Conservation Education The Neighborhood Nestwatch Program: Participant Outcomes of a Citizen-Science Ecological Research Project Introduction Formal education is not enough to ensure scientific literacy in a w^orld where ideas and technology are changing rapidly (Hacker & Harris 1992). Projects that invite citizens to be involved in ecological research in their ow^n backyards or neighbor- hoods may provide rich opportuni- ties for community members of all ages to improve their science literacy (TrumbuU et al. 2000; Brewer 2002&) and their sense of place. This learn- ing about, and aw^areness of, the lo- cal environment may translate into tangible participant action on a local scale. Yet relatively fe^v data are avail- able regarding science education out- comes of ecological research projects conducted ^vith the help of citizen research assistants in informal set- tings (Layton et al. 1986). Programs that have been assessed (e.g., sev- eral conducted by the Cornell Labo- ratory of Ornithology; Krasny & Bon- ney [2005]) have focused on sci- ence process and biological kno^vl- edge, not on attachment to an eco- logical "place" and the potential im- plications of that attachment to con- servation behaviors. The Neighborhood Nestwatch (NN) program engages citizen scientists in the collection of scientific data and fosters scientific literacy and in- creased attachment to place in their local natural environment. Here, ^ve define science literacy as both an un- derstanding of scientific content and ways of thinking such that citizens can make better sense of our increas- ingly technical and scientific w^orld. Skills of a scientifically literate citi- zen include critical and independent thinking, ability to interpret evidence and data, and understanding the role of uncertainty (AAAS 1993). But sci- entific literacy alone is not sufficient for understanding the influence of humans on ecological systems. Peo- ple need to kno^v about the places in w^hich they live. We suggest that a sense of one's place has four pri- mary components: know^ledge, skills, aw^areness, and disposition to care. The first two components are aspects of science literacy. Moreover, there are many feedback loops betw^een these four components. Neighborhood Nestwatch Neighborhood Nestwatch w^as de- signed to improve know^ledge about avian ecology (an element of scien- tific literacy) and connection to place through citizen research, thereby in- creasing awareness and interest in local conservation initiatives. Nest- ^vatch has two primary goals: (1) to collect data that can help researchers understand the ecology and popu- lation dynamics of eight species of birds along an urban-to-rural gradi- ent in the Washington, D.C., area; and (2) to teach people living in ur- ban/suburban settings about bird bi- ology. Nestw^atch began in 2000, and by 2001 approximately 175 house- holds ^vere involved in collecting data about birds. After joining NN all participants w^ere given a packet of w^ritten materials that included a description of participant tasks, background materials, and contact in- formation. Participants also had ac- cess to a new^ly developed Web site, w^here they could read about many aspects of bird biology and ecology, enter data, and do^vnload data forms (http://sio.si.edu/Nestw^atch). Partic- ipants w^ere asked to closely observe and report nesting behavior and nest- ing success of eight common back- yard bird species on their property. They also ^vatched for banded birds returning to their property in sub- sequent years to provide data on adult survival. Data collection sheets w^ere provided and, in addition, some participants kept journal records of their observations (not analyzed here). Researchers from the Smithso- nian Environmental Research Center (SERC) visited each participating res- idence annually during the breeding season to mist net and band birds that frequented and nested in par- ticipants' yards. Researchers also col- lected physiological data on banded birds, including blood samples to test for exposure to West Nile virus. Pro- gram scientists encouraged email and telephone contact and provided sup- port to participants w^ho had ques- tions. Scientists or science interns w^ould, on occasion, return to a NN participants' property if they w^ere asked to help locate a nest or attempt to band another nesting bird. 589 Conservation Biology, Pages 589-594 Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005 590 Conservation Education Evans et al. aciant?tic s tudy l?Bfn more about birds team about local snv. Invlovemem with Sf RC want Chiliiren to learn ^ 1 1 f? ?(J 1 1 1 r? rj ,111 f^- 0 III f^- 0 1 ^^ .^ ^ \^~ y 20 ^0 60 ao 10Q % Participants that chose this reason to be involved Figure 1. Reasons participants became involved in the Neighborhood Nestivatch program. Because these choices were presented to participants, they possibly represent only a subset of reasons they may have had for involvement in the program. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center is SERC. Documenting the Impact of Neighborhood Nestwatch Nestwatch provided an excellent op- portunity to assess the impact of an informal education program focused on improving science know^ledge for both adults and families. We used surveys, interviewas, and participant- initiated email contacts to character- ize the typical NN participant and understand the influence of NN on participant's sense of place and sci- ence literacy related to avian ecol- ogy. Beginning in the second year of the program (2001), we asked partic- ipants to complete a survey that in- cluded questions about demograph- ics, level of formal education, bird- ing experience and expertise, previ- ous and current participation in en- vironmentally relevant activities, and motivation for getting involved in the program. Nearly all participants com- pleted surveys during banding vis- its by interns. Survey results were tallied, and participating households ?were stratified based on age, formal education, and degree of neighbor- hood urbanization. From survey data we quantified the proportion of NN participants in various demographic categories and their involvement in this and other organizations related to the environment and ecology. From mid-June to late August 2001, we conducted open-ended inter- vie^vs w^ith w^iUing participants wvho represented different age and educa- tion categories across the urban to ru- ral land-use gradient in the Washing- ton, D.C., area (n = 45 participants; selected based on time available to participant). Participants living in ur- ban settings were underrepresented (n = 5 interviews), whereas partici- pants in suburban settings were over- represented (n = 2\ interviews), re- flecting the bias within the suburban portion of the gradient. Our inter- views questions w^ere designed to en- courage participants to (1) share their know^ledge of bird behavior and habi- tat requirements at local, landscape, and global spatial scales; (2) express their understanding of individual bird behaviors and intraspeclflc, interspe- cific, and community interactions; and (3) address the four components of sense of place (know^ledge, aware- ness, skills, disposition to care). A complete list of questions is avail- able from the NN Web site (http ://sio. si.edu/Nestw^atch). Interviewvs typi- cally lasted for 30 to 80 minutes, w^ith the majority lasting toward the longer end of the range. Finally, w^e compiled all the ema? messages (n = 57) initi- ated by participants to evaluate the nature of their comments and ques- tions throughout the breeding sea- son. Intervie^vs and email commu- nications w^ere transcribed and ana- lyzed with NUDIST 5 (QSR Interna- tional) software to extract and quan- tify concepts, phrases, and ideas that emerged from participants' answ^ers to the categories of open-ended ques- tions. Participants in Neighborhood Nestwatch Nestwatch participants were evenly distributed among three groups that comprised senior citizens (either in- dividuals or couples), couples or sin- gles in their late 30s to 50s, and fam- ilies -with young children. The level of education ranged from complet- ing high school to doctoral degrees (Ph.D., M.D.), and more than 80% had completed bachelor's or mas- ter's degrees (not necessarily in eco- logical sciences). Many of the par- ticipants w^ere long-time birdwatch- ers and enthusiasts (particularly the older participants), but our survey and interviewv results suggested that their depth of know^ledge of birds and related ecology varied greatly. Family groups (typically one parent and one child w^ere most active) w^ere more likely to be ne^v to birding and know less about the ecology of their back- yards. Although many reasons w^ere cited for participating in NN, every- one completing the survey selected "the desire to help out in an authen- tic research project" as a reason for participating. Many participants liked the association with the Smithsonian Institution and cited a general desire to knowv more about their backyard birds. Families tended to comment that they wanted their children to learn about the environment through participation in the program (Fig. 1). One lesson from the survey is that as Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005 Evans et al. Conservation Education 591 Table 1. Percentage of participants in Neighborhood Nestwatch that reported increasing their knowledge in particular aspects of ecology.* Outcome Knowledge area Increased knowledge (%) Science literacy Sense of place bird biology and behavior identity a new bird species wildlife know^ledge (nonbird) increased awareness perception of property changed behavior 87 43 20 83 59 56 * Because participants may have reported multiple areas of learning, values add to >100%. NN expands its outreach to families it would be worthwhile to examine the value of shared learning between par- ents and children for both improving science literacy and increasing com- munication in the home (e.g., Gen- naro et al. 1980). Improving Science Knowledge and Thinking Data from interviews and analyses of email and telephone communica- tions betw^een participants and NN research staff suggested that there is a great potential for increasing know^l- edge about science among partici- pants. Two of the most important factors influencing increased science know^ledge in this study w^ere the ini- tial motivation and interest of the participants (self-selected), and the interactions between research staff and participants. These interactions could have occurred during the band- ing visit, over the phone, by email (if a computer was available to the par- ticipant), or during the initial public meeting w^here participants learned about NN. The foUow^ing excerpt from an intervie^v is an example of a common sentiment and suggests, not surprisingly, that the face-to-face meetings between citizen and sci- ence staff were the most valuable from the perspective of participants: "The fact that the Nestwatch folks came and spent time w^orking makes a big difference. I don't think I would do it If it w^ere all on my ow^n because I w^ouldn't know ^vhere to start." By simply being present w^hile research staff conducted the banding visit, par- ticipants said they learned about ter- ritorial behavior, nesting and feeding behaviors, habitat preferences, and subtle behavioral characteristics of different species. Despite the fairly specialized re- search focus on avian population dy- namics, opportunities for learning in this program w^ere many and varied. As a result of their participation. Nest- watchers reported learning about ne^v species they had not noticed previously in their yards, nest preda- tors, and development time from egg to fledgling. Ninety percent of par- ticipants reported learning from par- ticipating in the project (Table 1), and even the most experienced bird- ers w^e interview^ed reported learning something ne^v about birds. There w^ere some clear examples of scientific thinking related to the population study that emerged from our interviews. After considering the goals of the program, a number of par- ticipants expressed reasonable con- cerns about the quantity and quality of the data they (and other partici- pants) w^ould collect. Some partici- pants were also concerned about the effect their birdfeeders might have on the outcome of the study. Additional insights about the extent of scientific thinking emerged from our analysis of email communications. For exam- ple, some participants brought up is- sues related to the scientific method- ology of the research, including ask- ing questions (28%), reporting obser- vations (60%), and drawing conclu- sions (15%). Questions asked by NN citizen scientists w^ere mostly about bird behavior (36%), methods clari- fications (32%), and bird identifica- tion (21%). Behavioral questions sug- gested that participants w^ere making observations beyond the bird feeder by noting pr?dation and nesting activ- ities that occurred throughout their backyards. These results are similar to those of TrumbuU et al. (2000) w^hen they analyzed email communi- cations from participants in a bird- based project developed by the Cor- nell Laboratory of Ornithology. In contrast to the email commu- nications, our analysis of interviews? transcripts detected strong gains in understanding elements of bird ecol- ogy. Participants did not tend to com- ment on the scientific process dur- ing intervie^vs. A similar observation w^as made of participants in the Cor- nell lab's Birdhouse Netw^ork in pre- and post-test data (?Crasny & Bonney 2005). Although w^e documented a num- ber of positive outcomes, NN has not reached its full educational poten- tial. For example, many participants (44%) did not understand the over- all goals of NN and w^ere not sure ex- actly ho^v researchers at SERC w^ould use the data they were collecting. Methodologies are related to the re- search questions and goals for data collection; thus, this is an area deserv- ing greater attention in future offer- ings of the NN program. Even after just 1 year of participa- tion, the NN program influenced par- ticipants' sense of place. Nearly all the participants noted an Increase in their "aw^areness" of the birds and re- lationships between birds and habitat in their backyards (Table 1). One par- ticipant reported a totally new level of attention to birds in his yard: "I've Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005 592 Conservation Education Evans et al. been here 12 years and I never re- ally heard the birds the w^ay I hear them now. I don't kno^v w^hat that is?what happened. The light sw^itch went on." In particular there w^as in- creased awareness of the value of a backyard as a habitat for plants and animals. More than half of the Nest- watchers (56%) changed some aspect of their behavior in relationship to their yard. A fe^v participants ^vere inspired to study further on a subject of interest (7%) or suggested that they were planning on changing behavior (7%). Planting shrubs that would act as shelter or food resources w^as a be- havioral change mentioned by more than one participant. Fostering stronger connections to the ecology of a location may be one strategy to change behavior in a way that benefits habitats and species. In a related study Main (2004) reported that participants in the Florida Mas- ter Naturalist Program (FMNP) made changes in their behavior (e.g., recy- cling, law^n care, increased involve- ment as volunteers, and in local envi- ronmental issues) foUow^ing comple- tion of one of three 40-hour courses introducing participants to primary habitat types in Florida. This indi- cates that very different models may be used to reach similar goals for in- creasing conservation aw^areness and behavior The key is identifying the critical program components that in- spire people to change their behav- ior One important component com- mon to Main's study and ours is per- sonal contact w^ith a scientist or ex- pert. The FMNP participants spent approximately 40 hours w^ith experts in the field, w^hich likely facilitates the one-on-one discussions w^e found so valuable in NN. Neighborhood Nestw^atch encour- aged people to observe animals in ne^v w^ays. Nestwatchers w^ere en- couraged to note behaviors and ac- tivities that linked birds to their habi- tat, to other birds, and to populations of predators (birds or other mam- mals and amphibians) that may have influenced nest success. It ^vas ap- parent from interviews that by mak- ing such detailed observations, par- ticipants felt more connected to their backyard birds, and their levels of concern about the welfare of the birds and their nestlings increased. Here is an example of a typical quote suggesting increased connection to the backyard habitat ".. .it's made me aw^are because before... I always thought I was doing my part because I w^as feeding them and providing w^a- ter for them." Many Nestw^atchers re- ported changing their o^vn behaviors to accommodate birds (e.g., build- ing w^ren houses, planting shrub habi- tat for nesting, planting food sources in their yards, not cutting trees w^ith nesting birds, keeping domestic cats inside during the time w^hen birds w^ere likely to be fledging young). One Nestw^atcher reported "I've got a tree that I w^ant to cut dow^n but.. .1 just can't. It's at a 45 degree angle; my things aren't grow^ing in its shade in my vegetable patch. That tree is driving me nuts, but I think, I've seen things live in there. I don't think I can cut it dow^n." The program w^as also a topic of conversation with neighbors, friends, family, and community groups for most participants. By sharing ^vhat they w^ere doing in their conversa- tions and newsletters they w^ere ac- tively recruiting ne^v volunteers. One person said "I was very disappointed at my birds because I couldn't find very many this year My neighbors had a nest... They had a nest in a bush outside the den, w^hich w^e could look into. They w^atched a blue jay, and the blue jay w^as amazing. They w^ere amazed. They had never done this before. She just retired. They w^ere amazed at ho^v fast they gre^v." We w^ould expect that talking about their NN citizen-science experiences rein- forces participant learning and may expand the impact of the program in the greater community. Regardless of their level of educa- tion, community members ^vho par- ticipated in NN gained ecological know^ledge and came to vie^v their property differently as a result of the program. Moreover, increased a^vareness, in combination w^ith new know^ledge, appeared to motivate some participants to engage in activi- ties that improved the habitat value of their yards, suggesting an improved sense of place and relationship with the local landscape. These outcomes highlight the value of community sci- ence programs that allo^v citizens ac- cess to practicing scientists in the context of a shared project. The Value of Collaborating with Scientists The importance of personal, sus- tained communication between staff scientists (or interns) and partici- pants w^as a critical element of the success of NN. Previous research sug- gests that this phenomenon is not unique to NN. Both quality and quan- tity of the interactions, how^ever, are important. Feinsinger et al. (1997) reported that a single, brief w^ork- shop for volunteer park interpreters in South America w^as not enough to maintain the level of collaboration they desired or to reinforce the in- quiry approach they w^ere promot- ing. Intense interaction between re- searchers and nonscientist partners is also important in student and scien- tist partnerships w^ith schools (Evans et al. 2001; Brewer 2002a). There are trade-offs betw^een the time available for scientists to be physically out in the community and the ability to engage large numbers of participants. For example, Cornell's Laboratory of Ornithology has devel- oped many excellent citizen-science programs. Although they reach more people in the United States than NN (more than 100,000 students and citizens), they do not empha- size face-to-face interaction between scientists and participants (R. Bon- ney personal communication). Espe- cially for larger-scale programs, such as Project Feederwatch at Cornell, Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005 Evans et al. Conservation Education 593 scientists can greatly improve their two-w^ay communications w^ith par- ticipants in schools and communities without large amounts of time spent in the field by using email and interac- tive Internet discussion sites. Indeed, the results of our analysis of email cor- respondence suggest that this form of communication between partici- pants and science staff does engage participants in the "process of sci- ence." The rest of the story is told by our interviewst data, w^hich illustrate the value of face-to-face interactions wth scientists (and science interns). These meetings were very important in improving participants' knowvl- edge about birds through shared ob- servations and, occasionally, data col- lection. Through real-time commu- nication, scientists and nonscientists make personal connections. Further, our results showv that face-to-face meetings promote discussions during w^hich scientists can better address questions and interpret observations being made by the community par- ticipant, and they allows participants to observe how the scientist makes decisions during the implementation of a research project. Of course sci- entists need to approach citizens re- spectfully as partners w^hen their re- search programs depend on citizens to provide research access to their private property. Beyond this access issue, direct interactions wvith sci- entists seemed to empow^er citizens by making them feel like they w^ere important partners in the research process. Another frequently unrecog- nized benefit may be the coUegial- ity developed through these kinds of partnerships that can help to re- duce the pow^er differentials that can exist between experienced scientists and novice or lay people w^orking together in the community (Hogan 2002). Implications for the Future of Nestwatch and Other Programs One of the biggest challenges fac- ing the scientific community is de- mystifying the process of science and translating the process and re- sults for nonscientist citizens (Brewver 2001). Many programs have been de- veloped to address this challenge. Al- though the backyard citizen-scientist model appeared to motivate interest and ow^nership in the NN project, it did present some demographic challenges. Well-educated, affluent volunteers are likely to outnumber other groups in bird-oriented pro- grams (e.g., TrumbuU et al. 2000; this study). Urban dw^ellers involved in NN tended to be underrepresented and less fam?iar w^ith the ecology of their yards. Increasing participants in these underrepresented demograph- ics w^iU enrich the program and pro- vide one avenue for sharing science wvith people who may be under- served by informal science educa- tion programs. Recruiting more fam- ilies to programs such as NN ap- pears to be a rich avenue for im- proving knowvledge of science and influencing the ecological sense of place in participants w^ho are initially less experienced in birding and back- yard ecology. Presentations at civic organization meetings may be addi- tional venues to increase community interest. Many urban families, howv- ever, may not have backyard habi- tats for watching birds, and this may represent a substantial challenge as well. Adding a data-collection compo- nent for civic clubs and youth groups that takes place on public land (e.g., parks, schoolyards) could address the inherent limitation of backyard-type programs that tend to be most pop- ular with people w^ho are property ow^ners. We also identified new avenues for keeping citizen scientists inter- ested in continued participation. In the second year of the program, sci- entists conducted nest pr?dation ex- periments on a subset of participants' properties. Although w^e did not as- sess the educational value of this activity, it seems likely that activi- ties like these could be future op- portunities to explicitly educate par- ticipants about aspects of the sci- entific process (e.g., experimental design and hypothesis development and testing) through new w^ritten program materials and conversations during research visits. Ideally, a citi- zen ecological/conservation science effort should be infused into multi- ple aspects of the community and in- clude not only homeow^ners but also school and civic groups working to- w^ard a common goal. By fostering collection of long- term ecological data and facilitating constructive dialogue betw^een citi- zen scientists and researchers (e.g., Brewer 2002&), NN has become a model of an effective small-scale com- munity conservation partnership that has increased the know^ledge base of participants. Participation in the pro- gram encouraged aw^areness of and appreciation for the value of back- yards as habitat for birds and other organisms. Moreover, for many NN participants, know^ledge, aw^areness, and appreciation were translated into tangible activities to preserve or en- hance the habitat value of the prop- erty for birds. Valuing yards as wvildllfe habitats is, perhaps, the most excit- ing and hopeful outcome of NN. At a time w^hen many species are threat- ened and endangered because alarm- ing rates of habitat loss, motivating know^ledgeable citizens to take per- sonal action w^ithin their realm of control should be the highest aim of ecological and conservation partner- ships. Celia Evans,* Eleanor Abrams,t Robert Reitsma,^: Karin Roux, i: Laura SaImonsen,? and Peter P. Marra^: * Science and Liberal Arts, Paul Smitli's Col- lege, Routes 86 and 30, Paul Smiths, NY 12970, U.S.A., email evansc@paulsmiths.edu ^Vice President's Office for Research and Pub- lic Service, Thompson Hall, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, U.S.A. tAvian Ecology Laboratory, Smithsonian Envi- ronmental Research Center, P.O. Box 28, 647 Contees Wharf Road, Edgewater, MD 21037, U.S.A. ?Larry Box Conservation Center, 2637 Bluff Lake Road, Brooksville, MS 39739, U.S.A. Acknowledgments This study w^as supported by a start- up grant from the National Science Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005 594 Conservation Education Evans et al. Foundation, Division of Graduate Re- search to C.E. and a grant from The Mills Corporation to PM. We are grateful to D. Stratton and M. Pickard for help w^ith transcription and data analysis, to the dedicated participants of the Neighborhood Nestwatch pro- gram who participated in the study, and to the reviewers and the editor who provided valuable feedback on the manuscript. Literature Cited AAAS (American Association for Ae Advance- ment of Science). 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. Project 2061. Oxford Uni- versity Press, New York. Brewer, C. 2001. Cultivating conservation literacy: "trickle-down" education is not enough. Conservation Biolog>' 15:1203- 1205. Brew^er, C. 2002?. Conservation education partnerships in schoolyard laboratories: a call back to action. Conservation Biolog>' 16:577-579. Brewer, C. 2002&. Outreach and partner- ship programs for conservation education wehere endangered species conservation and research occur. Conservation Biology 16:4-6. Evans, C. A., E. D. Abrams, B. N. Rock, and S. L. Spencer. 2001. Student/scientist part- nerships: a teachers guide to evaluating the critical components. The American Biol- ogy Teacher 63:318-323. Feinsinger, P., L. Margutti, and R. D. Oviedo. 1997. School yards and nature traus: ecology education outside the university. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:115- 120. Gennaro, E. D., A. Bullock, and A. Alden. 1980. Science learning experience involv- ing adults and their pr?adolescent and adolescent children. Science Education 64:289-296 Hacker, G. G., and M. Harris. 1992. Adult learn- ing of science for scientific literacy: some theoretical and methodological perspec- tives. Studies in the Education of Adults 24:217-225. Hogan, K. 2002. Pitfalls of communit>'-based learning: how power dynamics limit ado- lescent's trajectories of grow^th and partici- pation. Teachers College Record 104:586- 624. Krasny, M., and R. Bonney 2005. Scientific re- search and education collaboration. In E. A. Johnson and M. J. Mappin, editors. Envi- ronmental education and advocacy: chang- ing perspectives of ecology and education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Layton, M., A. Davey, and E.Jenkins. 1986. Sci- ence for Specific Social Purposes (SSSP): perspectives on adult scientific liter- acy'. Studies in Science Education 13: 27-52. Main, M. B. 2004. Mobilizing grass-roots con- servation education: the Florida Master Naturalist Program. Conservation Biology 18:11-16. Trumbu?, D. J., R. Bonney, D. Bascom, and A. Cabrai. 2000. Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Science Education 84:265-275. Conservation Biology Volume 19, No. 3, June 2005