Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41307891›Full record

ArticleAmbio2026

Citizen science contributions to environmental risks assessment and management: A systematic map and qualitative evidence synthesis.

Monika Suškevičs, Chidiebere Christy Obi, Joanna Tamar Storie, Carmen Kilvits, Anton Shkaruba, Ghieth Alkhateeb

Abstract readEvidence Synthesis
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Monika SuškevičsInstitute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Chair of Environmental Protection and Landscape Management, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51006, Tartu, Estonia. monika.suskevics@emu.ee.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5666-2623
Chidiebere Christy ObiInstitute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Chair of Environmental Protection and Landscape Management, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51006, Tartu, Estonia.
Joanna Tamar StorieInstitute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Chair of Landscape Architecture, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 56/1, 51006, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0034-1692
Carmen KilvitsInstitute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Chair of Environmental Protection and Landscape Management, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51006, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-2738-7307
Anton ShkarubaInstitute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Chair of Environmental Protection and Landscape Management, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 5, 51006, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2536-2123
Ghieth AlkhateebInstitute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Chair of Landscape Architecture, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 56/1, 51006, Tartu, Estonia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-8094-2913

Funding

Eesti Maaülikool P190253PKKKEesti Teadusagentuur PRG2632Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium P190253PKKK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an era of systemic risks from natural and human-induced hazards, we need approaches that address such risks at different governance levels, including those at the community level. Citizen science (CS)-public participation in research-is one such approach that has the potential to benefit risk assessment and management. Building on systematic evidence synthesis methodologies, we examine the individual and collective benefits from CS to environmental risk assessment and management. From systematic search results (9277 records), we found 133 publications dealing with the topic in-depth. Results show that CS is increasingly being recognised for risk assessment and management and several individual-level benefits (e.g., improved scientific skills) support outcomes for communities (e.g., increased community capacity). Identified knowledge gaps include (i) unidentified potential of CS for different risk governance phases, and (ii) scattered evidence of CS community outcomes in different geographic regions. We conclude that CS can increase resilience amongst vulnerable communities.

Indexed as

Citizen ScienceConservation of Natural ResourcesHumansRisk AssessmentRisk ManagementCitizen scienceEnvironmental riskOutcomesParticipationRisk governanceSystematic map

Identifiers

PMID41307891
PMCPMC13230440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.