Participant Outcomes of Biodiversity Citizen Science Projects: A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Biodiversity Citizen Science
1.2. Participant Outcomes
2. Methods
2.1. Literature Search
2.2. Literature Analysis
- Citizen science: The articles included in this review focus on citizen science defined as the “engagement of non-professionals in scientific investigations” [5]. More specifically, citizen science involves members of the public who participate in research projects voluntarily, that is, people who are not professionally involved in scientific research [4] and who take part without monetary incentives or requirements [33]. We hereby followed the review approach of Stepenuck and Green [33], who argue that both financial incentives and requirements may influence participant outcomes. Furthermore, citizen science means that the public participates in genuine scientific research [5] that uses scientific methods to collect and analyze authentic data in order to answer specific questions [4]. We therefore excluded articles that studied activities designed exclusively for environmental education, naturalist training, or conservation purposes, i.e., activities that did not involve participants contributing data to authentic scientific research.
- Biodiversity: Following the review approach of Theobald et al. [8], we included literature focusing explicitly on citizen science projects that involve volunteers in monitoring and identifying biological diversity and collecting biodiversity data. Biodiversity data was defined as “the presence and/or abundance of identified taxonomic (e.g., species, genus, family), genetic, or functional groups, as well as contextual information (e.g., collection date and location)” [8] (p. 237). Citizen science projects only tangentially related to biodiversity, for instance, projects monitoring air and water quality, or projects studying bird biology and nesting success, were not included.
- Nature-based: The third criterion concerns the spatial context of the citizen science project. As did Groulx et al. [34], we included articles on nature-based citizen science projects. Such projects take place in “outdoor environments marked by biophysical natural elements” [34] (p. 58). These projects may involve species identification or data submission through websites or smartphone apps, but are not limited to online activities. Studies on citizen science projects that do not include any participant interaction with nature, for example, purely online projects that require participants to identify species in online photo databases, were excluded.
- Individual participant outcomes: We included studies that investigated outcomes on the side of the individual participant or citizen as discussed by Shirk et al. [23] and Phillips et al. [26]. Research on other outcomes, for instance, outcomes for scientists or for the community in general, was excluded.
- Primary research articles: In this review, we aimed to synthesize the available evidence based on scientific studies that used qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods. The research method had to be specified within the article. In contrast to the review by Groulx et al. [34], we explicitly aimed to examine empirical evidence. Literature that only mentioned or discussed (probable) participant outcomes without having investigated them was excluded.
- Publications in English: In order to conduct a transparent and replicable review, we chose to limit our search to studies published in English.
3. Results
3.1. Studies Reviewed
3.2. Methods Used in the Studies
3.3. Participant Outcomes Investigated in the Studies
3.3.1. Knowledge
3.3.2. Behavior
3.3.3. Attitudes
3.3.4. Skills
3.3.5. Self-Efficacy
3.3.6. Interest
3.3.7. Other Personal Outcomes
4. Discussion
4.1. Participant Outcomes of Biodiversity Citizen Science Projects
4.2. Gaps in the Literature
4.3. Methodological Considerations
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Merenlender, A.M.; Crall, A.W.; Drill, S.; Prysby, M.; Ballard, H. Evaluating environmental education, citizen science, and stewardship through naturalist programs. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 1255–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dunkley, R.A. The Role of Citizen Science in Environmental Education. In Analyzing the Role of Citizen Science in Modern Research; Ceccaroni, L., Piera, J., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; pp. 213–230. [Google Scholar]
- Bonney, R.; Ballard, H.; Jordan, R.; McCallie, E.; Phillips, T.; Shirk, J.; Wilderman, C.C. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education: A CAISE Inquiry Group Report; Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE): Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Pettibone, L.; Vohland, K.; Ziegler, D. Understanding the (inter)disciplinary and institutional diversity of citizen science: A survey of current practice in Germany and Austria. PLoS ONE 2017, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller-Rushing, A.; Primack, R.; Bonney, R. The history of public participation in ecological research. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bonney, R.; Shirk, J.L.; Phillips, T.B.; Wiggins, A.; Ballard, H.L.; Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Parrish, J.K. Next steps for citizen science. Science 2014, 343, 1436–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Couvet, D.; Jiguet, F.; Julliard, R.; Levrel, H.; Teyssedre, A. Enhancing citizen contributions to biodiversity science and public policy. Interdiscip. Sci. Rev. 2008, 33, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Theobald, E.J.; Ettinger, A.K.; Burgess, H.K.; DeBey, L.B.; Schmidt, N.R.; Froehlich, H.E.; Wagner, C.; HilleRisLambers, J.; Tewksbury, J.; Harsch, M.A.; et al. Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 181, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Big Butterfly Count. Available online: http://www.bigbutterflycount.org (accessed on 2 April 2019).
- Tunde der Gartenvögel. Available online: http://www.stundedergartenvoegel.de (accessed on 2 April 2019).
- Sauvages de ma Rue. Available online: http://www.vigienature-ecole.fr (accessed on 2 April 2019).
- eBird. Available online: http://www.ebird.org (accessed on 2 April 2019).
- Atlas of Living Australia. Available online: http://www.ala.org.au (accessed on 2 April 2019).
- Chandler, M.; See, L.; Copas, K.; Bonde, A.M.Z.; López, B.C.; Danielsen, F.; Legind, J.K.; Masinde, S.; Miller-Rushing, A.J.; Newman, G.; et al. Contribution of citizen science towards international biodiversity monitoring. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 213, 280–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Donnelly, A.; Crowe, O.; Regan, E.; Begley, S.; Caffarra, A. The role of citizen science in monitoring biodiversity in Ireland. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2014, 58, 1237–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wals, A.E.J.; Brody, M.; Dillon, J.; Stevenson, R.B. Convergence between science and environmental education. Science 2014, 344, 583–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickinson, J.L.; Shirk, J.; Bonter, D.; Bonney, R.; Crain, R.L.; Martin, J.; Phillips, T.; Purcell, K. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stevenson, R.B.; Brody, M.; Dillon, J.; Wals, A.E.J. International Handbook of Research on Environmental Education; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bonney, R.; Phillips, T.B.; Ballard, H.L.; Enck, J.W. Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Underst. Sci. 2015, 25, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Haywood, B.K.; Parrish, J.K.; Dolliver, J. Place-based and data-rich citizen science as a precursor for conservation action. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Deguines, N.; de Flores, M.; Loïs, G.; Julliard, R.; Fontaine, C. Fostering close encounters of the entomological kind. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 16, 202–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, C.; Dickinson, J.L.; Phillips, T.; Bonney, R. Citizen Science as a Tool for Conservation in Residential Ecosystems. Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirk, J.L.; Ballard, H.L.; Wilderman, C.C.; Phillips, T.; Wiggins, A.; Jordan, R.; McCallie, E.; Minarchek, M.; Lewenstein, B.V.; Krasny, M.E.; et al. Public Participation in Scientific Research: A Framework for Deliberate Design. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, R.C.; Ballard, H.L.; Phillips, T.B. Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen-science learning outcomes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 10, 307–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, T.; Ferguson, M.; Minarchek, M.; Porticella, N.; Bonney, R. User’s Guide for Evaluating Learning Outcomes from Citizen Science; Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, T.; Porticella, N.; Constas, M.; Bonney, R. A Framework for Articulating and Measuring Individual Learning Outcomes from Participation. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2018, 3, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Overdevest, C.; Huyck Orr, C.; Stepenuck, K.F. Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2004, 11, 177–185. [Google Scholar]
- Brossard, D.; Lewenstein, B.; Bonney, R. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27, 1099–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, C.; Abrams, E.; Reitsma, R.; Roux, K.; Salmonsen, L.; Marra, P.P. The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant Outcomes of a Citizen-Science Ecological Research Project. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19, 589–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E.; Ballard, H.L.; Sturtevant, V.E. Adaptive Management and Social Learning in Collaborative and Community-Based Monitoring: A Study of Five Community-Based Forestry Organizations in the western USA. Ecol. Soc. 2008, 13, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kountoupes, D.L.; Oberhauser, K.S. Citizen Science and Youth Audiences: Educational Outcomes of the Monarch Larva Monitoring Project. J. Community Engagem. Scholarsh. 2008, 1, 10–20. [Google Scholar]
- Jordan, R.C.; Gray, S.A.; Howe, D.V.; Brooks, W.R.; Ehrenfeld, J.G. Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conserv. Biol. 2011, 25, 1148–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stepenuck, K.F.; Green, L.T. Individual- and community-level impacts of volunteer environmental monitoring: A synthesis of peer-reviewed literature. Ecol. Soc. 2015, 20, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groulx, M.; Brisbois, M.C.; Lemieux, C.J.; Winegardner, A.; Fishback, L. A Role for Nature-Based Citizen Science in Promoting Individual and Collective Climate Change Action? A Systematic Review of Learning Outcomes. Sci. Commun. 2017, 39, 45–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neimanis, A.; Castleden, H.; Rainham, D. Examining the place of ecological integrity in environmental justice: A systematic review. Local Environ. 2012, 17, 349–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stern, M.J.; Powell, R.B.; Hill, D. Environmental education program evaluation in the new millennium: What do we measure and what have we learned? Environ. Educ. Res. 2014, 20, 581–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gough, D.; Thomas, J. Systematic reviews of research in education: Aims, myths and multiple methods. Rev. Educ. 2016, 4, 84–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronin, P.; Ryan, F.; Coughlan, M. Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. Br. J. Nurs. 2008, 17, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Green, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Follett, R.; Strezov, V. An Analysis of Citizen Science Based Research: Usage and Publication Patterns. PLoS ONE 2015, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crain, R.; Cooper, C.; Dickinson, J.L. Citizen Science: A Tool for Integrating Studies of Human and Natural Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2014, 39, 641–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayring, P. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution; Gesis: Klagenfurt, Austria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, T.; Bonney, R.; Shirk, J.L. What is our impact? Toward a unified framework for evaluating outcomes of citizen science participation. In Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research; Dickinson, J.L., Bonney, R., Eds.; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 82–95. [Google Scholar]
- Schuttler, S.G.; Sorensen, A.E.; Jordan, R.C.; Cooper, C.; Shwartz, A. Bridging the nature gap: Can citizen science reverse the extinction of experience? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2018, 16, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haywood, B.K. Beyond Data Points and Research Contributions: The Personal Meaning and Value Associated with Public Participation in Scientific Research. Int. J. Sci. Educ. Part B Commun. Public Engagem. 2016, 6, 239–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toomey, A.H.; Domroese, M.C. Can citizen science lead to positive conservation attitudes and behaviors? Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2013, 20, 50–62. [Google Scholar]
- Chase, S.K.; Levine, A. Citizen Science: Exploring the Potential of Natural Resource Monitoring Programs to Influence Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors. Conserv. Lett. 2017, 27, 1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bela, G.; Peltola, T.; Young, J.C.; Balázs, B.; Arpin, I.; Pataki, G.; Hauck, J.; Kelemen, E.; Kopperoinen, L.; van Herzele, A.; et al. Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 990–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lewandowski, E.J.; Oberhauser, K.S. Butterfly citizen scientists in the United States increase their engagement in conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 208, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Druschke, C.G.; Seltzer, C.E. Failures of Engagement: Lessons Learned from a Citizen Science Pilot Study. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2012, 11, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Branchini, S.; Meschini, M.; Covi, C.; Piccinetti, C.; Zaccanti, F.; Goffredo, S. Participating in a Citizen Science Monitoring Program: Implications for Environmental Education. PLoS ONE 2015, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sickler, J.; Cherry, T.M.; Allee, L.; Smyth, R.R.; Losey, J. Scientific Value and Educational Goals: Balancing Priorities and Increasing Adult Engagement in a Citizen Science Project. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2014, 13, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosquer, A.; Raymond, R.; Prevot-Julliard, A.-C. Observations of Everyday Biodiversity: A New Perspective for Conservation? Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keen, M.; Brown, V.A.; Dyball, R. Social Learning in Environmental Management: Towards a Sustainable Future; Earthscan: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- O’Sullivan, E.; Morrel, A.; O’Connor, M.A. Expanding the Boundaries of Transformative Learning: Essays on Theory and Praxis; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches; Brown Co. Publishers: Dubuque, IA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Leong, K.M.; Kyle, G.T. Engaging park stewards through biodiversity discovery: Social outcomes of participation in bioblitzes. Park Sci. 2014, 31, 106–111. [Google Scholar]
- Koss, R.S.; Kingsley, J.Y. Volunteer health and emotional wellbeing in marine protected areas. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2010, 53, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turrini, T.; Dörler, D.; Richter, A.; Heigl, F.; Bonn, A. The threefold potential of environmental citizen science—Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation. Biol. Conserv. 2018, 225, 176–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kieslinger, B.; Schäfer, T.; Heigl, F.; Dörler, D.; Richter, A.; Bonn, A. Evaluating citizen science: Towards an open framework. In Citizen Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society and Policy; Hecker, S., Haklay, M., Bowser, A., Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., Bonn, A., Eds.; UCL Press: London, UK, 2018; pp. 81–95. [Google Scholar]
- Caro, T.M.; Girling, S. Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone, Flagship, and Other Surrogate Species; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Phillips, T.B.; Ballard, H.L.; Lewenstein, B.V.; Bonney, R. Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving beyond data collection. Sci. Educ. 2019, 45, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kollmuss, A.; Agyeman, J. Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 2002, 8, 239–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Navarro-Perez, M.; Tidball, K.G. Challenges of Biodiversity Education: A review of education strategies for biodiversity education. Int. Electron. J. Environ. Educ. 2012, 2, 13–30. [Google Scholar]
- Menzel, S.; Bögeholz, S. The Loss of Biodiversity as a Challenge for Sustainable Development: How Do Pupils in Chile and Germany Perceive Resource Dilemmas? Res. Sci. Educ. 2009, 39, 429–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diedrich, A.; Stoeckl, N.; Gurney, G.G.; Esparon, M.; Pollnac, R. Social capital as a key determinant of perceived benefits of community-based marine protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 2017, 31, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cvitanovic, C.; van Putten, E.I.; Hobday, A.J.; Mackay, M.; Kelly, R.; McDonald, J.; Waples, K.; Barnes, P. Building trust among marine protected area managers and community members through scientific research: Insights from the Ningaloo Marine Park, Australia. Mar. Policy 2018, 93, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, R.A.; Addison, J.; Arias, A.; Bergseth, B.J.; Marshall, N.A.; Morrison, T.H.; Tobin, R.C. Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- UNESCO. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Heimlich, J.E.; Ardoin, N.M. Understanding behavior to understand behavior change: A literature review. Environ. Educ. Res. 2008, 14, 215–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furnham, A. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Pers. Individ. Differ. 1986, 7, 385–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker-Klein, R.; Peterman, K.; Stylinski, C. Embedded Assessment as an Essential Method for Understanding Public Engagement in Citizen Science. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2016, 1, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco, A.; Malhotra, N.; Simonovits, G. Social science. Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science 2014, 345, 1502–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Individual Participant Outcome | Definition |
---|---|
Interest | The degree to which an individual assigns personal relevance to a science or environmental topic or endeavor |
Self-efficacy | The extent to which a learner has confidence in his or her ability to participate in a science or environmental activity |
Motivation | Goal-driven inclination to achieve a science or environmental behavior or activity |
Content, process and nature of science knowledge | Knowledge of science content and the nature of science; understanding of the scientific process and how science is conducted |
Skills of science inquiry | Procedural skills such as asking questions, designing studies, collecting, analyzing and interpreting data, experimenting, argumentation, synthesis, technology use, communication, and critical thinking |
Behavior and stewardship | Actions resulting from engagement in citizen science, but external to the protocol activities and the specific project-based skills of the citizen science project, e.g., place-based and global stewardship, new participation, and community or civic action |
Article | Citizen Science Project | Project Country | Focal Species |
---|---|---|---|
Bela et al. 2016 | 14 Projects, e.g., Big Bumblebee Discovery, Catalan Butterfly Monitoring, Ladybird Survey | Europe, e.g., UK, Spain, Hungary | Various |
Branchini et al. 2015 | Scuba Tourism for the Environment | Egypt | Marine species |
Chase and Levine 2017 | 8 Projects, e.g., San Diego Plant Atlas, Reef Check California | USA | Various |
Cosquer et al. 2012 | French Garden Butterflies Watch | France | Butterflies |
Druschke and Seltzer 2012 | Chicago Area Pollinator Study | USA | Bees |
Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008 | 18 Projects, e.g., Watershed Assessment and Monitoring, Landbird Habitat Monitoring | USA | Various |
Haywood 2016 | Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team | USA | Seabirds |
Haywood et al. 2016 | Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team | USA | Seabirds |
Jordan et al. 2011 | Spotting the Weedy Invasives | USA | Invasive plants |
Koss and Kingsley 2010 | Sea Search | Australia | Marine species |
Leong and Kyle 2014 | BioBlitz | USA | All species |
Lewandowski and Oberhauser 2017 | 18 Projects, e.g., Cascades Butterfly Project, GTM NERR Butterfly Monitoring Project | USA | Butterflies |
Sickler et al. 2014 | Lost Ladybug Project | North America | Ladybugs |
Toomey and Domroese 2013 | Great Pollinator Project | USA | Pollinators |
Article | Study Design | Outcome Assessed or Reported | Instrument (Number of Participants) | Data Analysis | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre | Post | Follow-up | Assessed by Researchers | Self-reported by Participants | Reported by Practitioners | Questionnaire | Interview | Focus Group | Data/Document Review | Participant Observation | Practitioner Reflection | Quantitative | Qualitative | |
Bela et al. 2016 | x | x | x (n.s.) | x | ||||||||||
Branchini et al. 2015 | x | x | x | x (212) | x | |||||||||
Chase and Levine 2017 | x | x | x (306) | x | x | |||||||||
Cosquer et al. 2012 | x | x | x (30) | x | ||||||||||
Druschke and Seltzer 2012 | x | x | x | x | x (25) | x | ||||||||
Fernandez- Gimenez et al. 2008 | x | x | x (51) | x (n.s.) | x (n.s.) | x (n.s.) | x | |||||||
Haywood 2016 | x | x | x (71) | x (14) | x | |||||||||
Haywood et al. 2016 | x | x | x | x | x (432) | x (71) | x (14) | x (447) | x | x | ||||
Jordan et al. 2011 | x | x | x | x | x | x (82) | x | |||||||
Koss and Kingsley 2010 | x | x | x (271) | x | ||||||||||
Leong and Kyle 2014 | x | x | x (392) | x | ||||||||||
Lewandowski and Oberhauser 2017 | x | x | x (139) | x | ||||||||||
Sickler et al. 2014 | x | x | x | x | x (353) | x | ||||||||
Toomey and Domroese 2013 | x | x | x (61) | x (13) | x | x |
Article | Outcomes | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge | Behavior | Attitudes | Skills | Self-Efficacy | Interest | Other Personal Outcomes | |
Bela et al. 2016 | + | + | + | +/− | |||
Branchini et al. 2015 | + | ||||||
Chase and Levine 2017 | + | + | + | + | |||
Cosquer et al. 2012 | + | + | + | ||||
Druschke and Seltzer 2012 | + | – | +/− | ||||
Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008 | + | + | + | ||||
Haywood 2016 | + | + | + | + | + | ||
Haywood et al. 2016 | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
Jordan et al. 2011 | +/− | + | − | − | |||
Koss and Kingsley 2010 | + | + | |||||
Leong and Kyle 2014 | + | ||||||
Lewandowski and Oberhauser 2017 | + | + | |||||
Sickler et al. 2014 | + | + | + | + | |||
Toomey and Domroese 2013 | + | + | + | + |
Outcomes Studied | Examples |
---|---|
Knowledge | …regarding the environment: “increased ecological knowledge” (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008), “content-knowledge about bees” (Druschke and Seltzer 2012), “knowledge of local ecosystems and life-forms” (Leong and Kyle 2014), “learning about loss or endangerment of certain species” (Sickler et al. 2014), “awareness of human behavioral impacts on the environment” (Branchini et al. 2015), “learning about certain species or ecological conditions” (Bela et al. 2016), “understanding of coastal ecology and conservation” (Haywood et al. 2016) |
…regarding science: “knowledge of the nature of science” (Jordan et al. 2011), “learning how science is approached” (Bela et al. 2016), “knowledge about […] science processes” (Haywood 2016) | |
Behavior | “new individual behavior patterns” (Cosquer et al. 2012), “adapted gardening practices” (Toomey and Domroese 2013), “citizen action emerged” (Bela et al. 2016), “conservation action” (Haywood et al. 2016), “pro-environmental behavioral changes” (Chase and Levine 2017), “personal lifestyle changes” (Chase and Levine 2017), “participation in at least one conservation action” (Lewandowski and Oberhauser 2017) |
Attitudes | …toward the environment: “desire to protect the marine environment” (Koss and Kingsley 2010), “attitude toward bees” (Druschke and Seltzer 2012), “appreciation for bees and the natural world” (Toomey and Domroese 2013), “concern about human impacts on coastal environments” (Haywood et al. 2016), “attitude toward the environment more generally” (Chase and Levine 2017) |
…toward science: “attitude toward science” (Druschke and Seltzer 2012), “value participants placed on science” (Haywood et al. 2016) | |
Skills | “technical aspects of monitoring design and analysis” (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008), “scientific process skills” (Jordan et al. 2011), “science skills” (Sickler et al. 2014), “how to use scientific methods” (Bela et al. 2016) |
Self-efficacy | “sense of confidence” (Haywood et al. 2016) “sense that an individual can have an effect in resolving an issue” (Jordan et al. 2011), |
Interest | “interest in environmental issues in the community” (Toomey and Domroese 2013) |
Other personal outcomes | “sense of enjoyment” (Koss and Kingsley 2010), “personal satisfaction through the sense of achievement” (Koss and Kingsley 2010), “sense of satisfaction and contribution” (Haywood 2016), “mental and physical health” (Haywood et al. 2016), “belonging to a community” (Cosquer et al. 2012), “feel a broader sense of community” (Lewandowski and Oberhauser 2017), “reconnect people with the landscape and with each other” (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008), “sense of connection to wildlife” (Haywood 2016), “link between the participant and the survey site” (Haywood et al. 2016), “feeling of connectedness to the natural world” (Chase and Levine 2017), “increased trust” (Fernandez-Gimenez et al. 2008) |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Peter, M.; Diekötter, T.; Kremer, K. Participant Outcomes of Biodiversity Citizen Science Projects: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102780
Peter M, Diekötter T, Kremer K. Participant Outcomes of Biodiversity Citizen Science Projects: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2019; 11(10):2780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102780
Chicago/Turabian StylePeter, Maria, Tim Diekötter, and Kerstin Kremer. 2019. "Participant Outcomes of Biodiversity Citizen Science Projects: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 11, no. 10: 2780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102780