Literature review of the challenges for citizen science in climate change adaptation
Despite widespread public awareness of the risk posed by climate change and the urgent need to take action, levels of active public engagement remain quite low (Cruz et al. 2025). While citizen participation is increasingly emphasized in EU adaptation policies (e.g., Horizon Europe, 2021), this lack of engagement limits the effectiveness and societal reach of adaptation efforts, significantly hindering successful adaptation. The following section will share a brief literature review of the challenges for citizen science (and public engagement in a wider sense) in the context of adaptation to climate change.
Low levels of citizen participation
Many citizen science projects face difficulties in scaling participation, because they are confined to specific geographic locations and communities. This is exacerbated by challenges in the following domains:
Communication
Ineffective communication strategies and lack of inclusive outreach efforts can reduce participation in citizen science initiatives. Technical language often alienates potential participants by failing to align with their values (Hendersson & Wamsler, 2020), while unclear guidelines and complex equipment can hinder sustained engagement (Hyder et al., 2017). Descriptions of the project itself are also crucial, as these often represent the first point of contact with prospective participants – thus, the communication style deployed needs to spark interest, whilst also relaying the necessary practical information (Golumbic and Oesterheld, 2023).
In the context of climate change, these communication challenges are intensified – as climate change is characterised by complexities and uncertainties, making this phenomena difficult to contextualize at the individual level. Complexities include, amongst others (perceived) distant impacts and lack of immediacy, as well as the lack of gratification for taking mitigative actions (Moser, 2010). Thus, if the narrative and communication style of the citizen science initiative does not address cultural, socioeconomic and psychological factors – a disconnect can develop in which individuals do not recognise the risk of climate change as relevant to them and therefore do not perceive agency (Hendersson and Wamsler, 2020). Furthermore, as the perception of risk is a mental construct and risk perception has been indicated to be an important predictor of public willingness to engage in sustainable practices (Leiserowitz, 2006). Climate change risk perceptions can vary greatly and are influenced by cognitive, experiential and socio-cultural factors (van der Linden, 2015).
A lack of effective engagement of stakeholders at the community level is a challenge for climate change adaptation, as this can hinder progress and prevent sufficient scaling of initiatives (e.g. through training programs) (Moser and Pike, 2015).
Psychology
Climate change is still perceived by many as a remote, indirect or abstract threat, which diminishes the perceived immediacy of the issue (Geiger et al, 2022 ; van der Linden, 2015). This perception can result in limited public engagement with climate change (Geiger et al, 2022) or motivation to participate meaningfully in adaptation strategies, including citizen science initiatives. In formulating effective climate change adaptation strategies, it is crucial not to overlook the psychosocial and behavioral aspects that influence individual and community responses (van der Linden, 2015).
Individual’s perception of climate risk will influence their readiness to engage with adaptation initiatives and strategies (Aronsson & Schöb, 2018). Perceptions are influenced by numerous factors, including personal experiences (Reser et al. 2020), worldviews, social norms and levels of trust in government and institutions (Spence et al. 2011, Whitmarsh et al. 2013).
Taking into account the affective dimension – the emotional response to climate change- when trying to enhance citizen engagement, is crucial, as emotions significantly influence the motivation of individuals to act. Whilst emotions such as fear, helplessness and denial act as a hindrance, feelings of hope, concern and empowerment can encourage proactive behaviour (O’Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009). Individual’s sense of efficacy and coping strategies play a critical role in shaping individuals’ willingness to engage in adaptation actions, highlighting the importance of integrating psychological factors into adaptation planning and policy development (Truelove et al. 2015).
Therefore, citizen science initiatives that want to foster long term engagement with climate adaptation can not limit their communication efforts to technical or informational strategies, but must incorporate emotional and socio-psychological dimensions. For example, framing climate change impacts as immediate and local can increase engagement, by reducing psychological distance of climate change (Jones et al. 2017).
Maintaining long term engagement
The motivation driving citizens voluntary participation is the product of a complex interplay of individual motivations and external influences (West & Pateman, 2016) and a differentiation needs to be made between the initial engagement (often driven by intrinsic motivation, curiosity and the desire to learn) and sustained engagement (which results from intrinsic, external and collectivistic factors) (Delfine et al. 2024).
Limited incentives can undermine long-term citizen engagement, especially without clear benefits or visible outcomes. Monotonous tasks, insufficient training, or overly complex activities further reduce motivation to stay involved (Delfine et al., 2024).
Whilst financial incentives or the prospect of self-enhancement can increase initial motivation, achieving sustained participation over a longer time frame is reached by drawing on intrinsic values and factors – such as fairness, opportunities to gain new knowledge and skills and receiving feedback, personal mentoring and a sense of accomplishment (von Gönner et al, 2023; Palacin et al. 2020). Numerous examples have shown that monetary incentives alone are not sufficient to achieve sustained participation (Defline et al. 2024).
However, other incentive methods deemed effective (beyond monetary incentives) – can require significantly more time and resources to put into place and maintain – such as providing periodic feedback to participants (Tinati et al. 2015), gamification (Tinati et al. 2017) and aligning incentives with participant´s motives (Moghaddam et al. 2023).
Diversity and Inclusion
Achieving diversity in citizen science initiatives can be challenging, as self-selection tends to favor individuals who have benefited from higher education, have sufficient economic resources to afford the equipment and time to participate, and live in areas of political stability. This can result in those who do not have these characteristics being underrepresented, which often includes those from marginalized and Indigenous populations (Paleco et al. 2021).
In the context of climate change, this is of course particularly relevant, as climate change tends to disproportionately affect those already worse off. A lack of diversity in CS initiatives limits the range of perspectives, knowledge, and experiences that contribute to understanding and addressing climate-related challenges, such as valuable ecological knowledge that can improve climate adaptation strategies. Furthermore, increased diversity can lead to a higher chance of the development of innovative and creative solutions.
Failing to include marginalised communities can lead to the development of adaptation strategies that do not address their specific and localised needs. It can also decrease trust in scientific policies and adaptation strategies, as certain groups of citizens do not feel heard or included in the decision making process.
Data quality and ownership
If ownership rights are not clear, adaptation response efforts can be delayed, as key stakeholders (citizens, scientists, policy makers etc.) may have difficulties accessing data to develop adaptation strategies (Cooper et al. 2021). If ownership of the data does not remain in the community, this can lead to a loss of trust in the initiative by participating citizens, as they do not have control or see the benefit of the data they collect. This can also threaten future engagement in CS initiatives and the sustainability of longer-term projects.
Currently, there is still a significant gap between citizens and academic scientists when it comes to sharing knowledge and data. The data and information collected by citizens frequently does not get used by academic scientists and, on the other hand, the research produced by the academic is often blocked by paywalls – hindering access for the citizen scientists (Wildschut, 2017).
The issue of uncertainty in regard to data quality remains one of the most discussed aspects in the field of citizen science (Lukyanenko et al. 2019). Several challenges are present, including concerns of accuracy and reliability (due to variability in the expertise and consistency of those collecting the information). Furthermore, a lack of standardisation and validation processes, such as cross-checking with professional datasets or experts, can complicate the process of integrating datasets across regions and projects and hinder comparability. In turn, this reduces the usability of the data. Incomplete and inconsistent reporting (spatial and temporal), coupled with the challenge of ensuring diversity (addressed in the previous section) can exacerbate biases and could negatively impact the development of fair and equitable climate adaptation strategies (Fritz et al. 2022).
Ensuring that citizen scientist initiative possess the capacity and skills needed to collect and manage data in a scientifically rigorous way is crucial to ensure data quality. This does not mean that the participants themselves need to be experts, but that there must be interdisciplinary collaboration and outsourcing of tasks that require specialist skills (e.g. building a website or an app etc.)
Institutional and financial barriers
The success of citizen science initiatives can be threatened by limited institutional support and recognition (e.g. by not valuing the data collected) and lack of sustained funding. Funding and support is necessary to ensure that participants can be adequately trained and data sufficiently validated, as well as minimising potential drawbacks for citizens, such as feeling overburdened or disempowered by the process of lack of visible results. However, project-based funding and lack of long-term funding and internal resources at institutions can make it difficult for them to provide continuous support to citizen science initiatives over a longer time frame.
Many universities and research institutions are still more primed towards “traditional”, expert-driven data collection methods – as opposed to looking to include participatory methods. As mentioned in the previous section, concerns regarding data quality, ethics and intellectual property can complicate the situation, leading academics and researchers to avoid collaborating with citizen science initiatives (EUA, 2025).
Without the support of institutions, the chance for citizen science initiatives to impact national adaptation strategies remains low, as data collected by citizens is likely to remain unused in official decision making processes. In order to make a difference, local knowledge and lived experiences need to be valued by decision makers (Sprain, 2017).
A lack of institutional support can also act as a barrier for increasing engagement and participation with citizen science initiatives, due to low levels of trust. This is particularly relevant for the topic of climate change adaptation, where governments and institutions are already frequently perceived as not doing enough or not taking the matter seriously.
Institutions can also provide resources, like access to AI, which can strengthen citizen science initiatives. Without their support, citizen science initiatives risk becoming “missed opportunities” when it comes to contributing towards climate change adaptation strategies.
Partners
The ScienceUs team is formed by universities from the CIVIS Alliance and the Museum für Naturkunde that brings its expertise and networks generated thanks to its leading role in EU-citizen science and its successor, European Citizen Science.
ScienceUs is led by the Universidad Autonoma De Madrid (Spain). Together with other 6 universities from the CIVIS, (Aix Marseille Université(France), Ethniko Kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon (Greece), Universitatea Din Bucuresti (Romania), Universite Libre De Bruxelles (Belgium), Universita Degli Studi Di Roma La Sapienza (Italy), and Eberhard Karls Universitaet Tuebingen (Germany)) and the Museum Für Naturkunde (Germany) have joined to work together on the ScienceUs project, offering diverse experiences and know-how, and representing a broad, balanced, and targeted geographical area.
