“UNAVOIDABLE REALITIES JUSTIFIED BY A SHARED PASSION FOR THE
WORK”: A CASE STUDY EXAMINATION OF COMMUNITY SCIENCE AND
PROVINCIAL STAFF EXPERIENCES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, ALBERTA, AND
ONTARIO, CANADA

by
Kayla Wiens
B.A., University of Northern British Columbia, 2022

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
IN
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
October 2025
© Kayla Wiens, 2025

Abstract
Biodiversity in Canada is under threat, with thousands of species at risk of disappearing.
Public engagement is essential to strengthening both global and provincial biodiversity
frameworks. One promising avenue is community science, which not only offers meaningful
environmental experiences for participants and staff, but also actively involves the public in
biodiversity conservation efforts. This study focuses on two under-researched areas: (1) the roles
and motivations of community science staff, and (2) how community science is integrated into
provincial government efforts in British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. Treating community
science as a distinct case, the research involved semi-structured interviews with 16 community
science staff and 11 provincial government employees engaged in biodiversity and community
science initiatives. A bottom-up thematic analysis of the interview transcripts revealed key
emerging themes. Findings show that community science staff often juggle multiple
responsibilities simultaneously, frequently facing burnout as they adapt to program demands.
Meanwhile, provincial government staff operate in decentralized systems marked by knowledge
silos and limited interdepartmental communication, often resulting in duplicated efforts. Despite
these challenges, positive initiatives are underway in some provinces to enhance support for and
engagement with community science. The study highlights the need for intentional support
mechanisms such as increased funding, structured frameworks for community science, and the
establishment of communities of practice led by provincial governments. These steps are critical
for staff retention and the longevity of community science programs. The results are relevant to
biodiversity conservation practitioners, environmental non-profits, government agencies, and
community science organizations.

ii

Table of Contents
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ v
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... vi
1.1

Introduction .................................................................................................................7

1.2

Focus and Scope ......................................................................................................... 12

1.3

Study Rationale and Research Questions ..................................................................... 14

1.4

Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 15

1.5

Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................ 17

1.6
1.7

Positionality Statement ........................................................................................... 17
Thesis Structure ......................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 2: BETWEEN THREE ROCKS AND TWO HARD PLACES: WHAT KEEPS
COMMUNITY SCIENCE STAFF IN THEIR POSITIONS? ....................................................... 19
2.1

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 19

2.2

Literature Review....................................................................................................... 21

2.2.1

Staff Motivations ..................................................................................................... 21

2.2.2

Conservation Psychology ......................................................................................... 24

2.2.3

Volunteerism and Staff Motivations .......................................................................... 25

2.2.4

Sense of Self at Work ............................................................................................... 28

2.3

Methods ..................................................................................................................... 29

2.3.1

Case Study .............................................................................................................. 29

2.3.2

Sampling ................................................................................................................ 30

2.3.3

Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 32

2.3.4

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 32

2.4

Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 33

2.4.1

The Facilitator ........................................................................................................ 34

2.4.2

The Networker ........................................................................................................ 36

2.4.3

The Innovator ......................................................................................................... 37

2.4.4

Implications of Navigating Roles and the Impact on Sense of Self at Work ................... 39

2.5

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 42

CHAPTER 3: WORKING ACROSS BOUNDARIES: PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
EXPERIENCES IN SUPPORTING COMMUNITY SCIENCE IN CANADA .............................. 44
3.2

Literature Review....................................................................................................... 45

iii

3.2.1

Value of Community Science .................................................................................... 45

3.2.2

Social Network Perspectives on Community Science ................................................... 48

3.3

Methodology .............................................................................................................. 52

3.3.1

Case Study .............................................................................................................. 52

3.3.2

Sampling ................................................................................................................ 53

3.3.3

Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 55

3.3.4

Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 56

3.4

Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 57

3.4.1

Theme 1: Integration ............................................................................................... 58

3.4.2

Theme 2: Ephemeral Participation............................................................................ 60

3.4.3

Theme 3: Siloed Communication .............................................................................. 63

3.5

Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 66

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 69
4.2

Summary of key findings ............................................................................................ 71

4.3

Study Implications...................................................................................................... 73

4.4

Considerations and Limitations of the Study ............................................................... 75

4.5

Ideas for Future Research........................................................................................... 76

4.6

Final Thoughts ........................................................................................................... 77

References ................................................................................................................................. 79
Appendix 1 Staff Interview Guide ................................................................................................. 92
Appendix 2 Research Ethics Approval ........................................................................................... 95

iv

List of Tables

Table 1.0 Provincial Conservation Approaches and Guiding Frameworks………………….…..13
Table 2.0 The Roles and Responsibilities of Swim Drink Fish staff…….…………..…………..23
Table 3.0 The Six Motivations Included in VFI…………………….……………………….…..26
Table 4.0 Key Challenges Associated with the Community Science Enabler…………………...40
Table 5.0 Table Summarizing the Phases of Organizational Collaboration and Partnership
Development..……………………………………………………………………..……………..51

List of Figures

Figure 1.0 An Idealised Form of the Tripartite Model of Community Science….....………..…..22
Figure 2.0 The Cycle of how an Enabler Adopts and Customizes Roles to Best Suit the Needs of
Community Science Programs….……………………………………………….…..…………...34
Figure 3.0 Examples of Network Structures in Community Science……………….….………..50

v

Acknowledgements

Thank you to:
Dr. Annie Booth and Dr. Mark Groulx for being such amazing and supportive co-supervisors;
My committee member, Dr. Chris Lemieux, for your knowledge sharing and feedback;
My four cats (Teddy, Ember, Nugget, and Belle): For keeping me company while writing;
Cassidy Long, Kendra Coen, Mikhaila Carr, Emma Gryg, and Fenja Neumann: For the
late-night calls and being my cheerleaders;
Participating community science and provincial staff: your contributions made this research
possible;
The Social Science and Research Council of Canada for funding.

vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1

Introduction

Canada has a long history of public participation in science, particularly in environmental
and ecological monitoring. For decades, Indigenous communities, naturalist groups, and local
organizations have engaged in what is now commonly referred to as community science (Acorn,
2017). Prior to the professionalization of science in the late nineteenth century, almost all
scientific research was done by amateurs or volunteers who were interested in particular topics
and questions or as part of their livelihoods, such as farmers and hunters (Miller-Rushing et al.,
2020; Berti Suman & Alblas, 2023). Over the past century, the role of amateurs as peers or
colleagues to professional scientists has diminished greatly (Miller-Rushing et al., 2020).
Amateur or community scientists are still abundant, as evidenced by the many naturalist clubs
around the world, but their roles in conducting research have changed over time (Berti Suman &
Alblas, 2023). The role of community scientists has evolved within the scientific community
from leading research initiatives to addressing large-scale questions that would be difficult to
tackle without widespread participation (Berti Suman & Alblas, 2023). Community science
programs also take on localized, place-based projects that professional scientists might overlook
due to limited broader applicability (Miller-Rushing et al., 2020).
In this thesis, the term community science refers to scientific research and monitoring
grounded in scientific methods of inquiry that are: i) community-driven and communitycontrolled, and ii) characterized by place-based knowledge, social learning, collective action, and
empowerment (Charles et al., 2020). The choice to use community science rather than the more

7

commonly used term citizen science reflects a deliberate shift in both practice and academic
discourse (Eitzel,et al., 2017). First, the term community science is more inclusive, recognizing
the participation of individuals who may not hold citizenship in the country where they volunteer
(Eitzel,et al., 2017; Charles et al., 2020). Second, it emphasizes that projects are led by
communities, rather than positioning individuals merely as data collectors (Eitzel,et al., 2017).
Lastly, although participants are often "citizens" of a given area, the defining feature of
community science is its foundation in collective action and community involvement (Charles et
al., 2020).
One of the most well-known programs that speaks to the history of community science in
North America is the Christmas Bird Count (CBC), which is coordinated in Canada by Birds
Canada in partnership with the National Audubon Society (Attia, 2024). The first Christmas Bird
Count (CBC) was held on December 25, 1900, when ornithologist Frank M. Chapman
introduced a new holiday tradition to shift away from the then-popular "Christmas Side Hunt",
which was a competition to see who could shoot the most birds (National Audubon Society,
2024). Chapman’s event marked a pivotal shift in how people engaged with wildlife,
emphasizing the importance of monitoring bird populations amid growing environmental impact
(Attia, 2024; National Audubon Society, 2024). The first count involved 27 participants across
North America, including two in Canada (Attia, 2024). Today, the Christmas Bird Count is the
longest-running community science project in North America, with participants in over 2,000
locations throughout the Western Hemisphere (Attia, 2024).
Over the years, the CBC has grown not only in scale but also in its significance for
addressing environmental challenges, particularly climate change (Attia, 2024). Research based
on CBC data has revealed that many bird species are shifting their ranges northward in response
8

to warming temperatures that can disrupt ecosystems and cause mismatches between birds’
migration timing and food availability (Attia, 2024). The data collected are a critical resource for
conservation biologists, environmental planners, and naturalists in tracking bird distribution and
population trends (National Audubon Society, 2024).
The CBC is a prime example of why community involvement is vital for collecting data
across Canada’s vast and diverse landscapes, especially in remote or under-studied regions. Data
from this longstanding program also highlight the global biodiversity crisis as one of the most
urgent environmental challenges of our time, with the United Nations recognizing biodiversity
loss alongside pollution and climate change as a major threat to the planet's health and
sustainability (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2022).
In Canada, the decline of native species is reflected in the steadily growing number of
species at risk. Since the creation of Canada's first list of endangered wildlife in 1978, Canada
has seen a continuous rise in species identified as threatened or endangered (Office of the
Auditor General of Canada, 2022). The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in
Canada (COSEWIC) currently recognizes 841 species at risk (Office of the Auditor General of
Canada, 2022). In response to the crisis, Canada has ratified or accepted five major international
agreements focused on biodiversity, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (Office of
the Auditor General of Canada, 2022). This overarching agreement aims to conserve biological
diversity, ensure the sustainable use of its components, and enable the fair and equitable sharing
of the benefits of commercial and other uses of genetic resources (Office of the Auditor General
of Canada, 2022).
Despite the commitments listed above, the continued loss of species signals an urgent need
for stronger conservation action and greater public engagement. A lack of effective community

9

engagement contributes to conservation failure, and the importance of community engagement
surrounding conservation plans and goals is well documented (Beazley et al., 2024). For
example, Giakoumi et al. made their conclusions in 2018 that stakeholder engagement is the
most important factor affecting Marine Protected Areas success, with its absence being the most
important factor influencing failure.
Although the importance of engagement is understood, the lack of serious commitment to
engagement is evidenced by the continuous failure of global conservation targets, including
Canada failing to meet the 2020 national Aichi targets (Bernstein, 2022). Community
engagement is a dynamic process that needs to be dialogue-based and needs to include feedback
mechanisms that allow the public to assess the quality or depth of engagement (Giakoum et al.
2018). Where these conditions are not present, a lack of effective public engagement undermines
conservation efforts by failing to shift human attitudes toward nature and keeping the
biodiversity crisis on the margins of public concern (Buxton et al., 2021).
For engagement to be effective, initiatives must recognize multiple ways of knowing and
doing as a critical support for the transformative change needed to conserve biodiversity across
Canada (Buxton et al., 2021). Combatting biodiversity loss, climate change, and habitat
degradation requires collaboration among natural, social, and data scientists that facilitates social
change and biodiversity information management (Buxton et al., 2021). Community science is
unique in jointly addressing the social and technical nature of sustainability problems
(Sauermann et al., 2020). For example, community science projects have emerged as an efficient
way to gather spatial and temporal data by engaging a large number of people (Kelling et al.,
2015). Additionally, participants of community science projects often leave with an interest in
participating in other conservation actions and in building their capacity to contribute to future

10

conservation opportunities (Ballard et al., 2017). Finally, community science contributes to
social well-being by providing opportunities for people who often do not have a voice in
environmental decision-making to use science to document and address otherwise hidden or
contentious environmental problems (Bonney et al., 2016).
Research examining community science has been useful in this effort but has perhaps
overemphasized participant experiences at the expense of understanding the field from the
perspectives of other actors. Community science staff hold a host of knowledge about the
internal and external challenges faced when managing community science programs (Bonney et
al., 2020). They also have unique experiences accessing funding, building capacity, and
overseeing data collection and dispersal of information within the context of volunteer networks
(Locke et al., 2006; Bonnet et al., 2020; Ballard et al., 2017).
Despite the wealth of knowledge they hold, literature on community science and decision
making indicates that there is a critical gap in research examining the experiences of community
science staff (Stylinski et al., 2020: Phillips et al., 2018). Though often a grassroots initiative,
community science programs do not exist unaffected by politics and government. In this sense,
community science initiatives are like all other biodiversity conservation programs. They are
greatly affected by the seemingly hostile funding landscape in Canada, which is plagued by
funding cutbacks, difficulty achieving funding eligibility, and changes in government (Wiens et
al., 2024). Community science initiatives are also largely designed around priority species often
identified by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (Lin et
al., 2022).
It is vital to emphasize that community science does not exist passively within the
Canadian conservation landscape and instead is shaped by priorities set within the field and by
11

government. To better understand this context, this study seeks to examine community science
holistically by engaging with provincial staff and community science staff. The overarching goal
of this approach is to establish a clearer understanding of the relationships and networks that
influence the success of community science as a powerful conservation tool. A social network
perspective is particularly useful as it allows for a deeper analysis of how relationships,
communication pathways, and institutional structures within provincial governments influence
the integration and effectiveness of community science in conservation efforts (Bonney et al.,
2023).
Despite the well-documented benefits of community science, there has been limited
research into the experiences of community science program staff or the factors that influence
community science uptake and engagement at the provincial level. These omissions highlight a
critical gap in understanding how community science initiatives function on the ground. In this
thesis, I investigated community science and Provincial staff experiences within British
Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. This project's objectives are to 1) produce insights into the
experiences and different roles of community science and provincial staff in working with
community science; and 2) to provide suggestions to improve staff retention and the uptake of
community science across conservation biology government departments.
1.2

Focus and Scope

Interviews were conducted with community science and provincial staff across British
Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. These provinces were chosen as the study area due to their high
concentration of active community science programs. Additionally, focusing on these three
provinces offered a more representative snapshot of the Canadian conservation biology and
12

community science landscape than focusing on a single provincial jurisdiction, while remaining
feasible within the timeframe of a Master’s program. Provincial governments serve as the main
stewards of natural resources within their borders. Many have established their own biodiversity
strategies to guide conservation efforts. As summarized in Table 1.0, each province holds
primary responsibility for managing wildlife, regulating resource development, and overseeing
land-use planning within its jurisdiction. The table highlights the distinct conservation
philosophies and policy frameworks guiding biodiversity management across provinces,
reflecting both practical considerations and the underlying values shaping each government's
strategic direction.
Table 1.0: Provincial Conservation Approaches and Guiding Frameworks. This table
provides a broad overview of the key conservation aspirations and guiding frameworks in British
Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. It outlines the overarching conservation context within which
community science operates in each province. (Government of British Columbia, 2024;
Government of Alberta, 2025; Ontario Biodiversity Council, 2023).

13

1.3

Study Rationale and Research Questions

The foundation for my thesis was designed from the knowledge and experiences I gained
working as a research assistant on the Engaging Communities in Conservation Outcomes
(ECCO) study. The initial intention of the ECCO study was to interview community science
volunteers, but due to a low response rate, the project pivoted to interviewing provincial staff and
community science staff. Through initial research, I found that perspectives of government and
community science staff are critically under-researched, and subsequently, I centered my study
around filling this gap.
As section 1.5 below outlines, this thesis is organized in a manuscript format that
includes two manuscripts. The goal of the first manuscript was to learn about community science
staff experiences to uncover their initial and lasting motivations for being a part of these
programs. The goal of the second manuscript was to explore how knowledge is transferred
between community science programs and Canada’s conservation policy decision-makers
working in the provincial policy arena.
The following four research questions guided this project:
1) How and to what effect do community science and Provincial staff engage with each
other?
2) What mechanisms effectively promote the use of community science knowledge in
conservation planning, management, and public engagement to achieve biodiversity
outcomes in Canada?
3) What are community science staff motivations for working with community science
programs in Canada?
14

4) How do experiences shape community science staff members' sense of self at work?

1.4

Conceptual Framework

The critical lens of constructivism is explained by Mogashoa (2014) and Bettenet et al.
(2018) and further expanded upon in relation to community science by Hsu et al. (2023). Both
accounts suggest constructivism is vital to analyzing and understanding how knowledge is
constructed and shared between community science and Provincial staff. Mogashoa (2014) and
Bettenet et al. (2018) state that knowledge is developed through endless actions, decisions,
negotiations and interactions involving a diverse range of actors. The main distinction between
constructivism and positivism relates to the fact that while positivism argues that knowledge is
generated by the scientific method, constructivism maintains that knowledge is constructed by
scientists (Dudovskiy, 2018). As such, constructivism opposes the idea that there is a single
methodology to generate knowledge (Charmaz, 2014).
Constructivist perspectives also reject the idea that theory emerges from data
independently, recognizing instead the role the researcher plays by shaping the narrative as they
draw on experiences and interactions with participants and the data (Vanner, 2015; Charmaz,
2014). This is relevant for the case study methodology that I discuss in more detail in my
manuscripts, as constructivism emphasizes the interrelationship between researcher and
participant in the co-construction of meaning.
Constructivism was an appropriate lens for this study because learner-centered inquiry is
an integral part of the community science experience (Hsu et al., 2023). Community science
projects are problem-based or project-based learning opportunities where participants must

15

collect, analyze, and interpret data to answer scientific research questions (Hsu et al., 2023). In
this study, I examined the experiences of community science and Provincial staff through the
lens of constructivism, brought about by my chosen methodology of a case study. Analyzing how
program staff construct knowledge through their experiences and how meaningful interactions
occur between community science and Provincial staff is crucial to answering my research
questions. Moreover, understanding experiences with and the influence of community science
through interviews with program and Provincial staff can provide a valuable perspective for
Canadian biodiversity conservation policy decision-makers and Canadian community science
programs, by providing vital insights to improve conservation management and policy.
From a constructivist perspective, knowledge and understanding of the Canadian
conservation landscape can be shaped by exposure to community science programs (Hsu et al.,
2023). These programs influence the collective knowledge of participants and staff and how
individuals connect their participation to their personal identity and sense of self. Community
science is inherently social, bringing volunteers and staff together through training sessions, data
collection, social events, and program-based relationships (Bonney et al., 2016). Through shared
conversations and lived experiences, participants and staff alike construct individual and
collective understandings of biodiversity conservation (Saunders & Myers, 2003). In turn, these
collective and personal understandings of conservation shape how staff perceive conservation,
their relationship with the environment, and their own role in its protection (Saunders & Myers,
2003).
Finally, the collaborative grassroots foundation of community science stands in stark
contrast to the provincial conservation system, which operates within a decentralized but
ultimately top-down network (Bonney et al., 2023). Integrating an engaging, bottom-up model
16

like community science into a structure characterized by siloed communication and limited
cross-agency collaboration presents a significant challenge. These structural features make it
difficult to shift conservation in Canada from a traditionally top-down approach to one that is
inclusive and community-driven. Deliberate efforts like this project, which calls for dialogue
between community science and provincial government staff, are critical to breaking down these
silos. Collaboration is essential to developing a conservation model that reflects and includes the
voices, experiences, and knowledge of those directly involved on the ground (Bonney et al.,
2016).
1.5

Ethical Considerations

In accordance with ethical research practice, all research tools and documents used in this
project were reviewed and approved by the UNBC Research Ethics Board (E2022.0510.023.01).
Documents and tools approved by the Research Ethics Board included the Study information and
consent letter and the staff interview guide. These materials are provided in Appendix 2 of the
thesis.
1.6

Positionality Statement

As someone in a position of authority, I recognize that my presence may influence what
participants choose to share. To address this, I will remain mindful of my presence, appearance,
gestures, and language throughout the research process. I will keep a reflective journal to
document my thoughts and interactions and will return interview transcripts to participants for
review to minimize misinterpretation and ensure accuracy.

17

The work of community-based conservationists is deeply shaped by their personal and
professional experiences, and my own is no exception. My role as a Regional Coordinator for a
conservation nonprofit has significantly influenced my perspective on research questions and the
interpretation of findings. This position allows me to see aspects of myself in many participants’
responses, as I share a deep personal and professional connection to the work of communitybased conservation.
1.7

Thesis Structure

This thesis follows a manuscript-style format. Chapters 2 and 3 will be submitted as
articles to peer-reviewed journals and will be edited to follow the respective journal guidelines.
This thesis began with this introductory chapter (Chapter 1) to briefly introduce the project,
including its research objectives and questions, theoretical lens, and rationale. Focusing on
interviews with community science staff, Chapter 2 discusses the motivations and roles of
community science staff members as it relates to their daily experiences. Chapter 3 then shares
the experiences of provincial staff working with community science in order to understand how
community science is used by provincial staff and how it can be better supported by provincial
governments. Lastly, Chapter 4 integrates both manuscripts to identify common themes in the
experiences of community scientists and provincial staff and provides recommendations for
improving the function of community science within the Canadian conservation landscape.

18

CHAPTER 2: BETWEEN THREE ROCKS AND TWO HARD PLACES: WHAT KEEPS
COMMUNITY SCIENCE STAFF IN THEIR POSITIONS?

2.1

Introduction

Community science is increasingly recognized as an effective community engagement
platform for triggering behaviour change and building social capital around environmental issues
(Van Brussel & Huyse, 2018). Community science projects work to advance conservation by
expanding public participation in science, enhancing engagement in environmental stewardship,
and promoting the collection of data to inform conservation outcomes (Van Brussel & Huyse,
2018; Larson et al., 2020).
The level of public participation varies from project to project based on project design.
Bonney et al. (2016) distinguish between contributory, collaborative, and co-created community
science projects. Most community science projects adopt a contributory approach, in which
participants are only involved to help collect data (Marks et al., 2022). However, research shows
that the more involved participants are, the more positive impact projects have on their
understanding of environmental issues and science in general (Larson et al., 2020; Evans et al.,
2005). Despite the multifaceted benefits of community science, successful project outcomes can
be difficult to achieve, and they require an active volunteer and project staff/management body
(Larson et al., 2020). This study aims to identify the roles of the community science staff
member to provide support mechanisms to enable staff to remain active and engaged in their
critically important roles that support project success and survival. To remain in line with the
growing trends in the field of participatory science, this study adopts “community science” as the

19

preferred and more inclusive term to describe programs that involve this volunteer participation
(Larson et al., 2020; National Audubon Society, 2024).
Beyond being an effective education and engagement platform, community science can
be a tool for the democratization of science (Bonney et al., 2016). Community science has
become a mechanism for partnerships that include a range of actors from post-secondary
institutions, communities, governments, not-for-profits, and the private sector (Wiens et al.,
2024). Given the scale of the conservation crisis, the types of innovation and collaboration
shown in community science may be key to the better use of research data by producing data that
changes conservation outcomes by informing policy and practice in Canada (Bonney et al.,
2016). Scientific research also remains inaccessible to large proportions of society. This inequity
raises important questions about the relevance and representativeness of science, including
whose voices are being heard (Robson et al., 2024).
Community science is one avenue to improve the uptake of conservation science amongst
the public. It can promote responsible and representative research by involving communities in
the design, facilitation, and dissemination of project results (Thomas et al., 2021). Although they
are key to project success, the community science staff member is a relatively under researched
actor within the relevant literatures (Geoghegan et al., 2016). This research is significant as it
examines the motivations staff have for doing community science work, as well as with their
experiences therein. It also identifies the roles of community science staff to help clarify longterm support mechanisms that can improve program longevity and success. This study is guided
by the following research questions: What are community science staff motivations for working
with community science programs in Canada; How do experiences shape community science
staff members' sense of self at work?
20

2.2

Literature Review

2.2.1 Staff Motivations
The community science staff member is a relatively under researched actor and a review
of the literature indicates that there is a critical gap in research into community science staff
motivations (Geoghegan et al., 2016). In this case, the concept of motivation refers to an
individual’s reasons for doing an activity and the degree to which these reasons align with selfheld values (DeCaro & Stokes, 2008). This definition comes from the field of conservation
psychology and reflects the view that if a person identifies with conservation ideals, then there is
a self-sustaining motivation to conserve (DeCaro & Stokes, 2008). Salmon et al. (2021)
recognized this pressing gap and recently proposed a tripartite model that acknowledges the
contributions and multiple roles needed for a successful community science project (see Figure
1.0). They highlight the contribution of an often-overlooked role, the ‘enabler’, who may be an
educator, communicator, change advocate, or other staff member (Salmon et al., 2021).

21

Figure 1.0: An Idealised Form of the Tripartite Model of Community Science. Boxes
indicate different roles in the project. Arrows indicate what each role is providing to (or receiving
from) another (recreated from Salmon et al., 2021).

Salmon et al.’s (2021) tripartite model of community science aimed to acknowledge a
wider range of actors in community science projects than is typical. The recognition of the
enabler is key as it illustrates the many roles that exist beyond the scientist and the citizen
scientist – the roles typically associated with a traditional community science program (Philips et
al., 2019; Bonney et al., 2016). Creating space for the enabler is also key to examining
community science staff motivations as it is necessary to first identify who staff are, know what
their role is, and understand how they facilitate key functions like engagement between parties.
Swim Drink Fish is a community science program that operates in British Columbia,
Alberta, and Ontario as an advocate for clean water for everyone. As an example program, they
offer a window into a better understanding of the diverse roles of the ‘enabler’. Table 1.1
emphasizes how different roles work in parallel but ultimately contribute to Swim Drink Fish’s
mission of environmental advocacy and water quality monitoring.
22

Table 2.0: The Roles and Responsibilities of Swim Drink Fish staff. This table highlights the
various positions held by the “enabler” within an example community science program, Swim
Drink Fish, to illustrate the range of roles and responsibilities undertaken by the enabler.

As the Swim Drink Fish example illustrates, the ‘enabler’ can support a diverse range of
project functions. Staff in this role typically serve more than just a facilitation or communication
function and often have their own specific goals and objectives (Salmon et al., 2021). Within a
project’s staff complement, a volunteer educator, volunteer coordinator, or community advocate
may be an enabler. Actors external to a project, like a funder, can also be an enabler. More than
their job title, the enabler is defined by the skills and expertise they bring in communication and
in accessing a community funding landscape (Salmon et al., 2021; Bonney et al., 2016). Overall,
the enabler facilitates program development, growth and ultimately project success by ensuring
communication between multiple actors, volunteer recruitment, and funding, all of which
contribute to project survival. Without the enabler, community science would not be what it is
today.

23

2.2.2 Conservation Psychology

There is no single place to go to understand community science staff motivations.
Nonetheless, the literature on conservation psychology is a useful starting point to conceptualize
how people act within an environmentally conscious context. Insights from the field of
conservation psychology are useful to understanding the value of community science program
enablers, including staff motivations and how staff experiences shape their sense of self at work.
Conservation psychology is a field of study that aims to understand why people act in
environmentally sustainable or unsustainable ways (DeCaro & Stokes, 2008). Scholars seek to
use this understanding to promote more environmentally sustainable behavior (Clayton & Brook,
2005). Conservation psychology can also be defined as a network of researchers and
practitioners that includes many perspectives, ranging from environmental educators to
policymakers (Saunders, 2003). Overall, the field of conservation psychology asks how humans
value nature and how they behave towards nature (Saunders & Myers, 2003).
Although inferences about community science staff motivations can be drawn from
studies in conservation psychology, there is a gap in research examining the intersection between
conservation psychology and community science (Agnello et al., 2022; Saunders, 2003).
Understanding how benefits, such as socialization, education, and awareness of the local
environment, are generated in community science requires insight into the values, beliefs,
attitudes, and motivations of the staff that contribute to the program (Agnello et al., 2022).
Analyzing staff motivations is also key to improving staff retention, recruitment, and program
success, all pressing priorities within the community science field. A better understanding of
staff motivations may also help to strengthen the network of researchers and conservation

24

practitioners working within community science. Given this, the following section explores
volunteerism and staff motivations to understand the known motivations of volunteer scientists.
2.2.3 Volunteerism and Staff Motivations

The environmental volunteering literature is related to the field of conversation
psychology in that it explores why individuals participate in and gain value from conservationorientated programs. This literature frequently categorizes motivations for participation as
intrinsic (i.e., inherently valuable or satisfying) or extrinsic (i.e., leading to some other benefit,
like future career prospects) (Park & Word, 2012). The most important intrinsic motivation
mentioned by community scientists is enjoyment while learning, contributing to science, and
building relationships. Enhancing one’s reputation or self-esteem were the most common
extrinsic motivations for participating in conservation-based projects (Richter et al., 2021).
Intrinsic motivations are shown to be more common in volunteers in community science projects
where members of the public participate in data collection and the communication of results
(Lakomý et al., 2020). Far less is known about the intrinsic forces driving staff motivations
(Geoghegan et al., 2016).
While intrinsic motivation is crucial to various types of volunteering, extrinsic motivation
may be also important, especially when it comes to recruiting different segments of the
population (Lakomý et al., 2020). Evidence suggests that volunteer motivations can shift over
time as engagement deepens throughout a volunteer's involvement with a project (Larson et al.,
2020), and further insights into these evolving motivations can be found through tools like the
Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI). The VFI framework is a validated psychological scale that
is based on functional theory (Clary et al., 1998; Maund et al., 2020). A core argument of the VFI
25

is that people can perform the same actions in the service of different psychological functions
(Snyder et al., 2000). The VFI embodies the complexity and diversity of potential intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations and allows comparisons to be made between different motivations (Maund
et al., 2020; Chacón et al., 2017). There are six motivations included in the VFI as illustrated in
Table 1.2 (Maund et al., 2020).
Table 3.0: The Six Motivations Included in VFI. This table lists the six motivations from the
Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) to identify both the initial and ongoing motivations of
community science staff.

Within the VFI, the ‘Career’ motivation is particularly relevant to more traditional
community science programs that include a training or skilled component (e.g. sampling water
quality) as compared to, for instance, a large-scale program where volunteers only submit an
observation online (Maund et al., 2020; Wright et al., 2015). Since the community science
programs sampled in this study align with the more traditional style of program design, asking
staff how they first learned about or got involved with community science is an important
starting point. This interview question helps determine whether and how their career motivations
changed over time while working as an enabler. Assessing the potential ‘Career’ motivations

26

volunteers have is also critical because it is common for keen volunteers to move up to staff
positions in community science programs (Wright et al., 2015).
Understanding staff motivations is crucial to learning their initial reason for participation
and why they may stay involved in a project. This knowledge is also required to assess staff
retention and identify strategies to better support community science programs across Canada
(Philips et al., 2019). Community science staff often answer to an organizational director or
scientist while managing multiple goals and interests that come from collaborators, funders,
volunteers and community members (Lin Hunter et al., 2024). According to role theory,
individual behaviours in these complex social settings can be explained by one’s social identities,
or behaviour under social circumstances (Anglin et al., 2022). Because community science staff
manage many tasks and interests, strict organizational role theory does not fit, as they create their
own norms and beliefs while fulfilling one or more roles (Lin Hunter et al., 2024; Hecker &
Taddicken, 2022). Role theory is especially useful in understanding organizational dynamics as it
pertains to the web of roles and differing motivations and beliefs between community scientists,
enablers and volunteer scientists (Hecker & Taddicken, 2022).
Building on role theory, Lin Hunter et al. (2024) identify three overarching sets of goals
that community science project leaders respond to: scientific goals, social goals, and goals
related to management of the project itself. These three related goals act as drivers of community
science projects in which project leads design the project and provide the framework for other
staff and volunteers to take on roles autonomously based on each goal. In their study, Lin Hunter
et al. (2024) showed that social goals are exemplified by a project leader’s desire to connect
residents to scientific solutions. Management goals are those that relate to project development,
including managing volunteers, diversifying the volunteer body, ensuring project longevity, and
27

defending data credibility. Finally, scientific goals are those that follow the scientific method to
achieve local conservation goals (Lin Hunter et al., 2024; Bonney et al., 2016). Examining how
community science staff recognize their personal and organizational goals and how these goals
are related to motivations is crucial to better align program objectives and improve staff retention
and program longevity.
2.2.4 Sense of Self at Work

Identity and self are complex psychological constructs that integrate awareness and affect
with elements of the individual, the ecosystem, and the environment (Bott et al., 2003). Many
pro-environmental behaviours that people engage in everyday are not necessarily enjoyable. In
these instances, to successfully maintain a behaviour over time, it is crucial that people value
their environmental behaviours and personally endorse them (Pelletier & Aitken, 2014).
Research indicates that there are advantages to autonomous motivation over controlled
motivation when it comes to this maintenance, as well as the longevity of the behaviour,
information processing, and individual well-being (Pelletier & Aitken, 2014; Yurong et al., 2019;
Mouratidis et al., 2021). Autonomous motivation refers to behaviors that staff voluntarily
endorse because they find them interesting, fun, or challenging (i.e., intrinsic motivation);
endorse as part of their own identity (i.e., integrated regulation); or endorse because they
consider them meaningful and personally important (i.e., identified regulation) (Mouratidis et al.,
2021). Controlled motivation reflects something one feels compelled to do by external or internal
pressures (Koestner et al., 2008).
Developing and maintaining a strong sense of self in the workplace can be facilitated by
supporting staff as they explore and overcome barriers to desired behaviour change. The
28

maintenance of desired behaviours also requires support for staff as they navigate conflicting
goals that come with efforts to balance scientific objectives, public engagement, and other social
goals (Pelletier & Aitken, 2014). In short, community science is a social activity, and the
motivations and identity of autonomous learners can change as their engagement level grows
(Yurong et al., 2019). Dominant motivations to participate are situational or context oriented, tied
both to a strong sense of place and sense of biodiversity and conservation project goals (Lin
Hunter et al., 2024). Over time, those who remain engaged become committed to the activity and
the organization, and they gradually adopt or reject the primary values and essence of the
program as their own (Yurong et al., 2019).
2.3

Methods

2.3.1 Case Study

This study utilizes community science as a distinct case to learn about staff experiences.
Case study methodology offers a beneficial research approach when understanding that a
phenomenon of interest requires an exploration of how it is situated within and shaped by its
surrounding context (Yin, 2018). Case study is also flexible in that it can accommodate a range
of data collection methods, which is often required when examining dynamic, multi-scale policy
problems (Johnson & Stake, 1996). These strengths make case study a suitable methodology to
examine the motivations of community science staff within the context of their work and to
provide in-depth data and findings to answer the proposed research questions (Hyett et al., 2014;
Yin, 2018).
Semi-structured interviews enable participants to share their experiences in an
unrestricted way (Adams, 2015). Case study then elevates the data collected through these
29

interviews by placing the data within the broader field of conservation science and practice to
identify patterns, relationships, and the best way forward for Canadian conservation management
(Yin, 2018). Case study is critiqued as having limited generalizability as the ‘case’ is usually a
small group, making it difficult to relate the findings to a larger area (Yin, 2018). To mitigate
this, community science programs were selected across British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario to
provide a snapshot of staff experiences in varying geographical contexts. While this study
focused on a small number of community science programs in Canada, the findings may be
applicable to programs outside of Canada depending on program design.
2.3.2 Sampling

Sampling in case study is central to theory building and testing as the researcher decides
the sampling strategies, the number of case studies, and the definition of the unit of analysis
(Fletcher & Plakoyiannaki, 2010). Criteria-based sampling involves a researcher focusing on a
specific subgroup of the population that is of interest. A target group is identified by defining and
applying predetermined criteria that are based on the research question (i.e., rather than selecting
participants randomly) (Curtis et al., 2000). Criteria-based sampling is a form of purposive
sampling, as inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined by the researcher (Campbell et al.,
2020).
Purposive sampling is useful in selecting respondents that are more likely to share useful
information and as a way of identifying cases that will use limited research resources effectively
(Campbell et al., 2020). In this study, community science programs (and possible participants
from them) were selected following a criteria-based approach that identified programs with a
focus on biodiversity conservation and conservation science to policy links in Canada. As hubs
30

of community science programs and knowledge, the digital repositories CitSci and SciStarter and
the Government of Canada’s Citizen Science Portal were used as starting points for identifying
relevant programs. To be eligible for recruitment, a community science program had to:
1. have a focus on biodiversity conservation;
2. have stated research and/or learning objectives indicating an intended biodiversity
conservation science and policy link; and
3. be based in Canada or have a project scope that includes data collected in Canada.

Chain sampling or chain-referral sampling involves key informants identifying other
informants who may have relevant information about a phenomenon (Noy, 2008). Since chain
sampling is an effective tool when sampling hidden or hard to reach populations, chain sampling
was used as a recruitment method (Curtis et al., 2000). Because information about possible
participants is supplied solely by informants, the use of chain sampling requires the researcher to
relinquish a considerable amount of control over the sampling phase of a study (Noy, 2008). To
ensure an appropriate sample size and pursue emerging insights, participants were recruited, and
interviews were conducted in phases. This allowed the research to better track the number of
referents without restricting the contribution from participants. The sample size for recruiting
community science program staff was determined to be complete when saturation was reached
(Noy, 2008).

31

2.3.3 Data Collection

Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with community science staff
(Roulston & Choi, 2018). The guide for these interviews included open-ended questions that
were more likely to elicit an elaborated response and extended reflection from participants
(Knott et al., 2022). One common way to structure an interview guide is to start with relatively
easy, open-ended questions – which helps build trust and rapport (Knott et al., 2022; Adams,
2015). Here, opening interview questions focused on the research topic, but were broad and easy
to answer (see Appendix 1). This approach eased the participant into the conversation and helped
them feel comfortable sharing their experiences. Interviews were conducted virtually using the
ZOOM platform or by phone where preferred by the participant. They lasted between 60 and 90
minutes. The use of ZOOM interviews enables extending recruitment geographically and
encourages rich conversation by increasing comfort (Oliffe et al., 2021).
2.3.4 Data Analysis

A bottom-up thematic analysis was used in this study as the process can be unrestricted
by pre-existing coding frameworks or personal preconceptions about the research (Guest et al.,
2011). Thematic analysis was especially useful in this study because it can be used to identify
patterns within and across data about participants lived experiences (Clarke & Braun, 2017).
When using thematic analysis, data can be approached either inductively or deductively.
Inductive coding and theme development adopts a ‘bottom up’ approach where the data provides
the bedrock for identifying meaning and interpreting data (Terry et al., 2017). This study uses
inductive coding to allow for a data-led analysis. This approach was appropriate as it allowed
community science staff’s voices and experiences to drive the results and findings. At the same
32

time, the researcher is never a blank slate, and I acknowledge that I bring my own social position
and theoretical lens to the analysis (Terry et al., 2017). In the coding process, the raw interview
transcripts were used as a starting point to compare with other interviews to see if any themes
emerged. Once themes were identified, I extracted direct quotes from the transcripts with the
approval of the participant.
2.4

Results and Discussion

Salmon et al.'s (2021) model of community science acknowledges a range of actors in
projects, including the enabler. The authors describe the enabler as an educator, communicator,
coordinator or other staff member. The present work builds on the identification of the enabler
and a thematic analysis of interviews with community science staff illustrates that this core team
member often takes on multiple roles simultaneously. Findings in this study indicate that the
enabler often adopts three central roles: the facilitator, the networker, and the innovator. Each are
prominent roles actioned by community science staff to promote project success. Importantly,
the facilitator, the networker and the innovator roles can be filled by different individuals, but
commonly the different roles are actioned by the same staff member. The enabler accesses these
roles constantly, sometimes daily, as they navigate a fluid landscape of changing priorities to
ensure their project’s survival (Salmon et al., 2021).
As staff adapt to evolving challenges, such as shifting team dynamics or resource needs,
they may find themselves transitioning between roles in response to emerging demands. The
switch between roles can be prompted when the enabler encounters a vital missing piece within a
community science project (often funding shortages) and in response calls forward required roles
like the 'facilitator'. Role theory shows that as this role is called forward a set of values and
33

norms associated with the role are also activated as the staff member customizes their identity to
suit the program's context specific needs. Figure 1.1 illustrates this process before the following
sections describe the three most common roles the enabler relies on in their work.

Figure 2.0: The Cycle of how an Enabler Adopts and Customizes Roles to Best Suit the
Needs of Community Science Programs. This figure visually represents the “enabler” within a
community science program, illustrating how the enabler assumes different roles based on
context-specific needs. The figure illustrates how the enabler adapts their role to meet program
demands, for example, taking on the networker role during funding shortages and adopting
associated values such as fostering community connections.

2.4.1 The Facilitator

The facilitator role is commonly adopted amongst program leadership staff and project
coordinators. The facilitator ensures rigorous data collection by volunteers and oversees
communication lines between volunteers, staff, scientists, and the public. The facilitator is
described as "the glue that holds it together…that brings people in and sort of keeps them"
(Fatima). The Facilitator’s passion for the natural environment and the program’s mission or
34

objective is a leading autonomous motivation as staff feel they are contributing to something
greater than themselves.
Functioning as the “glue” of the program, the facilitator is accountable to volunteers,
staff, and the public and is responsible for ensuring the smooth running of project logistics. The
motivations that drive community science staff in the facilitator role are diverse, but a common
thread among them is staff members’ prior experience with the natural environment. This
experience might stem from formal education, where they have studied environmental science or
related fields, or from hands-on involvement in community science projects. Many facilitators
are also motivated by personal interests or hobbies, such as birdwatching, gardening, or hiking.
This background not only shapes their passion for environmental issues but also equips them
with practical knowledge and skills that are essential for guiding and supporting volunteers,
building community engagement, and facilitating meaningful participation in environmental
conservation efforts.
"So I got involved, I guess, originally, as a summer student, I was a field technician training and
collecting environmental data alongside citizen scientists. And then after my year as a summer
student, I took over as the program manager where I started coordinating citizen science
programs. And then after that, I became the Executive Director. And kind of my main job now is
to coordinate, facilitate, design citizen science programs aimed at improving our understanding
of lakes and reservoirs and their watersheds.” Jason
The personal and professional development and growth of facilitators like Jason indicate
that the dedication and passion towards a single community science program or conservation
goal is a sustaining motivation for continuing to be a part of the program. In this case, Jason is
accessing the values of dedication, resilience, and hard work by continuing to return to the same
35

project while learning new roles to ultimately support the overarching conservation goal of
improving understanding around watersheds.
2.4.2 The Networker

The identity between staff's sense of self relative to the community science program is
evident in the role of the networker. The networker is critical in community science programs for
building program connections, recruiting and retaining staff and volunteers, and expanding
funding opportunities. As Fatima highlights, "[t]here's a whole lot of hidden intention and work
happening that coordinators are doing." Most notably, networkers act as thread - weaving
individuals together to form a conservation conscientious community all out of sight of the
public eye. Networkers must invest time and effort into planning who to connect and engage
with to advance program development while respectfully working within a local and communitycentered context.
The role of the networker is intrinsically linked to other external roles within the local
community context, forming the individual's sense of self both at work and within their local
community. Networkers have strong local ties and pre-existing connections within the
community and expand their networks through experience and the recruitment of new staff.
Lizzy highlights what community networkers value, especially in the context of community
science. Autonomous motivations are tied to a strong sense of place and the ability to build
community relationships to achieve a conservation goal. Jennifer and Lizzy’s reflections
exemplify the simultaneous coexistence of autonomous and controlled motivations as both
reflect on internal and external motivators (including the responsibility to family and
community) that drive staff to pursue a career in community science.
36

"There's a tremendous amount of due diligence before heading into to kind of some active
collaborations, or asking members of the community to invest their time.” Jennifer
"I worked with a bunch of different nonprofits here, and through my work as a staff member of
those nonprofits, I met [Sarah], and then she hired me as a staff member because of my
community relationships. So she hired me as a regional coordinator…because she knew I had
good relationships here. I had no former background in [this area of conservation] but because
of that evolution, she was interested in the relationship piece. So I am a staff person, but I am a
staff person because of my community title.” Lizzy
"It's a lifetime relationship, really, in a way…I grew up with a father that was an avid fisherman,
and we would go out fishing, and we would be eyeball to eyeball with orcas because they were
just there. They were just close…So yeah, it was, it was just part of me.” Fatima
"the ability to build a network and a movement of people working to support environmental
goals. I felt like I had to continue with it.” Allen
2.4.3 The Innovator

The innovator is the catalyst and driving force behind the initial start-up of a community
science program or project, playing a crucial role in identifying unmet needs within the field of
conservation and biodiversity. Innovators come from diverse backgrounds, often bringing unique
perspectives and skillsets to the table, whether from scientific research, education, technology, or
community organizing. What unites the role is a shared recognition of a specific species,
ecological issue, or data gap that hinders progress in conservation efforts. Driven by the desire to
address these challenges, innovators are proactive in initiating projects that not only contribute
valuable data but also engage local communities, empowering them to take part in environmental
37

stewardship. Innovators set the foundation for long-term conservation goals, helping to shape the
direction of future efforts.
"I started to just explore what, what is going on here in terms of data collection for amphibians.
And then I basically noticed that there's not a lot going on, not consistently, and the only data
that is collected is not really standardized, is more like incidental observations. So that's, when I
saw that need, and I saw there was basically nothing here yet, that's when I started to take the
initiative to get something started here.” Darren
"I come from design and building and got involved as a naturalist and realized that there wasn't
a lot of attention in the marine and estuary and environment. So we began our organization, and
then we started realizing that there was a great need for mapping the eelgrass…It had not been
done, so we started with that.” Jane
Innovators are highly driven individuals who often work closely with others to build
other roles (e.g., networkers and facilitators) and to plan and implement community science
projects. The innovator acts in response to the environment, ecosystems, wildlife, and the public
and is held accountable by program staff, volunteers, themselves, and data users for designing
effective and welcoming community science programs. As the role of the innovator is demanding
and time-consuming, their initial motivations for starting a community science project are crucial
to the project's longevity. The innovator is part of the foundation of a program.
"So other motivators were a lot of like an educational piece of it, and providing like capacity for
folks to be able to go and do things and participate in community science and actually like input
data, learn about what that data is doing. So working towards making things more accessible in
the sense of understanding..So that was, like, the big part that kind of still sticks for me is that the

38

education piece and training other folks is, is what I'm most interested, I think, within the
program itself .” Charlie
When asked, "What do you find unique about community science compared to other ways to
engage the public about conservation?” participants noted that the design of a program coupled
with hands-on training and data collection and ultimately working alongside other passionate
people were the top characteristics. Reflecting on the uniqueness of community science as an
engagement tool and as an outlet for like-minded people to get together and go outside is vital to
recognize why key players such as innovators started programs to encourage the growth and
development of existing and new programs across Canada.
2.4.4 Implications of Navigating Roles and the Impact on Sense of Self at Work

The challenging context community staff operate in often leads individuals to take on
multiple roles due to funding shortages and lack of capacity. Emma notes that they function as a
"jack of all trades" when doing community science work. Wearing multiple hats is viewed as a
normalized function or requirement for program staff to ensure project survival, typically due to
a lack of capacity. Wearing many hats over a long period of time can evolve into fatigue and
ultimately burnout, especially for long-term, older staff (Eksted et al., 2005). The causes of
burnout, such as long work hours, excessive workload, and loss of personal time, are common
experiences for community science staff (Eksted et al., 2005).
"So I spend an awful lot of time in the office, and I pay a price for that… I pay a very high price
for that, because it's basically seven days a week, and not all day every day, but it can average it
four to six, eight hours a day, depending on what we're involved in.. that doesn't include going
out and doing community events…So it's, it is, it's a lot.” Jane
39

Identifying the roles each staff member fills on a daily basis is vital to making the staff
and management of community science programs aware of the high workload. As seen in Table
4.0, documenting the roles filled by the ‘enabler’ in community science programs is necessary to
establish the key challenges associated with each role and identify potential solutions. Once
aware, management can determine where roles should be filled by another team member or
recruit a new staff member to enable each person space to reconnect with their core motivations
for initially joining the community science project.
Table 4.0 Key Challenges Associated with the Community Science Enabler. This table
summarizes the key challenges, underlying causes, and potential solutions associated with each
role. It is important to note that these elements often overlap, as the roles are frequently adopted
simultaneously by the same staff member.

40

The impact of burnout on community science staff is cause for alarm as a valuable public
engagement, education, and data collection tool is at risk of being lost. Program staff regularly
feel obligated to take on additional roles as their sense of self and personal identity is closely tied
to a program's survival. One individual often fills the facilitator, networker, and innovator roles
simultaneously. Having multiple roles filled by one individual not only contribute to burnout, it
leaves programs vulnerable to years of knowledge being lost and, ultimately contributing to
project collapse (Wiens et al., 2024).
"I ask other people, you know, they say to me, Oh, why do you do that? Why do you take
responsibility? Oh, you can drop that. You don't have to be committed to that. And I say, Well, if
not, me than who? Yeah, and I sometimes add and how about you? And of course, I get
completely ignored or glossed over.” Nicole
Community science staff are hyper-aware of the areas needing improvement within the
facilitator, networker, and innovator role functions but need more staff and funding. Inadequate
program resources prevent staff from dealing with the demands of their job (González-Gómez &
Hudson, 2024). Supporting autonomous motivation is one crucial way to help retain valuable
community science staff, especially because staff member’s sense of self is closely tied to their
growing engagement with community science and is personally important. Sense of self is the
backbone to community science programs, providing stability and continuity (Sadeh & Karniol,
2012). Lack of capacity and scarce funding threatens community science staff's sense of self and
the continuity that enables staff to pursue the work that they find meaningful. Hannah’s statement
that "we think that we have a good connection with our community members, but, you know,
sometimes it's difficult for us to take the time to figure out how to bridge more gaps" reflects the
challenges faced by enthusiastic staff members who are passionate about community science but
41

overwhelmed by the complexity of their roles. Taking on multiple tasks such as community
engagement, project management, and networking can be exciting and demanding, especially for
those just starting their careers.
For instance, a passionate individual early in their career in biodiversity conservation,
with ideas on how to engage communities and establish new partnerships to expand the
program's scope and success, may only feel frustrated as their ideas are constrained by a heavy
workload. The resulting pressure of balancing immediate program needs with long-term outreach
and engagement strategies could compromise their ability to think creatively and stay motivated,
affecting their personal well-being and the effectiveness and sustainability of the projects on
which they are working. As Darren says, "I wish I had more time to reach out more to volunteers
who have to know how wonderful job they're doing.
2.5

Conclusion
Findings from this study demonstrate that community science staff navigate multiple

roles in the course of their day-to-day work, often simultaneously. The implications of this are
that community science staff often find themselves juggling multiple identities, frequently due to
a lack of funding and limited staff capacity. This requirement to adopt multiple, often competing
roles is common in the community science landscape (i.e., inadequate funding), which can create
a significant risk of staff burnout among an overworked staff body. The normalization of
community science staff operating in multiple roles simultaneously cannot continue.
While this study provides valuable insights into the multiple roles the Canadian
community science enabler fills, some limitations should be considered. The sample size was
relatively small in relation to the many community science programs and staff across Canada,

42

which limits the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional study design
limits the ability to assess changes in staff motivations over time. Future research could address
these limitations by utilizing larger and more diverse samples across Canada. There is also a
need to conduct a longitudinal study to record shifts in staff engagement and motivations over
time to explore the impact of different program structures and support mechanisms.
Future studies could enhance present understandings of community science dynamics and
the vital staff members that make these programs possible in hopes of designing effective
programs that retain staff members. Program support from project management, the public, and
Government bodies is needed to ensure the success of projects while enabling staff to garner the
space and time needed to further develop their sense of self in and out of the workplace. The
value of community science to conservation planning and public engagement is clear, but this
value is not actualized in the form of support to project staff. By examining the experiences and
challenges faced by project staff working in community science, this study highlights the
complex nature of their work, where individuals often juggle tasks like data collection,
community outreach, and administrative duties simultaneously.
Given these demands faced by community science staff, it is clear that intervention is
needed to provide staff with the resources and funding necessary to reduce turnover, enhance job
satisfaction, and improve retention. Such support would not only help staff feel more valued and
empowered but also contribute to the long-term sustainability and impact of community science
projects across Canada.

43

CHAPTER 3: WORKING ACROSS BOUNDARIES: PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
EXPERIENCES IN SUPPORTING COMMUNITY SCIENCE IN CANADA

3.1

Introduction

The world is in a critical decade for climate action and biodiversity conservation (United
Nations Climate Change, 2022), and Canada contributes disproportionately to global ecosystem
services (Biodivcanada, n.d.). Unfortunately, in Canada habitat and biodiversity loss are at
critical levels. Among other trends, 70% of Prairie wetlands have been lost and over 80% of
wetlands in and around urban areas are compromised. Between 1970 and 2016, mammal and fish
populations decreased by 42% and 21% on average (Government of Canada, 2023). The decline
in species and habitats is particularly acute in southern areas of Canada. These areas have the
longest history of colonization, agricultural production, urban and industrial development, and
population growth (Kraus & Hebb, 2020). Despite some successful policy and management
responses, efforts have neither halted nor reversed biodiversity loss (Buxton et al., 2021).
The conservation sector in Canada is uniquely positioned to advance global biodiversity
goals, including those outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)
(Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022). By leveraging community science, the sector can
help achieve targets like Target 21, which aims to “ensure that knowledge is available and
accessible to guide biodiversity action” (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022). Combating
the biodiversity crises while addressing related challenges like climate change requires
innovative solutions that effectively translate policy to protect species at risk on a Provincial and
Federal scale (Johnson et al., 2020). A lack of information is not the major barrier to biodiversity
conservation, although mechanisms to translate information into action are urgently needed
44

(Buxton et al., 2021). Collaboration between community science programs and Provincial staff is
one way to facilitate the flow of vital data to policymakers to improve conservation outcomes
(McKinley et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2019).
To better understand this need, I examined government staff experiences working with
community science to better understand the nature of how knowledge developed in community
science programs is utilized in Canada’s biodiversity conservation policy arena. The field of
conservation faces significant uncertainty driven by climate change, fluctuating funding, and
political change (Lauber et al., 2011). Analyzing the internal and external social networks within
community science programs enables a deeper understanding of power dynamics and the
influence of program design on project success. This reflection provides a pathway to strengthen
the impact and sustainability of conservation efforts. I addressed the following research
questions: how and to what effect do community science and provincial staff engage with each
other; what mechanisms effectively promote the use of community science knowledge in
conservation planning, management, and public engagement to achieve biodiversity outcomes in
Canada?
3.2

Literature Review

3.2.1 Value of Community Science

To support the transformative change needed to conserve biodiversity across Canada,
policy and management responses must engage multiple ways of knowing (IPBES, 2024; Buxton
et al., 2021). As a platform for collaboration, community science is effective in addressing both
social and technical aspects of sustainability problems (Phillips et al., 2019). By engaging many
volunteers, community science projects offer a unique way to efficiently gather spatial and
45

temporal data over large areas (Kelling et al., 2015). Beyond the data, community science
projects can also build capacity by engendering deeper interest in participating in other
conservation actions among the public (Ballard et al., 2017). Among natural, social and data
scientists, community science is known to facilitate social change and biodiversity information
management (Buxton et al., 2021).
Community science projects have also emerged as an efficient way to fill the gap in
biodiversity data by gathering conservation information over large areas that would not be
otherwise feasible due to financial and time constraints (Kelling et al., 2015). Understanding the
current state of conservation data is essential for establishing the baseline on which decisions are
made. Recent studies documenting global biodiversity decline have identified major knowledge
gaps (Isbell et al., 2023). These knowledge gaps include large uncertainties in how many species
are threatened with extinction, and a lack of estimates of the impacts of global biodiversity loss
on ecosystems and people (Isbell et al., 2023). Community science can make valuable
contributions to conservation by increasing the scope of species monitoring efforts (Kelling et
al., 2015). Filling the gaps in data around the state of global biodiversity will remain difficult due
to the complexities of ecosystems, especially if other means of data collection such as
community science are not utilized and recognized as producing rigorous findings (Kelling et al.,
2015).
Community science is a means of social and political inclusion because it facilitates the
participation of the public in science with important governance implications (Bonney et al.,
2009). For example, Moscovich et al. (2023), in collaboration with the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and the city government of Córdoba Province, Argentina,
developed a community-based monitoring initiative. This project enabled citizens, scientists, and
46

government officials to work together to monitor, track, and respond to flooding issues in the
region. The involvement of local government officials proved beneficial in elevating the project's
results to inform policy decisions aimed at improving water quality and reducing flood risk.
Additionally, the three governments were willing to include the tool in their public policies and
one city expressed that it wished to start implementing new water quality controls that in the past
were in the hands of the provincial government (Moscovich et al., 2023). The project in
Argentina illustrates how community science initiatives can foster greater coordination among
government departments focused on specific issues like aquatic ecosystems. It also demonstrates
how responsibilities can be shared across different levels of government, while actively
involving the public in matters that impact their health and well-being.
Community science is also a tool used to enable the democratization of science and to
challenge existing power relations (Kelling et al., 2015). Environmental community science
programs improve the knowledge base of conservation science and can increase society’s support
for conservation planning and decision making (Bela et al., 2016). Integrating community
science programs into government-led conservation efforts enhances the visibility and public
acceptance of policy decisions by transforming conservation science into a more transparent,
inclusive, democratic, and socially relevant process (Bela et al., 2016). For instance, by
extensively using social media to share real-time results and engage both local and global
communities, an expert bioblitz featuring 117 researchers, over 50 students, and stakeholders
from government and industry contributed to the nomination of a Malaysian rainforest site as a
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserve
(Lowman et al., 2019).

47

The rise of community science digital platforms such as ebird and inaturalist has also
accelerated the uptake and accessibility of community science while promoting community
learning (Aristeidou et al., 2020). Increased prioritization of scientific literacy combined with
hands-on experiences collecting data can lead to social empowerment and bottom-up decision
making as confidence and knowledge grows (Bela et al., 2016). Community science also
challenges the assumption that promoting individual knowledge in isolation can solve
collectively created problems like climate change and biodiversity loss (Groulx et al., 2017).
Professional scientists may also benefit by working with non-scientists in new ways and creating
a shared understanding of conservation goals and fostering dialogue around innovative solutions
to complex planning problems (Bela et al., 2016).
3.2.2 Social Network Perspectives on Community Science

Adopting a social network perspective to analyze the engagement between community
science staff and government staff is vital because conservation challenges operate in complex
social-ecological systems marked by uncertainty (Lauber et al., 2011). A social network is
defined by the interaction of social actors, including relationships between humans, animals,
and/or actors that are not individuals at all (e.g. government bodies) (Freeman, 2004). Social
networks shape and influence knowledge uptake, learning, trust and collective action in
collaborative environmental initiatives (Bodin & Crona, 2009). In community science, social
networks are critical to developing important social processes like knowledge sharing,
communication, data uptake, and social capital (Bonney et al., 2023). A project’s capacity to
recruit and coordinate volunteers, collaborate with others, collect and share data and influence
policy decision-makers depends on the quality of the relationships within a network (Bonney et
al., 2023).
48

Understanding the social networks surrounding community science initiatives can reveal
how these relationships shape key activities such as leadership, knowledge translation, and
resource allocation (Bonney et al., 2023). This insight is especially important as new forms of
collaborative governance are explored to enhance project adaptability in an increasingly complex
conservation landscape (Bonney et al., 2023). A diverse range of actors are now partnering with
community science programs, each possessing different values, motivations and capacities to
exert influence (Wiens et al., 2023; Bonney et al., 2023). Social network perspectives have
proven useful in studying key issues in environmental governance, such as knowledge
translation, power relations, and individual behavior (Bonney et al., 2023). Essentially, social
network perspectives are a tool to better understand the degree of connectivity among individuals
and organizations and the implications of different network patterns and characteristics (Bodin &
Crona, 2009).
The three common network structures in community science projects are highlighted in
Figure 2.0. They inlcude: (a) a distributed network in which the number of “ties” between
individuals or organizations are equally distributed; (b) a decentralized network in which there
are multiple “hubs” of connectivity; and (c) a centralized network in which ties are connected to
a single or few actors (Bonney et al., 2023). Insights from natural resource governance literature
show that centralized networks are more efficient at solving simple and easily identified tasks but
can be vulnerable to asymmetric power relations and may not be appropriate for governing
social-ecological systems as they are less suited to solving complex tasks (Bodin & Crona,
2009). Alternatively, decentralized network structures have higher resilience, promote
deliberation and generate information at different parts and scales of the problem, although they
may require more intensive coordination efforts (Bonney et al., 2023; Huang, 2024). Lastly,
49

distributed networks can build trust and community capacity since all participants are equally
committed to the goals of the network (Bonney et al., 2023; Huang, 2024).

Figure 3.0: Examples of Network Structures in Community Science: (a) distributed, (b)
decentralized and (c) centralized networks (Bonney et al., 2023).

Social networks are important because having social relations leads to increased
possibilities for joint action and enhances knowledge and understanding through exposure to new
ideas and an increased amount of information (Lauber et al., 2011). Ultimately, who occupies
these leadership positions and how they utilize their favorable position has an impact on
governance outcomes. If actors in leadership roles are unaware of the need for, or unwilling to
engage in, collective action, they may end up blocking initiatives by others (Bodin & Crona,
2009).
The success of collaborative conservation efforts depends largely on the characteristics of
the pre-existing social networks such as the patterns of relationships between individuals and
organizations contributing to the conservation project or goal (Lauber et al., 2011; Bodin &
Crona, 2009). Lauber et al. (2011) note conservation networks evolve through four phases: 1)
50

organizational loyalty, 2) reconsideration, 3) partnership formation, and 4) partnership utilization
as seen in Table 5.0.
Table 5.0: Table Summarizing the Phases of Organizational Collaboration and Partnership
Development in Lauber et al. (2011). This table outlines the four phases of conservation
network evolution, as described by Lauber et al. (2011): organizational loyalty, reconsideration,
partnership formation, and partnership utilization. It serves as an analytical tool for identifying
how conservation networks evolve within different bodies, such as government organizations.

In the initial phase of organizational loyalty, conservation work occurs within individual
organizations and without collaboration due to institutional boundaries. For instance, BC Parks
may operate independently, focusing solely on its own conservation data collection and mission.
During the reconsideration phase, concerns and frustrations begin to emerge around issues such
as budget constraints, species-at-risk management, and limited access to data to inform
conservation decisions (BC Parks Foundation, 2025). This leads to the partnership formation
phase, where collaborative relationships begin to develop, such as BC Parks partnering with
iNaturalist and other community science initiatives (BC Parks Foundation, 2025). Eventually, as
trust deepens and common goals become more firmly established, the partnership enters the
utilization phase. At this stage, communication becomes less formal and more fluid, as both
parties work together more effectively to achieve mutual conservation outcomes (BC Parks
Foundation, 2025).
51

The biodiversity crisis may activate the partnership formation and utilization phases as
collaborative conservation efforts between government staff and the public grow to achieve
conservation outcomes and project success (Lauber et al., 2011). Understanding how provincial
government staff engage with community science is therefore vital to assess the future of
conservation programming as it relates to efforts to foster collaborative conservation.
3.3

Methodology

3.3.1 Case Study

Answering the study’s research questions requires a methodology that enables the
experiences of provincial staff to be shared freely while analyzing how their experiences are
situated within and shaped by the broader government-led biodiversity conservation field
(Philips et al., 2019). Case study is a suitable methodology for the present study to examine the
relationship between provincial staff and community science to provide in-depth data and
findings to answer the research questions (Hyett et al., 2014; Yin, 2018). Additionally, case study
makes use of naturally occurring sources of knowledge, such as people or observations of
interactions that occur in a physical space (Hyett et al., 2014).
Case study is not inherently a comparative research approach, as its goal is not to
generate findings that are universally generalizable, but to provide in-depth understandings of the
specific phenomenon being examined, rather than the individual case itself. (Hyett et al., 2014;
Yin, 2018). To address this limitation, provincial staff working with community science were
selected from across British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, offering a snapshot of staff
experiences in diverse geographic settings. Although this study focused on a limited number of
programs within Canada, the insights gained may be relevant to similar initiatives in other
52

provinces and countries, depending on program design. Capturing the current experiences of
provincial staff is essential for identifying strategies to enhance the use of community science in
the rapidly evolving field of biodiversity conservation.
3.3.2 Sampling

Criteria-based sampling was selected as an appropriate strategy for this study as it enabled
the researcher to focus on a specific subgroup of interest using predetermined criteria aligned
with the research questions (e.g. rather than relying on random selection) (Curtis et al., 2000).
Community science programs were identified using a combination of criteria-based and chain
sampling approaches. Criteria-based sampling enables the researcher to select participant
programs based on the extent they satisfy predetermined standards (Hay, 2000). Chain sampling
or snowball sampling involves finding study participants by asking existing informants to reach
out to others who may have relevant knowledge and be interested in participating (Hay, 2000).
Programs were selected based on their focus on biodiversity conservation and their efforts to
connect conservation science with policy in Canada. Initial programs were identified through
digital repositories such as CitSci, SciStarter, and the Government of Canada’s Citizen Science
Portal. Participants then referred additional programs through professional networks by sharing
the study invitation with colleagues involved in community science.
To be eligible for inclusion, community science programs had to meet the following criteria:
1. focus on biodiversity conservation;
2. have stated research and/or learning objectives that reflect a link between conservation
science and policy; and

53

3. be based in Canada or include data collection within Canadian territory.
Provincial government staff were selected using a chain sampling approach applied within
British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario to capture a range of perspectives from different
geographic and political contexts. Initial contacts were identified through searches of provincial
government staff directories, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC), and provincial and federal Parks websites. These participants were then asked to
share the study invitation with colleagues who had experience working with community science
at any point in their careers.
Chain sampling was particularly appropriate for identifying provincial staff, as chain
sampling relies on key informants to refer others with relevant expertise, an effective method for
reaching hard-to-access or specialized populations (Noy, 2008; Curtis et al., 2000). Given that
the researcher relinquishes direct control over the sampling process in this method, interviews
were conducted in phases to monitor the referral process while respecting participants’ time and
willingness to assist with recruitment.
The sample size for provincial staff was determined based on the principle of saturation.
Saturation occurs when no new themes or insights emerge during data collection, and responses
begin to repeat, indicating that a sufficient depth and breadth of data has been captured (SebeleMpofu, 2020). Achieving saturation is a key indicator of content validity as it demonstrates that
the data adequately reflects the complexity of the study (Morse, 2015). Importantly, saturation is
not a one-size-fits-all concept. As Sebele-Mpofu (2020) notes, what qualifies as saturation in one
context may not be adequate in another. Rather than implying that “everything has been said”,
saturation should be assessed by the completeness and coherence of the research findings
(Morse, 2015).
54

3.3.3 Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with provincial staff working in Canada’s
biodiversity conservation arena (Roulston & Choi, 2018). Semi-structured interviews were the
preferred interview method because this interview style enables participants to share their
experiences in an unrestricted way, which is essential to answer the research questions (Adams,
2015). The interview guide contained 11 open-ended questions and probes to guide the
conversation (Appendix A). The open-ended questions were designed to elicit an elaborated
response and extended reflection from participants, rather than questions that can be answered
with yes or no (Knott et al., 2022). The tone of each interview was relaxed and intended to feel
like a casual conversation to ensure comfort and encourage the conversation to expand beyond
the interview questions.
Interviews were carried out remotely, either through the ZOOM platform or by telephone,
based on each participant's preference. The ZOOM platform was chosen as virtual interviews
enabled recruitment and encouraged rich conversation by increasing comfort (Oliffe et al., 2021).
A key advantage of ZOOM is its ability to securely record and store sessions without recourse to
third-party software, which is particularly important in research where the protection of highly
sensitive data is required (Archibald et al., 2019). To combat challenges of the platform, such as
call connection and audio or video reliability and quality, interviews were hosted without video
to improve bandwidth. Interviews were rescheduled when connection quality was poor
(Archibald et al., 2019). Interviews ranged from thirty minutes to sixty minutes, with the average
interview being forty-five minutes. With participants' consent, interviews were recorded and
transcribed using the transcription feature in Zoom. The resulting transcripts were then reviewed
and cleaned before being securely stored, along with the consent letters, on SharePoint.
55

3.3.4 Data Analysis

A bottom-up thematic analysis was preferred as the process can be unrestricted by preexisting coding frameworks or personal preconceptions about the research (Guest et al., 2011).
Thematic analysis allows for either an inductive or deductive approach to analyzing data.
Inductive coding and theme development follows the 'bottom-up' process, where meaning and
interpretation emerge directly from the data itself (Terry et al., 2017). In this study, an inductive
approach was employed to support a data-driven analysis.
Cleaned transcripts were uploaded into the qualitative coding software MAXQDA. Codes
were developed by highlighting patterns and similarities in experiences shared amongst
provincial staff interviewees. The first stage of coding began with open coding of the transcripts,
where initial concepts and patterns were identified. Axial coding was then used to examine the
relationship between codes in order to identify concepts and begin organizing the codes into
categories, lastly, selective coding was used to move individual coded segments into categories
to form themes (Terry et al., 2017). Using Excel, direct quotes were selected from the codes that
best represented the common themes produced from interviews. The themes then referenced the
literature as another form of analysis to show the organizational structure and communication
networks present throughout each theme.
After coding the bottom-up themes were analyzed using the network structures in
community science provided by Bonney et al. (2023). To ensure the validity and reliability of the
study, several measures were taken. Cleaned transcripts were returned to participants for their
review and approval; a reflective journal was maintained throughout the study to monitor
potential biases or emotional influences and ensure objective coding of transcripts; and selected
56

direct quotes were sent back to interviewees within their intended context for confirmation and
approval (Cope, 2010).
3.4

Results and Discussion

Eleven provincial staff members from British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario were
interviewed. A total of 30 study recruitment emails were sent to staff, of which 19 declined,
largely due to community science initiatives being covered by a different department and leave
and/or vacation. Participants' roles within their department varied. Roles ranged from working in
provincial and federal parks, impact assessment, species at risk management, and volunteer
engagement. The overarching commonality among interviewees was that they all worked in a
decentralized network structure in which the program or department staff shared resources and
collaborated on community science projects without a central hub. This finding was unsurprising
as Canada is one of the world's most decentralized federations (Cooke et al., 2016).
Decentralized networks are favoured in complex policy contexts because actors can understand
and share information across different parts and scales of an environmental problem (Bonney et
al., 2023). A decentralized network may also pose difficulties in coordinating the entire network
to achieve collective goals (Bonney et al., 2023).
The following results section presents three themes. Insights from the interview data
detail how provincial staff navigate and experience their work within community science in a
decentralized network structure. These themes reflect inherent network challenges that affect the
functioning of various community science programs. The themes are titled integration, ephermal
participation, and siloed communication.

57

3.4.1 Theme 1: Integration

The Canadian governance and regulatory landscape for many environmental and
conservation management issues is highly decentralized, with the relevant constitutional powers
held by the provinces (Cooke et al., 2016). Decentralized networks aim to redistribute power,
authority, resources and accountability to lower levels to correct the inefficiencies of centralized
governance mechanisms (Kiwango et al., 2015). Decentralized networks can promote the
integration of community science into provincial science databases and decision-making
structures by enabling broad participation, data transparency, and resilience in data collection and
sharing (Bonney et al., 2023). In the province of Alberta, the Citizen Science Alberta Community
of Practice (CitSci Alberta) was created as such a hub to share ideas, information, and resources
to advance the design, delivery, and evaluation of community science in Alberta (Citizen Science
Alberta Community of Practice, 2025).
By integrating community science into Alberta's conservation planning and wildlife
management, community participation and transparent communication capture the benefits of
decentralized networks by ensuring that the data is traceable yet not controlled by a single entity.
A major benefit of utilizing community science as stated by interview participants is the fact that
data is shared with participants, communities, researchers, and government. Participants
emphasized that moving away from single points of data control fosters data empowerment and
breaks down data silos by promoting engagement, accountability, and knowledge sharing.
Participants also reported that the decentralized approach to integrating community
science data into conservation planning builds resilience in data collection by maintaining
continuity and reliability. In other words, data collection and use continues even when some
58

network nodes or participants change. Internal efficiencies are also improved through this
community science integration strategy because the approach reduces redundancy and avoids
duplication of data collection efforts (Bonney et al., 2023). Interview participants emphasize the
importance of sharing successful practices in hopes of improving collaboration and reducing
redundancy. As one participant noted:
"Within our community of practice, one thing that we try and do is not just showcase
projects but showcase the aspects of projects that make them successful, so that those
examples can be followed by other groups who are interested in similar or maybe
completely different questions …just like a safe place to talk about these things."
Samantha
Another participant similarly noted:
"I think [community science] needs to be more socialized, and I think that we need to
look at these informal programs or opportunities to engage other programs that are
running that we could be working with because why would we want to remake the wheel.
Let's use what exists and tweak what we might need to so that it's useful data for the
purposes we have." Jennifer
While decentralization is an administrative process, it is also a political process shaped by
demands for change in the status quo of managing biodiversity conservation (Kiwango et al.,
2015). The demands for change represent the interests of different actors in the decentralization
process, such as provincial staff and local advocacy groups (Kiwango et al., 2015). In the case of
Alberta, the interest in integrating community science into government conservation planning
and fostering collaboration with local programs comes from the office of the Chief Scientist and

59

shapes the degree, the extent, and the form of decentralization. The role of influential actors,
such as the Office of the Chief Scientist, reflects how institutional advocacy shapes the form and
extent of decentralization in Alberta’s conservation landscape, particularly in integrating
community science. Evidence of this can be seen in the following participant's comment:
"The Office of the Chief scientists are huge champions of citizen science in Alberta. So we
don't have a lot of staff or resources, but we do participate in the steering committee and
are founding members of the steering committee for the Alberta citizen science
community of practice." Samantha
3.4.2 Theme 2: Ephemeral Participation

In a decentralized network, responsibility is distributed amongst network participants,
which differs from centralized networks where accountability is often tied to a central authority
(Sueur et al., 2012). In the present study, provincial staff describe themselves as holding
distributed responsibilities within their positions, which also require simultaneous
accountabilities to the public. In recent decades, participants note that there has been a growing
push for increased opportunities for public participation in decision-making, particularly in the
natural resources and conservation realm (Sullivan, 2019; Sueur et al., 2012). Situated within a
decentralized network, this demand may encourage government staff to use community science
as an engagement tool. Given the need to meet the demand to demonstrate engagement,
participation can range from a hollow ritual aimed at appeasing the public to genuine
involvement where individuals have full authority over decisions that impact their lives
(Sullivan, 2019). Participatory processes can occur between these extremes at various points
within the decision-making process (Sullivan, 2019). Staff highlight their experiences with
60

community science programs designed solely for the purpose of public engagement. As one
participant noted:
"It's public engagement and education, as per the volunteer program. That's like our
primary goal of the volunteer program. However, when it's done really well, the citizen
science components really help with conservation goals" Krista
According to another participant:
"Knowing kind of loosely that [volunteers] may contribute to some effort in the future,
whether you know some are more obvious than others… that sort of like ability to just
collect a massive amount of data that may one day be of use to someone, if it like right
now it might, might not be anybody's focus" Ryan
It is important to highlight here that staff identify that community science may be used
solely for the purpose of public engagement and education, unbeknownst to the volunteer
participants. In such cases, volunteers may be recruited under the impression that "the program is
meant to encourage people to just slow down and connect with the natural world and make
observations…then also, you know, by participating in science, citizen science, I mean, we say
that your observations could inform our, you know, management of land" Ryan
Provincial staff in volunteer engagement roles focus on crafting meaningful and engaging
experiences that encourage public involvement in biodiversity conservation. These volunteer
coordinators often act with the best intentions, aiming to create positive and enriching
interactions for their visitors. However, when volunteer engagement teams operate separately
from researchers and scientists (who are often in different branches), the full potential of
community science as both a powerful engagement tool and a valuable method for data
61

collection is not fully realized. In short, when the properties of a decentralized network meet the
demands to demonstrate engagement, it can lead to undesired uses of community science.
As noted by Krista and Ryan, staff focused on visitor and volunteer engagement
recognize the value of community science both as an effective engagement tool and as a
meaningful method of data collection. However, a key observation that emerged from the
interviews was the ongoing challenge of delivering meaningful public engagement experiences
in the absence of a standardized framework for incorporating community science into
conservation planning. This is especially important when navigating efforts to collaborate with
biology and conservation departments to ensure the successful implementation of the program's
data component. Through experience, many interviewees have come to the realization that
community science programs centred solely around engagement often lead to shallow
experiences for the public and can harm the relationship between the public and provincial
government in the long term. This is particularly true if programs are not forthcoming that the
data that are being collected is not going anywhere, as evident in Chase’s statement.
"I've experienced that earlier on where, like, the sole goal was just engagement. It wasn't
about actually meaningfully leveraging that data. But in those experiences, I felt that the
experiences were a bit flatter, because it wasn't transparent, that the data wouldn't go
anywhere apparent, that this was just kind of like a learning opportunity to just
engage…like ephemeral participation in some instances... So I think there's a lot more
depth when the participants know what its contributing towards" Chase
In decentralized networks, effective communication between nodes is essential (Bonney
et al., 2023). Without the early involvement of provincial staff specializing in biodiversity data
during the planning stages of community science initiatives, participants may end up with a
62

superficial experience lacking depth and scientific relevance. What leads to genuine engagement
in a decentralized network is collaborative planning and clear communication lines between
provincial departments to develop community science programs with transparent project goals
shared with participants. Collaborative platforms like the Alberta Citizen Science Community of
Practice are needed for staff to share experiences, ideas, and lessons learned to foster meaningful
engagement while contributing to conservation efforts.
3.4.3 Theme 3: Siloed Communication

Although a decentralized network can promote deliberation and generate information at
different parts and scales of the problem, intensive coordination to distribute knowledge is
required (Bonney et al., 2023; Hwang & Krackhardt, 2020). Intensive coordination is necessary
within a decentralized network because the division and distance across teams and specialties
form communication barriers (Hwang & Krackhardt, 2020). These communication barriers then
create isolated pockets of knowledge that are divided by geographic location and expertise
(Hwang & Krackhardt, 2020), which can hamper an organization's ability productivity in the
long run (Hwang & Krackhardt, 2020). The need for coordination and the challenges of
fragmented communication are clearly recognized by the staff themselves, highlighted by a
participant:
"It still feels quite disjointed across government, because it's in one unit… I think we need
that strong leadership role to say, this is what we're doing, here's where we're at, here's
how it's going to move forward, right?" Jennifer
A similar perspective was shared by Chase:

63

"It's no secret that between governmental agencies, we have very distinct information
silos that we're not very good at cross-pollinating information on common conservation
issues, threats, and goals. We're not doing a great job at simultaneously learning and
contributing towards one another's development in some of those goals and issues."
Chase
"There are lost efficiencies, for sure, and there are sometimes duplications of efforts.
You're maybe not connecting with the right people at the right time without potentially
accessing and knowing who's working on what when? Because, even with like, pretty
significant discoveries and finds in science…sometimes it's not published until a couple
years later" Chase
Terms such as "disjointed" and "siloed" were used to describe the integration of
community science into government platforms and networks. As previously discussed, the
success of collaborative conservation efforts depends largely on the characteristics of the preexisting social networks (Lauber et al., 2011; Bodin & Crona, 2009). Participants expressed that
the success and impact of existing community science programs led by provincial staff are
restricted by information silos. Although important conservation data are collected at various
scales, the current decentralized network lacks strong coordination efforts to boost staff capacity
and improve project efficiency and knowledge dissemination.
There is a clear connection between the role of the community science "enabler"
discussed in the previous chapter and how provincial government staff engage with the need for
knowledge exchange. The ‘enabler’ is identified as being a core team member who often takes
on multiple roles, such as networking, project start-up and implementation, and program
facilitation (Salmon et al., 2021). However, of the community science programs studied and
64

provincial staff interviewed, there is little evidence that formal investment has been made to
support this critical role.
A lack of support for the functions the enabler provides, combined with siloed
communication, undermines both provincially led and community-driven initiatives. As a result,
the challenges and successes of these programs often rest on the shoulders of just one individual
or a small group, limiting program scalability and long-term project success. A promising
example is the Together For Wildlife Strategies Community Science Framework in British
Columbia, which demonstrates a deliberate effort by provincial governments to invest in support
systems for the "enabler" role (Judson et al., 2023). These initiatives enhance program success by
improving data usability, breaking down knowledge silos, and increasing staff capacity, all while
fostering meaningful public engagement.
Provincial staff note that under current operations, they lack the capacity to understand
how community science could benefit their own work, let alone capacity to understand how they
might share that knowledge with colleagues. Without strategic guidance on how to best engage
with community science, the potential for community science to enhance spatial and temporal
data collection and foster conservation outcomes in Canada remains largely untapped. This
sentiment is echoed by provincial staff, who emphasize the need for greater collaboration and
knowledge sharing to fully realize the benefits of community science. As highlighted by Chase:
"Having those silos dissolve, more community [and] more connective collaboration on certain
topics will just help fast track knowledge, like the understanding of some of those concepts, and
then more quickly, hopefully react and develop the policies needed quicker." Chase
According to Thomas:

65

"I don't think most Practitioners in this space frankly have the time to consider how
community science at large might be relevant to their work. And there's a lot to be gained
through systematically looking at what community science programs exist, and how they
are relevant to the things that you're already focusing on. But I'm not seeing that strategic
level of engagement in the field yet." Thomas
3.5

Conclusion

Findings from this study show that while some provinces have established community
science communication platforms, such as the Alberta Citizen Science Community of Practice
and the Together For Wildlife Strategies Community Science Framework in British Columbia,
others lack a coordinated strategy to integrate community science into conservation data
collection and engagement (Judson et al., 2023). As a result, staff face common challenges
associated with decentralized networks, including struggling to advance conservation goals
within knowledge silos.
Findings from the present study are significant for several reasons. First, findings help
identify the type of social network provincial staff work within. Second, they capture the
experiences, perspectives, and challenges faced by these staff when engaging with community
science in a decentralized network. Lastly, through intentional communication and collaboration
across departments, findings identify the critical priority of shifting from short-term, ephemeral
efforts to engage the public through community science to approaches that are thoughtfully
designed and have a lasting impact. This insight is critical in understanding what is needed to
break down communication barriers, improve knowledge sharing, and elevate community

66

science as a credible and effective tool for conservation related data collection and public
engagement across Canada.
Findings also indicate that the level of engagement between provincial staff and
community science programs varies. Most programs examined were government-led or initiated,
and much of the support for community science comes from staff who have worked with
community science and are involved in conservation data and engagement focused roles. These
individuals often use their knowledge and passion to champion community science within and
across government departments. The Alberta Citizen Science Community of Practice serves as a
strong example of this. Staff in Alberta actively address the challenges of decentralized networks,
such as limited communication and fragmented knowledge, by supporting non-governmental
community science programs. Their efforts help build internal capacity and expand the role of
community science in government, demonstrating the positive impact of dedicated investment
and collaboration.
Several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. The generalizability of the
findings is constrained by the relatively small sample size, especially considering the wide range
of community science programs operating across Canada. Additionally, the timing of the study
coincided with both provincial and federal elections, which may have affected participant
availability and broader engagement. Future research should address these limitations by
incorporating larger and more diverse samples across different provinces. Additionally, further
studies could explore targeted social network interventions to better understand the complexities
of the current decentralized provincial systems and to support the development of effective
community science platforms for conservation planning and management.

67

Overall, provincial governments must make intentional investments in community
science engagement platforms to facilitate knowledge sharing, strengthen staff capacity, access
valuable conservation data, and create more opportunities for genuine public involvement. The
full potential of community science as both a powerful engagement tool and a valuable method
for data collection cannot be realized when volunteer engagement teams operate in isolation
from researchers across different government branches. Addressing the biodiversity crisis
demands innovative approaches, but without dedicated government support, provincial staff are
left to develop meaningful community science programs with limited resources, experience, and
without the backing of a community science framework or community of practice. As a result,
community science risks remaining an underutilized resource, with missed opportunities for
relationship-building between government and the public, and a loss of continuity due to
duplicated efforts and staff turnover.

68

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION
4.1 Introduction

Canada’s conservation sector faces a mounting set of challenges amid the global
biodiversity crisis (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2022). Despite international
commitments and the development of provincial biodiversity strategies, Canada continues to see
a rise in the number of species at risk, reflecting a broader failure to halt ecological degradation
(Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2022). The conservation system is characterized by
decentralization, inter-jurisdictional complexity, and siloed communication across departments
and agencies, all of which make coordinated biodiversity action difficult (Bonney et al., 2023).
While policy frameworks exist at both national and provincial levels, these mechanisms often
fall short in facilitating inclusive, adaptive, and community-informed conservation strategies
(Bernstein, 2022).
A key issue contributing to the ongoing crisis described throughout this thesis is the
limited and inconsistent engagement of the public in conservation planning and implementation
(Buxton et al., 2021). While public engagement is widely acknowledged as critical to achieving
conservation outcomes, it is often underprioritized or treated as an afterthought (Bennett et al.,
2021). Engagement efforts that lack feedback mechanisms or fail to reflect diverse community
values risk reinforcing public apathy and distrust, keeping biodiversity loss at the margins of
social concern (Buxton et al., 2021). In contrast, genuine community involvement has been
shown to significantly enhance conservation legitimacy, implementation, and success (Bonney et
al., 2016).
69

Community science has emerged as a promising avenue for addressing both ecological
and social dimensions of conservation challenges (Charles et al., 2020). Community science
engages individuals and groups in data collection and environmental monitoring. Scholars argue
that these programs offer multiple benefits by generating large-scale data across time and space,
increasing environmental literacy, empowering local communities, and promoting sustained
conservation behaviors among participants (Bonney et al., 2016). Importantly, community
science can also provide a mechanism for incorporating place-based knowledge and lived
experience into conservation decision-making (Kelling et al., 2015). Beyond this, the ability of
community science to democratize science and expand who is seen as a legitimate knowledge
holder makes it particularly valuable in the context of complex environmental problems that
require diverse forms of expertise and public support (Kelling et al., 2015).
Despite these strengths, current understandings of community science remain incomplete
in several key areas, particularly when it comes to the internal operations and external
relationships of community science programs (Bonney et al., 2023). Much of the existing
literature has focused on volunteer motivations or data reliability, while overlooking the
experiences of community science program staff (Kelling et al., 2015). These staff often navigate
funding constraints, manage large networks of volunteers, and coordinate with government
actors, yet their voices are rarely centered in research. This thesis addressed these limitations by
investigating the experiences and motivations of community science staff, as well as the
relationship between community science and provincial government staff in British Columbia,
Alberta, and Ontario. By examining how knowledge is constructed and shared across these
groups, this research sheds light on the institutional and relational dynamics that affect the

70

uptake, effectiveness, and sustainability of community science in Canada’s conservation
landscape.
4.2

Summary of key findings

Findings reported in this thesis reveal that the level of engagement varied between
community science and provincial staff. The engagement with community science at a provincial
level was largely initiated by provincial staff, although some programs emerged through initial
collaboration requests from community science staff to work with provincial teams. Prior
knowledge and experience with community science were major assets and motivators for
provincial staff to work with community science.
The strategic design of platforms such as the Alberta Citizen Science Community of Practice
appears to be an effective mechanism to promote the use of community science at all levels of
conservation planning. Findings suggest that by sharing project successes and failures in a
welcoming environment, similar platforms can ensure that the wheel is not being reinvented.
Other benefits include dismantling knowledge silos and improving broader education about the
benefits of working with community science across provincial departments. The overarching
finding of the second manuscript was that communication across provincial departments working
in conservation is not occurring to the degree necessary to successfully utilize community
science programs for data collection and public education. Immediate intervention is needed to
improve the cross-pollination and efficiency of ideas and knowledge across departments to
successfully navigate working within a decentralized network.
Focusing on community science staff, the overarching finding of the first manuscript is that
autonomous motivations draw staff into the roles of the Facilitator, the Networker, and the
71

Innovator. These motivations include feelings of contributing to something greater than
themselves, sharing knowledge with the public, a passion for the natural environment, alignment
with the program’s mission or objective, connection with community, and ultimately the hands
on training and data collection of the design of the program.
The controlled motivations that drive staff to stay in the program and often assume multiple
roles simultaneously at the risk of burning out stem from the pressure to ensure program survival
in the face of staff capacity issues and funding shortages. Other key influences include the
vulnerability of many programs to major knowledge loss when senior staff retire, the feeling of
responsibility to the community, the environment and/or specific species being monitored.
Staff experiences pre- and post-involvement with community science shape their sense of
self at work. The best way to explain this phenomenon is through role theory as staff assume
multiple roles simultaneously because their sense of self is tied to the success and continuation of
the program. Experiences such as having a positive experience with family fishing lead to the
individual being initially drawn to community science and filling roles like the Networker, as the
work aligns with their values and identity. Over time, the positive experiences like achieving data
collection goals or organizing a successful community event, and the negative experiences of
funding shortages, drive staff to assume multiple roles at once. This pursuit is shaped by the fact
that their sense of self is increasingly tied to the passion and success they feel at their jobs and to
a drive to ensure program survival so that their work continues to have an impact. The
experience of working with like-minded people who share the same passion for the environment
shapes how staff view themselves and their community in contributing something greater beyond
themselves.

72

4.3

Study Implications

Interviews and a review of the literature reveal new insights into the experiences and
challenges faced by both community science practitioners and provincial government staff when
engaging in community science initiatives. The provincial and federal governments of Canada
have the potential to advance key conservation goals, such as halting human-induced extinction
of known threatened species, as stated in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
2050 Goals. One promising avenue to achieve such goals is through the strategic support of
grassroots programs like community science. These programs not only generate large, valuable
datasets, but also enhance public scientific literacy (Bonney et al., 2016). In doing so,
community science serves as both a practical tool for meeting biodiversity targets and a means to
foster public trust and support for conservation efforts, especially important in an era of growing
skepticism toward government institutions (Fairbrother, 2017).
Despite the prospects of community science, both government agencies and community
science organizations often face capacity constraints, with staff stretched thin. Initiatives like the
Together For Wildlife Community Science Framework in British Columbia can help alleviate
these challenges. By providing a platform for sharing lessons learned, success stories, and
available support mechanisms, such networks reduce the burden of navigating program
development in isolation. Reflecting on the ‘best type’ of network in the Canadian conservation
sphere may ultimately be unproductive, as moving away from a decentralized network would
involve changing the structure of governance altogether. Moreover, there is nothing inherently
wrong with a decentralized network, but it does require consistent collaboration efforts to
maintain communication (Bonney et al., 2023). Actors must recognize the challenges associated
with working within a decentralized network and prioritize collaboration and communication
73

with external programs and across government departments to improve the flow of information
and efficiencies.
As a conservation practitioner working with the British Columbia Conservation
Foundation, I’ve found that one of the most daunting aspects of launching new community
science initiatives is simply knowing where to begin and how to ensure the program is both
meaningful and engaging to the public. Platforms like a community of practice make these
challenges more manageable. They facilitate experience-sharing and empower participants by
showing that their contributions are valued and impactful, ultimately helping to build more
resilient and effective conservation programs.
An international example of a community of practice that the Canadian conservation
sector could learn from is the Australian Citizen Science Association (ACSA) (Australian Citizen
Science Association, 2022). The ACSA International Citizen Science Community of Practice
launched in March 2022 and was developed with a clear purpose to help Australian practitioners
better understand the global citizen science landscape in order to identify opportunities for
international collaboration. The design of the ACSA community of practice was intentional, with
membership open to citizen science practitioners from all regions and sectors across Australia
(Australian Citizen Science Association, 2022). The community of practice governance
documents also outline a set of structured activities, including a two-year engagement plan,
regular bi-monthly meetings, and two online workshops aimed at co-developing its objectives
and action plan (Australian Citizen Science Association, 2022).
One of the most surprising findings of this research is how little attention has been given
to the inner workings of Canadian community science programs within the literature, particularly
when it comes to staff roles and motivations. Drawing from experience in the not-for-profit
74

sector, burnout, juggling multiple roles, working unpaid overtime, and enduring chronic stress
are often seen as unavoidable realities justified by a shared passion for the work. While this
situation may be normalized, it should not be accepted as inevitable or beyond critique.
This research sheds light on a long-standing but often overlooked issue of staff who are
overworked and under-resourced yet still expected to deliver exceptional results to justify the
credibility of the program to receive funding. Most organizations lack the time or capacity to
closely examine their internal dynamics. This study offers tools and insights that allow
community science programs to assess and improve their staffing structures in practical and
actionable ways. By identifying key staff roles such as the facilitator, the networker, and the
innovator, and mapping network structures, this study may help organizations recognize the
warning signs before they reach a breaking point.
4.4

Considerations and Limitations of the Study

A potential limitation of this study was that the sample size was relatively small in
relation to the many community science programs across Canada, which may limit the
generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional study design limits the ability to
assess changes in staff motivation over time. It should also be noted that both provincial and
federal elections occurred during this study. The sample size could have been impacted,
particularly for provincial staff.
The decision to focus the study on provinces (British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario)
with a high concentration of community science programs may influence the findings by
potentially overlooking insights from provinces where such programs are less visible or less
developed. The use of video-conferencing for interviews may have also limited the ability to
75

build rapport with interviewees, as the lack of in-person interaction can reduce opportunities for
informal conversation. Lastly, affirmation bias by interviewees could have occurred, where
participants will shape their response based on what they think the interviewer wants to hear.
4.5

Ideas for Future Research

Future research could explore targeted social network intervention strategies through a
pilot study in collaboration with provincial departments. Given the findings here, a key aim
could be enhancing internal communication and fostering stronger engagement among staff
involved in community science initiatives. The knowledge and communication silos are widely
known across government departments but there is little research done on how to effectively fix
these silos as they relate to complex functions like community science.
Another key component of future research should be a longitudinal study that tracks
changes in staff engagement and motivation over time, particularly in relation to different
program structures and levels of institutional support. The documentation of the evolution of
professional/personal identity, shifting priorities, and workflow patterns is critical to informing
strategies for sustained engagement and capacity building in community science. Despite this
there is no research on this topic. This study identified that a change in staff's initial motivation
does occur over time, but confirmatory research through a longitudinal study is needed.
Finally, there is a need to explore the feasibility of developing a community science
engagement platform. Such a platform would enable provincial staff to directly connect with
existing community science programs to discuss project development, understand public
interests, recruit youth, and more. It could be designed to foster collaboration, knowledge
sharing, and peer support among provincial staff across jurisdictions. Any centralized community
76

science engagement platform could either reproduce or disrupt the existing hierarchies in
government departments, as newer staff may feel uncomfortable sharing knowledge and new
ideas. A study building on known community science engagement platforms is needed to ensure
that provincial and federal platforms empower all participants.
4.6

Final Thoughts

The results from this study are a valuable resource to community science staff and
provincial and federal staff working across Canada in the conservation sector. Results are also
relevant to organizations and researchers outside of government, such as not-for-profits involved
in conservation. This project provides a case study of community science and provincial staff in
British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario experiences and engagement with community science.
Findings from this study identify a need for intentional financial and time investment
from provincial and federal governments into community science programs to improve the
funding landscape and increase both program and government staff capacity. A Government-led
Citizen Science Community of Practice to encourage cross-department knowledge sharing
amongst provincial staff and program support for community science staff is also needed.
Finally, as community science staff often occupy a very complex work environment, workload
assessments facilitated by program directors are required to help identify staff who are on the
brink of burnout and/or to identify how roles can be dispersed amongst staff who have more
capacity.
Finally, the collaborative grassroots foundation of community science stands in stark
contrast to the provincial conservation system, which operates within a decentralized but
ultimately top-down network (Bonney et al., 2023). Integrating an engaging, bottom-up model
77

like community science into a structure characterized by siloed communication and limited
cross-agency collaboration presents a significant challenge. These structural features make it
difficult to shift conservation in Canada from a traditionally top-down approach to one that is
inclusive and community-driven. Deliberate efforts like this project, which calls for dialogue
between community science and provincial government staff, are critical to breaking down these
silos. Collaboration is essential to developing a conservation model that reflects and includes the
voices, experiences, and knowledge of those directly involved on the ground (Bonney et al.,
2016).

78

References

Acorn, J. H. (2017). Entomological Citizen Science in Canada. The Canadian Entomologist, 149(6),
774-785.
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi‐structured interviews. Handbook of practical program
evaluation, 492-505.
Agnello, G., Vercammen, A., & Knight, A. T. (2022). Understanding citizen scientists’ willingness to
invest in, and advocate for, conservation. Biological Conservation, 265, 109422.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109422.
Anglin, A. H., Kincaid, P. A., Short, J. C., & Allen, D. G. (2022). Role Theory Perspectives: Past,
Present, and Future Applications of Role Theories in Management Research. Journal of
Management, 48(6), 1469-1502. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221081442.
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using Zoom
Videoconferencing for Qualitative Data Collection: Perceptions and Experiences of Researchers
and Participants. International journal of qualitative methods, 18, 1609406919874596.
Attia, Y. (2024). The Annual Christmas Bird Count Celebrates 125 years in Canada. Birds Canada |
Oiseaux Canada. https://www.birdscanada.org/the-annual-christmas-bird-count-celebrates-125years-in-canada.
Australian Citizen Science Association. (2022, March 30). ACSA International Citizen Science
Community of Practice – March 2022. https://citizenscience.org.au/2022/03/30/acsainternational-citizen-science-community-of-practice-march-2022/.

79

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.
BC Parks Foundation. (2025). Wildlife forever. https://bcparksfoundation.ca/projects/wildlife-forever/.
Beazley, K. F., Olive, A., & Finegan, C. (2024). From Politics to Transformative Politics of Nature in
Canada. TRANSFORMATIVE POLITICS OF NATURE, 7.
Bela, G., Peltola, T., Young, J. C., Balázs, B., Arpin, I., Pataki, G., ... & Bonn, A. (2016). Learning and
the Transformative Potential of Citizen Science. Conservation Biology, 30(5), 990-999.
Bennett, J. R., Reid, A. J., Shulman, C., Cooke, S. J., Francis, C. M., Nyboer, E. A., Pritchard, G.,
Binley, A. D., Avery-Gomm, S., Ban, N. C., Beazley, K. F., Bennett, E., Blight, L. K., Bortolotti,
L. E., Camfield, A. F., Gadallah, F., Jacob, A. L., Naujokaitis-Lewis, I., … Smith, P. A. (2021).
Key Information Needs to Move from Knowledge to Action for Biodiversity Conservation in
Canada. Biological Conservation, 256, 108983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108983.
Bernstein , J. (2022, October 17). Canada, host of the UN Biodiversity Summit, is struggling to meet its
own targets | CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/canada-failing-to-meet-biodiversitytargets-1.6610259.
Berti Suman, A., & Alblas, E. (2023). Exploring Citizen Science Over Time: Sensing, Technology and
the Law. Sustainability, 15(5), 4496.
Betten, A. W., Broerse, J. E., & Kupper, F. (2018). Dynamics of Problem Setting and Framing in Citizen
Discussions on Synthetic Biology. Public Understanding of Science, 27(3), 294-309.

80

Biodivcanada. (n.d.). Canada’s 6th National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
biodivcanada.ca. https://www.biodivcanada.ca/reports/national-reports-to-cbd/6th-nationalreport.
Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The Role of Social Networks in Natural Resource Governance: What
Relational Patterns Make a Difference?. Global environmental change, 19(3), 366-374.
Bonney, P. R., Hansen, B. D., & Baldwin, C. (2023). Citizen Science and Natural Resource
Management: a Social Network Analysis of Two Community-Based Water Monitoring
Programs. Society & Natural Resources, 36(6), 600-621.
Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., & Enck, J. W. (2016). Can Citizen Science Enhance Public
Understanding of Science?. Public understanding of science, 25(1), 2-16.
Bott, S., Cantrill, J. G., & Myers, O. E. (2003). Place and the Promise of Conservation Psychology.
Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 100–112. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24706959.
Buxton, R. T., Bennett, J. R., Reid, A. J., Shulman, C., Cooke, S. J., Francis, C. M., ... & Smith, P. A.
(2021). Key information needs to move from knowledge to action for biodiversity conservation
in Canada. Biological Conservation, 256, 108983.
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., ... & Walker, K. (2020).
Purposive Sampling: Complex or Simple? Research Case Examples. Journal of research in
Nursing, 25(8), 652-661.
Chacón, F., Gutiérrez, G., Sauto, V., Vecina, M. L., & Pérez, A. (2017). Volunteer Functions Inventory: A
Systematic Review. Psicothema, 29(3), 306-316.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE.
81

Charles, A., Loucks, L., Berkes, F., & Armitage, D. (2020). Community science: A Typology and its
Implications for Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Environmental Science &
Policy, 106, 77-86.
Citizen Science Alberta Community of Practice. (2024). Home. CitSci Alberta. https://citscialberta.com/.
Clarke, V. & Braun, V. (2017) Thematic Analysis, The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12:3, 297-298,
DOI: 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613.
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998).
Understanding and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/00223514.74.6.1516.
Cooke, S. J., Rice, J. C., Prior, K. A., Bloom, R., Jensen, O., Browne, D. R., ... & Auld, G. (2016). The
Canadian Context for Evidence-Based Conservation and Environmental
Management. Environmental Evidence, 5, 1-9.
Cope, M. (2010). A History of Qualitative Research in Geography. The SAGE handbook of qualitative
geography, 25-45.
Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G., & Washburn, S. (2000). Approaches to Sampling and Case Selection in
Qualitative eRsearch: Examples in the Geography of Health. Social Science & Medicine,
50(7–8), 1001–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00350-0.
DeCaro, D., & Stokes, M. (2008). Social‐Psychological Principles of Community‐Cased Conservation
and Conservancy Motivation: Attaining Goals within an Autonomy‐Supportive
Environment. Conservation biology, 22(6), 1443-1451.

82

Dudovskiy, J. (2018). The Ultimate Guide to Writing a Dissertation in Business Studies: A Step-by-Step
Assistance, BRM Edition.
Eitzel, M., Cappadonna, J., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R., West, S. E., Virapongse, A., ... & Jiang, Q.
(2017). Citizen Science Terminology Matters: Exploring Key Terms. Citizen science: Theory and
practice, 1-20.
Evans, C., Abrams, E., Reitsma, R., Roux, K., Salmonsen, L., & Marra, P. P. (2005). The Neighborhood
Nestwatch Program: Participant Outcomes of a Citizen-Science Ecological Research
Project. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 589-594.
Fairbrother, M. (2017). Environmental Attitudes and the Politics of Distrust. Sociology Compass, 11(5),
e12482.
Fletcher, M., & Plakoyiannaki, E. (2010). Sampling in Case Study Research. Encylopedia of Case Study
Research (pp. 837-840). Sage Publications Ltd.
Freeman, L. (2004). The Development of Social Network Analysis. A Study in the Sociology of
Science, 1(687), 159-167.
Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S. & Everett, G. (2016). Understanding Motivations for
Citizen Science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm
Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England.
Giakoumi, S., McGowan, J., Mills, M., Beger, M., Bustamante, R. H., Charles, A., ... & Possingham, H.
P. (2018). Revisiting “Success” and “Failure” of Marine Protected Areas: a Conservation
Acientist Perspective. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 223.

83

González-Gómez, H. V., & Hudson, S. (2024). Employee Frustration with Information Systems:
Appraisals and Resources. European Management Journal, 42(3), 425-436.
Government of Alberta. (2025). Biodiversity in Alberta. Alberta.ca. https://www.alberta.ca/biodiversityin-alberta.
Government of British Columbia. (2024, September 13). Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Related
Initiatives in B.C. Province of British Columbia.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animalsecosystems/biodiversity/initiatives.
Government of Canada. (2023, May 15). Toward a 2030 Biodiversity Strategy for Canada: Halting and
reversing nature loss. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/wildlifeplantsspecies/biodiversity/2030-biodiversity-strategy-canada.html.
Groulx, M., Brisbois, M. C., Lemieux, C. J., Winegardner, A., & Fishback, L. (2017). A Role for NatureBased Citizen Science in Promoting Individual and Collective Climate Change Action? A
Systematic Review of Learning Outcomes. Science Communication, 39(1), 45-76.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. Sage Publications.
Hay, I. (2000). Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography.
Hecker, S. and Taddicken, M. (2022). Deconstructing Citizen Science: a Framework on Communication
and Interaction using the Concept of Roles JCOM 21(01), A07.
https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21010207.

84

Hsu, C.-H., Kao, W.-C., & Chai, L. (2023). Revolutionizing Informal Education: Intersection of Citizen
Science and Learning Theories. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science
Education, 19(4), e2319. https://doi.org/10.29333/ijese/13726.
Huang, T. (2024). Decentralized Social Networks and the Future of Free Speech Online. Computer Law
& Security Review, 55, 106059.
Hwang, E. H., & Krackhardt, D. (2020). Online Knowledge Communities: Breaking or Sustaining
Knowledge Silos?. Production and Operations Management, 29(1), 138-155.
Hyett, N., Kenny, A., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2014). Methodology or Method? A critical Review of
Qualitative Case Study Reports. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and WellBeing, 9(1), 23606. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v9.23606.
Johnson, C. A., Sutherland, G. D., Neave, E., Leblond, M., Kirby, P., Superbie, C., & McLoughlin, P. D.
(2020). Science to Inform Policy: Linking Population Dynamics to Habitat for a Threatened
Species in Canada. Journal of Applied Ecology, 57(7), 1314–1327. https://doi.org/10.1111/13652664.13637.
Johnson, K. E., & Stake, R. E. (1996). The Art of Case Study Research. The Modern Language Journal,
80(4), 556. https://doi.org/10.2307/329758.
Judson, B., Carr, J., & Starzomski, B. (2023, April 9). Together for Wildlife Strategy Goal 2, Action 6:
Community Science Framework for Together for Wildlife. Province of British Columbia.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/wildlifewildlife-habitat/together-for-wildlife/implementation/t4w_community_science_framework__phase_i.pdf

85

Kelling, S., Fink, D., La Sorte, F. A., Johnston, A., Bruns, N. E., & Hochachka, W. M. (2015). Taking a
‘Big Data’ Approach to Data Quality in a Citizen Science Project. Ambio, 44(S4), 601–611.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0710-4.
Kiwango, W. A., Komakech, H. C., Tarimo, T. M., & Martz, L. (2015). Decentralized environmental
Governance: A Reflection on its Role in Shaping Wildlife Management Areas in
Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 8(4), 1080-1097.
Knott, E., Teeger , C., Summers, K., & Hamid Rao, A. (2022). Interviews in the Social Sciences. Nature
Reviews Methods Primers, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00166-y.
Koestner, R., Otis, N., Powers, T. A., Pelletier, L., & Gagnon, H. (2008). Autonomous Motivation,
Controlled Motivation, and Goal Progress. Journal of personality, 76(5), 1201-1230.
Kraus, D., & Hebb, A. (2020). Southern Canada’s Crisis Ecoregions: Identifying the Most Significant
and Threatened Places for Biodiversity Conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 29(13),
3573– 3590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-020-02038-x.
Lakomý, M., Hlavová, R., Machackova, H., Bohlin, G., Lindholm, M., Bertero, M. G., & Dettenhofer,
M. (2020). The Motivation for Citizens’ Involvement in Life Sciences Research is Predicted by
Age and Gender. PLOS ONE, 15(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237140.
Larson, L. R., Cooper, C. B., Futch, S., Singh, D., Shipley, N. J., Dale, K., LeBaron, G. S., & Takekawa,
J. Y. (2020). The Diverse Motivations of Citizen Scientists: Does Conservation Emphasis Grow
as Volunteer Participation Progresses? Biological Conservation, 242, 108428.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108428.

86

Lauber, T. B., Stedman, R. C., Decker, D. J., Knuth, B. A., & Simon, C. N. (2011). Social Network
Dynamics in Collaborative Conservation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16(4), 259-272.
Lin, H. Y., Binley, A. D., Schuster, R., Rodewald, A. D., Buxton, R., & Bennett, J. R. (2022). Using
Community Science Data to Help Identify Threatened Species Occurrences Outside of Known
Ranges. Biological Conservation, 268, 109523.
Lin Hunter, D. E., Knebel, C. A., Newman, G. J., & Balgopal, M. M. (2024). Misalignment Between
Citizen Science Project Leaders and their Organizations Increases the Challenges they Face
Achieving Project Outcomes. Society & Natural Resources, 37(7), 1017-1034.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current directions in
psychological science, 15(5), 265-268.
Lowman, M., Ruppert, N., & Mohd Nor, S. A. (2019). Further Advancing the Expert Bioblitz for the
Rainforest Conservation Toolkit. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(1), e2.
Marks, L., Laird, Y., Trevena, H., Smith, B. J., & Rowbotham, S. (2022). A Scoping Review of Citizen
Science Approaches in Chronic Disease Prevention. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.743348.
Maund, P. R., Irvine, K. N., Lawson, B., Steadman, J., Risely, K., Cunningham, A. A., & Davies, Z. G.
(2020). What Motivates the Masses: Understanding Why People Contribute to Conservation
Citizen Science Projects. Biological Conservation, 246, 108587.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108587.
McKinley, D. C., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Ballard, H. L., Bonney, R., Brown, H., Cook-Patton, S. C.,
Evans, D. M., French, R. A., Parrish, J. K., Phillips, T. B., Ryan, S. F., Shanley, L. A., Shirk, J.

87

L., Stepenuck, K. F., Weltzin, J. F., Wiggins, A., Boyle, O. D., Briggs, R. D., Chapin, S. F., …
Soukup, M. A. (2017). Citizen Science Can Improve Conservation Science, Natural Resource
Management, and Environmental Protection. Biological Conservation, 208, 15–28.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.015.
Miller-Rushing, A. J., Primack, R. B., Bonney, R., & Albee, E. (2020). The History of Citizen Science in
Ecology and Conservation. Handbook of citizen science in ecology and conservation, 17-24.
Morse, J. M. (2015). “Data were Saturated . . . .” Qualitative Health Research, 25(5), 587–588.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315576699.
Moscovich, L., Cazenave, M., Moreno, M. V., Zarrabeitía1 , C., Cochero, J., & Aun Castells, F. (2023).
Environmental citizen science and its effects on participants, governance, and Innovation.
UNDP. https://www.undp.org/es/citizen_science_experimentation_.
Mouratidis, A., Michou, A., Sayil, M., & Altan, S. (2021). It is Autonomous, not Controlled Motivation
that Counts: Linear and Curvilinear Relations of Autonomous and Controlled Motivation to
School Grades. Learning and Instruction, 73, 101433.
National Audubon Society. (2024, November 6). History of the Christmas Bird Count. Audubon.
https://www.audubon.org/community-science/christmas-bird-count/history-christmas-bird-count.
Noy, C. (2008). Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative
Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(4), 327–344.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701401305.

88

Office of the Auditor General of Canada. (2022). Biodiversity in Canada: Commitments and trends.
Biodiversity in Canada: Commitments and Trends. https://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/oth_202210_e_44128.html.vanne
Oliffe, J. L., Kelly, M. T., Gonzalez Montaner, G., & Yu Ko, W. F. (2021). Zoom Interviews: Benefits
and Concessions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 160940692110535.
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211053522.
Ontario Biodiversity Council. (2023). Ontario’s biodiversity strategy 2023 - 2030.
https://ontariobiodiversitycouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/Ontarios-Biodiversity-Strategy-20232030.pdf.
Park, S.M, & Word, J. (2012). Serving the Mission: Organizational Antecedents and Social
Consequences of Job Choice Motivation in the Nonprofit Sector. International Review of Public
Administration, 17(3), 169-206.
Pelletier, L. G., & Aitken, N. M. (2014). Encouraging Environmental Actions in Employees and in the
Working Environment: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. The Oxford handbook of work
engagement, motivation, and self-determination theory, 314-334.
Phillips, T. B., Ballard, H. L., Lewenstein, B. V., & Bonney, R. (2019). Engagement in Science through
citizen science: Moving Beyond Data Collection. Science Education, 103(3), 665–690.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21501.
Richter, A., Comay, O., Svenningsen, C. S., Larsen, J. C., Hecker, S., Tøttrup, A. P., ... & Marselle, M.
(2021). Motivation and Support Services in Citizen science Insect Monitoring: A Cross-Country
Study. Biological Conservation, 263, 109325.

89

Roulston, Kathryn, and Myungweon Choi. (2018). "Qualitative interviews." The SAGE handbook of
qualitative data collection, 233-249.
Sadeh, N., & Karniol, R. (2012). The Sense of Self-Continuity as a Resource in Adaptive Coping with
Job Loss. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 93-99.
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.
Saunders, C. D. & Myers, Jr. O. E. (Eds.) (2003). Special Issue: Conservation Psychology. Human
Ecology Review, 10 (2).
Sebele-Mpofu, F. Y. (2020). Saturation controversy in qualitative research: Complexities and Underlying
Assumptions. A literature review. Cogent Social Sciences, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706.
Snyder, M., Clary, E. G., & Stukas, A. A. (2000). The Functional Approach to Volunteerism. In Why We
Evaluate (pp. 377-406). Psychology Press.
Sueur, C., Deneubourg, J. L., & Petit, O. (2012). From Social Network (Centralized vs. Decentralized)
to Collective Decision-Making (Unshared vs. Shared Consensus). PLoS one, 7(2), e32566.
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic Analysis. The SAGE handbook of
qualitative research in psychology, 2(17-37), 25.
Thomas, Stefan, David Scheller, and Susan Schröder.(2021)."Co-Creation in Citizen Social Science: the
Research Forum as a Methodological Foundation for Communication and Participation."
Humanities and social sciences communications 8, no. 1 : 1-11.

90

United Nations Climate Change. (2022, November 20). COP27 Reaches Breakthrough Agreement on
New “Loss and Damage” Fund for Vulnerable Countries. Unfccc.int.
https://unfccc.int/news/cop27-reaches-breakthrough-agreement-on-new-loss-and-damagefundfor-vulnerable-countries.
Van Brussel, S., & Huyse, H. (2018). Citizen Science on Speed. Realising the Triple Objective of
Scientific Rigour, Policy Influence and Deep Citizen Engagement. Urban traffic and health
risk, 201.
Vanner, C. (2015). Positionality at the Center: Constructing an Epistemological and Methodological
Approach for a Western Feminist Doctoral Candidate Conducting Research in the Postcolonial.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4), 1609406915618094.
Wiens, K., Groulx, M., Booth, A., & Lemieux, C. J. (2024). The Lemmings Dilemma: An Examination
of Environmental Justice, Volunteerism, and the Pursuit of Empowerment in Biodiversity
Conservation Organizations in Canada. Environmental Justice.
Wright, D. R., Underhill, L. G., Keene, M., & Knight, A. T. (2015). Understanding the Motivations and
Satisfactions of Volunteers to Improve the Effectiveness of Citizen Science Programs. Society &
Natural Resources, 28(9), 1013–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1054976.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
Yurong, H., Parrish, J. K., Rowe, S., & Jones, T. (2019). Evolving Interest and Sense of Self in an
Environmental Citizen Science Program. Ecology and Society, 24(2).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26796955.

91

Appendix 1 Staff Interview Guide
THEME: PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP TO CITIZEN SCIENCE

•

Can you tell me about how you became professionally interested in citizen science and
how you became involved in the delivery of this particular program?

o

How did you first learn citizen science was a thing?

o

What were your main motivations for working in the area of citizen science?

•

If a colleague you knew were considering adopting citizen science to support their
organizations’ goals, what advice would you give them?

o

What reasons would you offer for this advice?

o

Would you have any caveats to your advice?

THEME: CO-CREATION IN CITIZEN SCIENCE PROGRAM

•

Citizen science is often described as a process of professional scientists and volunteer
scientists collaborating together to create scientific outcomes. From your perspective
delivering the program, what form does collaboration between volunteer scientists in this
program take?

o

What processes and activities, whether formal or informal, do you think help participants
create a shared experience together?

o

What appears to be the most meaningful aspect of collaboration between participants and
how do you think this shapes what the project has been able to achieve?

•

Citizen science is often described as a process of professional scientists and volunteer
scientists collaborating together to create scientific outcomes. What form did your
collaboration with volunteer scientists in this program take?

92

o

What processes and activities, whether formal or informal, help participants and yourself
and other staff create a shared experience?

o

What tend to be the most meaningful aspects of the collaboration between participants
and professional scientists and how do you think these experiences shape what the project
has been able to achieve

THEME: INFLUENCING CONSERVATION OUTCOMES

•

The program you are involved in is related to biodiversity conservation. What outcomes
related to biodiversity do you hope the involvement of volunteer scientists will help to
achieve?

o

Is there something unique about what citizen science can contribute to these outcomes?

o

Beyond contributing meaningfully to data collection, what other benefits does citizen
science contribute to biodiversity conservation?

•

What aspects of how this program is designed and delivered do you feel are most
important to achieving the objective of contributing to biodiversity conservation?

o

Why did you highlight those aspects over others?

o

Are there parts of this program that you think other citizen science programs with similar
goals could learn from?

THEME: MODELLING PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT FOR CONSERVATION PRACTICE

•

Meaningful inclusion of members of the public in decisions related to biodiversity
conservation is a growing priority for many. What do you feel are the most important
lessons about engaging the public in biodiversity conservation that could be drawn from
this program, and/or citizen science more broadly?

o

What is unique about the citizen science experience for volunteers compared to other
ways to engage in biodiversity conservation action?
93

o

How do you think those working in government or private organizations to shape
conservation policy and decisions feel about the involvement of the public in these
processes?

•

What knowledge and skills gained in this program do you think would be most useful to
participants in efforts to promote biodiversity in other contexts beyond involvement in
this particular program?

o

Why do you think these aspects would be the most useful?

o

Do you think participants would identify these same aspects, or are there other things
they might add?

•

What knowledge and skills gained in this program do you think would be most useful to
your own efforts to promote biodiversity in other contexts beyond involvement in this
particular program?

o

Why do you think these aspects would be the most useful?

o

Do you think other staff/coordinators would identify these same aspects, or are there
other things they might add?

94

Appendix 2 Research Ethics Approval

95

96