NordicPATH impact summary

This is an impact report of the citizen science project Nordic Participatory, healthy, and people-centered cities. The scores displayed summarise the results of the assessment process designed by the MICS project. For more information on how they were calculated, visit https://mics.tools

Organisers Participants Observations

Project Information

Project start date:: April 2020
Project end date:: December 2023
Project Contacts:: Nuria Castell - ncb@nilu.no
Project URL:: https://nordicpath.nilu.no/
Impact Assesment progress:: 50% complete

Rules-based scores

These scores are calculated based on a set of rules written to combine a specific set of impact metrics on the same theme into a single indicator. A higher score means the project is carrying out more activities related to the theme of the indicator and is, therefore, more likely to have a higher positive impact in this area. Rule-based scores are only calculated for specific themes. Overall assessments can be found below in the machine-learning--based scoring. Descriptions and explanations of impact indicators are provided at about.mics.tools/indicators (e.g., the score is low on economic productivity because the project did not include specific aspects related to improving efficiency). Different scores trigger different recommendations presented in the following section. Also, scores are not linked to project objectives; they try to capture a broad range of impacts even if the project does not consider or care about all of them. All scores are out of 42.

Impact Indicators		Impact score (max 42)	Average score (of projects on platform)
Society	Activeness	0	22
Society	Involvement	31	17
Governance	Policy	10	13
Governance	Sustainable Development Goals	14	16
Economy	Economic productivity	0	13
Economy	Financial sustainability	0	19
Environment	Environmental awareness	0	21
Environment	Environmental footprint	0	13
Science	Scientific productivity	12	18
Science	Interdiscplinary science	34	21

Recommendations

The following recommendations are determined by the scores the project received in the previous section. The recommendations are based on citizen-science best practice as defined in the current scientific literature and how other projects have taken action to improve their impact in specific areas. Of course, following these recommendations does not guarantee the project will suddenly have a higher impact; it all depends on the specific context of each project, but they might provide helpful inspiration.

Society	Activeness	The activeness of participants within a project is an important aspect of citizen science. Efforts should be made to make participants aware they are contributing to a research project through clear communication channels, and to offer them the opportunity to be responsible for their activities. If the project has not measured participants' degree of satisfaction in the process, it might want to consider to consider investigating this further using this paper as a starting point.
Society	Involvement	The degree of involvement of participants in a project is an important aspect of citizen science, and this project goes to great lengths to ensure that participants are involved in multiple stages of the project. It is positive that participants are offered multiple project activities to take part in, and that they are offered different levels of involvement depending on their individual interests and availability. Good work!
Governance	Policy	The project's score for this indicator suggests it has started to have some impact on policy already. Well done! A common barrier to policy influence for citizen science is concerns about the data. The project could therefore consider addressing concerns surrounding the quality of citizen-science data and aligning the project with the data standards of the policy makers.
Economy	Economic productivity	We know that economic productivity isn't a priority for most citizen-science projects. If you are interested in improving the economic productivity of the project, it might help to fully appraise any potential developments and advances made through the creation of a dedicated IPR plan. This will help reveal any economic potential that might have been overlooked, and support its exploitation.
Economy	Financial sustainability	If the project wants to improve its financial sustainability, it could consider creating an exploitation plan. To reduce recurring investments in technology and the cost per observation, the project could consider using open-source software and tools.
Environment	Environmental awareness	Being environmentally aware means understanding how our behaviour impacts the environment and committing to making changes to our activities. The project could do more to educate participants on environmental challenges and contribute to participants' awareness of the natural environment, by explicitly disseminating information on sustainable lifestyles.
Environment	Environmental footprint	The project could do more to decrease its material footprint, take measures to reduce its polluting emissions, or use a sustainable procurement policy.
Science	Interdiscplinary science	By working across multiple disciplines , this project is making efforts to promote interdisciplinary ways of working. There is evidence that interdisciplinarity is statistically significantly and positively associated with research impact (Okamura, 2019), largely through the engagement of a wider audience. Keep up the good work!

Machine Learning Scores

The following scores were calculated using a statistically-driven machine-learning approach, a type of AI that learns to perform a task by analysing patterns in data. This is an experimental approach to citizen-science impact assessment, and the exact reasoning behind the scores is not explainable. The scores represent a best guess of the impact the project is having in each domain. How can you use the score? Well, this platform gives a common framework for impact assessment so you can use the scores: to see how the project's impact evolves over time; to compare the project with others; to report to funders and participants; or for your organisation's internal reporting. All scores are out of 42.