
fluctuations may be difficult to distinguish from direc-
tional population changes, such as continuing declines,
reductions or increases.” The diversity of response from
the community is no doubt partly a reflection of the com-
plexity of population dynamics.
Asking the people is best used in conjunction with
more traditional methods—confirming and expanding
the results. Another positive aspect of the method results
from the community’s participation and engagement. Al-
though such engagement is recognized across all citizen
science projects (e.g., Miller & McGee 2001), we con-
sider that asking the community conservation questions
directly will foster better engagement and acceptance by
the community of management outcomes relative to tra-
ditional conservation research and allows for engagement
and education of a wider cross section of the community
than more traditional citizen science.

Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016
504
The koala provides a prime example of how citizen sci-
ence can lead to citizen engagement and education, polit-
ical motivation, and on-the-ground action. Some pointed
examples are the listing of the koala in 1992 as vulnerable
under NSW legislation and the promulgation in 1995 of
the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP44
koala habitat protection). This SEPP is a legal instrument
that directs the planning provisions of local government
in NSW with respect to koala habitat protection (Lunney
et al. 2002a). What we recognized in the development of
all these management tools is that by involving citizens
from the outset of our koala research projects, including
asking direct questions relating to population trends, the
likelihood of acceptance of the results would be high.
Acceptance of the results then provided the basis for the
plan of management to be drafted, circulated for discus-
sion, and accepted by representative bodies. The first
CKPoM developed under SEPP44 was approved by Coffs
Harbour Council in 1999 and the state government in
2000. This plan relied heavily on information provided by
the community, including the location of koalas and per-
ceptions of population trends and threats to local koala
populations. In developing the plan, we also engaged
the community as to what mitigation measures would be
acceptable. The result was a robust plan accepted by the
community, and their political leaders, which is still in
force today.
The conclusion we draw from our 3 decades of citizen
science with koalas, our traditional scientific studies, and
those of our colleagues, and the never-ending politics of
this iconic marsupial, is that science, education, and pub-
lic support have achieved good conservation outcomes
that would have been impossible without the citizen sci-
ence element. The citizen science has included directly
asking citizens questions relating to population trends
and we have demonstrated that their answers are in-
formative and reliable. Through the citizen engagement
fostered by this citizen science, it follows that the com-
munity can now more readily see the problems faced
by koalas in NSW and consequently will take actions
that limit loss and deal with threats. By being part of
the discovery of the population trends and the multiple
causes of decline, the citizen scientists can see how to
remedy the loss and not just be told by scientists what
the problem is and how to fix it.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge and value the contribution
of all respondents who participated in the various citizen
science surveys. For the 2006 statewide survey, we
thank the following OEH NSW staff: S. Smith for funding;
M. Stephens, R. Avery, and R. Ruffio for map design and
data-entry formatting; P. Sherratt for design of survey
sheet; C. Togher and E. Knowles for GIS assistance;
S. Rhind for her focus on Gunnedah; and D. Plowman for
Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016
Community Wisdom in Conservation
assistance with Atlas data entry. We thank J. Callaghan
and S. Leathley for their contribution to the Port Stephens
survey and J. Turbill and C. Moon for their contribution
to the Coffs Harbour work.
Literature Cited
Biolink Ecological Consultants. 2011. Aspects of the ecology, distribu-
tion and abundance of koalas in the Lismore LGA. Report to Lismore
City Council, Uki, NSW.
Bonney R, Cooper CB, Dickinson J, Kelling S, Phillips T, Rosenberg
KV, Shirk J. 2009. Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding
science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59:977–984.
Buckland ST. 2001. Introduction to distance sampling: Estimating abun-
dance of biological populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Close R, Ward S, Phalen D. 2015. A dangerous idea: that koala densities
can be low without the populations being in danger. Australian
Zoologist. DOI:10.7882/AZ.2015.001.
Daw TM, Robinson J, Graham NJ. 2011. Perceptions of trends in Sey-
chelles artisanal trap fisheries: comparing catch monitoring, under-
water visual census and fishers’ knowledge. Environmental Conser-
vation 38:75–88.
Department of Environment and Climate Change. 2008. Recovery
plan for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus). Page 124. Department
of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney. Available from
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/
08450krp.pdf (accessed April 21, 2015).
Dickinson JL, Bonney R, editors. 2012. Citizen science: public partici-
pation in environmental research. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,
New York.
Environment and Communications References Committee. 2011. The
koala—saving our national icon. Commonwealth of Australia, Can-
berra.
FitzGibbon SI, Jones DN. 2006. A community-based wildlife survey: the
knowledge and attitudes of residents of suburban Brisbane, with a
focus on bandicoots. Wildlife Research 33:233–241.
Jackson S. 2007. Koala. Origins of an icon. Jacana Books, Crows Nest,
Australia.
Kanowski J, Felderhof L, Newell G, Parker T, Schmidt C, Stirn B, Wil-
son R, Winter JW. 2001. Community survey of the distribution of
Lumholtz’s tree-kangaroo on the Atherton Tablelands, North-east
Queensland. Pacific Conservation Biology 7:79–86.
Knott T, Lunney D, Coburn D, Callaghan J. 1998. An ecological history
of Koala habitat in Port Stephens Shire and the Lower Hunter on the
Central Coast of New South Wales, 1801–1998. Pacific Conservation
Biology 4:354–368.
Krebs C. 1989. Ecological methodology. HarperCollins Publishers, New
York.
Krebs CJ. 2008. The ecological world view. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Lunney D, et al. 2012. Koalas and climate change: a case study on
the Liverpool Plains, north-west New South Wales. Pages 150–168
in Lunney D, Hutchings P, editors. Wildlife and climate change:
towards robust conservation strategies for Australian fauna. Royal
Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman.
Lunney D, Close R, Bryant J, Crowther MS, Shannon I, Madden K, Ward
S. 2010. Campbelltown’s koalas: their place in the natural history
of Sydney. Pages 319–325 in Lunney D, Hutchings P, Hochuli D,
editors. The natural history of Sydney. Royal Zoological Society of
New South Wales, Sydney.
Lunney D, Coburn D, Matthews A, Moon C. 2001. Community percep-
tions of koala populations and their management in Port Stephens
and Coffs Harbour local government areas, New South Wales. Pages
48–70 in Lyons K, Melzer A, Carrick F, Lamb D, editors. The research
and management of non-urban koala populations. Koala Research
Centre of Central Queensland, Rockhampton.
Predavec et al.
Lunney D, Crowther MS, Shannon I, Bryant JV. 2009. Combining a
map-based public survey with an estimation of site occupancy to
determine the recent and changing distribution of the koala in New
South Wales. Wildlife Research 36:262–273.
Lunney D, Gresser S, O’Neill LE, Matthews A, Rhodes J. 2007. The
impact of fire and dogs on Koalas at Port Stephens, New South
Wales, using population viability analysis. Pacific Conservation Biol-
ogy 13:189–201.
Lunney D, Matthews A, Moon C, Ferrier S. 2000a. Incorporating habitat
mapping into practical koala conservation on private lands. Conser-
vation Biology 14:669–680.
Lunney D, Matthews A, Moon C, Turbill J. 2002a. Achieving fauna
conservation on private land: reflections on a ten-year project. Eco-
logical Management and Restoration 3:90–96.
Lunney D, Moon C, Matthews A, Turbill J. 1999. Coffs harbour compre-
hensive koala plan of management. NSW National Parks and Wildlife
Service, Hurstville.
Lunney D, O’Neill L, Matthews A, Coburn D. 2000b. Contribution of
community knowledge of vertebrate fauna to management and plan-
ning. Ecological Management & Restoration 1:175–184.
Lunney D, O’Neill L, Matthews A, Sherwin WB. 2002b. Modelling mam-
malian extinction and forecasting recovery: koalas at Iluka (NSW,
Australia). Biological Conservation 106:101–113.
Lunney D, Phillips S, Callaghan J, Coburn D. 1998. Determining the
distribution of Koala habitat across a shire as a basis for conserva-
tion: a case study from Port Stephens, New South Wales. Pacific
Conservation Biology 4:186–196.
Lunney D, Predavec M, Miller I, Shannon I, Fisher M, Moon C, Rhodes
J, Matthews A, Turbill J. 2016a. Interpreting patterns of population
change in koalas from long-term datasets in Coffs Harbour on the
north coast of New South Wales. Australian Mammalogy 38:29–43.
Lunney D, Stalenberg E, Santika T, Rhodes JR. 2014. Extinction in Eden:
identifying the role of climate change in the decline of the koala in
south-eastern NSW. Wildlife Research 41:22–34.
Lunney D, Urquhart CA, Reed P. 1990. Koala Summit: managing koalas
in New South Wales. Proceedings of the Koala Summit Held at the
University of Sydney, 7–8 November 1988. NSW National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Sydney.
Lunney D, Wells A, Miller I. 2016b. An ecological history of the Koala
Phascolarctos cinereus in Coffs Harbour and its environs, on the
mid-north coast of New South Wales, c1861-2000. Journal of the
Linnean Society of New South Wales 138:1–48.
View publication stats
505
Martin TG, Burgman MA, Fidler F, Kuhnert PM, Low-Choy S, McBride
M, Mengersen K. 2012. Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation
science. Conservation Biology 26:29–38.
McAlpine CA, et al. 2015. Conserving koalas: a review of regional trends,
outlooks and policy challenges. Biological Conservation 192:226–
236.
McBride MF, et al. 2012. Structured elicitation of expert judgments for
threatened species assessment: a case study on a continental scale
using email. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:906–920.
Miller KK, McGee CTK. 2001. Toward incorporating human dimensions
information into wildlife management decision-making. Human Di-
mensions of Wildlife 6:205–221.
NSW Scientific Committee. 2012. Guidelines for interpreting listing
criteria for species, populations and ecological communities under
the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act Version 1.3. NSW
Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.
Port Stephens Council. 2002. Port Stephens Council Comprehensive
Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM). Prepared by Port Stephens
Council with the Australian Koala Foundation, Port Stephens.
Reed PC, Lunney D, Walker P. 1990. A 1986–1987 survey of the koala
Phascolarctos cinereus (Goldfuss) in New South Wales and an eco-
logical interpretation of its distribution. Pages 55–74 in Lee AK,
Handasyde K, Sanson G, editors. Biology of the koala. Surrey Beatty
and Sons, Sydney.
Robertson MP, Cumming GS, Erasmus BFN. 2010. Getting the most out
of atlas data. Diversity and Distributions 16:363–375.
Rochet M-J, et al. 2008. Ecosystem trends: evidence for agreement be-
tween fishers’ perceptions and scientific information. ICES Journal
of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil 65:1057–1068.
Silvertown J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology
& Evolution 24:467–471.
Surowiecki J. 2005. The wisdom of crowds. Knopf Doubleday Publish-
ing Group, New York.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee. 2012. Koalas - advice to the
minister for sustainability, environment, water, population and com-
munities for amendments to the list of threatened species under
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act). Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Pop-
ulation and Communities, Canberra.
Tulloch AIT, Possingham HP, Joseph LN, Szabo J, Martin TG. 2013.
Realising the full potential of citizen science monitoring programs.
Biological Conservation 165:128–138.
Conservation Biology
Volume 30, No. 3, 2016