Next Article in Journal
A Complex Network Method in Criticality Evaluation of Air Quality Standards
Previous Article in Journal
The Multifunctional Benefits of Green Infrastructure in Community Development: An Analytical Review Based on 447 Cases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 14
10.3390/su11143918
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Can Short-Term Citizen Science Training Increase Knowledge, Improve Attitudes, and Change Behavior to Protect Land Crabs?

by
Chia-Hsuan Hsu
1,
Yuan-Mou Chang
2 and
Chi-Chang Liu
1,*
1
School of Forestry and Resource Conservation, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan
2
Department of Ecology and Environmental Resources, National University of Tainan, Tainan 70167, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(14), 3918; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143918
Submission received: 24 June 2019 / Revised: 13 July 2019 / Accepted: 16 July 2019 / Published: 18 July 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Citizen science projects are considered popular and efficient approaches to scientific research and conservation of sustainability. In addition, much research suggests that citizen science can improve participants’ environmental and scientific literacy when they participate in surveys over a period of time. However, considerable research indicates that people in short-term training programs do not change their environmental literacy significantly. Nevertheless, studies have stated that these results might result from inappropriate evaluation methods. In this study, we used personal meaning mapping (PMM) to evaluate participants’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior intention in relation to land crab protection. This method merges quantitative and qualitative dimensions, used in scientific knowledge research, which we extend to evaluate attitude and behavior intention. As a result, even with short-term training, we observe that participants’ knowledge, attitude, and behavior intention significantly improves. Although some individuals exhibit no change in certain respects, we use PMM to understand the causes in detail. Taiwan is an island, famous for its fertile landscapes and biodiversity, and we anticipate finding efficient means to improve public environmental literacy. According to our research, public engagement in citizen science projects is an excellent approach to environmental education and conservation for sustainability.

1. Introduction

Citizen science projects have become a popular and efficient approach to science research and conservation. Because of public engagement, stakeholders who conduct programs of research can always collect data and conduct large-scale surveys using volunteers [1,2]. There are multiple citizen science project types, such as invasive species removal and monitoring, coral reef surveys, galaxy records, urban bird observation, and river otter monitoring [3,4,5,6,7]. These projects contribute many scientific reports to our governments to improve policy for the environment [8,9,10,11]. Thus, participants or so-called “citizen scientists” play an imperative role in their engagement [12]. In addition to scientific contributions, how people change when they engage in citizen science is also a vital direction and dimension of research. However, little research has seriously evaluated how to change participants’ attitudes, behavior, science, and environmental literacy [13,14,15]. Citizen science is the process whereby citizens are involved in science as researchers, so it is also considered a bridge between scientists and the public [16]. People are losing contact with nature [17], and citizen science is a chance for people to connect with nature and achieve something meaningful. Therefore, citizen science is one of the best ways for people to engage in ecological research and then promote environmental education and enhance environmental literacy [18,19,20,21,22]. When participants conduct an environmental survey or communicate with scientists, they might improve their knowledge, attitude, and behavior intentions as well as their sense of responsibility for the environment. If so, by elevating literacy, we could achieve sustainability. However, most citizen science research focuses more on scientific results than on changes in participants’ learning outcomes.
In this study, we surveyed changes in participants’ environmental literacy, divided into three dimensions: knowledge, attitude, and behavior intention. These three dimensions are from Roth [23]: individuals’ knowledge and attitude in relation to environmental issues, their skills, their motivation to resolve environmental problems, their involvement in maintenance of equilibrium between quality of life and the environment, and their understanding of humans’ place in nature. Several studies use these three dimensions as environmental literacy component [24,25,26]. We then used personal meaning mapping (PMM), a pretest–posttest, for participants through short-term training for new citizen science in relation to land crabs.
Taiwan is located between the tropics and subtropics, surrounded by the ocean, so the biodiversity is high [27]. The density of people is also high; however, so many roads have been constructed and animals are threatened by roads, particularly migration species, such as land crabs, that must move from the land to the sea to breed. When the breeding season arrives, thousands of land crabs cross the road and release larvae into the ocean. Simultaneously, tourisms are active and may inflict accidental harm on breeding crabs. Considering this, Yunlin–Chiayi–Tainan Area Environmental Education Regional Center and Taijian National Park Headquarters mutually founded the land crab protection citizen science project in 2017. The aim was to help crabs to cross roads in breeding season, to monitor species, collect ecological data, and promote environmental education. Finally, we expect our government to attach importance to these migrating animals and to provide ecofriendly environments. The training program for participants contained a 6-hour program: 3 h were for indoor courses such as concepts and goals of the citizen science project (60 min), taxonomy of land crabs (40 min), ecology of land crabs (40 min), and land crab-related environmental issues (40 min); the other 3 h were for outdoor practices such as crab collection, species and gender identification, marking, measuring, and relevant data recording (Table 1). Through this training, people may gain knowledge and skills for conducting surveys. Besides, they may raise their awareness and behavior intention to protect land crabs and their environment.
In this study, our goals were to: (1) evaluate participants’ learning outcomes after the short-term training with personal meaning mapping; (2) understand changes in knowledge, attitude, and behavior intentions for the environments of land crabs; (3) provide the suggestion of short-term training program for other citizen science programs.

2. Literature Review

Citizen Science Training

Citizen science projects are considered popular and efficient approaches to science research and conservation [28,29]. However, to maintain the quality of data collection, participant training is required [30]. The challenge is presented that many researchers still do not believe that the level of training volunteers receive is sufficient to prevent false data (especially biological identification) [31]. Thus, Calhoun and Reilly [30] mentioned “quality control of data” is very important for citizen science, and organizers must invest time in training volunteers. Most of training of citizen science programs are focused on the knowledge for survey such as identification of target species and the skill of recording the data and how to upload the data to database [32].
There are several types of citizen science training programs. For example, The Invaders of Texas program, which is focused on alien plants survey, use 1 to 2 days workshop and training handbook to let the citizen scientist know how to use the GPS, camera, collect the data, and upload the data [33]. The training program of Alliance for Aquatic Resource Monitoring project would collaborate with other facilities that are related with water resources [34]. Their training contents include setting up the project vision, analyzing the data, interpreting the data, and how to use their data to solve their facing problems [34]. Different projects involve different ways to train their citizen scientists. When they train them, the trainers learn as well. Thus, several researches revealed different aspects of learning outcome in citizen science training programs, especially in science and environment literacy.
Phillips et al. [35] summarized different types of citizen science projects in US and provided dimensions for participants’ learning outcome, namely interest, self-efficacy, motivation, behavior, skill of science inquiry, and content, process, and nature of science knowledge. For example, Brossard et al. [36] evaluated participants who joined The Birdhouse Network citizen science project. The program increased participants’ knowledge of bird biology, but no significant change resulted in participants’ attitudes toward science and the environment. Overdevest et al. [37] compared learning outcomes for new recruits and regular participants in the program. No significant changes in understanding regarding stream and water resources were observed, but improvements to social network were observed, for example, in political participation and community connections. Crall et al. [38] noted no changes in science literacy or overall attitudes after a 1-day training program in an invasive species citizen science. Studies mention that failure to improve knowledge, attitude, and actions might be caused by inappropriate methods or lack of prior knowledge among participants. For this reason, we used PMM, a method merging quantitative and qualitative methods and also taking into consideration prior knowledge and experience, attempting to evaluate differences after short-term citizen science training.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participant Recruitment

The participants in this study were members of the public, who were recruited from the website and signed up to attend the training program. Approximately 30 people wished to join the training, and we sent an e-mail to invite them to join the survey. In total, 13 people participated in the pretest and only nine participants completed the posttest (complete rate = 69%). The training program was hosted on 15 May, 2017. The pretest was in May 12, 2017; and the posttest took place on May 16 and 19, 2017. Both tests were conducted at the National University of Tainan. Among nine participants, mostly aged 20–30 years; gender was nearly equal in number; and four individuals were undergraduates, three had bachelor degrees, one was undertaking postgraduate study, and one had master’s degree. They were studying various majors, and four of them were students (Table 2). Four people could not join the posttest, and we believed the reason to be that the PMM requires approximately an hour for pretesting and posttesting, so people had no time for the survey. This is another reason that we limited our survey to nine participants; hence, we could conduct a thorough analysis for each person. However, some consider this to be a limitation of the method.

3.2. Consent Form

Before participants joined this research, they signed a consent form and were explained their rights. Moreover, we informed them of our research goal and the processes for PMM. In the process, we made voice recordings for the qualitative discussion in the report.

3.3. Personal Meaning Mapping, PMM

In this study, we used PMM as the main method to survey participants’ learning outcomes. This methodology was developed by Falk et al. [39]. The reason for development and use of this method was that cognitive and neuroscience research supports the idea that learning is a relative and constructive process [40,41]. The advantage of this method is that we can understand how participants’ various prior experiences and their knowledge of the learning situation could shape experiential perceptions and processes [39]. Although this method is similar to mind mapping, the difference is that after participants finish the mapping, researchers interview the participants and ask which words, terms, or concepts’ meanings he or she has written down, such as “Would you please explain the meaning of these words or phrases?” “Why do you mention this word or term?” and “Is the meaning of this word or phrase that I describe appropriate?” The goals of the interview are to confirm the meanings of the words or phrases and to thoroughly explore the knowledge or experience underlying the words or phrases of the respective subjects. We provide details of PMM (Pretest in Figure 1; posttest in Figure 2). The final PMM consisted of four color-coded words, two written by participants and the others by researchers.

3.4. Analysis

To verify data, we used data triangulation to analyze our collected data [42,43]. O’Donoghue and Punch [44] also mentioned that triangulation is a “method of cross-checking data from multiple sources to search for regularities in the research data.” Thus, in this study, two researchers used PMM figures to code such dimensions as knowledge, attitude, and behavior intention for land crab environments. After coding, we also scored each dimension from 1 to 10. If differences were observed in scores, we undertook to discuss and achieve a consensus of the same final scores.
Falk et al. [39], in the paper first outlining PMM, divided the dimension of knowledge into four semi-independent dimensions: extent, breadth, depth, and mastery of knowledge. Here, we also explain each aspect’s meaning (adapted from Falk et al., 1998 [38,39]).
  • Extent: the number of relevant words and phrases in the PMM figure written down by participants.
  • Breadth: the number of proper concepts utilized.
  • Depth: the depth of participants’ understanding, in detail and complexity, within a conceptual category.
  • Mastery: the quality of someone’s understanding, ranging from novice to expert.
After coding and scoring, we used such statistics methods as paired t tests to analyze each learning outcome dimension. We may thereby understand whether short-term training programs as part of land crab protection citizen science projects could improve participants’ environmental literacy. We used a t test to analyze whether learning outcomes exhibit significant differences in different demographic categories. Moreover, we can use qualitative analysis from voice records to explore reasons for the highest and lowest scores in each dimension (use in discussion).

3.5. Interview

We also use semi-structured interview to make up a deficiency of our result. Because PMM is a comparatively quantitative method, we used the interview to know the subjects background and some details. Our question is: (1) What is your motivation to join our training program? (2) What is your background and how to use your background for protecting land crabs? (3) what are your suggestions for this training program? Because the interview is not the main study method of this study, we put the interview’s result in the section of “Discussion” to show how or why the learning outcome would be different by individuals.

4. Results

4.1. Knowledge

In this study, we divided the dimension of knowledge into four semi-independent dimensions: extent, breadth, depth, and mastery. We used a paired t test to analyze each dimension as subsequently described. Because our sample size is small, we also test the effect size (Cohen’s d) of for each dimension to verify whether the results are credible.
“Extent” represents the number of relevant words or phrases used by participants, such as the species name of land crabs, land crabs’ lifecycle steps, meanings of citizen science, threats to land crabs, how to improve the environment, and how to promote environmental education. We observed that after participants joined the training, significant differences were exhibited in the score for extent (t = −4.603, p = 0.028 < 0.05; Cohen’s d = 1.54 > 0.8, large; Figure 3). The result indicates that participants learn numerous words and phrases during the training.
“Breadth” indicates the quantity of proper concepts utilized, the large-scale ideals of a category such as land crab ecology, citizen science, environmental education, land crab threats, policymaking, and solutions. Breadth also means “extent.” We noted that, after training, participants’ breadth scores were significantly different (t = −2.828, p = 0.008 < 0.05; Cohen’s d = 0.94 > 0.8, large; Figure 4). The result demonstrates that after training, the participants understand many large-scale ideals or concepts for land crab protection.
“Depth” represents participants’ understanding and how detailed and complex this is within a conceptual category: The deepest breadth is identified to evaluate and calculate how depth (the number of layers) explains concepts. For example, if somebody knows the ecology of land crab most, he or she explains land crab ecology for the first layer is land crabs’ lifecycle. The second layer describes life stages from eggs, to larvae, to megalopa, and to juvenile. The third layer could therefore consist of different species with different breeding seasons. This depth thus has three layers, that is “Depth” of knowledge, and then we allocate scores and evaluate the depth for the respective dimension. We observed that the training made significant differences to participants’ depth scores (t = −3.536, p = 0.022 < 0.05; Cohen’s d = 1.18 > 0.8, large; Figure 5).
“Mastery” is the quality of someone’s understanding in all ranges, from novice to expert. Our evaluation concerned all aspects of knowledge, not only including extent, breadth, and depth but also covering all detail of knowledge such as understanding, experience, and skills. The results reveal that the participants’ mastery scores exhibit significant differences (t = −2.683, p = 0.002 < 0.05; Cohen’s d = 0.89 > 0.8, large; Figure 6) and indicate that the participant’s knowledge benefits from the training.

4.2. Attitude

The dimension of attitude in this study represents values, awareness, and desire to protect land crabs. We can also use PMM to evaluate attitude changes before and after training. The attitude components were mentioned by participants in Table 3.
A significant difference is observed in the dimension of attitude after training (t = −3.592, p = 0.0071 > 0.05; in Cohen’s d = 1.2 > 0.8, large; Figure 7). That indicates that our training altered participants’ values, awareness, and desire to protect land crabs.

4.3. Behavior Intention

After training, actions that participants intend to adopt are described as behavior intentions. Ajzen and Fishbein [45] and Ajzen [46] depicted that behavior must be affected by intention, and additional research revealed a strong correlation between intention and behavior [47,48]. However, practical action is difficult to verify and evaluate, so we used behavior intention instead. The participants described their behavior intentions (Table 4).
The result of behavior intention of participants was significantly affected by training (t = −3.455, p = 0.0086 > 0.05; Cohen’s d = 1.15 > 0.8, large; Figure 8). After training, participants’ behavior intentions are therefore changed. This is good news for the environment.

5. Discussion

From the results, we recognize that knowledge, attitude, and behavior intention raise significantly through the short-term training included in the land crab protection citizen science project. Although these three dimensions exhibited significant overall growth/improvement, individuals exhibited little change in certain dimensions. Here, we discuss the three dimensions—knowledge (mastery as a representative), attitude, and behavior intention—for which individuals exhibited the highest or lowest PMM changes. The advantage of PMM is that we can use both quantitative and qualitative exploration of learning outcomes. We therefore discuss the individuals exhibiting the greatest and smallest changes with the qualitative method here.

5.1. Motivations Influencing Learning Outcomes

According to several studies, motivations might be vital factors influencing learning outcomes [49,50]. We observed the same result in this study. The respective motivation was merely to see the crabs and other reasons unrelated to the training:
I just want to see the crab, even if I don’t know why we should protect crabs. The training also provides free dinner! That’s another reason I participated the training
(A11)
That could be the reason that he or she exhibited no change in the three dimensions (see Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). This type of individual probably corresponds with the category defined by Falk et al. [51]: an “experience seeker.” He or she was uninterested in the learning but in the experience. Despite exhibiting no changes in the learning outcome, he or she expressed that the training was a worthwhile experience. Conservationists and environmental educators should attract people with minimal interest in nature into the field to inspire them.
I seldom spend time in nature observing plants and animals, so this is a good experience for me. I thank my group mates for introducing this creature to me.
(A11)
The individual who most changed in the dimension of knowledge was A02, an interpreter at the national park. His or her motivation was gaining knowledge to enrich the content that he or she had to interpret.
I have much knowledge of land crabs, but it is not enough. I am really interested in these creatures, so I want to learn more about them and do more for them
(A02)
He or she was clearly strongly motivated to learn from this training. Notably, his or her knowledge as well as attitude and behavior intention increased significantly (see Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5). This result can correspond with the “knowledge–attitude–behavior” theory [52]. Although this theory is disputed in modern studies, the researchers did not believe that the behavior exhibited a linear relationship or that knowledge could be a key factor for behavior [53]. In our study, however, we observed individuals to increase their knowledge, and then also improve their attitudes and behavior intentions. We explain this as someone who have correct knowledge and then they may have chance to increase true attitude and do something right. According to the action competence theory, Jensen and Schnack [54] also claimed knowledge and insight to be prominent components for environmental action. Participants who participate in citizen science must have various motivations [55,56], and we observed participants to have different motivations in our training program (Table 5).
We can use this table of motivations to make comparisons with the learning outcome (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6) and individuals had considerably different results. According to Falk and Dierking [57] free-choice learning theory, habits, and interests are also influential on individuals’ learning outcomes.

5.2. Learning Outcomes are not Related to the Background

Participants in our training program studied many different majors. Traditionally, majors can be divided into social and natural sciences. In general, those majoring in natural science are believed to have better knowledge, attitudes, and behavior intentions in relation to the environment. However, no significant difference was exhibited between social science and natural science majors. The reason for this may have been that the sample size was small. However, we simply compare means and standard deviations; the confidence intervals overlap to a reasonable extent in the three dimensions of learning outcomes. We also interpret the data as indicating no difference between the background and learning outcomes.
Although my major is literature, I really want to combine environmental education and conservation into my major…I hope to write a book for children to inspire them to protect our environment.
(A02)
Another participant whose major was education said,
My classmates think me liking crabs is weird, but I don’t really mind that. I think I can translate conservation- or biology-related language to the public, through my education skills, and that is what I really want to do.
(A12)
That means if you have an interest in some field, no matter what your background, you can learn from resources such as digital tools and become a professional amateur [58]. Although this explanation is somewhat weak, we trust that is true and will answer and verify it in the future.

5.3. Suggestions for Future Citizen Science Training

In addition to the interview concerning learning outcomes, we posed questions regarding feelings, shortcomings, and potential improvements. This provides other researchers and program managers who want to hold training with suggestions.
I felt embarrassed that day, because people didn’t connect with each other. I felt that the atmosphere was a little weird. I think if there is a next time, it must be arranged such that people can connect with each other.”
(A12)
Not only one person made this point; four people mentioned it during the interview. we suspected that underlying problems might be affecting the training at the time. Accordingly, we decided that, if we hold the event again, we will train the group leader first. Their experience will then make them able to act as a facilitator for newcomers. A citizen science project cannot focus only on scientific surveys or results, generating a sense of belonging is also imperative.
I think the course was not sufficient for us to become independent volunteers, although we learned much from the training. I still think the time is too short and the content is too little.
(A03)
This individual was not the only one to offer this advice. Four people (44% of participants) mentioned the same thing.
I enjoyed the indoor course, but I still can’t catch the crabs, measure them, and record the data by myself. I think the outdoor practice course requires more practice time.
(A01)
Another participant stated,
Through this training, I have more knowledge of land crabs than before…However, if asked to interpret or conduct a survey myself, I think I still could not do it now.
We have attempted to resolve this, planning a series of courses for the participants. The courses are Land crab Protection Experience, Land Crab Monitoring at Kenting National Park, Interpretation Skills, Introduction to Environmental Education, and Land Crab Survey Practice. We hope our participants have enough skills and knowledge to undertake the survey and, most importantly, are inspired to contribute to wildlife conservation. However, we anticipate problems and attempt to solve them, and this study might prompt action research in the future.

6. Rationales

Even though our sample size is not big, it still contains more than one-third of the participants in the program. The main purpose of this study is to serve as a pilot study to evaluate the learning outcomes of this kind of short-term training program for citizen science projects. We also want to demonstrate the use of PPM to evaluate the change of scientific and environmental literacy. Further studies of this kind should be encouraged since it is important to know the efficiency of training program in program managers’ and skate holders’ perspectives.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.-H., Y.-M., and C.-C.; methodology, C.-H. and C.-C.; software, C.-H.; validation, C.-H. and C.-C.; formal analysis, C.-H. and C.-C.; investigation, C.-H., Y.-M., and C.-C.; resources, Y.-M. and C.-C.; data curation, C.-H. and C.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-H.; writing—review and editing, C.-H., Y.-M., and C.-C.; visualization, C.-H.; supervision, Y.-M. and C.-C.; project administration, Y.-M.; funding acquisition, Y.-M. and C.-C.”

Funding

This research was funded by Ministry of Science and Technology, grants (106-2511-S-002-012-MY2 and 108-2511-H-002-014), and Environmental Protection Administration.

Acknowledgments

We thank Yunlin-Chiayi-Tainan Area Environmental Education Regional Center and Taijian National Park Headquarter for enabling us to find this new citizen science project for protecting land crabs and make this research possible. We also thank the logistic help from Environmental Protection Administration for funding this project and giving us some practical suggestions. We sincerely appreciate our participants who devoted their time to practice the conservation in our citizen science project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Dickinson, J.L.; Zuckerberg, B.; Bonter, D.N. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2010, 41, 149–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cohn, J.P. Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience 2008, 58, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Delaney, D.G.; Sperling, C.D.; Adams, C.S.; Leung, B. Marine invasive species: Validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol. Invasions 2008, 10, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lintott, C.; Schawinski, K.; Bamford, S.; Slosar, A.; Land, K.; Thomas, D.; Edmondson, E.; Masters, K.; Nichol, R.C.; Raddick, M.J.; et al. Galaxy Zoo 1: Data release of morphological classifications for nearly 900,000 galaxies. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 2011, 410, 166–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. McCaffrey, R.E. Using citizen science in urban bird studies. Urban Habitats 2005, 3, 70–86. [Google Scholar]
  6. Pattengill-Semmens, C.V.; Semmens, B.X. Conservation and management applications of the reef volunteer fish monitoring program. In Coastal Monitoring through Partnerships; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2003; pp. 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  7. Black, J.M. River otter monitoring by citizen science volunteers in Northern California: Social groups and litter size. Northwest. Nat. 2009, 90, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Conrad, C.C.; Hilchey, K.G. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: Issues and opportunities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2011, 176, 273–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Whitelaw, G.; Vaughan, H.; Craig, B.; Atkinson, D. Establishing the Canadian community monitoring network. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2003, 88, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Conrad, C.T.; Daoust, T. Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environ. Manag. 2008, 41, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Datta, A.; Anand, M.; Naniwadekar, R. Empty forests: Large carnivore and prey abundance in Namdapha National Park, north-east India. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141, 1429–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lakshminarayanan, S. Using citizens to do science versus citizens as scientists. Available online: https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/resp2/ (accessed on 18 July 2019).
  13. Trumbull, D.J.; Bonney, R.; Bascom, D.; Cabral, A. Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Sci. Educ. 2000, 84, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bonney, R.; Cooper, C.B.; Dickinson, J.; Kelling, S.; Phillips, T.; Rosenberg, K.V.; Shirk, J. Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 2009, 59, 977–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bell, S.; Marzano, M.; Cent, J.; Kobierska, H.; Podjed, D.; Vandzinskaite, D.; Reinert, H.; Armaitiene, A.; Grodzińska-Jurczak, M.; Muršič, R. What counts? Volunteers and their organisations in the recording and monitoring of biodiversity. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 3443–3454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kruger, L.E.; Shannon, M.A. Getting to know ourselves and our places through participation in civic social assessment. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2000, 13, 461–478. [Google Scholar]
  17. Larson, L.R.; Green, G.T.; Cordell, H. Childrens time outdoors: Results and implications of the national kids survey. J. Park Recreat. Adm. 2011, 29, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nali, C.; Lorenzini, G. Air quality survey carried out by schoolchildren: An innovative tool for urban planning. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 131, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Au, J.; Bagchi, P.; Chen, B.; Martinez, R.; Dudley, S.A.; Sorger, G.J. Methodology for public monitoring of total coliforms, Escherichia coli and toxicity in waterways by Canadian high school students. J. Environ. Manag. 2000, 58, 213–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Krasny, M.E.; Bonney, R. Environmental education through citizen science and participatory action research. In Environmental Education and Advocacy: Changing Perspectives of Ecology and Education; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 292–320. [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, E.A.; Mappin, M.J. Environmental Education and Advocacy: Changing Perspectives of Ecology and Education; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hsu, C.H.; Lin, T.E.; Fang, W.T.; Liu, C.C. Taiwan Roadkill Observation Network: An Example of a Community of Practice Contributing to Taiwanese Environmental Literacy for Sustainability. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Roth, C.E. Environmental Literacy: Its Roots, Evolution and Directions in the 1990s; ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education: Columbus, OH, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  24. Levine, D.S.; Strube, M.J. Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions and behaviors among college students. J. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 152, 308–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Laroche, M.; Toffoli, R.; Kim, C.; Muller, T.E. The influence of culture on pro-environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior: A Canadian perspective. Available online: https://web.b.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=00989258&AN=83431885&h=j8RLUk0oGpvcqL0mtnECJ1HLODdYoVVokVPUGPZQoHXPDUuyk5Q2D5JaQVIV2Tqbg5afROxOm3fxCs8rtLRoIg%3d%3d&crl=f&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d00989258%26AN%3d83431885 (accessed on 18 July 2019).
  26. Hsu, S.J.; Roth, R.E. An assessment of environmental literacy and analysis of predictors of responsible environmental behaviour held by secondary teachers in the Hualien area of Taiwan. Environ. Educ. Res. 1998, 4, 229–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shao, K.T.; Peng, C.I.; Yen, E.; Lai, K.C.; Wang, M.C.; Lin, J.; Lee, H.; Alan, Y.; Chen, S.Y. Integration of biodiversity databases in Taiwan and linkage to global databases. Data Sci. J. 2007, 6, S2–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. 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]
  29. Raddick, M.J.; Bracey, G.; Carney, K.; Gyuk, G.; Borne, K.; Wallin, J.; Jacoby, S.; Planetarium, A. Citizen science: Status and research directions for the coming decade. Available online: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/astro2010/DetailFileDisplay.aspx?id=454 (accessed on 18 July 2019).
  30. Calhoun, A.J.; Reilly, P. 16 Conserving Vernal Pool Habitat through Community Based Conservation; North America. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  31. Royle, J.A. Modeling abundance index data from anuran calling surveys. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18, 1378–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Newman, G.; Crall, A.; Laituri, M.; Graham, J.; Stohlgren, T.; Moore, J.C.; Kodrich, K.; Holfelder, K.A. Teaching citizen science skills online: Implications for invasive species training programs. Appl. Environ. Educ. Commun. 2010, 9, 276–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gallo, T.; Waitt, D. Creating a successful citizen science model to detect and report invasive species. BioScience 2011, 61, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wilderman, C.C.; Barron, A.; Imgrund, L. Top down or bottom up? ALLARMs experience with two operational models for community science. In Proceedings of the 4th National Monitoring Conference, National Water Quality Monitoring Council, Chatanooga, TN, USA, 17–20 May 2004. [Google Scholar]
  35. Phillips, T.; Porticella, N.; Constas, M.; Bonney, R. A Framework for Articulating and Measuring Individual Learning Outcomes from Participation in Citizen Science. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2018, 3, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Brossard, D.; Lewenstein, B.; Bonney, R. Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. Inter. J. Sci. Educ. 2005, 27, 1099–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Overdevest, C.; Orr, C.H.; Stepenuck, K. Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 2004, 11, 177–185. [Google Scholar]
  38. Crall, A.W.; Jordan, R.; Holfelder, K.; Newman, G.J.; Graham, J.; Waller, D.M. The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Underst. Sci. 2013, 22, 745–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Falk, J.H.; Moussouri, T.; Coulson, D. The effect of visitors ‘agendas on museum learning. Curator Mus. J. 1998, 41, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pope, M.; Gilbert, J. Personal experience and the construction of knowledge in science. Sci. Educ. 1983, 67, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Roschelle, J. Learning in Interactive Environments: Prior Knowledge and New Experience; Exploratorium Institute for Inquiry: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  42. Denzin, N.K. Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  43. Bogdan, R.C.; Biklen, S.K. Qualitative Research in Education. An Introduction to Theory AndMethods; Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  44. O’Donoghue, T.; Punch, K. Qualitative Educational Research in Action: Doing and Reflecting; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ajzen, I. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. In Action Control; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1985; pp. 11–39. [Google Scholar]
  47. Smetana, J.G.; Adler, N.E. Fishbein’s value x expectancy model: An examination of some assumptions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 6, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. King, G.W. An analysis of attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of intentions and behavior. Commun. Monogr. 1975, 42, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kizilgunes, B.; Tekkaya, C.; Sungur, S. Modeling the relations among students’ epistemological beliefs, motivation, learning approach, and achievement. J. Educ. Res. 2009, 102, 243–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stebbins, R.A. Serious Leisure: A Perspective for Our Time; Transaction Publishers: New Brunswick, NJ, USA; London, UK, 2007; Volume 95. [Google Scholar]
  51. Falk, J.H.; Heimlich, J.; Bronnenkant, K. Using identity-related visit motivations as a tool for understanding adult zoo and aquarium visitors’ meaning-making. Curator Mus. J. 2008, 51, 55–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ramsey, C.E.; Rickson, R.E. Environmental knowledge and attitudes. J. Environ. Educ. 1976, 8, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hines, J.M.; Hungerford, H.R.; Tomera, A.N. Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. J. Environ. Educ. 1987, 18, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jensen, B.B.; Schnack, K. The action competence approach in environmental education. Environ. Educ. Res. 1997, 3, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Carballo-Cárdenas, E.C.; Tobi, H. Citizen science regarding invasive lionfish in Dutch Caribbean MPAs: Drivers and barriers to participation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 133, 114–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. 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]
  57. Falk, J.H.; Dierking, L.D. Free-choice learning: An alternative term to informal learning. Informal Learn. Environ. Res. Newsl. 1998, 2, 2. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gee, J.P.; Levine, M.H. Welcome to our virtual worlds. Educ. Leadersh. 2009, 66, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 11 03918 g001 550
Figure 1. The pretest stages of personal meaning mapping in this study (before participating the training program).
Figure 1. The pretest stages of personal meaning mapping in this study (before participating the training program).
Sustainability 11 03918 g001
Sustainability 11 03918 g002 550
Figure 2. The posttest stages of personal meaning mapping in this study (after participating the training program).
Figure 2. The posttest stages of personal meaning mapping in this study (after participating the training program).
Sustainability 11 03918 g002
Sustainability 11 03918 g003 550
Figure 3. Differences in extent scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Figure 3. Differences in extent scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Sustainability 11 03918 g003
Sustainability 11 03918 g004 550
Figure 4. Differences in breadth scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Figure 4. Differences in breadth scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Sustainability 11 03918 g004
Sustainability 11 03918 g005 550
Figure 5. Differences in depth scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Figure 5. Differences in depth scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Sustainability 11 03918 g005
Sustainability 11 03918 g006 550
Figure 6. Differences in mastery scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Figure 6. Differences in mastery scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Sustainability 11 03918 g006
Sustainability 11 03918 g007 550
Figure 7. Differences in attitude scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Figure 7. Differences in attitude scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Sustainability 11 03918 g007
Sustainability 11 03918 g008 550
Figure 8. Differences in behavior intention scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Figure 8. Differences in behavior intention scores for participants (the dashed mid-line represents a score of 5).
Sustainability 11 03918 g008
Table
Table 1. The training program outline of this study.
Table 1. The training program outline of this study.
ThemeContentTraining ApproachTime
What are citizen science projects?1. Explain the concept of citizen science.
2. Introduce the citizen science over the world.
3. What is the mission of our citizen science project?		Indoor courses
(Use Power point)		60 min
Classification of land crabs1. Classify the land crabs
2. Classify the land hermit crab		Indoor courses
(Use Power point)		40 min
Ecology of land crabs1. Land crabs’ habitat
2. Life cycle
3. Ecology niche and position		Indoor courses
(Use Power point)		40 min
Land crab-related issues1. Roadkill
2. Impact of invasive species
3. Poaching
4. Habitat destruction		Indoor courses40 min
Outdoor practices1. Crab catching
2. Identifying different species and their sexes
3. Marking them and recording relevant data
4. Releasing them into the wild		Outdoor practices3 h
Table
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of study participants (including only participants who completed pretest and posttest).
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of study participants (including only participants who completed pretest and posttest).
Subject NumberGenderAgeEducation LevelMajorOccupation
A01Female51–60Bachelor degreeSocial scienceFreelance
A02Female41–50PostgraduateLiteratureFreelance/Interpreter
A03Male20–30UndergraduateBioscienceStudent
A04Male18–20UndergraduateEcologyStudent
A08Male20–30Master degreeBioscienceResearch assistant
A09Female20–30Bachelor degreeScienceEnvironmental educator
A11Female20–30UndergraduateLiteratureStudent
A12Male20–30UndergraduateEducationStudent
A13Male51–60Bachelor degreeOthersSoldier
Table
Table 3. Attitude components mentioned by participants.
Table 3. Attitude components mentioned by participants.
Main Attitude Components Among Participants
∗ I feel that humans destroying wildlife, for example, as a result of road-building and urbanization, is negative.
∗ I have awareness of the biodiversity loss and wish to help.
∗ I hope our next generation can survive (sustainable development).
∗ I believe we should maintain habitats and environments for wildlife.
∗ I believe the waste we produce affects animals such as land hermit crabs.
∗ I believe that promoting environmental education achieved better social values.
∗ I believe we should promote conservation education and life education simultaneously.
∗ I feel that ecological thinking lets me live better (it is beneficial for animals and healthier for me).
Table
Table 4. Behavior intention.
Table 4. Behavior intention.
Main Components of Behavior Intentions
∗ I will promote the concept of conservation and environmental education for the public.
∗ I will interpret land crab ecology for other people.
∗ I will participate in citizen science project.
∗ I can monitor and survey land crabs.
∗ If I see a crab on the road, I will help it cross the road.
∗ I will protect wildlife habitats such as a constructive case happening; I would attempt to prevent it.
∗ I will maintain biodiversity.
∗ I will reduce my waste.
∗ I will find shells that I have taken from the beach, and I will return them to hermit crabs.
∗ I will cooperate with the local community to protect land crabs.
∗ If I have the chance, I will participate in ecotourism to observe land crabs.
Table
Table 5. Participant motivations.
Table 5. Participant motivations.
Participant NumberMotivations
A01Better understanding species.
A02Enriching the content of interpretation.
A03Crab monitoring for undergraduate thesis.
A04Enjoying the process of observation.
A08Raising awareness of these species.
A09Environmental protection and helping to next generation.
A11Wanting to do something unusual and receive a free dinner.
A12Demonstrating interest in species increasing public interest in land crabs.
A13Making an ecological contribution.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hsu, C.-H.; Chang, Y.-M.; Liu, C.-C. Can Short-Term Citizen Science Training Increase Knowledge, Improve Attitudes, and Change Behavior to Protect Land Crabs? Sustainability 2019, 11, 3918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143918

AMA Style

Hsu C-H, Chang Y-M, Liu C-C. Can Short-Term Citizen Science Training Increase Knowledge, Improve Attitudes, and Change Behavior to Protect Land Crabs? Sustainability. 2019; 11(14):3918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143918

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hsu, Chia-Hsuan, Yuan-Mou Chang, and Chi-Chang Liu. 2019. "Can Short-Term Citizen Science Training Increase Knowledge, Improve Attitudes, and Change Behavior to Protect Land Crabs?" Sustainability 11, no. 14: 3918. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143918

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop