ReviewEnvironmental science and ecotechnology2026
Citizen science powers wetland restoration.
Review in Environmental science and ecotechnology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wetlands provide essential ecosystem services, from carbon sequestration and flood mitigation to biodiversity support, yet over 20 % have been lost in recent centuries, prompting global restoration efforts backed by policies like the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Despite rapid expansion of restoration projects, conventional monitoring remains short-term, expert-driven, and often disconnected from site-specific ecological dynamics, limiting adaptive management and long-term success. Citizen science has revolutionized ecological monitoring in other domains by enabling scalable, participatory data collection, but its application to wetland restoration has been largely overlooked. In this Perspective, we assess 120 restoration project sites worldwide and find that citizen science is currently integrated into fewer than 20 % of projects even in high-activity regions like Europe, leaving significant social and geographic potential untapped. We find that recent advances in affordable remote sensing, miniaturized sensors, and mobile platforms-supported by rigorous data-validation frameworks-are now overcoming historical constraints regarding data reliability and spatial continuity. These technological shifts, when coupled with emerging institutional recognition, allow citizen-generated data to serve as a scalable, cost-effective infrastructure for monitoring ecological change over meaningful timescales. Systematically integrating public participation into restoration practice is therefore essential for closing critical monitoring gaps and ensuring the long-term sustainability of global wetland ecosystems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.