The Roles and Expectations of Participants in a Community-Based

Conservation Program

Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction:

In the United States, the conservation movement began with top-down regulations, often

bringing professional environmentalists into conflict with local communities (particularly when

those communities are non-white or working class) (Hays, 1999). However, the movement has

also seen great success with efforts which align environmental action with the needs of the

surrounding community. Ultimately, all people are stakeholders in the conservation movement,

and all people must be allowed authentic participation in conservation work. Community-based

conservation can take many forms, but many programs focus on one (or both) of these two

methods: citizen science (in which members of the public contribute to data collection and

analysis) or civic ecology (in which members of the public participate in hands-on management

and stewardship of natural resources) (Briggs & Kransy, 2016). Both methods have been shown

to achieve goals in conservation as well as environmental education, helping to create a more

sustainable world now and into the future (Aguilar, 2018; Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2019; Rome,

2003).

Like the ecosystems they seek to protect, community-based conservation programs can

be complex systems with interdependent participants, all with a particular niche to fill. In any

ecosystem, when niches go unfilled, breakdown begins to happen. Similarly, community

programs can begin to dissolve if participants are not able to support one another by filling their

respective roles. But a role cannot be filled if it is not first understood. This research seeks to

better understand the various roles involved within a community-based conservation program,
providing program coordinators with insight to better design programs that can meet the

expectations of all involved.

Purpose of Study:

The purpose of this study is to examine the expectations held by participants in a

community-based conservation program (with participants ranging from local youth to outside

professionals). The involvement of all members of local communities holds much promise for

achieving sustainable conservation outcomes, in addition to the need for more equitable access to

research and decision making. However, the necessary involvement of many organizations and

groups involved in a community-based conservation program can lead to miscommunication and

conflict. If certain elements of the program are not clear on what is expected of their role or what

they can reasonably expect from those in other roles, the entire program can break down

(Bronstein, 2003; Conville & Kinnell, 2010; Publow, 2010). Miscommunication and mistrust

among different roles has been known to cause difficulties for community-based conservation

programs in the past, and these problems will persist when participants have different

perspectives on what can and should be expected from themselves and from others in the

program (Fox & Cundill, 2018; Jiang et al., 2018; Weng, 2015).

This research aims to address some of these challenges by investigating the perceptions

held by different categories of participants within community-based conservation programs.

Analysis of this data can help reveal potential sources of conflict which may help program

coordinators anticipate and avoid problematic situations. It will also help to reveal common

trends in the expectations held by different groups of participants, allowing programs to best be

designed in a way that can best meet the expectations of all involved. Additional data collected

from undergraduate students in a prominent natural resources program will allow for comparison

of the perceptions held by these students with the perceptions of current participants in
community-based conservation programs, providing insight about how the views of these

students line up with the trends within current programs.

Research Questions:

When considering categories of participants within a community-based conservation program,

what are common shared expectations held by each of these categories about the role of their

category as well as the roles of other categories?

How do the expectations held by participants in community-based conservation programs

compare with the expectations held by students in an undergraduate natural resources program?

Objectives/sub-questions:

What (if any) are significant differences between the expectations held by different categories for

the role of a particular category?

Do categories rank their expectations from another category differently when considering what is

necessary for overall program success vs what is necessary for their own category’s successful

involvement?

What are expectations held by non-professional participants for professional participants that the

professional participants do not also hold?

What are expectations held by professional participants for non-professionals that the non-

professionals do not also hold?

Limitations:

• This study will be limited to community-based conservation programs which the

researcher can reasonably access and connect with, which will be primarily programs

located in the United States with English-speaking participants.

 • This study will only be able to examine a limited number of programs, due to time and

funding constraints. This will limit the sample size of participants and restrict the study’s

ability to generalize results.

• The researcher will only be able to conduct the student survey with students from the

University of Wisconsin Stevens Point. While the University has an excellent natural

resources program, it can only provide a limited perspective of how students in higher

education may be being prepared to work in community conservation.

Assumptions:

• Participants in group discussions will provide honest answers that reflect their true point

of view.

• Participants will share the researcher’s view of distinct categories of participants within

the program. For example, outside professionals will view themselves as members of a

“professional” category of participant, one which differentiates them from other kinds of

participants and is shared with other professionals participating in different conservation

programs.

Definitions:

• Environmental Education: broadly defined, this could include any form of education

about environmental related matters. As a field, it was defined by the Tbilisi Declaration

of 1977, which put forth specific goals for environmental education to promote

awareness about environmental matters and their interconnectedness with society, to

better enable all people to help protect and improve the environment, and to foster new

environmental behaviors from an individual to a societal level (UNESCO, 1978)

• Citizen Science: the participation of non-professional volunteers and/or members of the

public in scientific research. Often, this takes the form of data collection, but it can
 include participation in other aspects of scientific work as well (such as data analysis,

experimental design, communication of results, or application of scientific research)

(Ballard et. al., 2017).

• Community Science: often regarded as an alternative term for citizen science. The term

was proposed as a more inclusive term to incorporate projects that might not identify with

the phrase “citizen science,” due perhaps to being community led and oriented or to the

political nature of the term “citizen” (Ballard et. al., 2017)

• Civic Ecology: this refers to environmental stewardship practices and the study of how

these practices connect with related socio-ecological systems. The term, as used here,

was recently developed by researchers at Cornell University (Briggs & Kransy, 2016).

• Role: behaviors characteristic of one or more persons within a context (Biddle 1979)

• Expectations: “a statement that expresses a reaction about a characteristic of one or more

persons” (Biddle 1979).

• Treatment: behaviors characteristically directed towards persons within a context (Biddle

1979)

• Community-based Conservation Program: A program in which non-professional

volunteers directly participate, in some capacity, in ongoing conservation work near or

within their community (He et al., 2020)

• CWES: The Central Wisconsin Environmental Station, a field station of the University of

Wisconsin-Stevens Point. It is an environmental education facility and host of the Sunset

Lake Conservation Program, a community-based conservation program that will be the

starting point for this study.

Summary:
 Community-based conservation programs can address many of the challenges faced by

traditional top-down approaches to conservation, but the involvement of many groups of people

creates unique challenges in its own right. In order to achieve the potential benefits of

community-based conservation, programs must be structured in a way that allows all involved to

understand and fulfill their roles. Through analysis of ongoing community-based conservation

programs, this research aims to help program coordinators best meet the expectations of their

participants and achieve their desired outcomes.

 Chapter 2: Literature Review

This literature review explores the beginning of the conservation movement in the United

States, the shift to include a more community-based approach to conservation, and some of the

different forms which community-based conservation can take. The benefits of public

participation in conservation are discussed, with a particular focus on the benefits in an

environmental education context. The role of youth (who commonly participate in conservation

work through an environmental education program) is discussed as well. Finally, the concept of

role theory is introduced, providing a lens through which to view this research.

Community Engagement in Conservation:

In the modern Western tradition, early scientists were not professional researchers like

the ones we have today. Rather, they were individuals who undertook scientific investigations as

a component of their non-scientific employment or simply out of their own curiosity and interest.

However, as time progressed, the field of science became increasingly professionalized, and the

capacity for non-professionals to participate in scientific research became increasingly limited. In

the late 1800s, as this professionalization of science was taking place, the modern conservation

movement in the United States was also beginning to take shape. This movement began largely

due to a coalition of scientists and conservationists, individuals who spent extensive time

studying the natural world and used their influence to advocate for its preservation. These

professionals argued that the work of conservation should be delegated to technical experts in the

field, outside of the realm of normal politics, claiming that the management of resources was a

technical matter which would be impeded by the processes of bureaucracy and public

involvement (Hays 1999). This helped lead to the implementation of a primarily top-down

approach to conservation, in which government agencies and scientific experts would establish
policies and attempt to enforce them on corporate interests and the public (Matarrita-Cascante et

al., 2019; Rome, 2003).

However, in recent decades, there has been a greater shift towards “bottom up”

approaches to conservation, movements which originate from the public or are designed to

empower local communities to engage in conservation work. Significant credit for this shift

should be given to environmental justice advocates, individuals or groups who represented the

communities most heavily impacted by ongoing pollution and worked to seek change. Often,

these communities would be the ones most likely to be overlooked or ignored by more traditional

scientists or conservationists (such as Black, Indigenous, immigrant, or lower-class

communities) (Rome, 2019). In the 1980s, international efforts began to develop a greater focus

on the need for sustainable development, evolving the conservation movement further towards

its present day form. However, this time, the world leaders who put forth the movement’s

objectives made specific inclusion of the need for equitable participation in sustainability. In a

global context, this primarily meant efforts to ensure that poorer nations were not excluded from

decision making. However, in a regional context, this came to mean greater professional

acknowledgement of the need to collaborate with the public and to match conservation goals to

the needs of the local communities (Irwin, 1995).

Forms and Benefits of Community Engagement

Increased involvement of local communities can help ensure that conservation and

scientific work is conducted with equity and justice, but this is not the only benefit of community

participation. Efforts to implement top-down conservation programs have frequently encountered

a certain set of challenges which could be mediated by greater public support, and community-

oriented conservation offers promising ways to gain that support while continuing to achieve

equal or greater conservation outcomes (Burkhart et al., 2012).

 Public participation in conservation can take a wide variety of forms, but this research

will focus on two primary categories. The first is citizen science (or community science), which

focuses primarily on public involvement in the collection of data for research (Shirk & Bonney,

2020). The term citizen science originated first, with the idea of community science developing

more recently as a way to reduce the political connotations associated with the term “citizen” as

well as a way to describe projects which are specifically organized by/focused on the needs of a

local community (Charles et al., 2020). The second category of public participation in

conservation is civic ecology, which focuses primarily on environmental stewardship. This could

include activities such as litter collection or invasive species removal, projects which focus on

making tangible improvements to environmental conditions. Programs which focus on engaging

communities in the conservation of local natural areas will often involve elements of both types

of participation, and both types offer similar benefits to professionals and non-professionals

(Briggs & Kransy, 2016).

Why do professionals engage local communities?

Professional conservationists may seek to involve local communities for a variety of

reasons, but one of the simplest factors is a lack of resources. Many researchers and

organizations lack the funding necessary to reach their goals without additional assistance, thus

leading to the need for direct community support. Volunteers can collect more data than would

ever be possible for researchers alone, and their work can help conservationists to manage areas

of land too big for a single team of professionals (Peters et al., 2017). Increased community

engagement can also have more indirect benefits. For example, involving the community in

ongoing conservation work can lead to the growth of conservation-oriented behaviors among

community members, which can help prevent degradation of natural sites by human activity.
Community support can also lead to increased funding being made available for conservation

work, either from government funds or from private sources (Jordan et al., 2020).

Why do communities engage with professional conservation?

Professional conservationists can only work in so many areas, and the focus of

professional researchers is often on a broader scale than is directly impactful for most people. By

involving themselves in hands-on conservation work, community members can help ensure that

their local natural areas are protected or, if necessary, restored. Involved community members

are also better able to influence local management decisions about natural areas, providing

critical data or advocating for certain policies (Shirk & Bonney, 2020). Additionally,

involvement in local conservation work can provide a way for community members to engage

with others who share their love of science and nature, regardless of their professional field or

background. For some participants, the social component of participation can be as important as

the conservation impact, a trend that is only likely to increase as feelings of isolation and

loneliness rise in society. Finally, many participants join conservation work for reasons similar to

the early scientists of the 18th Century: they simply want to know more. Citizen science and civic

ecology programs can offer a wealth of learning opportunities, allowing participants to better

understand the natural world through direct experience and through the teaching of experts

(Merenlender et al., 2016).

Levels of community-based conservation programs

Just as communities can have different forms of involvement in conservation work, they

can also have different degrees of involvement. Anything from providing funding for a project to

directly designing and running the project could be considered a type of community participation

(Danielsen et al., 2020). There are differing views in the literature about how to distinguish and
classify different levels of community involvement, but this is one format which could be used

by researchers:

1. At the first level, a program is initiated and run entirely by professionals. Non-

professional community members are asked to participate in the program by making

contributions such as data or labor, but these participants are not asked to make decisions

about the direction of the program.

2. At the second level, non-professional community members become involved in actual

decision making regarding the program. Professionals within an outside organization still

play a significant role in management and coordination, but community members have a

greater voice regarding the program’s operations. They may have even played an

instrumental role in initiating the program.

3. At the third level, the program is primarily owned by non-professional members of the

community. Outside professionals may help with facilitation or provide technical support,

but community members have the greatest power and responsibility for making decisions

and managing program operations (He et al., 2020; Matarrita-Cascante et al., 2019).

For the purposes of this study, programs fitting any of the above categories will be considered as

community-based conservation programs.

Environmental Education and Community Conservation

Throughout human history, societies have passed down knowledge about the natural

world, from ways to distinguish between edible and poisonous plants to methods of navigation

using the stars. In recent history, a variety of efforts have been made to formalize education on

important subjects, and education about the environment has been no exception. In 1977, the

United Nations issued the Tbilisi Declaration, putting forth a standardized framework for

environmental education efforts worldwide to support efforts to address climate change and
environmental degradation. This framework established five objectives for environmental

education, the fifth of which was Participation.

“Participation—to provide social groups and individuals with an opportunity to be

actively involved at all levels in working toward resolution of environmental

problems” (UNESC0, U., 1977, p. 27).

For environmental educators, this goal of participation could be met through a variety of

forms, such as political engagement in ecological matters (Levy & Zint, 2013), adoption

of more environmentally friendly personal behaviors, or motivation to continue learning

about and participating in conservation work (Jong, 2020; Schönfelder & Bogner, 2020).

Traditionally, researchers developed citizen science programs with data collection

as their primary, if not their only, goal. However, in recent years, more coordinators have

come to recognize the educational value of participation in citizen science (Jordan et al.,

2020). These programs can include a wide range of learning outcomes, including: interest

in science, self-efficacy (confidence to participate in scientific work), motivation to

engage in scientific actions, content knowledge, skills of scientific inquiry, and new

environmentally friendly behaviors and stewardship (Phillips et. al., 2018). The

framework for measuring these learning outcomes is still a relatively new development,

but successful learning has been demonstrated among both youth and adult participants

(Cho et. al., 2021; Merenlender et. al., 2016; Peter et. al, 2021).

The learning outcomes of civic ecology based programs have received more minimal

research than the learning outcomes from citizen science, but the literature does support similar

potential for educational application (Briggs & Kransy, 2016). Through service learning and

experiential methods, hands on stewardship of natural areas can lead to similar outcomes as

citizen science programs, such as a greater understanding of the environment and the
development of more conservation-minded behaviors (Dann & Schroder, 2015; Dresner &

Fischer, 2013; Knackmuhs et. al., 2017). Additionally, when civic ecology programs involve

participants in stewardship of their own local communities, these programs can help strengthen

participants’ community engagement and resiliency (Smith et. al., 2015). In addition to

benefitting individual participants, this can lead to benefits for whole communities through

greater cohesion, improved environmental health, and increased economic opportunities (Davids

et. al., 2021; Dolan et. al., 2015; Kransy & Tidball, 2012, 2018)

The Role of Youth in Community Based Conservation

Environmental Education can target learners of all ages, but the goals of programs

serving adults are often different from those serving youth. While adult education tends to

assume participants will be able to apply their learning in the present, youth education is often

designed with the idea that participants are preparing for the future (McCann & Heimlich, 2016).

Youth-focused environmental education can carry the goal of positive youth development, a

broad field which seeks to promote overall youth well-being: physical, intellectual,

psychological, and social. Increasingly, educators are finding that participation in environmental

action (in which youth work alongside other stakeholders to address environmental issues) can

lead to positive youth development while also meeting learning objectives and conservation

goals (Schusler, 2016). It is in this context that youth most often participate in community-based

conservation programs.

Although many conservation programs have youth participation as one of their goals, this

goal is not always authentically met. If a program denies youth some form of genuine ability to

make decisions which impact themselves and their community, then that program cannot claim

to have true youth participation (Korfiatis & Petrou, 2021). The goal of enabling true youth

participation can at times be at odds with coordinators’ goals for program direction and
outcomes, but programs which can address this tension and find balance are often best suited to

achieving significant impact (Schusler, 2016; Schusler et al., 2017).

Through participation in conservation programs, youth can develop increased agency to

act as environmentalists, strengthening their abilities in and confidence regarding conservation

work (Ballard et al., 2017). While significant focus tends to be placed on preparing youth with

the knowledge and skills to act as conservationists in their adulthood (McCann & Heimlich,

2016), evidence suggests that youth participants are more than capable of making immediate

contributions to conservation through hands-on work when given the opportunity (Pitt et al.,

2019; Pitt & Schultz, 2018).

Youth may also be in a unique position to help cause community change in regards to

conservation. The potential for youth to impact their families towards environmental action has

been reasonably well documented (Gilleran Stephens et. al, 2021; Lawson et. al., 2019; Peterson

et al., 2019; Silvio et al., 2020), but there is emerging evidence to suggest that youth can go

beyond their parents and influence the broader community (adults and youth alike), spreading

new environmental attitudes and leading people to adopt more environmentally friendly

practices. Promising frameworks for programs to achieve these outcomes have been developed,

but proper implementation and study of the concept has not yet been completed (Birmingham &

Calabrese, 2014; Hartley et. al., 2021; Levy et. al., 2021).

Role Theory:

The success of a community-based conservation program, or even any other form of

multi-organizational partnership, depends in part upon a clear understanding of the roles all

involved participants are meant to fill. Without clear communication about the parts each

participant is meant to play, the collaboration breaks down (Publow, 2010). Analysis of a

program’s shared understanding (or lack thereof) of the roles and responsibilities of its
participants can be understood through the lens of role theory (Bronstein, 2003; Conville &

Kinnell, 2010). Role Theory is defined as “the study of behaviors that are characteristic of

persons within contexts and with various processes that presumably produce, explain, and are

affected by those behaviors” (Biddle, 1979). It aims to explain how individuals’ actions can be

informed or influenced by social context and by the expectations of those around them. It helps

to analyze social systems in which varied positions are shaped and upheld by the expectations of

those involved, and to assess what happens when those expectations are not met (Biddle, 1986).

The concept of a role can be defined by four components:

1. A role is a behavior, some form of action carried out by an individual or group. Examples

could include grading tests (a behavior done by teachers) or publishing research articles

(a behavior done by professional scientists)

2. These actions and behaviors are carried out by human beings (not other species or aspects

of nature)

3. A role does not describe the entirety of a person’s behavior. Instead, it describes a

person’s behavior within a particular context. For example, someone filling the role of a

volunteer may participate in cleaning up litter, but they do not spend their entire life

cleaning up litter.

4. Roles are characteristic, in that they are commonly performed by a significant portion of

individuals within a certain context. For example, the role of students could include

completing a project assigned by their teacher. An individual student could choose to

read an additional book about the topic, but that action would not be considered

characteristic of their role if it was not done by the other students as well.

These behaviors, or roles, can fall into a wide variety of categories, from species-wide roles

(roles which could apply to all humans, such as breathing oxygen) to contextual roles (roles a
person might fill only under specific conditions, such as applauding at the end of a performance).

This research is primarily concerned with two types of roles: functional roles and positional

roles. Functional roles come to exist and persist due to society’s need or desire to accomplish a

certain task. A common functional role might include opening a door to enter a building (a

response to society’s need to create shelter that can be entered and exited). Positional roles, on

the other hand, describe the roles in which a person participates due to their position within

society (regardless of functionality). Individuals participate in (or are pressured to participate in)

this role due to their identity or position in society. This could include a shared accent among

individuals with a shared culture, or children playing a popular video game. These two types of

roles can often overlap when discussing occupations or other similar forms of participation in

society (Biddle, 1979).

Roles are often created and reinforced by expectations. In this context, expectations can

be considered a mental construct held by individuals or groups that defines the behaviors

characteristic of a role. Expectations can take many forms, such as personal vs positional

expectations, expectations for self vs expectations for others, or individual vs shared

expectations. These differing types of expectations are explored in Table 1, based on a similar

chart created by Biddle (1979).

Table 1 Individual Expectations Shared Expectations

Personal Positional Personal Positional
Expectations for A volunteer’s A volunteer’s A group of A group of
self expectation expectation for volunteers’ volunteers’
about their the actions of common common
actions “volunteers” expectation for expectation for
their own actions the actions of
“volunteers”
Expectations for A volunteer’s A volunteer’s A group of A group of
others expectations for expectations for volunteers’ volunteers’
the actions of the the actions of common expectation for
researcher “researchers” expectation for the actions of
coordinating the actions of the “researchers”
their project researcher
 coordinating
their project

Based upon their expectations, individuals will engage in behaviors characteristic of their roles.

They will also engage in treatment, or behaviors characteristically directed towards persons in a

context (such as the behavior of a volunteer when interacting with a researcher). This treatment

may take the form of rolecasting, which is when an individual encourages or influences the role

of another through their behaviors, consciously or subconsciously (Biddle 1979).

Role theory is not limited to understanding how roles come to develop. It can also be

useful for understanding the challenges which arise when individuals are met with conflicting

expectations for their role or uncertainty about what their role involves (Whetten, 1978). These

issues can be detrimental, both for individual well being and for overall program functionality

(Ebbers & Wijnberg, 2017; Tubre & Collins, 2000). Unclear or changing roles can lead to a

breakdown in trust (Thomas, 1998), a core component of many natural resource management

programs (Stern & Coleman, 2015). However, clarity and agreement on roles and expectations

can help ensure program success and sustainability (Sayce et al., 2013).

Role theory has been used by researchers as a lens to better understand many of the

interactions commonly held as part of community-based conservation programs, such as the

interactions between professionals and those seeking professional services (Thakur & Chewning,

2020), volunteers and volunteer managers (Nesbit et al., 2015), or researchers and members of

the general public (Wang et al., 2022). The effectiveness of inquiry-based learning programs (a

common method through which teachers can use citizen science to enhance student learning) can

be viewed as students adopting new roles to engage in scientific investigation (Walker & Shore,

2015). Role theory can be used to deconstruct citizen science or other conservation programs
into the distinct responsibilities held by particular categories of participants, leading to a better

understanding of overall program function and needs for success (Hecker & Taddicken, 2022).

Recently, researchers used role theory to develop a modified view of the roles involved in

effective citizen science project, from a dipartite view of “scientists” and “citizens” to a tripartite

view with “scientists,” “citizens,” and “enablers” (those who facilitate public involvement, often

as program coordinators) (Salmon et al., 2021). Role theory has also been used to analyze the

different roles which may be assumed by youth in citizen science projects (Zydney et al., 2021).

However, there remains a gap when it comes to the roles of participants in projects that involve

distinct roles for youth as well as adult volunteers, in addition to educators, professional

scientists, and program coordinators. Community-based conservation programs can involve

interaction among all of these different roles, and their relationships can and should be better

understood.

Summary:

In the modern tradition, science has a history as the realm of exclusive scholars.

However, the need for sustainability and conservation impacts us all, and environmental work is

most effective when all who are impacted can meaningfully contribute. True participation in

conservation offers unique opportunities for community education and growth, but only if all

involved share an understanding of what participation means. By examining the expectations

held by participants in community-based conservation programs, this research can aid

communication and implementation to better enable these programs to reach their conservation

and societal goals.

 Chapter 3: Research Methods

Introduction:

Community-based conservation programs can take many forms, such as a park enlisting

visitors to record butterfly sightings or a neighborhood working to restore a contaminated stream.

Despite their diversity, many of these programs will share certain fundamental roles to be filled

by certain members of the community. This study seeks to examine those roles and the

expectations held by participants about what those roles should involve. By facilitating a series

of small group discussions with participants in a range of community-based conservation

programs, the researcher will determine the common themes of expectations held by program

participants as well as the ways in which these expectations diverge. Using these findings, the

researcher will then devise a survey to assess the views of undergraduate students in a natural

resources program, assessing the degree to which the views of these students (who are preparing

to become leaders in conservation work) match the expectations held by current conservation

program participants.

Methodology:

The Nominal Group Technique (as described in the following section) is designed to

collect qualitative data (in the form of ideas and responses) as well as quantitative data (in the

form of rankings) from participants. This helps to facilitate group dialogue by allowing for

personal expression and nuance (as participants can express their views in their own way) while

also allowing for standardized participation to enforce equal standing from all participants (as all

participants will receive the same number of points with which to rank ideas). As a result, this

research will employ a mixed methods approach, incorporating both qualitative as well as

quantitative data. Through qualitative analysis, the research will explore the meaning behind

participant responses, searching for commonly held themes which can be used to strengthen the
goals and design of community conservation programs. Through quantitative analysis, the

research will highlight disparities among the expectations held by different groups of

participants, allowing those potential differences to be highlighted and addressed by program

coordinators to ensure that all participants are able to work together towards a common goal.

Comparison of quantitative and qualitative responses will allow for data triangulation, helping to

confirm the accuracy and significance of both types of data (O’Leary, 2014).

Nominal Group Technique:

When planning or implementing large programs, program coordinators will always need

to account for the various interests and expectations of a range of stakeholders. However,

ensuring that each group of stakeholders is appropriately acknowledged can be a difficult task.

To help this process, researchers developed the nominal group technique, a format of facilitated

discussion designed to gather feedback from a diverse set of stakeholders and arrive at a group

consensus about a particular problem or situation. At its core, this technique involves two

components. The first involves all participants individually developing and sharing ideas or

answers to a question posed by a facilitator. The second involves participants collaboratively

ranking or prioritizing ideas from the list generated by the entire group, leading to an overall

determination of the group’s priorities (Delbecq & Van de Ven, 1971).

The nominal group technique is particularly well suited for gathering and comparing

input from a range of groups with different interests, making it particularly useful for addressing

issues in ecological conservation, which frequently involve an extremely diverse group of

stakeholders. Analysis of many uses of the nominal group technique in an ecological context

revealed a variety of different methods for implementation, but all followed the same

fundamental structure.
 1. Participants are asked a question and given time to develop answers (often writing them

down as ideas to be shared). This is done individually, with no interaction among the

participants.

2. Participants are invited to share their ideas, which are recorded by the facilitator and

displayed for all to see.

3. The group is able to have moderate discussion about the ideas presented, allowing them

to seek clarification or combine similar ideas. The relative merit of the ideas is not

discussed during this portion

4. Participants rank the ideas to establish certain priorities. The exact method for this

ranking can be highly variable. It could include all participants publicly labeling their top

five ideas, participants privately ranking their perceived importance of each idea

mentioned, or any other number of processes. The important part is that all participants

are able to make their ranking known, and the individual rankings can all be combined to

establish a group consensus.

5. Finally, the data is analyzed. Immediate results can be demonstrated following the

ranking, but more in-depth analysis of individual responses can help to show common or

disparate themes among certain categories of participants.

This same analysis showed that two common advantages for nominal group technique were its

ability to compare distinct groups of stakeholders as well as its relatively low cost/time

commitment (Hugé & Mukherjee, 2018).

For this research study, the nominal group technique will be used to facilitate discussions

with participants from a selection of community-based conservation programs, as it will help to

ensure equal standing for all participants and better enable responses from differing groups of

participants to be compared. While the study is not concerned with developing a group
consensus, the potential for achieving a shared understanding of group expectations may serve as

an added incentive for programs to participate.

Setting and Participants:

For this study, the researcher will seek to facilitate multiple group discussions, each with

a different community-based conservation program. These community-based conservation

programs will have participants from all of the following five categories:

• Program Coordinators: Individuals who are responsible for facilitating and directing the

conservation program. In many programs, these will be professionals within a certain

organization that coordinates the program, but in some cases these may be non-

professionals who have assumed a leadership role within their community.

• Community volunteers: adult members of the local community who contribute to the

conservation work of the program in a non-professional and non-leadership capacity

• Youth: youth participants who contribute to the conservation program as part of their

formal education, through an informal educational program, or simply as volunteers.

o Youth participants will not be able to participate in a discussion without consent

from their parents/guardians. The parents/guardians will be invited to attend the

group discussion as well, even if they are not formal participants in the

discussion.

• Educators: Professionals who facilitate youth education and involve their students in the

conservation program. Generally, these would be formal K-12 educators, but it may

apply to informal educators as well, if those educators are not also serving as program

coordinators.

• Outside Professionals: Researchers or conservationists who are support the program in a

professional capacity. Generally, these professionals should work for a separate

 organization from the program coordinators. However, professionals who work for the

same organization as the program coordinator may fall into this category if their work is

sufficiently distinct from the program coordinators (if they work in separate departments,

or if the professional’s responsibilities do not overlap with the program coordinator’s).

The first discussion facilitated by the researcher will be with a program the researcher is

currently working with: the Sunset Lake Conservation Program. Subsequent discussions will be

with additional community-based conservation programs recruited by the researcher.

Sunset Lake Conservation Program

The Sunset Lake Conservation Program is a new community-based conservation program

which was established by the Central Wisconsin Environmental Station (CWES), a field station

of the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point. CWES is a residential environmental education

center, hosting field trips, summer camps, and other programming throughout the year. It is

located on Sunset Lake, an important natural resource in Portage County that is home to many

private residences as well as a public boat launch and beach. Unfortunately, the lake is also home

to a substantial population of the aquatic invasive plant Eurasian watermilfoil (or milfoil for

short). The milfoil population is large enough to impede aquatic recreation on Sunset Lake, and

it is overwhelming populations of native plants. Over the past ten years, efforts have been made

to bring the milfoil population under control, but these efforts have never fully engaged all

members of the lake community. In 2019, CWES was approached by Helen Klimowicz, a lake

resident who was responsible for spearheading the vast majority of milfoil removal efforts since

its discovery in 2008. She expressed her desire for increased support from CWES in organizing

the community and addressing the milfoil growth. This led to the development of the Sunset

Lake Conservation program in 2021, an effort by CWES to engage the Sunset Lake community

in milfoil management, mobilize the support needed to acquire more advanced removal
assistance, and offer resources for other lakes looking to develop their own milfoil management

programs.

For the Sunset Lake Conservation Program, the five categories of participants will be

filled by the following:

• Program Coordinators: CWES staff, primarily the program manager (the researcher is

involved in the program in this capacity as well).

• Community volunteers: Individuals who live on or around Sunset Lake and participate in

program events or conduct their own conservation work in association with the program.

• Educators: CWES shares its location with Tomorrow River Community Charter School

(TRCCS), a public charter school in the Stevens Point school district. The 6th Grade

teacher has supported this program along with her class and will be the primary

representative of the educator group. Additional TRCCS teachers may also join the

program in the coming school year.

• Youth: The 6th Grade class at TRCCS will serve as the primary youth representatives for

this research. New classes may be invited to participate in the coming school year as

well.

• Outside Professionals: CWES has collaborated with multiple other professional

organizations for this program, including Golden Sands Resource Conservation and

Development, UW Stevens Point Lakes Extension, Portage County, and the Wisconsin

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). Staff from any of these organizations could

serve as representatives for this group.

Additional Programs:

The Sunset Lake Conservation Program represents one example of a community

conservation program, but it does not fully represent all possible programs or settings. As a
result, the researcher plans to facilitate subsequent discussions with additional programs,

allowing for more meaningful data to be collected. These additional programs have not yet been

determined, but the researcher plans to incorporate programs to fill these categories:

• Urban: A program located in an urban environment and serving an urban community (as

opposed to the rural community served by the Sunset Lake Conservation Program).

• Government run: A program that is run by a governmental agency (this category could be

further distinguished based on the level of government).

• Non-profit run: A program that is run by an independent non-profit organization.

• Community run: A program that is truly directed by non-professional community

members.

• Citizen science focused: A program focused on community involvement in monitoring

and data collection (as opposed to habitat management).

• BIPOC focused: A program that is designed to serve or has specific outreach for BIPOC

(Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities.

Invitations to participate in this study will be sent out to program coordinators in the summer

of 2022 (following IRB approval of this research). As such, there is not currently a definitive list

of additional programs who will be able to host discussions for the study. At this time, the

researcher plans to extend invitations to a wide range of programs and organizations, including:

• The Urban Ecology Center (Milwaukee, WI)

• Conestee Nature Preserve (Greenville, SC)

• Beaver Creek Reserve (Fall Creek, WI)

• Congaree National Park and Friends of the Congaree (Columbia, SC)

 • Conservation Legacy (an organization which supports AmeriCorps placements across

the country, many of which involve work with community-based conservation

programs)

• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

• Chicago Botanic Garden (Chicago, IL)

• Madison Mycological Society (Madison, WI)

• Walking Mountains Science Center (Vail, CO)

• The Noise Project (a partnership of organizations around the world)

The researcher will contact coordinators within these and other programs via email to invite them

to participate in the study.

University of Wisconsin Stevens Point

The College of Natural Resources (CNR) at the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point is

one of the oldest and most prominent natural resources programs in the country. CNR students

can study a wide range of natural resources subjects, from hydrology to environmental

interpretation, and frequently become influential professionals in the field. These students will be

invited to participate in the second stage of this research project, after the program discussions

have been concluded.

The Note-Taker

To assist with facilitation and data collection during the group discussions, the researcher

will recruit a note-taker. This note taker will complete training from the Collaborative

Institutional Training Initiative (CITI) for human subjects research prior to any participation in

the program, and they will be fully briefed about their role and responsibilities by the researcher

prior to assisting with a discussion. If necessary, multiple note-takers may be recruited to assist
with discussions on different dates. The note-takers’s role will be further described during the

data collection methods.

Data Collection

Data for this study will be collected via two methods. First, discussions with participants

in community-based conservation programs will be held to gather data about the participants’

expectations for those filling different roles in their program. Second, a survey will be conducted

with CNR students to assess the degree to which their expectations match or diverge from those

held by current participants in conservation programs.

Discussions

A separate discussion will be held with each program that participates in the research

study, and each discussion will involve one or two participants from each of the five categories

described previously (program coordinator, community volunteer, youth, educator, and outside

professional). A single participant from each category would be preferred, but a second

participant may be allowable if they offer a substantially different perspective or if their presence

would help ensure a more positive experience for participants (for example, having two youth

participants may help to ensure that neither youth is uncomfortable or intimidated during the

discussion). These discussions will be held in-person (at the site of the conservation program or a

nearby location) or virtually via Zoom. They should last no more than 1.5 hours.

All discussions will follow this format (with some modifications when the discussion is

held virtually):

• Introduction: The researcher and note-taker will welcome all participants, introduce

themselves, and obtain consent from all participants via a consent form. Youth

participants will be asked to sign an assent form, and their parent/guardian will be asked

to sign a consent form on their behalf (Parents/guardians may be sent the consent form
 prior to the discussion if they would be unable to attend on the day of the discussion).

Paper and pens/pencils will be distributed to all participants for use during the discussion.

The researcher will provide an overview of the discussion format and establish that

anyone who does not follow the researcher’s direction during the discussion or is

disrespectful towards fellow participants will be asked to leave.

o If the discussion is held via Zoom, all participants will be emailed a

consent/assent form and asked to return a signed copy to the researcher prior to

the discussion. Paper and pens/pencils will not be distributed, but participants will

be asked to either have them on hand or to take their notes electronically.

• Expectation Questions: following the introduction, the researcher will ask participants

about their expectations for each of the different participant categories involved in the

program. For each category, the researcher will go through the following steps

o First, the researcher will ask the question “What ideas do you have for possible

actions that (participant category) does or could do as part of the conservation

program?”

▪ To ensure all understand the question, the researcher will clarify that

participants should think of a range of ideas, from things that category’s

representative in the discussion (or someone else who participates in that

category) already does to things that someone in that category could

potentially do for the benefit of the program (even if that action is not

realistically possible under current conditions or for current participants).

The researcher will remind participants that the purpose of this question is

generating ideas, not making demands of others, and that any ideas are
 worth consideration for research purposes even if they may not be

currently possible for the specific program.

o Participants will have two minutes to write down all of their ideas for responses to

the question (these notes will be collected by the researcher at the end of the

discussion)

o Once the two minutes are up, participants will be asked to share their ideas in a

round-robin style. One participant will share one of their ideas, followed by the

next participant, and so forth. Participants may pass if they do not have any ideas

to share, and sharing will continue until all participants have passed in a row

(when one participant passes, all subsequent participants pass, and it becomes the

turn of that first participant again, sharing will be concluded). During this time,

participants may choose not to share ideas they had written down if it is identical

or nearly identical to an idea shared by someone else. They may also choose to

share new ideas they had not written down if a new idea occurs to them during the

sharing portion. During this time, the facilitator and the note-taker will be writing

down ideas as they are shared, using either a white board or large sheets of paper

(depending on the resources which the researcher can acquire, or which are

available at the site of the discussion).

▪ If the discussion takes place virtually, then the note-taker and the

researcher will type out participants on a shared document, which can then

be displayed to the participants via screen-sharing.

▪ During the idea sharing portion, participants will be asked to refrain from

any commentary or judgement regarding the ideas being presented.

o After all ideas have been shared, the researcher will invite participants to request

clarification on any of the ideas presented. The researcher will also ask

participants if they believe any similar ideas should be combined.

o Next, the researcher will ask participants to assign point values to the ideas based

on how important they believe each of the actions described are for the overall

success of the program. Each participant will have 10 points which they can

distribute among all of the ideas as they see fit. For example, a participant could

give all 10 points to a single idea if they believe that idea is most important. They

could also give a single point to 10 different ideas, or they could choose any other

combination of points and ideas.

▪ For in-person sessions, each participant will be invited to write their points

on the board/sheet, which contains all of the ideas proposed by the group.

Using a provided marker, they will write their initials next to their chosen

ideas, with each set of initials representing one point.

▪ For virtual sessions, the note-taker will share a copy of the document

containing all of the ideas with all participants (using a shareable link

posted in Zoom’s chat). This document will be set so that anyone who

uses the link can edit, allowing participants to make changes. Participants

will be asked to type their initials next to the ideas they wish to vote for, in

the same manner as the in-person voting

• To prevent losing any ideas, the note-taker will save another

document with all the ideas generated, without any additions made

by participants.
 o This same process will be repeated again, but this time participants will be asked

to assign points based on how important each of the actions is for helping them

(and others in their personal category) to participate in the program. For example,

when ranking ideas about the role of program coordinators, participants will be

asked to rank the ideas based on what they (as students or educators or any other

category) need from the program coordinators to successfully complete their own

role (as opposed to thinking about what is most important for overall program

success)

▪ For in-person sessions, participants will be asked to once again write their

initials next to ideas. This time, they will use a differently colored marker.

▪ For virtual sessions, the note-taker will share another copy of the

document with all ideas for participants to initial.

• Role Statements: After the expectation question process has been concluded for a

participant category (before asking the expectation question for the next category), the

researcher will ask each participant to develop a role statement for the category. For

example, after ideas have been shared and points assigned for the role of youth, the

researcher will ask all participants to create a single statement to describe the role of

youth in a community-based conservation program. This statement should be no more

than two sentences. Participants will write down their answers to this question

After the expectation question and role statement has been asked for each of the five

categories, the discussion will be concluded. The researcher will thank all participants and offer

to answer any final questions they have about the research (to the degree those questions can be

answered).

Discussion Data Analysis

 All answers provided by discussion participants (expectation ideas, role statements, and

program expectations) will be transcribed and then coded using Nvivo. Responses will be

categorized by question, by program, and by category (meaning that the researcher could

examine all responses about expectations for professionals, all responses from participants in the

Sunset Lake Conservation Program, all responses from professionals, or any combination of

responses meeting multiple categories). All expectation responses will be categorized via process

coding, with similar actions labeled under a single identifying theme to indicate the overarching

theme of the actions described (Saldaña & Omasta, 2018). The themes for all of the expectation

ideas generated by participants within each category (for example, the themes for all ideas

generated by outside professionals) will be identified, allowing for comparison of the various

themes generated by each category.

The points given to the expectation ideas will be transferred to the idea’s corresponding

code, resulting in all themes having point values corresponding to their perceived importance.

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 depict a possible selection of results from a discussion, showing the response

along with its accompanying theme and assigned point values.

Table 2.1 Sunset Lake Conservation Program Responses

Expectation Idea Theme Points
Train new program staff to Share Knowledge 3
identify Eurasian watermilfoil
Answer questions from the Share Knowledge 7
public at a program event
Create a map of Eurasian Provide Technical Support 5
watermilfoil locations
Table 2.2 Hypothetical Biodiversity Monitoring Program Responses
Expectation Idea Theme Points
Maintain the data collection Provide Technical Support 10
app
Use weather data collection Provide Technical Support 6
equipment during the yearly
BioBlitz
Answer questions about Share Knowledge 5
species ID during the yearly
BioBlitz
In this example, the theme “Share Knowledge” would receive a total of 15 points, while the

theme of “Provide Technical Support” would receive a total of 21 points. This would be done for

all responses to the expectation questions, resulting in a point-based ranking for the set of themes

for each category based on the responses from all participants.

This ranking of themes based on responses can also be done based on individual

categories of participants, revealing the expectations held by each distinct category. Table 3

depicts an example of how this might be done, illustrating the same responses as Tables 2.1 and

2.2 but with only the point values given by participants in the “educator” category.

Table 3.1 Sunset Lake Conservation Program Responses

Expectation Idea Theme Points
Train new program staff to Share Knowledge 1
identify Eurasian watermilfoil
Answer questions from the Share Knowledge 2
public at a program event
Create a map of Eurasian Provide Technical Support 1
watermilfoil locations
Table 3.2 Hypothetical Biodiversity Monitoring Program Responses
Expectation Idea Theme Points
Maintain the data collection Provide Technical Support 3
app
Use weather data collection Provide Technical Support 2
equipment during the yearly
BioBlitz
Answer questions about Share Knowledge 2
species ID during the yearly
BioBlitz

With these hypothetical responses, the theme of “Share Knowledge” as an expectation for

Outside Professionals would receive five points from Educators, while the theme of “Provide

Technical Support” would receive six points. These point values would determine the ranking of

expectation themes according to educators.

 An ANOVA test will be used to determine the significance of any difference in responses

among the different groups concerning the expectations held for each group. In the event of

significant difference, a t-test may be used to examine the degree to which each group is

significantly different from each other, allowing the groups which are most significantly

different to be determined. These tests will be conducted using Microsoft Excel.

The above process of developing rankings and conducting tests for significance would be

done with both sets of point values, creating rankings and significance measurements for the

perceptions of the different categories in regards to overall program success and in regards to

their particular needs. A t-test will also be run to compare the rankings of each category for

group needs vs individual needs.

The role statements describing each group will be categorized by discussion as well as by

participant group (for example: all role statements describing the role of educators as given by

participants from the Sunset Lake Conservation Program will be categorized together, and all

role statements describing the role of educators as given by youth will be categorized together).

The researcher will develop a single role statement to synthesize all of the role statements within

each category. If role statements within a category are inherently contradictory and a single

unifying role statement cannot be generated, then multiple role statements may be created.

For data triangulation purposes, the role statements generated by participants will be

compared with the expectation ideas. Each role statement will be coded. The codes present in the

role statements generated by each group of participants will be compared to the codes present in

the expectation ideas generated by each group. This will allow for examination of the ways in

which similar themes were carried over from the beginning of the discussion to the end, or the

ways in which participants’ ideas changed during the discussion.

Student Survey Data Collection

 After all program discussions have been completed and themes developed for the

expectation question responses, the researcher use the themes to create a new survey in Qualtrics.

This survey will present respondents with the list of themes (as a new question for each category

of participant) and ask respondents to assign points to the themes in the same way discussion

participants assigned points to the expectation responses. Each respondent will have ten points to

assign to any combination of themes, based on how important they believe each theme to be for

the role of that category in community-based conservation programs. The researcher will recruit

CNR students to complete this survey by contacting professors (to request permission to share

the survey with their class) and through student organizations (such as the Society of Ecological

Restoration).

Student Survey Data Analysis

Point values assigned by student respondents to the survey will be compiled, creating an

overall ranking to depict the collective perception of CNR students about the roles of participants

within a community-based conservation program. This ranking will be compared with the overall

ranking from program participants. If necessary, both sets of point value rankings will be

normalized via Excel, allowing both sets to be more accurately compared (this may not be

necessary if the group discussions and the student surveys have equal numbers of participants).

Then, both sets of point values (for each category of participant) will be compared using a t-test

in Excel, allowing the researcher to determine which category (if any) is viewed significantly

differently by CNR students than by the program participants.

Proposed Timeline:

Action Date
Submit proposal for advisor review March 29, 2022
Submit proposal for committee review Early April, 2022
Proposal Defense April 20, 2022
Submit proposal to IRB April 27, 2022
IRB Review May 4, 2022
Begin recruitment of participants for the May 2022
Sunset Lake Conservation Program
Begin contacting additional programs for May 2022
potential data collection
Begin recruitment and training of a note- May 2022
taker (or note-takers)
Host Sunset Lake Conservation Program July 5-23, 2022 or late August 2022
discussion
Host discussions with additional programs Late August – November 2022
Host potential second discussion with the October 2022
Sunset Lake Conservation Program
Complete analysis of data from program December 2022 – February 2023
discussions
Prepare and distribute student survey January 2023
Complete analysis of results from student February 2023
survey
Prepare to share results through thesis and February 2023 - April 2023
presentations
Thesis Defense April 2023
 References

Aguilar, O. M. (2018). Examining the literature to reveal the nature of community EE/ESD

programs and research. Environmental Education Research, 24(1), 26–49.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1244658

Ballard, H. L., Dixon, C. G. H., & Harris, E. M. (2017). Youth-focused citizen science:

Examining the role of environmental science learning and agency for conservation.

Biological Conservation, 208, 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.024

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role Theory: Expectations, Identities, and Behaviors. Academic Press.

Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent Development in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–

92.

Birmingham, D., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2014). Putting on a green carnival: Youth taking

educated action on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(3),

286–314. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21127

Briggs, Lilly & Kransy, Marianne. (2016). Linking citizen science and civic-ecology practices in

environmental education. In Monroe, Martha C. & Kransy, Marianne E. (Eds.). Across

the Spectrum: Resources for Environmental Educators. (3rd ed, pp. 261-280). North

American Association for Environmental Education.

Bronstein, L. R. (2003). A Model for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Social Work, 48(3), 297–

306. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23721052.pdf

Burkhart, E. P., Jacobson, M. G., & Finley, J. (2012). A case study of stakeholder perspective

and experience with wild American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) conservation efforts in

Pennsylvania, U.S.A.: Limitations to a CITES driven, top-down regulatory approach.

Biodiversity and Conservation, 21(14), 3657–3679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-

0389-9
Cho, H., Low, R. D., Fischer, H. A., & Storksdieck, M. (2021). The STEM Enhancement in

Earth Science “Mosquito Mappers” Virtual Internship: Outcomes of Place-Based

Engagement with Citizen Science. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 9.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.682669

Conville, R., & Kinnell, A. M. (2010). Relational Dimensions of Service-Learning: Common

Ground for Faculty, Students, and Community Partners. Journal of Community

Engagement and Scholarship, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.54656/KURW8107

Dann, S., & Schroeder, B. (2015). Developing Great Lakes Literacy and Stewardship through a

Nonformal Science Education Camp. Journal of Contemporary Water Research &

Education, 156(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2015.03201.x

Davids, R., Rouget, M., Burger, M., Mahood, K., Ditlhale, N., & Slotow, R. (2021). Civic

Ecology Uplifts Low-Income Communities, Improves Ecosystem Services and Well-

Being, and Strengthens Social Cohesion. Sustainability (Basel, Switzerland), 13(3),

1300–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031300

Delbecq, A. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1971). A Group Process Model for Problem Identification

and Program Planning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 466–492.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637100700404

Dolan, R., Harris, K. A., & Adler, M. (2015). Community Involvement to Address a Long-

standing Invasive Species Problem: Aspects of Civic Ecology in Practice. Ecological

Restoration, 33(3), 316–325. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.33.3.316

Dresner, M., & Fischer, K. A. (2013). Environmental Stewardship Outcomes from Year-Long

Invasive Species Restoration Projects in Middle School. Invasive Plant Science and

Management, 6(3), 444–448. https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-D-12-00079.1

Ebbers, J. J., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). Betwixt and between: Role conflict, role ambiguity and

role definition in project-based dual-leadership structures. Human Relations, 70(11),

1342–1365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717692852

Fox, H., & Cundill, G. (2018). Towards Increased Community-Engaged Ecological Restoration:

A Review of Current Practice and Future Directions. Ecological Restoration, 36(3), 208–

218. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.36.3.208

Gilleran Stephens, C., Short, A., & Linnane, S. (2021). H2O Heroes: adding value to an

environmental education outreach programme through intergenerational learning. Irish

Educational Studies, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2021.1932549

Hartley, Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Busch, K., Carrier, S. J., DeMattia, E. A., Jambeck, J.

R., Lawson, D. F., & Strnad, R. L. (2021). Intergenerational learning: A recommendation

for engaging youth to address marine debris challenges. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 170,

112648–112648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112648

Hays, S. P. (1999). Conservation and the gospel of efficiency : The progressive conservation

movement, 1890-1920. University of Pittsburgh Press.

He, S., Yang, L., & Min, Q. (2020). Community Participation in Nature Conservation: The

Chinese Experience and Its Implication to National Park Management. Sustainability,

12(11), 4760. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114760

Hecker, S., & Taddicken, M. (2022). Deconstructing citizen science: A framework on

communication and interaction using the concept of roles. Journal of Science

Communication, 21(1), A07. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21010207

Hugé, J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The nominal group technique in ecology & conservation:

Application and challenges. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 33–41.

https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12831
Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science : A study of people, expertise and sustainable development.

Taylor & Francis Group.

Jiang, Q., Bregt, A. K., & Kooistra, L. (2018). Formal and informal environmental sensing data

and integration potential: Perceptions of citizens and experts. Science of The Total

Environment, 619–620, 1133–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.329

Jong, M.S.Y. (2020). Promoting Elementary Pupils’ Learning Motivation in Environmental

Education with Mobile Inquiry-Oriented Ambience-Aware Fieldwork. International

Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(7), 2504–.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17072504

Jordan, R., Sorensen, A., & Gray, S. (2020). Program Evaluation. In C. A. Lepczyk, O. D. Boyle,

& T. L. Vargo (Eds.), Handbook of Citizen Science in Ecology and Conservation (pp.

173–183). University of California Press.

Knackmuhs, E., Farmer, J., & Reynolds, H. L. (2017). Student Outcomes of Eco-Restoration

Service-Learning Experiences in Urban Woodlands. Journal of Experiential

Education, 40(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825916679182

Korfiatis, K., & Petrou, S. (2021). Participation and why it matters: Children’s perspectives and

expressions of ownership, motivation, collective efficacy and self-efficacy and locus of

control. Environmental Education Research, 27(12), 1700–1722.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1959900

Krasny, M., & Tidball, K. G. (2012). Civic ecology: a pathway for Earth Stewardship in

cities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(5), 267–273.

https://doi.org/10.1890/110230

Krasny, M., & Tidball, K. G. (2018). Grassroots to global : broader impacts of civic ecology /

edited by Marianne E. Krasny ; foreword by Keith G. Tidball. Comstock Publishing

 Associates, an imprint of Cornell University Press.

https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501714993

Lawson, Stevenson, K. T., Peterson, M. N., Carrier, S. J., Strnad, R. L., & Seekamp, E. (2019).

Children can foster climate change concern among their parents. Nature Climate Change,

9(6), 458–462. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0463-3

Levy, B. L. M., Oliveira, A. W., & Harris, C. B. (2021). The potential of “civic science

education”: Theory, research, practice, and uncertainties. Science

Education, 105, 1053– 1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21678

Levy, B.L.M, & Zint, M. T. (2013). Toward fostering environmental political participation:

framing an agenda for environmental education research. Environmental Education

Research, 19(5), 553–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2012.717218

Matarrita-Cascante, D., Sene-Harper, A., & Ruyle, L. (2019). A holistic framework for

participatory conservation approaches. International Journal of Sustainable Development

& World Ecology, 26(6), 484–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2019.1619105

McCann, Libby & Heimlich, Joe E. (2016). Aged to Perfection: Environmental Education for

Adults. In Monroe, Martha C. & Kransy, Marianne E. (Eds.). Across the Spectrum:

Resources for Environmental Educators. (3rd ed, pp. 182-187). North American

Association for Environmental Education.

Merenlender, A. M., Crall, A. W., Drill, S., Prysby, M., & Ballard, H. (2016). Evaluating

environmental education, citizen science, and stewardship through naturalist programs.

Conservation Biology, 30(6), 1255–1265. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12737

Miller-Rushing, A. J., Primack, R. B., Bonney, R., & Albee, E. (2020). The History of Citizen

Science in Ecology and Conservation. In C. A. Lepczyk, O. D. Boyle, & T. L. Vargo

 (Eds.), Handbook of Citizen Science in Ecology and Conservation (pp. 17–24).

University of California Press.

Monroe, M., Agrawal, S., Jakes, P. J., Kruger, L. E., Nelson, K. C., & Sturtevant, V. (2013).

Identifying Indicators of Behavior Change: Insights From Wildfire Education

Programs. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(3), 180–194.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2012.746277

Nesbit, R., Rimes, H., Christensen, R., & Brudney, J. (2015). Inadvertent Volunteer Managers.

Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15576409

O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.). SAGE

Publications Ltd.

Peter, M., Diekötter, T., Höffler, T., Kremer, K., & Mascarenhas, A. (2021). Biodiversity citizen

science: Outcomes for the participating citizens. People and Nature (Hoboken, N.J.),

3(2), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10193

Peters, C. B., Zhan, Y., Schwartz, M. W., Godoy, L., & Ballard, H. L. (2017). Trusting land to

volunteers: How and why land trusts involve volunteers in ecological monitoring.

Biological Conservation, 208, 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.029

Peterson, M. N., Stevenson, K. T., & Lawson, D. F. (2019). Reviewing how intergenerational

learning can help conservation biology face its greatest challenge. Biological

Conservation, 235, 290–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.013

Phillips, T., Porticella, N., Constas, M., & Bonney, R. (2018). A Framework for Articulating and

Measuring Individual Learning Outcomes from Participation in Citizen Science. Citizen

Science: Theory and

 Practice, 3(2). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A563813367/AONE?u=stevens&sid=book

mark-AONE&xid=7bca8b1b

Publow, M. (2010). Partnerships: Frameworks for Working Together. CCF National Resource

Center. https://cwdb.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2020/12/A-Capacity-Builders-

Resource-Library-Partnerships-Frameworks-for-Working-Together_ACCESSIBLE.pdf

Rome, A. (2003, January 16). Conservation, Preservation and Environmental Activism: A Survey

of the Historical Literature. National Park Service.

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/hisnps/NPSThinking/nps-oah.htm

Saldaña, J. & Omasta, Matt. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. SAGE Publications

Ltd.

Salmon, R. A., Rammell, S., Emeny, M. T., & Hartley, S. (2021). Citizens, Scientists, and

Enablers: A Tripartite Model for Citizen Science Projects. Diversity, 13(7), 309.

https://doi.org/10.3390/d13070309

Sayce, K., Shuman, C., Connor, D., Reisewitz, A., Pope, E., Miller-Henson, M., Poncelet, E.,

Monié, D., & Owens, B. (2013). Beyond traditional stakeholder engagement: Public

participation roles in California’s statewide marine protected area planning process.

Ocean & Coastal Management, 74, 57–66.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.06.012

Schönfelder, M., & Bogner, F. X. (2020). Between Science Education and Environmental

Education: How Science Motivation Relates to Environmental Values. Sustainability

(Basel, Switzerland), 12(5), 1968–. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051968

Schusler, T. M., Krasny, M. E., & Decker, D. J. (2017). The autonomy-authority duality of

shared decision-making in youth environmental action. Environmental Education

Research, 23(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1144174

Schusler, Tania M. (2016). Environmental Action and Positive Youth Development. In Monroe,

Martha C. & Kransy, Marianne E. (Eds.). Across the Spectrum: Resources for

Environmental Educators. (3rd ed, pp. 182-187). North American Association for

Environmental Education.

Shirk, J. L., & Bonney, R. (2020). What is Citizen Science. In C. A. Lepczyk, O. D. Boyle, & T.

L. Vargo (Eds.), Handbook of Citizen Science in Ecology and Conservation (pp. 7–16).

University of California Press.

Silvio, M., Link to external site, this link will open in a new window, & Macdonald, D. W.

(2020). Can school children influence adults’ behavior toward jaguars? Evidence of

intergenerational learning in education for conservation. Ambio, 49(4), 912–925.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01230-w

Smith, J., DuBois, B., & Krasny, M. E. (2015). Framing for resilience through social learning:

impacts of environmental stewardship on youth in post-disturbance

communities. Sustainability Science, 11(3), 441–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-

015-0348-y

Stern, M. J., & Coleman, K. J. (2015). The Multidimensionality of Trust: Applications in

Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society & Natural Resources, 28(2), 117–

132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.945062

Thakur, T., & Chewning, B. (2020). Using role theory to explore pharmacist role conflict in

opioid risks communication. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16(8),

1121–1126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.11.012

Thomas, C. W. (1998). Maintaining and restoring public trust in government agencies and their

employees. Administration & Society, 30(2), 166–194.

Tubre, T. C., & Collins, J. M. (2000). Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of

the Relationships Between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job Performance. Journal

of Management, 26(1), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600104

UNESCO, U. (1977). Intergovernmental conference on environmental education organized by

UNESCO in co-operation with UNEP (Tbilisi, USSR, 14-26 October 1977) Final report.

New York: UNIPUB. New York: UNIPUB. https://www.gdrc.org/uem/ee/Tbilisi-

Declaration.pdf

Walker, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2015). Understanding Classroom Roles in Inquiry Education:

Linking Role Theory and Social Constructivism to the Concept of Role Diversification.

SAGE Open, 5(4), 2158244015607584. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015607584

Wang, W., Guo, L., Wu, Y. J., Goh, M., & Wang, S. (2022). Content-oriented or persona-

oriented? A text analytics of endorsement strategies on public willingness to participate

in citizen science. Information Processing & Management, 59(2), 102832.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102832

Weng, Y.-C. (2015). Contrasting visions of science in ecological restoration: Expert-lay

dynamics between professional practitioners and volunteers. Geoforum, 65, 134–145.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.07.023

Whetten, D. A. (1978). Coping with Incompatible Expectations: An Integrated View of Role

Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(2), 254–271.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2392564

Zydney, J. M., Angelone, L., & Rumpke, E. (2021). Lessons Learned from an Elementary

School Citizen Science Project. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher

Education, 21(3), 708–731.