Community based monitoring projects, often called citizen science, have been on the rise for the last decade.  Although they provide the benefit of large data sets from a wide area, the quality of the data is often questioned because they are collected by laypeople.  However, there are a number of side benefits of utilizing volunteers in research that may outweigh this concern: increased stewardship, educational benefits, and community support for such research.  The goal of many of these projects often is restoration or preservation of an area, and these side benefits may aid in meeting the end goal as much as the actual data collected.  Many community based monitoring projects publish their results in scientific or technical literature with recommendations for similar future projects.  This study determines if these recommendations match the best management practices actually used by programs.  Also, this study compares recommendations by habitat to see if more specificity is needed in strategies to improve the data coming from monitoring programs and allow them to successfully fulfill their mission.  Surveys of program coordinators and primary investigators were compared to recommendations in the literature to determine if published recommendations are realistic representations of actual field practices. 

Results/Conclusions

Results showed that although the top recommendations of the literature and survey respondents were similar (championing collaboration with experts, consistent methodology, and presentation of data to policymakers), the means and implications of achieving these goals differs by habitat.  Specific habitats were associated with different types of mission statements that have implications for their definition of reliable data and overall success.  Thus, the means to achieve a particular practice and the implications of that practice differ by habitat even if the practice itself is necessary in all habitats.  For example, collaboration, the top recommendation by survey respondents, was a means to provide new research ideas in grassland studies and a primarily a way to share money among stream programs.  Habitat is an important consideration, especially the challenging first few foundation years, in designing and coordinating a community based monitoring program.