Content uploaded by Ben McAteer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ben McAteer on Feb 02, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Linking the motivations and outcomes of volunteers to understand participation in marine
community science
Ben McAteer*, Wesley Flannery and Brendan Murtagh
School of Natural and Built Environment, Queen's University Belfast
bmcateer06@qub.ac.uk; w.flannery@qub.ac.uk; b.murtagh@qub.ac.uk
* Corresponding author
This is a pre-print version of a paper published in Marine Policy and should be cited as:
McAteer, B., Flannery, W. and Murtagh, B. (2021) Linking the motivations and outcomes of
volunteers to understand participation in marine community science. Marine Policy 124, DOI
10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104375
Link to published version:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1680276
2
Abstract
To achieve sustained participation, community science projects aim to satisfy the motivations and
desired personal outcomes of their volunteers. Evaluating participation is, therefore, crucial, with
projects seeking to assess volunteers’ motivations for engagement and the complex outcomes that
they achieve through their participation. Many assessments have, however, ineffectively examined
the relationship between volunteers’ motivations and how they relate to the personal outcomes that
they wish to pursue. Evaluations of the personal outcomes achieved by volunteers often fail to
consider whether these outcomes were desired or if they aligned with volunteers’ motivations, and
tend to narrowly focus on general outcomes, such as developing scientific or environmental literacy.
Failing to link motivations and outcomes can mean that participation becomes unfulfilling for
volunteers, as their desires may not be achieved, lessening the likelihood of sustained engagement. If
the satisfaction of volunteers is to be accurately understood, assessing the full scope of their
motivations in conjunction with their desired outcomes is crucial. We address this research gap by
conducting a survey (n = 308) with the participants of 8 marine community science projects in Ireland
and the UK, critically assessing volunteers’ roles, motivations, outcomes and experiences of
participation through an exploratory factor analysis. We find a range of patterns amongst respondents
and identify 4 types of volunteer profiles: Activists, Conservationists, Professionals and Hobbyists. We
discuss how categorising volunteers in this manner can better reflect the motivations and desires of
volunteers and highlight the factors that support or inhibit the realisation of these intentions within
specific projects. We conclude by suggesting that projects seeking to better understand participation
should broaden their evaluative scope to embrace a wider range of volunteer motivational pathways,
discussing how this can improve both a project’s management of volunteers and its capacity to realise
both project and volunteer outcomes.
Key words
Citizen science, marine conservation, participation, volunteerism, knowledge, learning, community
3
1. Introduction
Community science
i
, wherein members of the public work with professional scientists to produce
scientific knowledge [1,2], has found increasing success in the realm of marine conservation [3-5]. The
rise of community science has been framed as a response to the need for data on environmental
changes [6,7], the limited scope of government monitoring programmes [8] and the desire for
community participation in environmental management [9,10]. Community science has been
advanced as a valuable and a cost-effective means of contributing to the evidence base that underpins
marine policy [11], as well as providing management recommendations for decision-makers [12].
Community science projects are utilised as a means of gathering fine-scale data to improve knowledge
and broaden the spatial and temporal scale of research [13]. Community science also creates
participant outcomes amongst volunteers, which can include a sense of environmental and marine
citizenship [14,15], enhanced scientific and environmental literacy [2] and better-informed
engagement in decision-making processes [16]. Due to this, community science is advanced as a
potential solution to governance concerns regarding the marginalisation and exploitation of local
marine communities [17], and is well placed to respond to problems created by the top-down,
exclusionary nature of many marine governance systems [18].
To fulfil its potential as a valuable tool for marine governance, community science projects need to
foster active engagement by acknowledging and catering to volunteers’ needs and motivations [19-
21]. Participation processes that are tailored to suit volunteers’ requirements are more likely to
enhance recruitment, support good retention rates and ensure that the expectations of participants
can be met [22,23]. High levels of retention can help volunteers to better understand their tasks or to
broaden project engagement over time, potentially contributing to better outcomes for projects [7].
i
Responding to growing concerns regarding the exclusionary nature of the phrase “citizen science”, stemming
from the fact that ‘citizen’ status is not a criterion for inclusion in participatory research activities, we utilise
the term “community science” throughout this paper.
4
This has prompted studies to evaluate participation in community science by assessing two aspects of
engagement: volunteer motivations, and the personal outcomes that they achieve through their
participation. Assessment of participant motivation reveals why volunteers are driven to take part in
projects and suggests what they want to achieve [24-26]. Evaluating personal outcomes focuses on
the impact that participation has upon the skills, knowledge or perceptions of volunteers [27-29].
Although these two evaluative approaches have revealed important insights on participation in
community science, they often fail to account for the relationship between motivations and how these
shape the manner in which volunteers pursue their desired outcomes.
We reposition motivations and outcomes as implicitly related, interdependent concepts that require
deeper analysis by interpreting them as a more complex set of attitudes, opinions and behaviours.
Many assessments of participation in community science demonstrate limited recognition of how the
obtained outcomes and experiences of volunteers may not be personally desired or aligned with their
motivations. In such scenarios, as has been noted by wider research on active volunteerism [30,31],
participation can be rendered unfulfilled. A failure to satisfy motivations and support volunteer needs
impedes the likelihood of participants sustaining their engagement with community science and
lessens their potential contribution [32,33]. Without examining motivations in relation to the desired
outcomes of volunteers, evaluations can present misleading findings on the responsiveness of projects
to the requirements and aspirations of their participants. This can misinform recommendations on the
manner in which the intended contribution of volunteers can be maximised. Assessing volunteers’
motivations in conjunction with their desired outcomes is, therefore, crucial if participation is to be
accurately evaluated.
To operationalise such an approach, we conducted a survey of the participants of 8 marine community
science projects across the UK and Ireland, questioning respondents about their roles, motivations,
outcomes, and perceptions of participation. We utilised an exploratory factor analysis to identify
5
patterns amongst volunteers’ responses and identified 4 profiles of marine community scientists:
Activists, Conservationists, Professionals and Hobbyists. Each profile represents a grouping of
participants that share similar characteristics and perceptions about their motivations for participating
in community science and the outcomes that they want to achieve by volunteering. We outline how
categorising volunteers in this manner more accurately reflects the factors that support or inhibit the
realisation of their intentions. This leads us to suggest that community science projects should
broaden their scope to embrace a wider range of volunteer motivation pathways, discussing how this
can improve both a project’s capacity to recruit and retain volunteers, as well as ensuring that projects
realise both their outcomes and those desired by their volunteers.
In the following section, we outline our critique of the main evaluative paradigms in community
science participation, clarifying how our approach can add to current approaches. We extend our
discussion on the importance of identifying, measuring, and comparing the different factors that
motivate volunteer participation and how these link to the realisation of participant outcomes. Our
research design is then presented, including an overview of the survey instrument and data analysis
procedures. The findings of our evaluations are then presented. Socio-demographic information on
the survey participants is discussed, before the four extracted volunteer profiles are evaluated in
detail. We then discuss how our typology reflects valuable insight on the dynamics of community
science participation. We conclude by arguing for more in-depth evaluations of volunteers and
present recommendations that highlight how a process of categorising community science volunteers
can support efficient gains in recruitment, retention, and the collaborative generation of knowledge
about the marine environment.
2. Participation in community science
6
Community science projects are dependent on the active engagement and collective drive of their
volunteers [24]. To maximise volunteer contribution, projects must speak to the needs and concerns
of their participants, with evaluative studies highlighting the importance of factoring such insights into
projects [21,34-36]. Monitoring the experiences of volunteers, as well as assessing the extent and
impact of their engagement, are crucial components of ensuring both high participant retention levels
and the ability of community science projects to realise desired outcomes [25,37]. Most evaluations
of participation in community science are conducted through two, predominantly independent,
approaches. One approach involves examining the motivations that underpin volunteers’ engagement
and the other focuses on assessing the outcomes that volunteers obtain as a result of participating in
community science projects. In community science literature, motivation has been advanced as a
multi-faceted construct that describes the process of goal setting [38,39]. Assessments of participant
motivations attempt to reveal the psychological factors that drive volunteers to engage with
community science [26,40]. On the other hand, studies that assess volunteer outcomes examine
participant experiences, their personal and learning developments, and concerns. The volunteer
outcome approach examines the extent to which participation benefitted them personally, including,
inter alia, how participation has increased the scientific and environmental knowledge of volunteers,
as well as instilling environmental stewardship and feelings of empowerment [28,41].
Several approaches to categorising motivational factors have been traditionally used in the
volunteering literature [42]. Pivotal studies on social participation demonstrate how motivations can
be classified as either intrinsic or extrinsic [43]. Intrinsic motivations reflect desires to achieve personal
gains, while extrinsic motivations are characterised by aspirations to develop outward impact. Batson
et al. [44] expanded this two-pronged interpretation by suggesting that motivations can be more
accurately reflected within 4 types: egoism (self-related personal goals), altruism (desires to help
others), collectivism (supporting a collective group), and principlism (motivated by moral principles).
Evaluations of participation in community science are largely seen to align with Batson’s conceptual
7
model of motivational factors [38,45,46]. Although alternative frameworks have been put forward to
classify the motivational factors of volunteers [42], evaluative studies [40] have highlighted how many
cover similar categories or are inherently related to the categorisation put forward by Batson et al.
[44]. Thus, we will lean upon these labels whilst reviewing the dominant volunteer motivations
associated with community science participation. We will then revisit these motivational labels when
evaluating our research findings.
Analysing volunteer motivations provides insight on what volunteers want to achieve through their
participation, both regarding themselves and for others [21]. Motivations that are egoistical in nature
often include intentions to develop personal knowledge and skillsets, to become more
environmentally active, or to advance career prospects by gaining experience [24-26,36]. Studies have
also revealed altruist motivations amongst volunteers, reflecting community science participants that
have the extrinsic goal of benefiting wider society [25]. This can include volunteers who are driven to
participate in community science projects attempting to tackle air and water pollution [47] or plastic
litter deluges in marine environments [48], wherein participants engage with scientific endeavours
that can inform conservation decision-making [49]. Community science volunteers can also be driven
by ideas of being part of a collective movement that can develop the welfare of a specific group [9,10].
This can involve motivations to participate in projects that attempt to improve the environmental
health of local ecosystems [13] or, more generally, as a means of socially engaging with others [26,38].
Others have noted how motivational drivers can relate to feelings of principlism, presenting
participation as form of self-expression [50]. Such motivations are associated with volunteers who are
driven to uphold their personal principles, such as strong valuations of nature or personal identity with
natural environments [46,51]. It is important to note that volunteers will not only be driven by one
defined motivation. Rather, participants may be influenced by multiple motivational factors [40].
8
Evaluations have also attempted to understand participation in community science by evaluating the
outcomes that volunteers obtain whilst engaging with projects. Outcomes reflect the extent or impact
of participation [21,31]. Volunteer outcomes can be personal or social, depending on the context of
participation. Personal outcomes include educational development, including environmental and
scientific learning [27,52], and raising awareness or understanding of ecological systems [29]. Social
outcomes can involve communal engagement with others [38] and the development of environmental
stewardship [14]. Indeed, recent studies have revealed the capacity of marine projects to foster
collective engagement with environmental issues, which can enhance the desire of volunteers to
protect local environments [51]. Community science participation has also been seen to heighten
social capital and community capacity [23,53]. This includes projects that have facilitated volunteers
with a pathway to influence local council decision-making, developing the civic engagement of
participants and their connection to local resources [49]. Such outcomes exemplify the potential
transformative impact that participation can have upon volunteers’ perceptions and actions regarding
environmental conservation [27]. For instance, participation can transform the capacity of individuals
to engage with civic processes and policy relevant activities, which, in turn, can instigate pro-
environmental action beyond the boundaries of projects [16].
Whilst evaluations of volunteers’ motivations and outcomes have generated crucial insights on the
participation process, there are few studies [23,35] that critically assess the link between volunteers’
motivations and their desired outcomes. The motivation-outcome nexus relates to multiple aspects
of participation, not just attitudinal elements, but expectations, behaviours, and experiences. These
aspects are implicitly related, interdependent concepts that require deeper analysis. We contend that
many current approaches present an incomplete picture of community science participation that
renders evaluations incapable of assessing the degree to which volunteers’ outcomes are personally
desired or in alignment with their motivations. The obtainment of outcomes that are undesired can
adversely impact participants’ levels of satisfaction and their willingness to extend engagement [20].
9
Consider a scenario, for example, where an evaluation records that a volunteer has enhanced their
scientific skills as a result participation, yet fails to uncover that the volunteer did not realise their
intended outcome of improving their social capital. By reporting on a restricted range of volunteer
outcomes and not considering these in conjunction with motivational drivers, such an assessment
presents a potentially misleading depiction of participation in community science [54].
It is necessary, therefore, to examine the various factors that motivate volunteer participation with
consideration of the degree to which they link to the realisation of their desired outcomes. By doing
so, it is possible to more accurately evaluate the factors that inhibit or support their engagement. We
argue that the sustained participation of volunteers is influenced by the obtainment of outcomes that
fulfil their motivations. Satisfied participants better understand their tasks, perform to a higher
standard and are more likely to communicate positive messages to others, supporting the recruitment
of new volunteers [23,35]. In a practical sense, measuring motivations in line with the desired
outcomes of volunteers can function as a potential maintenance strategy for community science
projects. Beyond this, it presents a more holistic examination of community science engagement that
can enhance understanding of the experiences, concerns, and needs of volunteers.
3. Methodology
An online survey (see Appendix 1) was viewed as the most effective means of examining a large group
of individuals and was circulated through 8 community science projects in the United Kingdom and
Ireland: Seasearch’s Diving Group, the Irish Whale and Dolphin Group’s (IWDG) Ferry Survey, Ulster
Wildlife’s (UW) Sea Deep project, Keep Northern Ireland Beautiful’s (KNIB) Marine Litter Survey, the
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ (RSPB) Beached Bird Survey, Cloughey and District
Community Association’s (CDCA) Beach Care Group, Coastwatch Ireland’s (CI) Coastal Survey, and the
British Trust for Ornithology’s (BTO) Wetland Bird Survey (see Appendix 2 for an overview of these
10
projects). We decided to survey these 8 projects for two purposes. One, to allow the study to examine
a range of organisationally divergent initiatives that examined issues relating to marine conservation.
Two, to enhance the quantity of potential respondents. Projects were sourced through online
searches and discussions with community science actors. The surveyed projects represented the main
participation structures outlined in the community science literature [55], including: (i) contributory
structures, wherein volunteers contribute data to projects designed by scientists; (ii) collaborative
projects that are designed by scientists but with volunteers engaged with a range of tasks; and (iii) co-
produced frameworks of participation, within which scientists and volunteers conduct project tasks
together. We clarify the participation structure of each of the selected projects in Table 1 and relate
back to this information in our findings. Coordinators of the projects sent a link to the survey via email
to their volunteer base, with reminder emails sent after two and four weeks. The survey was active
online for three months, between February and May 2019. In total, the survey was sent to 737
participants, with 308 volunteers responding. This gives a response rate of 41.7% (Table 1).
[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]
The survey is comprised of four sections. The first section contains a set of closed statements regarding
frequency, location, and degree of participation in community science. The subsequent section is
comprised of a range of variable statements to elicit perceived motivations for participation, phrased
as a list of statements to be ranked on a 5-level Likert scale (‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’,
with an additional sixth ‘Not sure’ option). The motivational model of Batson et al. [44] and the wider
community science literature [24,34] were used to inform these statements. A further list of
statements is then posed to assess the outcomes volunteers obtained through participation. The next
section contains open-ended questions to capture any additional perceptions of community science.
The final section is a list of both open and closed demographic questions. Many statements regarding
volunteers’ roles of participation and key motivations and outcomes were designed to mirror
11
questions found in previous studies [32,39,46]. Novel statements regarding the transformative scope
of community science were also included to address gaps in the literature. Such statements queried if
participation had led volunteers to change how they interpret, discuss, and act upon environmental
issues.
Volunteer responses to the survey statements were extracted and assessed through an exploratory
factor analysis. Factor analysis is a method of multivariate analysis that examines variable
relationships within a specific context [56]. In this study, factor analysis was used to simplify our
collected data and to both uncover and examine patterns of engagement amongst respondents.
Although thematic analysis has been used in community science research to reveal interesting
information on participation related issues [26,57,58], factor analysis is more aligned with our
research objective of examining the interrelated bundle of causal ‘variables’ that volunteer
motivations and outcomes form, and how these determine the level, type and effect of participation.
Additionally, we recognised the capacity of factor analysis to account for a number of key issues
related to our study. First, how the motivation-outcome nexus is not just attitudinal, but relates to
expectations, behaviours and experiences that need to be unpacked in the measurement of a more
complex set of variables. Second, the need to evaluate different participatory experiences in
functional ways, hence why our questions aim to capture the importance of design, data collection
and disseminating activities in relation to each other. Third, how to assess the complex and
overlapping way in which variables come together, placing a weight on the contribution of each
variable against other significant determinants of participation. An exploratory factor analysis deals
with these complexities within a single analytical framework, not to provide a definitive answer but to
reveal the multiple, complex and contradictory motivations, ethics, experiences and personal benefits
of joining a particular set of marine community science initiatives.
12
Factor analysis encouraged the reduction of survey variables until a concise and comprehensible
number of dimensions was established. This was achieved by eliminating the data associated survey
statements (variables) that contained the lowest levels of explanatory power. This process was
followed until we had narrowed down the variables to a range of 12 survey statements that revealed
distinct associations between different groups of respondents. The 12 remaining statements covered
questions on participation roles, motivations and outcomes. These variables were extracted to reveal
underlying constructs of how participants perceive their engagement, what they seek to achieve and
how their experiences have created personal impacts. Our factor analysis procedure then grouped
together the volunteers who were conceptually similar in their responses to the chosen statements,
creating 4 factors. The principal components method was applied with a varimax normalised rotation.
Resultant principal factors were retained at an eigenvalue larger than 1.00, with the average variance
extraction greater than 0.5. The factor scores and eigenvalues illustrate high internal consistency
across items within each factor [59]. Pearson Chi-square tests were run to identify differences of
significance between volunteer factors. We used the non-segmentation variables of the survey, such
as demographics, to ensure that observed differences between the factors did not occur by chance
[56]. To interpret the meaning of the factors, we assessed the structure matrix that shows the
correlation between each statement and its factor (see Table 2). For ease of presentation, only the
correlations r>0.3 are shown, with correlations r>0.5 in bold. Positive or negative correlation values
indicate that the factor is more or less associated with the statement. In general, our study was
standardised, repeatable, and representative of the current state of marine community science
participation. All statistical analysis was performed in SPSS software. Prior to data collection, ethical
approval for the study was granted by Queen’s University Belfast, Faculty of Engineering and Physical
Science’s Ethics Committee (approval number EPS 18_79).
4. Results
13
Slightly more males (55.4%) than females (44%) responded to the survey. All respondents are above
the age of 18, with the majority either aged between 35-44 (26.7%) or 45-54 (22.8%). A relatively high
percentage of respondents (17.2%) noted that they are retired. Only 4.9% of respondents are aged
between 18-24. The survey respondents are predominantly highly educated, with a total of 57.1%
holding a university degree and 31.8% holding a higher degree (for example, Masters, PGCE, PhD). A
strong majority (64.3%) stated that they are in full-time employment. Although the interests of our
respondents are wide, their socio-demographic composition is limited. These findings are in line with
other evaluations of the demographic status of community science volunteers [7,9]. Our findings are
similar to Walajahi [60], who suggests that there is limited inclusion of lower-class, less educated or
marginalised members of the public in community science projects.
Our factor analysis suggests that respondents are best represented by four factors. Cumulatively,
these factors explain 59.5% of the variance within the data, which is a standard level of factor coverage
[56,59]. We labelled the four factors that were extracted from the data as: (i) Activists; (ii)
Conservationists; (iii) Professionals; and (iv) Hobbyists. Each factor represents a type of participant that
shares similar profile in regards to their roles, motivations and desired outcomes. To sketch the profile
of each factor, subsets of the participants with a high score (>0.6) in only one factor were selected as
representatives of the corresponding factor. A discussion of how the 12 statements load in each factor,
which illustrates the linear combination of items for each factor, is referenced within the text in
parenthesis (s1, s2, s3 etc.). The overall load of each statement is given in Table 2. Quotes from the
open survey questions are used to elicit the perspective underpinning each type of volunteer and to
give context to their experiences. Quotes are taken from respondents with a high contribution (factor
score >0.70) to the relevant factor. Table 3 synthesises the socio-demographic dynamics of the
volunteers who belong to each of the 4 extracted factors.
[INSERT TABLE 2 HERE]
14
[INSERT TABLE 3 HERE]
Activists
The first factor, accounting for 27% of the variance, is labelled Activists. This type of participant
engages with community science as an attempt to actively improve the quality of the marine
environment by challenging environmental injustice and inequality. Activists desire to become more
engaged with marine governance processes and feel fulfilment when their participation lobbies
decision-makers or instigates management change. This interpretation of the factor stems from the
participation roles that Activists tend to undertake. They have a stronger link to data dissemination
tasks (s3) than those of collection or analysis, illustrating their desire to actively use community
science knowledge as a means of supporting their movement. For Activists, this is advanced as a means
of “garnering public support and challenging marine management decisions” (Female, 65+, retired)
regarding specific marine-related concerns. For the surveyed participants, such concerns include
tackling the impact of plastic pollution and the depletion of fragile ecosystems. Thus, participation is
a continuous process and “not an end in itself, but a means to one” (Male, 65+, retired), as it is valued
as a vehicle through which wider change can be instigated. As Table 3 illustrates, Activists are
predominantly associated with collaborative and co-produced initiatives. This reflects their desire to
operate beyond contributory roles, instead engaging with dissemination tasks, raising public
awareness and utilising project knowledge as a means of calling for change.
The radical mentality of the Activist perspective derives from feelings of responsibility to play a part
in ensuring the sustainable management of marine environments. As one Activist noted; “I wanted to
give something back to marine environment … it can’t defend itself. Unless the government starts to
make changes to their approach, we are in real trouble” (Female, 35-44, teacher). There is a sense of
urgency amongst Activists, stemming from their perception that not enough attention is paid to local
15
environmental issues (s9) and their belief that communities can actively instigate alternative
government action (s10). Although Activists align with some egotistical motivations regarding
knowledge development (s5), they are more prominently driven by altruistic desires to create external
impact that can benefit the environment and wider society (s6, s7). This transitive relationship
between learning and action is a distinguishing feature of the Activist typology. Educational
advancement, specifically regarding the politics of the environment, is interpreted as a precursor to
taking more active approaches to protecting the environment and raising the awareness of particular
marine problems. These altruistic motivations link to Activists’ desired outcomes of giving power to
local knowledge (s8). Activists are emotionally driven to engage with community science, achieving
satisfaction when “challenging the status quo” (Male, 55-64, senior lecturer).
Conservationists
Conservationists are participants who engage with community science to advance their interest in
environmental conservation, to contribute towards ecological studies and to spend time engaging
with nature. They account for 14% of the variance. Conservationists are deeply embedded in the
practical workings of community science projects. They associate with a range of projects roles, with
particularly strong links to data analysis (s2), distribution (s3) and project design tasks (s4). This diverse
approach to participation relates to the egotistical desire of Conservationists to broaden their
knowledge of environmental and scientific themes (s5). Respondents state how they “enjoy varying
the tasks on offer, as it means I always get to engage with new things that can make me a more
rounded member” (Female, 65+, retired). Additionally, Conservationists demonstrate how socially
engaging with others is an important outcome of participation (s11), hence their desire to engage with
different tasks. Volunteering with other like-minded participants is a crucial social outcome for
Conservationists. Conservationists most commonly participate in collaborative initiatives, as
illustrated in Table 3. This stems from their ability to conduct a range of participatory roles, not simply
16
contributory tasks, as well as their desire to use their experience and developed knowledge to educate
others and support project organisation.
The responses of Conservationists suggest that community science participation is a passion and “an
opportunity to get away from the stresses of daily life” (Female, 45-54, civil servant). Unlike Activists,
they show limited association with motivations or outcomes relating to the politics of the
environment. Instead, they are driven to participate in projects that offer the opportunity to practice
skills and develop their environmental interests: “I am an old school environmentalist … I get to spend
time in places I love, meet new people and help others develop their skills. We aren’t changing the
world, but we enjoy doing our bit” (Female, 65+, retired). We also find that Conservationists interpret
their participation as “a long-term promise to protecting the environment” (Male, 65+, retired),
enhancing both the time they spend supporting initiatives and the range of roles that they play.
Professionals
Professionals, accounting for 10% of the variance, are a type of volunteer whose participation is a
means of developing or sustaining their professional interest in environmental practice. We break this
type of volunteer into two separate elements, those who are motivated by career development and
those that view community science as a way of utilising their skills post-retirement. Professionals who
are driven to engage with projects as a way of assisting with career development view their
participation as “a good opportunity to gain experience for running future projects, gaining contacts”
(Male, 35-44, environmental warden), as well as a means of securing “crucial experience for my CV”
(Male, 18-24, student). Professionals who are motivated to engage with community science as an
opportunity to continue professional work post-retirement interpret their engagement with projects
as a chance to “reengage rusty skills” (Female, 65+, retired) or to participate in projects “where my
professional experience is useful” (Female, 65+, retired).
17
Regarding the practical role of Professionals, they most closely associate with data collection (s1) and
project design tasks (s4). This is related to their motivation to practice ecological monitoring and
measuring responsibilities that can maintain or enhance their knowledge and skillsets. For example,
some Professionals discuss how they carry out tasks that can develop their “knowledge of another
wildlife survey technique” (Female, 25-34, research assistant), while retired Professionals state that
their community science duties are "similar to what I would do anyway, but with a structured purpose
and in an environment where I can help others” (Male, 65+, retired). The desired outcomes of socially
engaging with others during participation (s11) and broadening the public awareness of conservation
(s12) are important for Professionals. Thus, participation is valued as a means of gaining contacts and
enhancing social capital, as well as an opportunity to “make people aware of issues affecting our
marine life” (Male, 65+). Community science is a personally relevant practice for Professionals, who
are motivated by their environmental principles to participate in projects as a way of fulfilling their
ecological interests. We find that respondents associated with the Professional profile are common in
both contributory and collaborative projects (Table 3). Contributory projects offer Professionals the
opportunity to focus on conducting entry level tasks, which can enable them to make use of their
existent skills, develop their capabilities and engage with others. We suggest that this profile of
volunteer is also prevalent in collaborative initiatives as projects of this nature provide scope for
retired Professionals to educate others and to play a role in guiding the design of project operations.
Hobbyists
Hobbyists account for 8% of the variance. They are volunteers who informally engage with maritime
activities that bring them pleasure and advance community science as a way of giving meaning to their
hobbies. Our survey findings illustrate how respondents’ hobbies include angling (onshore and
offshore), diving, bird and wildlife spotting, beach walking and wildlife photography. Community
science provides a platform for Hobbyists to practice their pastimes in a structured, scientific
environment. Thus, Hobbyists most strongly associate with data collection tasks (s1), as their hobbies
18
are practical activities. They specialise their engagement by exclusively carrying out tasks that they are
already experienced in. A key feature of this type of volunteer is their motivation to give additional
value to their hobbies, choosing to participate in projects that represent a “a good fit” (Female, 65+,
retired) for their interests. For example, Hobbyists note how community science has “taken my diving
from a recreational activity to something that has a knowledge output and can help conservation
matters” (Male, 35-44, financial advisor). Table 3 demonstrates how Hobbyists are highly prevalent in
contributory projects, where their engagement is unlikely to develop beyond data collection tasks.
For Hobbyists, scientific output is important, as it takes their hobby beyond a recreational level. Their
satisfaction stems from feelings of pride, particularly as hobbies are activities of significant personal
value. “Seeing my name attached to research reports and knowing that my cetacean records have
been of use for scientific matters is a great feeling” (Male, 35-44, teacher). Hobbyists, therefore, gain
personal satisfaction by contributing to scientific knowledge. We also find that Hobbyists negatively
associate with the outcome of socially engaging or collaborating with others (s11). Interaction with
other volunteers is interpreted as an indirect outcome of participation. They discuss how they feel “in
a world of my own when diving” (Female, 35-44, local councillor) and are motivated to “practice
recording and monitoring skills in new surroundings … separate from others but in a managed
environment” (Male, 25-34, civil servant).
5. Discussion
This paper has critically reviewed evaluative procedures in community science research,
problematising a tendency to exclusively focus on either volunteer motivations or outcomes, and
illustrating the need to assess a wider scope of the participation process. The findings of our study
reveal the prominent types of individuals who engage with marine community science projects,
highlighting a diverse range of participation pathways amongst respondents. These pathways are
19
associated with different learning and social outcomes, with volunteers desiring to achieve outcomes
that are aligned with their motivations and perceptions. In the case of Conservationists and Hobbyists,
these can include egotistical drivers to spend time with nature, expand personal knowledge and
skillsets, contribute to scientific knowledge, and attain recognition for conservation actions. We find
that Professionals are motivated to participate as a means of upholding their environmental principles.
These volunteers also reflect collective motivations to engage with others, which is perceived as a
valuable means of developing both knowledge and experience that can support career advancement.
Altruistic desires to instigate wider change and to become more politically engaged are revealed as
being central to the participation of Activists. Whilst our findings on the motivational drivers of
surveyed volunteers are largely reflective of studies on volunteerism, our assessment of how these
are linked to specific perceptions and outcomes of participation reveal valuable insight that adds to
current thought.
We expand beyond the motivational labels of Batson et al. [44], demonstrating the value of assessing
both what motivates volunteer engagement and what outcomes are required to satisfy their
participation. This supports the creation of volunteer profiles that can shed light on the factors that
support or inhibit the realisation of participation intentions within specific projects. It also reveals
useful information on the diverse perceptions of volunteers and how these are related to specific
interpretations on the value and role of community science. For instance, we find that some
volunteers (Activists) perceive community science as a mechanism of challenging marine conservation
decision-making, yet others (Conservationists, Hobbyists) interpret projects as means of self-
expression. These findings illustrate the multi-dimensional nature of participation and such insights
exemplify how a wider scope of participation can be uncovered. We recommend that this style of
evaluation should be followed by marine community science coordinators, so that their projects can
explicitly highlight the significance of an individual’s contribution and better understand that multiple
20
participation pathways exist. This can help projects create engagement structures that can more
efficiently mobilise volunteers by responding to their needs and requirements. As community science
resources can be limited [7], projects must be designed with the intention of getting the most out of
participants. Our methodology illustrates the value of examining several elements of participation
simultaneously and we argue that such an approach to evaluating the capacity of volunteers can help
projects to better realise their outcomes. Evaluating participation in this way can also help
egalitarianism in community science participation by ensuring that different types of volunteers are
supported based upon their individual motivations and desires. As community science continues to
grow, engaging more diverse citizenries will be crucial if projects are to tackle concerns regarding
exclusive recruitment tendencies [60].
By focusing on the complex composition of participant cohorts, the analysis also highlights the nature
of the ‘science’ that each group is engaged with as active producers of knowledge. For Professionals
and Hobbyists the depth of research is not the primary issue, yet for Activists and Conservationists it
clearly is. For these two groups there is a need to move beyond ‘science’ as a technical project to value
the type of knowledge that is being produced, its epistemological basis and how it is ultimately used.
For Conservationists it is primarily about what Rydin [61] calls ‘outcome knowledge’ that is most
important. The emphasis is on empirical accounts of particular environmental conditions. Data that
does not serve that purpose or initiatives that fail to engage this particular epistemological preference,
are not likely to attract or retain effective participants of this persuasion. Activists differ slightly,
valuing the capacity of community science to create ‘actionable knowledge’. This is knowledge that
connects heterogeneous elements (social, political, environmental) in an attempt to expand existing
modes of knowing and to inform future action [62]. For Activists the focus is on practice as a form of
self-organization that is fluid, dynamic and emergent. This is not to value one type of volunteer over
another, only to show that projects need to pay attention to the alignment between a potential
participant and the nature of knowledge they are most interested in. Whilst the emphasis has
21
traditionally focused on the attributes of the volunteer, there needs to be a better understanding of
how they relate to different categories of knowledge, in and of themselves.
6. Conclusions
Understanding participants’ motivations in conjunction with their outcomes and broader perceptions
can help project organisers decide the most appropriate approach to maximising participation. There
is a ‘fine line’ between supporting and taking advantage of volunteers [31]. It is important not to
disregard this and risk losing vital contribution by relying upon volunteer enthusiasm. We suggest that
a clearer evaluation of volunteers’ participation can assist how projects manage this fine line.
Volunteers carry specific values, perceptions, and skills regarding marine conservation. These must be
decoded by community science coordinators and should shape the design and scope of projects when
possible. Satisfying volunteers’ desires directly supports both recruitment and retention. The success
and long-term sustainability of a project, therefore, will be dependent upon the degree to which
projects are aligned with the motivations and requirements of volunteers. Although we find well
defined forms of volunteers, we acknowledge that measuring the development of motivations as
participation deepens is a factor that we did not examine. This is seen to be an increasingly important
aspect of volunteer engagement [35,46] and we suggest that this is incorporated into future
evaluations. Research has shown that community science has a strong potential to effectively
contribute to marine policy and advance public participation in governance. This can only be achieved,
however, if projects speak to the needs of volunteers and facilitate active participation processes. We
argue that community science projects that enable volunteers to pursue their interests and feel like
they are making a difference, are more likely to remain successful in the long-term.
Funding
22
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
23
References
[1] J.P. Cohn, Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research?. BioScience 58 (3) (2008) 192-197.
[2] R. Bonney, C.B. Cooper, J. Dickinson, S. Kelling, T. Phillips, K.V. Rosenberg, J. Shirk, Citizen science:
a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience 59 (11) (2009a)
977-984.
[3] K.K. Ambrose, C. Box, J. Boxall, A. Brooks, M. Eriksen, J. Fabres, G. Fylakis, T.R. Walker, Spatial trends
and drivers of marine debris accumulation on shorelines in South Eleuthera, The Bahamas using citizen
science. Marine pollution bulletin 142 (2019) 145-154.
[4] A. Gouraguine, J. Moranta, A. Ruiz-Frau, H. Hinz, O. Reñones, S.C. Ferse, J. Jompa, D.J. Smith, Citizen
science in data and resource-limited areas: A tool to detect long-term ecosystem changes. PloS one
14 (1) (2019).
[5] M.L. Schläppy, J. Loder, J. Salmond, A. Lea, A.J. Dean, C.M. Roelfsema, Making waves: marine citizen
science for impact. Frontiers in Marine Science 4 (2017) 146.
[6] N.J. Bennett, Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental
management. Conservation Biology 30 (3) (2016) 582-592.
[7] S.K. Chase, A. Levine, A framework for evaluating and designing citizen science programs for natural
resources monitoring. Conservation Biology 30 (3) (2016) 456-466.
[8] A. Sharpe, C.C. Conrad, Community based ecological monitoring in Nova Scotia: challenges and
opportunities. Environmental monitoring and assessment 113 (1-3) (2006) 395-409.
[9] R.E. Pandya, A framework for engaging diverse communities in citizen science in the US. Frontiers
in Ecol. and the Envir. 10 (6) (2012) 314-317.
[10] M.M. Thompson, Upside-down GIS: The future of citizen science and community participation.
The Cartographic Journal 53 (4) (2016) 326-334.
[11] K. Hyder, B. Townhill, L.G. Anderson, J. Delany, J.K. Pinnegar, Can citizen science contribute to the
evidence-base that underpins marine policy?. Marine policy 59 (2015) 112-120.
[12] J. Bone, M. Archer, D. Barraclough, P. Eggleton, D. Flight, M. Head, D.T. Jones, C. Scheib, N.
Voulvoulis, Public participation in soil surveys: lessons from a pilot study in England. Environ Sci
Technol 46 (2012) 687–3696.
[13] R. Jarvis, B.B. Breen, C.U. Krägeloh, D.R. Billington, Citizen science and the power of public
participation in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 57 (2015) 21–26.
[14] D.C. McKinley, A.J. Miller-Rushing, H.L. Ballard, R. Bonney, H. Brown, S.C. Cook-Patton, D.M.
Evans, R.A. French, J.K. Parrish, T.B. Phillips, S.F. Ryan, L.A. Shanley, J.L. Shirk, K.F. Stepenuch, J.F.
Weltzin, A. Wiggins, O.D. Boyle, R.D. Briggs, S.F. Chapin III, D.A. Hewitt, P.W. Preuss, M.A. Soukup,
Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental
protection. Biol. Conserv. 208 (2017) 15–28.
[15] R. Kelly, A. Fleming, G.T. Pecl, A. Richter, A. Bonn, Social license through citizen science: a tool for
marine conservation. Ecology and Society 24 (1) (2019) 16.
[16] T. Turrini, D. Dörler, A. Richter, F. Heigl, A. Bonn, The threefold potential of environmental citizen
science-Generating knowledge, creating learning opportunities and enabling civic participation.
Biology Conservation 225 (2018) 176-186.
[17] R.L. Schewe, D. Hoffman, J. Witt, B. Shoup, M. Freeman, Citizen-Science and Participatory
Research as a Means to Improve Stakeholder Engagement in Resource Management: A Case Study of
Vietnamese American Fishers on the US Gulf Coast. Environmental Management (2019) 1-14.
[18] W. Flannery, J. Clarke, B. McAteer, Politics and power in marine spatial planning. In Maritime
Spatial Planning, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. (2019) 201-217.
[19] D.G. Cunha, J.F. Marques, J.C. Resende, P.B. Falco, C.M. Souza, S.A. Loiselle, Citizen science
participation in research in the environmental sciences: key factors related to projects’ success and
longevity. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências 89 (3) (2017) 2229-2245.
[20] C.G. Druschke, C.E. Seltzer, Failures of engagement: Lessons learned from a citizen science pilot
study. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 11 (3-4) (2012) 178-188.
24
[21] J.L. Shirk, H.L. Ballard, C.C. Wilderman, T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E. McCallie, M. Minarchek,
B.V. Lewenstein, M.E. Krasny, R. Bonney. Public participation in scientific research: a framework for
deliberate design. Ecology and Society 17 (2) (2012).
[22] V. Seymour, M. Haklay, Exploring engagement characteristics and behaviours of environmental
volunteers. Citiz. Sci. Theory Pract. 2 (1) (2017).
[23] D.R. Wright, L.G. Underhill, M. Keene, A.T. Knight, Understanding the motivations and
satisfactions of volunteers to improve the effectiveness of citizen science programs. Society & Natural
Resources 28 (9) (2015) 1013-1029.
[24] B. Alender, Understanding volunteer motivations to participate in citizen science projects: a
deeper look at water quality monitoring. Journal of Science Communication 15 (3) (2016).
[25] H. Geoghegan, A. Dyke, R. Pateman, S. West, G. Everett, Understanding motivations for citizen
science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm Environment Institute
(University of York) and University of the West of England (2016).
[26] C. Jennett, L. Kloetzer, D. Schneider, I. Iacovides, A. Cox, M. Gold, B. Fuchs, A. Eveleigh, K. Methieu,
Z. Ajani, Y. Talsi, Motivations, learning and creativity in online citizen science. Journal of Science
Communication 15 (3) (2016).
[27] G. Bela, T. Peltola, J.C. Young, B. Balázs, I. Arpin, G. Pataki, J. Hauck, E. Kelemen, L. Kopperoinen,
A. Van Herzele, H. Keune, Learning and the transformative potential of citizen science. Conservation
Biology 30 (5) (2016) 990-999.
[28] E.S. Dem, B. Rodriguez-Labajos, M. Wiemers, J. Ott, N. Hirneisen, J.V. Bustamante, et al.,
Understanding the relationship between volunteers’ motivations and learning outcomes of Citizen
Science in rice ecosystems in the Northern Philippines. Paddy and Water Environment 16 (4) (2018)
725–735.
[29] R.C. Jordan, H.L. Ballard, T.B. Phillips, Key issues and new approaches for evaluating citizen-
science learning outcomes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10 (6) (2012) 307-309.
[30] C. Evans, E. Abrams, R. Reitsma, K. Roux, L. Salmonsen, P.P. Marra, The neighborhood nestwatch
program: participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conserv. Biol. 19 (3)
(2005) 589-594.
[31] T.G. Measham, G.B. Barnett, Environmental volunteering: Motivations, modes and outcomes.
Australian Geographer, 39 (4) (2008) 537-552.
[32] T.B. Phillips, N. Porticella, M. Constas, R. Bonney, A framework for articulating and measuring
individual learning outcomes from participation in citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice
3 (2) (2018).
[33] P. Tiago, M.J. Gouveia, C. Capinha, M. Santos-Reis, H.M. Pereira, The influence of motivational
factors on the frequency of participation in citizen science activities. Nat. Conserv. 18 (2017) 61–78.
[34] M.J. Raddick, G. Bracey, P.L. Gay, C.J. Lintott, C. Cardamone, P. Murray, K. Schawinski, A.S. Szalay,
J. Vandenberg, Galaxy Zoo: motivations of citizen scientists. Astron. Educ. Rev. 12 (2013) 10106.
[35] T.B. Phillips, H.L. Ballard, B.V. Lewenstein, R. Bonney, Engagement in science through citizen
science: moving beyond data collection. Sci. Educ. 103 (2019) 665–690.
[36] J. Tang, X. Zhou, M. Yu, Designing feedback information to encourage users' participation
performances in citizen science projects. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and
Technology 56 (1) (2019) 486-490.
[37] A. Davis, C.E. Taylor, J.M. Martin, Are pro-ecological values enough? Determining the drivers and
extent of participation in citizen science programs. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24 (60) (2019) 501-
514.
[38] D. Rotman, J. Preece, J. Hammock, K. Procita, D. Hansen, C. Parr, D. Lewis, D. Jacobs, Dynamic
changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012
conference on computer supported cooperative work (2012) 217-226.
[39] W. Ganzevoort, R.J. van den Born, W. Halffman, S. Turnhout, Sharing biodiversity data: citizen
scientists’ concerns and motivations. Biodiversity and Conservation 26 (12) (2017) 2821-2837.
25
[40] D. Asingizwe, P.M. Poortvliet, C.J. Koenraadt, A.J. van Vliet, C.M. Ingabire, L. Mutesa, C. Leeuwis,
C., Why (not) participate in citizen science? Motivational factors and barriers to participate in a citizen
science program for malaria control in Rwanda. PloS one, 15 (8) (2020) p.e0237396.
[41] C.B. Jackson, C. Østerlund, K. Crowston, M. Harandi, L. Trouille, Shifting forms of Engagement:
Volunteer Learning in Online Citizen Science. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer
Interaction, 4 (2020) 1-19.
[42] E.G. Clary, R.D. Ridge, A.A. Stukas, M. Snyder, J. Copeland, J. Haugen, et al., Understanding and
assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 74 (6) (1998) 1516–1530.
[43] R.M. Ryan, E.L. Deci, Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. Am. Psychol. 55 (1) (2000) 68–78.
[44] C.D. Batson, N. Ahmad, J.A. Tsang, Four motives for community involvement. J. Soc. Issues 58 (3)
(2002) 429-445.
[45] V. Curtis, Patterns of participation and motivation in Folding@ home: The contribution of
hardware enthusiasts and overclockers. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 3 (1) (2018) 1-14.
[46] L.R. Larson, C.B. Cooper, S. Futch, D. Singh, N.J. Shipley, K. Dale, G.S. LeBaron, J.Y. Takekawa, The
diverse motivations of citizen scientists: Does conservation emphasis grow as volunteer participation
progresses?. Biological Conservation 242 (2020) 108428.
[47] G. Ottinger, Buckets of resistance: Standards and the effectiveness of citizen science. Science,
Technology & Human Values 35 (2) (2010) 244-270.
[48] J.R. Jambeck, K. Johnsen, Citizen-based litter and marine debris data collection and mapping.
Computing in Science & Engineering 17 (4) (2015) 20-26.
[49] I.D. Cross, “Changing behaviour, changing investment, changing operations”: Using citizen science
to inform the management of an urban river. Area (2019) 1-10.
[50] B. Bruyere, S. Rappe, Identifying the motivations of environmental volunteers. J Environ Plan
Manag 50 (2007) 503–516.
[51] A.J. Dean, E.K. Church, J. Loder, K.S. Fielding, K.A. Wilson, How do marine and coastal citizen
science experiences foster environmental engagement?. J Environ Manage 213 (2018) 409-416.
[52] D. Brossard, B. Lewenstein, R. Bonney R, Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of
a citizen science project. Int J Sci Educ 27 (2005) 1099–1121.
[53] C. Overdevest, C.H. Orr, K. Stepenuck, Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in
natural resource issues. Human Ecol Rev 11 (2004) 177–85.
[54] Y.N. Golumbic, D. Orr, A. Baram-Tsabari, B. Fishbain, Between vision and reality: A study of
scientists’ views on citizen science. Citizen Sci Theory Pract 2 (1) (2017).
[55] R. Bonney, H. Ballard, R. Jordan, E. McCallie, T. Phillips, J. Shirk, C.C. Wilderman, Public
Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science
Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report (2009b).
[56] L.R. Fabrigar, D.T. Wegener, Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press, 2011.
[57] V. Curtis, Motivation to participate in an online citizen science game: A study of Foldit. Science
Communication 37 (6) (2015) 723-746.
[58] E. Lehman, R. Jepson, J. McAteer, D. Archibald, What Motivates Volunteers to Engage in Health-
Related Citizen Science Initiatives? A Case Study of Our Outdoors. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (19) (2020) 6950.
[59] J.F. Hair, et al., Multivariate Data Analysis, sixth ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ,
2006.
[60] H. Walajahi, Engaging the “Citizen” in Citizen Science: Who’s Actually Included?. The American
Journal of Bioethics 19 (8) (2019) 31-33.
[61] Y. Rydin, Re-examining the Role of Knowledge Within Planning Theory. Planning Theory 6 (1)
(2007) 52-58.
26
[62] K.J. Mach, M.C. Lemos, A.M. Meadow, C. Wyborn, N. Klenk, J.C. Arnott, N.M Ardoin, C. Fieseler,
R.H. Moss, L. Nichols, M. Stults, Actionable knowledge and the art of engagement. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 42 (2020) 30-37.
