The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Knowledge Gain and Behavioral Change in Citizen-Science Programs: Citizen-Scientist Knowledge Gain
Abstract
Citizen-science programs are often touted as useful for advancing conservation literacy, scientific knowledge, and increasing scientific-reasoning skills among the public. Guidelines for collaboration among scientists and the public are lacking and the extent to which these citizen-science initiatives change behavior is relatively unstudied. Over two years, we studied 82 participants in a three-day program that included education about non-native invasive plants and collection of data on the occurrence of those plants. Volunteers were given background knowledge about invasive plant ecology and trained on a specific protocol for collecting invasive plant data. They then collected data and later gathered as a group to analyze data and discuss responsible environmental behavior with respect to invasive plants. We tested whether participants without experience in plant identification and with little knowledge of invasive plants increased their knowledge of invasive species ecology, participation increased knowledge of scientific methods, and participation affected behavior. Knowledge of invasive plants increased on average 24%, but participation was insufficient to increase understanding of how scientific research is conducted. Participants reported increased ability to recognize invasive plants and increased awareness of effects of invasive plants on the environment, but this translated into little change in behavior regarding invasive plants. Potential conflicts between scientific goals, educational goals, and the motivation of participants must be considered during program design.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sinha, R. K., Kumar, R., Phartyal, S. S., & Sharma, P. (2024) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176621 · Cited by 50
Metadata
- Authors
- JORDAN, R. C., GRAY, S. A., HOWE, D. V., BROOKS, W. R., & EHRENFELD, J. G.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-10-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1148-1154
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1889041476
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 42.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.