Why wetland restoration needs citizens on the ground

Wetland restoration is expanding worldwide, but long-term success often remains uncertain. Most projects rely on short-term, expert monitoring that ends long before restored wetlands stabilize, leaving major gaps in understanding how restored wetlands actually evolve over time. One increasingly discussed way to close these gaps is to extend monitoring beyond professional teams by engaging local communities and citizens in long-term observation.

In a Perspective published (DOI: 10.1016/j.ese.2026.100656) in Environmental Science and Ecotechnology in January 2026, researchers from Aarhus University and Wetlands International examined how citizen science is currently used in wetland restoration worldwide. By reviewing 120 restoration sites, the team found that fewer than 20% formally integrate citizen science, even in regions with strong restoration policies. The authors argue that recent technological and institutional shifts now make it possible to move citizen science from the margins into the core of restoration monitoring, where it can directly inform adaptive management and long-term decision-making.

The study highlights a clear mismatch between the potential of citizen science and how it is currently used in wetland restoration. Most initiatives remain small, fragmented, and focused on education rather than long-term ecological monitoring. Citizen science projects are heavily concentrated in high-income regions, while wetlands in low- and middle-income countries—often under the greatest pressure—receive little participatory monitoring support.

The authors show that this situation is rapidly changing. Affordable satellites and drones now allow volunteers to track vegetation patterns and water dynamics across entire landscapes. Low-cost sensors enable citizens to monitor water quality, soil conditions, biodiversity, and even greenhouse gas fluxes. Smartphones and mobile platforms make it possible to collect large volumes of georeferenced data over long periods.

Crucially, the study emphasizes that data quality concerns, while still important, are increasingly manageable. Standardized protocols, automated checks, and expert-supported validation systems can substantially improve the reliability and transparency of citizen-generated data. The remain challenge lies largely in institutional practice. Restoration programs still treat citizen science as an add-on rather than a source of decision-relevant information. Integrating these data into formal monitoring systems would greatly improve spatial coverage, temporal continuity, and the ability to detect early signs of ecological success—or failure.

"Wetland restoration does not follow project timelines—it follows ecological ones," the authors note. They stress that relying solely on short-term expert assessments limits the ability to understand long-term outcomes. Citizen science offers a way to extend monitoring far beyond the lifespan of individual projects. When properly designed and validated, public observations can complement professional assessments rather than compete with them. The researchers argue that treating citizen science as monitoring infrastructure, instead of outreach activity, is essential for improving how restoration success is evaluated and managed over time.

Embedding citizen science into wetland restoration could reshape how restoration success is measured worldwide. It provides a scalable, cost-effective way to expand monitoring while strengthening public engagement with ecosystems. For practitioners, continuous local observations support adaptive management and faster responses to unexpected change. For policymakers, citizen-generated data can contribute to national reporting systems and global biodiversity and restoration targets. The authors suggest that future restoration guidelines should explicitly include citizen science, supported by clear protocols, training, and feedback. If widely adopted, this approach could help ensure that restored wetlands remain resilient, functional, and sustainable under increasing climate and land-use pressures.

###

References

DOI

10.1016/j.ese.2026.100656

Original Source URL

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ese.2026.100656

Funding information

This work was supported by the European Union's Horizon Europe programmes WET HORIZONS (Grant Agreement 101056848), NBS4Drought (Grant Agreement 101181351), and PATTERN (Grant Agreement 101094416).

About Environmental Science and Ecotechnology

Environmental Science and Ecotechnology (ISSN 2666-4984) is an international, peer-reviewed, and open-access journal published by Elsevier. The journal publishes significant views and research across the full spectrum of ecology and environmental sciences, such as climate change, sustainability, biodiversity conservation, environment & health, green catalysis/processing for pollution control, and AI-driven environmental engineering. The latest impact factor of ESE is 14.3, according to the Journal Citation Reports^TM 2024.