# Do monetary incentives encourage local communities to collect and upload mosquito sound data using smartphones? A case study in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

## TL;DR

This study explores whether offering money encourages communities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to use smartphones to record and upload mosquito sounds, finding mixed results.

## Contribution

The study introduces a novel approach to citizen science data collection by testing monetary incentives in a malaria-prone region.

## Key findings

- Monetary incentives increased initial participation but had no effect later in the trial.
- Community interest in technology and social status influenced data collection more than monetary rewards.
- Communication and dialogue with participants may improve citizen science outcomes.

## Abstract

Malaria is one of the deadliest vector borne diseases affecting sub-Saharan Africa. A suite of systems are being used to monitor and manage malaria risk and disease incidence, with an increasing focus on technological interventions that allow private citizens to remotely record and upload data. However, data collected by citizen scientists must be standardised and consistent if it is to be used for scientific analysis. Studies that aim to improve data collection quality and quantity have often included incentivisation, providing citizen scientists with monetary or other benefits for their participation in data collection. We tested whether monetary incentives enhance participation and data collection in a study trialling an acoustic mosquito sensor. Working with the community in two health areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo, we measured data collection participation, completeness, and community responses. Our results showed mixed responses to the incentive, with more participants interested in the social status and monetary value of the technology used than the monetary incentive itself. The effect of incentives on data collection varied over the course of the trial, increasing participation in the start of the trial but with no effect in the latter half of the trial. Feedback from participants showed that opinions on technology, research objectives, and incentives varied between communities, and was associated with differences in data collection quantity and quality, suggesting that differences in community interest in data collection and the incentives may be more important than the incentive value itself. These results suggest that though there is an initial benefit, extrinsic motivations do not override differences in intrinsic motivations over time, and enhanced communication and dialogue with participants may improve citizen science participation and attitudes.