In an age of unprecedented biodiversity observations, understanding how we measure ecological change has never been more important.
We frequently receive questions about why we host EwA projects and document data through our partner platform, Anecdata, instead of relying solely on iNaturalist, which helps identify species, collect observations, engage communities, and create a growing record of biodiversity observations. So why use other methods?
The answer is simple: documenting biodiversity and monitoring biodiversity are two different things.
Illustration: courtesy of Earthwise Aware
We use iNaturalist to engage people, assist with species identification, foster curiosity, and document opportunistic species occurrences through photographs and audio recordings. It has transformed the way many people connect with nature and has created an extraordinary global archive of visual and audio biodiversity observations.
For our biodiversity monitoring and conservation work, however, we use standardized, protocol-based, effort-documented, and attribute-focused methods developed by university partners, as well as EwA’s own standardized protocols. These approaches are designed to reduce sampling and observer biases and generate rigorous datasets, reliable inventories, and evidence that can support ecological research, biodiversity monitoring, and conservation planning.
While iNaturalist is useful for documenting opportunistic observations, it was not designed to generate the standardized, effort-controlled datasets required for rigorous ecological monitoring and many conservation science applications.
This distinction has important scientific, practical, and ethical implications.
As more people photograph and document nature, we are witnessing an unprecedented growth in opportunistic biodiversity observations. This is valuable. It expands our awareness of the living world, provides records of species encounters, and inspires more people to engage with nature.
However, the critical work of ecological monitoring, including measuring change, detecting trends, assessing impacts, and informing conservation decisions, requires carefully designed protocols and standardized data collection.
More observations do not necessarily produce better evidence. Better evidence comes from observations collected with methods designed to answer specific ecological questions.
Monitoring is not simply about finding and identifying species. It is about designing repeatable approaches that allow observations to be compared through time and across places. It requires recording not only what is present, but also where observers looked, how they searched, when they searched, how much effort was invested, and often what they did not find.
Without this context, observations can inspire, educate, and contribute to research, but they cannot by themselves provide the evidence needed for many conservation decisions.
At the same time, the effort required to conduct long-term biodiversity monitoring is not keeping pace with the growing enthusiasm for documenting biodiversity. Monitoring demands time, training, consistency, repeated visits, careful protocols, and sustained commitment. These efforts are often less visible than the rapid accumulation of photographs and observations, yet they are indispensable if we want to understand ecological change and make informed conservation decisions.
One of the responsibilities of participatory science is therefore to help people understand how observations become evidence and why methodology matters.
At EwA, we work to bridge that gap. Our goal is not simply to collect more observations, but to transform observations into meaningful evidence that helps us understand ecological change and supports informed conservation decisions.
iNaturalist and protocol-based monitoring are complementary approaches. iNaturalist helps bring people closer to nature, encourages discovery, and broadens our collective awareness. Rigorous monitoring allows us to detect change, quantify trends, and answer carefully defined ecological questions.
Engagement and scientific rigor are not competing goals. Public participation expands our ability to observe the living world, while standardized monitoring transforms those observations into evidence that can guide conservation. Together, they allow us not only to appreciate biodiversity, but also to understand how it is changing and how best to protect it.
No Comments Yet