Citizen science provides researchers means to gather or analyse large datasets. At the same time, citizen science projects offer an opportunity for non-scientists to be part of and learn from the scientific process. In the Dutch iSPEX project, a large number of citizens turned their smartphones into actual measurement devices to measure aerosols. This study examined participants’ motivation and perceived learning impacts of this unique project. Most respondents joined iSPEX because they wanted to contribute to the scientific goals of the project or because they were interested in the project topics (health and environmental impact of aerosols). In terms of learning impact, respondents reported a gain in knowledge about citizen science and the topics of the project. However, many respondents had an incomplete understanding of the science behind the project, possibly caused by the complexity of the measurements.
BatsonCDAhmadNTsangJA (2002) Four motives for community involvement. Journal of Social Issues58(3): 429–445.
2.
BonneyRBallardHJordanRMcCallieEPhillipsTShirkJ. (2009a) Public participation in scientific research: Defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report, Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), Washington, DC, July.
3.
BonneyRCooperCBDickinsonJKellingSPhillipsTRosenbergKV. (2009b) Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience59(11): 977–984.
4.
BrossardDLewensteinBBonneyR (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education27(9): 1099–1121.
5.
Catlin-GrovesCL (2012) The citizen science landscape: From volunteers to citizen sensors and beyond. International Journal of Zoology2012: 1–14.
6.
ChuMLeonardPStevensonF (2012) Growing the base for citizen science: Recruiting and engaging participants. In: DickinsonJLBonneyR (eds) Citizen Science: Public Participation in Environmental Research. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 69–81.
7.
CookCHeathFThompsonRL (2000) A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement60(6): 821–836.
8.
CooperSKhatibFTreuilleABarberoJLeeJBeenenM. (2010) Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature466: 756–760.
9.
CrallAWJordanRHolfelderKNewmanGJGrahamJWallerDM (2012) The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Understanding of Science22(6): 745–764.
10.
CronjeRRohlingerSCrallANewmanG (2011) Does participation in citizen science improve scientific literacy? A study to compare assessment methods. Applied Environmental Education and Communication10(3): 135–145.
11.
DevictorVWhittakerRJBeltrameC (2010) Beyond scarcity: Citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Diversity and Distributions16(3): 354–362.
12.
DickinsonJLShirkJBonterDBonneyRCrainRLMartinJ. (2012) The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment10(6): 291–297.
13.
DruschkeCGSeltzerCE (2012) Failures of engagement: Lessons learned from a citizen science pilot study. Applied Environmental Education and Communication11(3–4): 178–188.
14.
EvansCAbramsEReitsmaRRouxKSalmonsenLMarraPP (2005) The Neighborhood Nestwatch program: Participant outcomes of a citizen-science ecological research project. Conservation Biology19(3): 589–594.
15.
HaklayM (2012) Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In: SuiDZElwoodSGoodchildMF (eds) Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice. Berlin: Springer, pp. 105–122.
16.
JennettCFurnissDJIacovidesIWisemanSGouldSJJCoxAL (2014) Exploring citizen psych-science and the motivations of Errordiary volunteers. Human Computation1(2): 199–218.
17.
JennettCKloetzerLGoldMCoxAL (2013) Sociability in virtual citizen science. In: Proceedings of the CHI 2013 workshop on designing and evaluating sociability in online video games, Paris, 27 April, New York, NY: ACM, pp. 29–32.
18.
JordanRCGraySAHoweDVBrooksWREhrenfeldJG (2011) Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen-science programs. Conservation Biology25(6): 1148–1154.
19.
LeeSRothW (2003) Science and the ‘good citizen’: Community-based scientific literacy. Science, Technology & Human Values28(3): 403–424.
20.
MuellerMTippinsDBryanL (2012) The future of citizen science. Democracy & Education20(1): 1–12.
21.
National Research Council (2009) Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
22.
NewmanGWigginsACrallAGrahamENewmanSCrowstonK (2012) The future of citizen science: Emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment10(6): 298–304.
23.
NovOArazyOAndersonD (2011a) Dusting for science: Motivation and participation of digital citizen science volunteers. In: Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, Seattle, WA, 8–11 February, pp. 68–74. New York, NY: ACM.
24.
NovOArazyOAndersonD (2011b) Technology-mediated citizen science participation: A motivational model. In: Proceedings of the AAAI international conference on weblogs and social media, Barcelona, Spain, 17–21 July, pp. 249–256. Menlo Park, CA: The AAAI Press.
25.
PriceCALeeH-S (2013) Changes in participants’ scientific attitudes and epistemological beliefs during an astronomical citizen science project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching50(7): 773–801.
RaddickMJBraceyGGayPLLintottCJMurrayPSzalayAS. (2010) Galaxy Zoo: Exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. Astronomy Education Review9(1). DOI: 10.3847/AER2009036
28.
ReedJRaddickMJLardnerACarneyK (2013) An exploratory factor analysis of motivations for participating in Zooniverse, a collection of virtual citizen science projects. In: Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Wailea, HI, 7–10 January, pp. 610–619. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.
29.
RieschHPotterC (2014) Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science23(1): 107–120.
RotmanDPreeceJHammockJProcitaKHansenDLewisD. (2012) Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. In: Proceedings of the ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, Seattle, WA, 11–15 February, pp. 217–226. New York, NY: ACM.
32.
RoyHEPocockMJOPrestonCDRoyDBSavageJTweddleJC. (2012) Understanding citizen science and environmental monitoring. Final Report on behalf of UK-EOF, NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and Natural History Museum. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: Centre for Ecology & Hydrology.
33.
SauermannHFranzoniC (2015) Crowd science user contribution patterns and their implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences112: 679–684.
34.
Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England-Bristol (2013) Science for environmental policy in-depth report: Environmental citizen science. Report produced for the European Commission DG Environment, December. Bristol, UK.
35.
SilvertownJ (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution24(9): 467–471.
36.
SnikFRietjensJHHApituleyAVoltenHMijlingBDi NoiaA. (2014) Mapping atmospheric aerosols with a citizen science network of smartphone spectropolarimeters. Geophysical Research Letters41(20): 7351–7358.
37.
Socientize (2013) Citizen Science for Europe: Towards a Better Society of Empowered Citizens and Enhanced Research (Green paper on citizen science). The Socientize consortium. Available at: www.socientize.eu
38.
SullivanBLWoodCLIliffMJBonneyREFinkDKellingS (2009) eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation142(10): 2282–2292.
39.
TheobaldEJEttingerAKBurgessHKDeBeyLBSchmidtNRFroehlichH. (2015) Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of citizen science for biodiversity research. Biological Conservation181: 236–244.
40.
ThompsonSBonneyR (2007) Evaluating the impact of participation in an online citizen science project: A mixed-methods approach. In: TrantJBearmanD (eds) Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings. Toronto, ON, Canada: Archives & Museum Informatics. Available at: http://www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/thompson/thompson.html
41.
TrumbullDJBonneyRBascomDCabralA (2000) Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Science Education84(2): 265–275.
42.
WigginsACrowstonK (2012) Describing public participation in scientific research. In: Proceedings of the 2012 iConference, Toronto, ON, Canada, 7–10 February. New York, NY: ACM.
43.
WymerWW (2003) Differentiating literacy volunteers: A segmentation analysis for target marketing. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing8(3): 267–285.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
