Search for: All records

Research on citizen science programmes has highlighted that they can foster science content and knowledge gain, enhance pro-environmental behaviour and cultivate civic action among participants. Especially in the case of place-based citizen science, which requires hands-on repeated activity in an out-of-door setting through a scientific lens, evidence suggests that some of these outcomes may be linked to the unique people–place relationships and interactions afforded by such programmes. Even still, studies that empirically examine the influence of place on citizen science participant and programme outcomes are scant. This is due, in part, to the methodological challenges involved in interrogating complex aspects of a person's sense of place—aspects like place attachment—the emotional bonds between people and place. Here, an adapted three-dimensional model of place attachment is proposed as a theoretical framework from which place-based citizen science experiences and outcomes might be empirically examined in depth. The model, which posits personal, social and natural environment dimensions of place attachment is contextualized with research findings from the US-based Coastal Observation and Seabird Survey Team (COASST) citizen science programme. Data from COASST suggest that participants do exhibit place attachment in all three dimensions of attachment, categorized within seven unique constructs, although questions remain regarding the unique intensity, make-up (shape) and scale (spatial, social and nature-science) of individual-level attachment along the three central dimensions. Critically, more research is needed to investigate whether the unique place attachment ‘profile’ of participants is a function of personal, social or programmatic variables pre- and post-programme participation. To encourage further scholarship on potential links between the experiences, exposures and programme components of place-based citizen science and the place attachment profiles of participants, this paper includes a brief review of the research opportunities presented by the adapted three-dimensional place attachment model discussed. Advancing this line of inquiry is an important component of broader efforts to understand how sense of place is altered via place-based citizen science and whether or not that is linked to specific programme outputs or participant outcomes in science knowledge, ecological understanding and civic engagement. 

As the scientific community, like society more broadly, reckons with long-standing challenges around accessibility, justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, we would be wise to pay attention to issues and lessons emerging in debates around citizen science. When practitioners first placed the modifier “citizen” on science, they intended to signify an inclusive variant within the scientific enterprise that enables those without formal scientific credentials to engage in authoritative knowledge production (1). Given that participants are overwhelmingly white adults, above median income, with a college degree (2, 3), it is clear that citizen science is typically not truly an egalitarian variant of science, open and available to all members of society, particularly those underrepresented in the scientific enterprise. Some question whether the term “citizen” itself is a barrier to inclusion, with many organizations rebranding their programs as “community science.” But this co-opts a term that has long referred to distinct, grassroots practices of those underserved by science and is thus not synonymous with citizen science. Swapping the terms is not a benign action. Our goal is not to defend the term citizen science, nor provide a singular name for the field. Rather, we aim to explore what the field, and the multiple publics it serves, might gain or lose by replacing the term citizen science and the potential repercussions of adopting alternative terminology (including whether a simple name change alone would do much to improve inclusion).