Biodiversity

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbid20

A case study from the City Nature Challenge
2018: international comparison of participants’
responses to citizen science in action
Ryo Sakurai, Hiromi Kobori, Dai Togane, Lila Higgins, Alison Young, Keidai
Kishimoto, Gaia Agnello, Simone Cutajar & Young-Sik Ham
To cite this article: Ryo Sakurai, Hiromi Kobori, Dai Togane, Lila Higgins, Alison Young, Keidai
Kishimoto, Gaia Agnello, Simone Cutajar & Young-Sik Ham (2022): A case study from the City
Nature Challenge 2018: international comparison of participants’ responses to citizen science inaction, Biodiversity, DOI: 10.1080/14888386.2022.2054860
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2022.2054860© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 03 May 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbid20

BIODIVERSITY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2022.2054860

A case study from the City Nature Challenge 2018: international comparison ofparticipants’ responses to citizen science in action
Ryo Sakuraia, Hiromi Koborib, Dai Toganec, Lila Higginsd, Alison Younge, Keidai Kishimotof, Gaia Agnellog,
Simone Cutajarh and Young-Sik Hamba

College of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, Ibaraki, Osaka, Japan; bFaculty of Environmental Studies, Tokyo City University, Yokohama,Japan; cFaculty of Economics, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan; dCommunity Science Office, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
California, USA; eInstitute for Biodiversity Science and Sustainability, California Academy of Sciences, California, USA; fGraduate School ofMedia and Governance, Keio University, Fujisawa, Japan; gRegional Environmental Protection Agency, Sicilia, Italy; hUniversity of Malta Green
House, Malta
ABSTRACTARTICLE HISTORY

Citizen and community science is an important approach for advancing research, education, andconservation, and currently, various projects are being implemented and trialled worldwide. We
conducted surveys of participants in the City Nature Challenge, an international event in which
participants engaged in monitoring wildlife and plants in their neighbourhoods. We received
responses from 361 participants representing 12 countries including the United States, Japan,
the United Kingdom, and Malaysia. There were significant differences in terms of socio-demo­
graphic attributes and participants’ perceptions of citizen/community science activities. Regression
analysis revealed that the more participants learned about the animals and plants in their areas, themore they self-reported their intention to participate in similar activities in the future in both theUnited States and Japan. This suggests that managers of citizen/community science projects could
tailor the message and contents of the activities to enhance participants’ learning about local
biodiversity to increase their continued involvement in future events.

Received 16 February 2022
Accepted 15 March 2022
KEYWORDS

cross-cultural comparison;survey; perceptions;
willingness to join future
events; citizen science; City
Nature Challenge

Key policy insights● In both the United States and Japan, the more participants learned about the animals andplants in their local area through citizen/community science activities, the more they werewilling to participate in similar activities in the future.
● Cross-cultural comparison of participants in citizen/community science activities revealed sig­
nificant differences in terms of socio-demographic attributes (e.g. participants in Japan and
Malaysia were younger than those in the United States and the United Kingdom).
● Survey results revealed differences in participants’ perceptions of the citizen/community
science activities (e.g. participants from Malaysia were more likely to be aware of the threatsto animals and plants in their neighbourhood than those in the United States, Japan, and theUnited Kingdom).

Introduction
Citizen science, the engagement of the public in a scientificproject (Dickinson and Bonney 2012; Kobori et al. 2016),
has recently gained worldwide recognition as a valuableapproach for advancing research, education, and conser­
vation (Bonney et al. 2014; McKinley et al. 2017). Citizen
science is not necessarily a new concept. Its history goesback more than 1200 years, to when the timing of thecherry blossoms blooming began to be recorded by mem­bers of the public (who were not necessarily professional
researchers) in Japan, a practice that continues today.
Another example is the voluntary collection of specimens
by naturalists in the seventeenth century in the United
Kingdom (Kobori et al. 2016). However, developments in
CONTACT Ryo Sakurai

ryo223sak@gmail.com

information technology and recent trans-disciplinary col­laborations between conservationists and engineers haveallowed citizen science projects to move to the next stage,
with participants from all over the world collecting datathat could address global conservation issues (Devictor,
Whittaker, and Beltrame 2010; Bonney et al. 2014).
The City Nature Challenge (hereafter, CNC) is aninternational citizen/community science initiative inwhich participants engage in documenting the naturalenvironment surrounding their home cities by submit­ting observations of species via a mobile app. (Since
participants of CNC are not limited to those fitting thenarrow definition of ‘citizen’ but include internationals
living in host communities, we use the term ‘citizen/
community science’ hereafter.) It started in 2016 when

College of Policy Science, Ritsumeikan University, 2-150, Iwakuracho, Ibaraki-shi, Osaka, 567-8570, Japan© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built
upon in any way.

2

R. SAKURAI ET AL.

the citizen/community science teams at the Natural
History Museum of Los Angeles County and theCalifornia Academy of Sciences implemented the firstevent, where more than 19,800 observations were madeby over 1000 people in a week (City Nature Challenge(CNC) 2021a). Although the CNC was originally imple­
mented in the United States in 2017 (with activities
conducted in 16 cities involving more than 4000 parti­
cipants), beginning in 2018, it became an international
event. In 2018, activities were conducted in 68 cities
worldwide, with more than 17,000 participants.
Approximately 8600 species, including plants and ani­mals, were recorded from over 441,000 observations(CNC 2021a).
Although there are numerous citizen/community
science projects currently being conducted globally(Bonney et al. 2015; Kobori et al. 2016), the CNC is
unique and original in the sense that participants world­
wide observe species around their communities andsubmit the reports during the same period following asimilar procedure (e.g. using one of a few platforms,
most cities opting to use the mobile app ‘iNaturalist’).
Results, including data collected from each city, areshown on the website, and participants can check thedata they submitted and compare them with those ofother participants (CNC 2021b).
Previous literature has emphasized the importance ofdesigning and planning citizen/community science activ­
ities carefully to gain optimal scientific and educational
outcomes (Bonney et al. 2009b; Jordan et al. 2011; Bonney
et al. 2015). However, because many citizen/community
science projects focus on ecology and conservation andare initiated by naturalists, studies that look into thehuman dimensions and social aspects of the projects arelacking (Jordan et al. 2011, 167; Kobori et al. 2016; Lynch
et al. 2018). To implement citizen science projects effec­
tively and sustainably, it is important to understand thesocial dimensions such as the participants’ outcomes andtheir motivation to continue to join them in the future.
While the number of citizen/community science pro­jects is increasing and more activities are being con­ducted globally, research that looks into the cognitive
aspects of participants is also increasing. Aivelo andHuovelin (2020) showed how citizen science projects
could be combined with formal education, revealingthat students from lower- and upper-secondary schoolsin Finland experienced an increase in their knowledge
and interest towards the topic (rats) as well as thescientific process (e.g. collecting data) with participa­tion. Lynch et al. (2018) found, from their interview
studies, that participatory entomological citizen science
projects improved participants’ science self-efficacy andtheir attitudes towards insects; however, the quantitative
data collected from the evaluation survey revealed nostatistical differences between the participants and thecontrol group. One study that investigated the educa­
tional effects of citizen science programmes about nonnative species revealed that whereas participants
increased their knowledge regarding invasive species,
there was not much increase in their understanding of
how scientific research is conducted and there was lim­
ited behaviour change after the programme (Jordan
et al. 2011). Another study that examined effects ofcitizen science activities in terms of managing invasive
species revealed that respondents’ perceptions of pro­blems caused by non-native birds predicted their
engagement in management action (Phillips et al.
2021). Review research has also been conducted demon­
strating that individual learning outcomes in citizen
science can be classified into six categories: interest,
self-efficacy, motivation, knowledge, skills in terms ofof science inquiries, and behaviour/stewardship(Phillips et al. 2018).
Meanwhile, the heterogeneous conditions in whichcitizen/community science projects are conductedshould be taken into consideration when evaluating
the social aspects of the projects, especially if one
wants to conduct global comparisons. Different coun­tries have different social institutions, cultures, ecologi­
cal conditions, etc., and international comparative
studies could provide certain indications in terms ofunderstanding such country-by-country perspectives(both global trends and national conditions). Citizen/
community science projects also differ based on the way
each project is implemented, including the method ofparticipant recruitment. For example, the demographicsof the participants could differ depending on whether
the project is publicized mainly through university
classes or on the radio. While it is important to recog­
nize such differences, it would be difficult to globally
standardize the conditions in which citizen/community
science projects are implemented.
In this study, we conducted surveys of CNC partici­
pants worldwide (in 12 countries including the UnitedStates, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia) tounderstand their cognitive responses to the activities
compared to the countries they represent. While there
has been research conducted to examine participants’reactions to the same citizen science projects in two
countries (e.g. a study in the US and Canada (Phillips
et al. 2021), to the best of the authors’ knowledge, little
to no research has been published comparing the per­ceptions and reactions of participants from around theglobe to the same citizen/community science project.

BIODIVERSITY

Methods and analysis
CNC participants worldwide were surveyed. The parti­
cipants who joined the activities in 2018 answered an
online survey after the events from April to Septemberof the same year. In Japan, participants who joined theactivities implemented in Tokyo on 28 and 30 April
2018 answered a paper-based questionnaire after the
events. We understand that respondents to our survey
are not representative of participants in the CNC pro­jects of each country as a whole, because they were notrandomly selected. Therefore, we emphasize that theobserved differences may simply be caused by the ran­
dom types of respondents who answered our survey andthat there is a limitation in terms of making inferencesand generalizations from these data.
The survey questionnaire was developed involving
the European BioBlitz Network, a community of prac­
tice brought together by the European Citizen Science
Association (DITOs Consortium 2019). Citizen science
programme managers were consulted through a seriesof online meetings and provided their feedback on theinitial version of the survey so as to obtain a common
tool to assess the social outcomes of CNC events. The
final questionnaire was then translated and adminis­
tered by event organizers of the different countries.
Survey questionnaire items include socio-demo­
graphics (e.g. age and gender), past experience of parti­
cipating in the related events, intentions to join future
activities, and the degree of learning through participat­
ing in the programme (Table 1).
We first report the descriptive results – that is, thenationality (countries where respondents participated in
the events) and demographic attributes of participantsfrom the top four countries in terms of the number of
respondents. Chi-square tests were conducted to deter­mine any differences in the respondents’ past experience
participating in wildlife surveys and using mobile apps
to collect data among the four countries. Analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) was conducted to understandwhether there are differences in the respondents’ inten­tion to join future activities and their degree of learning
among those four countries. Post hoc analysis was also
conducted to determine whether there were significant
differences among countries; the Tukey test was con­ducted on the items for which equal variances wereassumed, and Tamhane’s T2 test was conducted on
those for which equal variances were not assumed.
We then conducted stepwise multiple regression ana­
lysis to identify factors that affect the respondents’ will­
ingness to participate in future activities. This analysis
was conducted for countries with more than 100
respondents (to ensure sufficient sample size). We

3

used ‘I intend to take part in similar future events’ as
the dependent variable and the socio-demographics(two items), whether the participants had responded toa wildlife survey before (one item), their intention tojoin various activities (four items), and their degree oflearning (four items) as independent variables. SPSS
version 22 (IBM, Tokyo) was used for the statisticalanalysis, and p values of less than 0.05 were identified
as significant.

Results
Among the 361 participants who responded to thisinternational survey, 145 were from the United States,
113 from Japan, 34 from the United Kingdom, and 28
from Malaysia. Canada and Columbia had 10 partici­
pants each (for other countries, see Appendix 1).
To observe the trends in each country, we picked the
top four countries in terms of participant numbers (theUnited States, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia)
to conduct further descriptive analysis. In terms of age, in
the United States and the United Kingdom, the majorityof the participants were divided between the age bins of
30 to 44 years old (32.4% in the United States and 44.1%
in the United Kingdom) and 45 to 59 years old (24.8% in
the United States and 26.5% in the United Kingdom). By
contrast, in Japan most of the respondents (88.5%) were
between 18 and 24 years old, whereas in Malaysia most
(75.0%) were 15 to 17 years old.
In terms of gender, the majority of the respondents
were female in the United States (63.6%) and the United
Kingdom (60.6%) and male (70.9%) in Japan. The pro­portion was equal in Malaysia.
Regarding their past experiences, the majority of theparticipants in the United States and the United
Kingdom had carried out a wildlife survey before,
whereas most participants in Japan and Malaysia hadnot (Table 2). The chi-square test showed that there
were significant differences (p < .01) in this past experi­ence among countries. For the experience of using amobile app to collect data, most participants in Japan
had never used the app (89.2%), whereas most in the
United States, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia(>85%) had used it before (Table 3). The chi-squareanalysis revealed that there were significant differences(p < .01) among countries.
With regard to their intentions to join future activ­
ities, ANOVA revealed that there were significant dif­ferences among nationalities (p < .01) for four items(Table 4). Japanese respondents had significantly lower
intentions (p < .01) to take part in similar future events,
promote such initiatives, or encourage others to

4

R. SAKURAI ET AL.

Table 1. Questionnaire items.
Category
Socio-demographics

Question

Response scale
1 = Under 12, 2 = 12–14, 3 = 15–17, 4 = 18–24, 5 = 25–
29, 6 = 30–44, 7 = 45–59, 8 = 60–74, 9 = 75+
1 = Male, 2 = Female, 3 = Other
1 = No, 2 = Yes

Age

Past experience
Intentions to join future activities

Degree of learning throughparticipating in the programme

GenderHave you carried out a wildlife survey before today?
Have you used a mobile app to collect your data?
Do you intend to take part in similar future events?
1 = Very unlikely, 2 = Unlikely, 3 = Likely, 4 = Very likely
Do you intend to join a wildlife group/charity/biodiversity
project?
Do you intend to promote such initiatives and encourageothers to participate?
Do you intend to encourage wildlife in your garden/yoursurrounding areas?
Do you intend to learn more about local wildlife?
I have learned something new about the animals and
1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Not sure,plants in my local area
4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree
I have learned something new about the threats to animals
and plants in my area
I have learned about the organizations/projects working tomonitor and protect animals and plants in my area
I have learned about different ways I can contribute toprotect the local environment

Table 2. Respondents’ past experience in terms of carrying out wildlife surveys.
Carried out a wildlife survey before
Frequencies (%)

Nationality

USA (n = 143)
Japan (n = 113)
UK (n = 34)
Malaysia (n = 28)

No

Yes

Chi-square score

p value

64 (44.8)
85 (75.2)
16 (47.1)
21 (75.0)

79 (55.2)
28 (24.8)
18 (52.9)
7 (25.0)

29.113<.01

Chi-square score179.978

p value<.01

Table 3. Respondents’ past experience regarding use of a mobile app to collect data.
Used mobile app to collect data before
Frequencies (%)

Nationality

USA (n = 136)
Japan (n = 111)
UK (n = 31)
Malaysia (n = 28)No
17 (12.5)
99 (89.2)2 (6.5)
3 (10.7)

participate than did those in the other three countries.
Japanese respondents also had lower intentions (p < .05)
to encourage wildlife in their garden and surrounding
areas or to learn more about local wildlife than did thoseof the other three countries.
With respect to the degree of learning through parti­
cipating in the programme, ANOVA revealed signifi­
cant differences between nationalities (p < .01) for two
items (Table 5). Japanese respondents had significantly
lower agreement regarding their learning outcome
about the animals and plants in their local area(p < .01) than those in the United States and Malaysia.
On the other hand, respondents in Malaysia were moreYes
119 (87.5)
12 (10.8)
29 (93.5)
25 (89.3)

likely to agree that they had learned about the threats toanimals and plants in their area than those in the UnitedStates (p < .01), Japan (p < .05), and the United
Kingdom (p < .01).
The stepwise regression analysis revealed that for the
US respondents (n = 97), two independent variables had
significant effects on the dependent variable. Those who
intended to promote similar initiatives or encourage others
to participate (B = 0.460, p < .01) and those who felt thatthey had learned about the animals and plants in their local
area (B = 0.199, p < .05) were more likely to have an
intention to participate in similar activities in the future.
The adjusted R2 is 0.285, indicating that more than one-

BIODIVERSITY

5

Table 4. Respondents’ intentions to take part in activities, and results of the analysis of variance (results of the post-hoc comparison
show items that had significant differences between nationalities).

Intention to take part in similar
future events
Intention to join a wildlife group/
charity/biodiversity project
Intention to promote suchinitiatives (e.g. join a wildlife
group) and encourage others
to participate
Intention to encourage wildlife inyour garden/your surroundingareas
Intention to learn more about
local wildlife

USA (n = 135)
Japan (n = 111)
UK (n = 34)
Malaysia (n = 28)
USA (n = 110)
Japan (n = 111)
UK (n = 29)
Malaysia (n = 26)
USA (n = 118)
Japan (n = 111)
UK (n = 31)
Malaysia (n = 27)
USA (n = 107)
Japan (n = 110)
UK (n = 27)
Malaysia (n = 28)
USA (n = 108)
Japan (n = 110)
UK (n = 29)
Malaysia (n = 27)

Mean (standard
deviation)
3.74 (0.52)
3.07 (0.64)
3.82 (0.39)
3.64 (0.49)
3.15 (0.83)
3.02 (0.70)
3.10 (0.94)
3.19 (0.94)
3.58 (0.59)
2.82 (0.70)
3.45 (0.62)
3.52 (0.64)
3.57 (0.67)
3.03 (0.78)
3.74 (0.45)
3.54 (0.51)
3.72 (0.56)
3.25 (0.68)
3.66 (0.55)
3.63 (0.49)

F value
35.28

p value<.01

Results of post-hoc comparison
USA > Japan (<0.01)
UK > Japan (<0.01)
Malaysia > Japan (<0.01)

0.67

.57

29.61

<.01

USA > Japan (<0.01)
UK > Japan (<0.01)
Malaysia > Japan (<0.01)

15.21

<.01

USA > Japan (<0.01)
UK > Japan (<0.01)
Malaysia > Japan (<0.01)

11.79

<.01

USA > Japan (<0.01)
UK > Japan (<0.05)
Malaysia > Japan (<0.05)

Table 5. Respondents’ degree of learning through participating in the programme, and results of the analysis of variance (results ofthe post-hoc comparison show items that had significant differences between nationalities).

Learned something new about the
animals and plants in my local area
Learned something new about thethreats to animals and plants in myarea
Learned about the organizations/projects
working to monitor and protect
animals and plants in my area
Learned about different ways I cancontribute to protect the local
environment

USA (n = 145)
Japan (n = 103)
UK (n = 34)
Malaysia (n = 28)
USA (n = 145)
Japan (n = 103)
UK (n = 34)
Malaysia (n = 28)
USA (n = 145)
Japan (n = 103)
UK (n = 34)
Malaysia (n = 28)
USA (n = 145)
Japan (n = 104)
UK (n = 34)
Malaysia (n = 28)

Mean (standard
deviation)
4.47 (0.73)
4.04 (0.91)
4.38 (0.92)
4.61 (0.50)
3.64 (1.10)
3.45 (1.00)
3.24 (1.02)
4.11 (0.69)
3.86 (1.03)
3.91 (0.78)
3.82 (0.76)
4.04 (0.79)
3.77 (1.08)
3.90 (0.85)
3.68 (0.84)
4.18 (0.72)

fourth of the dependent variable is explained by these two
independent variables. The VIF (Variance Inflation
Factor) is 1.075, indicating that multicollinearity was low(less than 2.0) (Vaske 2008).
The regression analysis revealed that two items had
significant effects among Japanese participants(n = 97). Those who intended to join a wildlife
group/charity/biodiversity project (B = 0.675, p < .01)
and those who felt that they had learned about the
animals and plants in their local area (B = 0.214,
p < .01) had higher willingness to participate in similar
activities in the future. The adjusted R2 is 0.573, indi­
cating that these two variables explain the majority of
respondents’ willingness to join similar activities inJapan. The VIF is 1.084, indicating low multicollinear­ity (less than 2.0) (Vaske 2008).

F-value
7.22

p value<.01

Results of post-hoc comparison
USA > Japan (<0.01)
Malaysia > Japan (<0.01)

4.50

<.01

Malaysia > USA (<0.01)
Malaysia > Japan (<0.05)
Malaysia > UK (<0.01)

0.40

.76

1.90

.13

Discussion
Differences in participants’ perceptions among
countries
The first attempt to understand participants’ perceptionsof the CNC citizen/community science activities revealed
several findings. Although we understand that there is alimitation in terms of generalizing our samples to thecountries they represent, our respondents showed a cer­tain trend. Depending on the nationality, there weresignificant differences in the participants’ socio-demo­
graphic attributes, past experiences in related activities,
and perceptions. In the United States and the United
Kingdom, a majority of participants were in their 30s to
50s, whereas in Japan and Malaysia, the majority werestudents in the 15–24 age range. While it can be assumed

6

R. SAKURAI ET AL.

that adult participants joined the events because they
were interested in the contents of the activity, students
in Japan more likely joined because it was a school oruniversity activity. This might explain why only a limited
number of participants had joined similar activities
before in Japan and Malaysia. In addition, most of theparticipants in the United States and the United Kingdom
had used the mobile app to collect data before, whereas
Japanese participants had almost never used it.
The reason why the Japanese participants have signifi­
cantly lower scores for their intentions to take part insimilar activities than the others can be explained by theirinitial interest in the topic. Assuming that the participants(mostly students) in Japan joined the events because thesewere course activities, it is possible that the reason forparticipating in the events was passive or reactive; getting
credit from the course was potentially the motivation formany of them. Previous studies have shown that beha­
viours caused by such extrinsic motivation would not besustained in the long term compared to those caused byintrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci 2000; Phillips et al.
2018). Continuously recruiting participants for citizen/
community science projects is important for the sustain­
ability and development of the projects, but it can bechallenging (Bonney et al. 2009b). This is because partici­
pants have diverse interests or reasons to join such events(Bonney et al. 2014; Aivelo and Huovelin 2020). Whereas
participants in many such projects are already interested in
the subjects of the events or in science (Bonney et al. 2009b;
Lynch et al. 2018; Phillips et al. 2018), reaching out to new
audiences is critical because the goal of many citizen/com­
munity science projects is to increase the public awarenessof science and nature conservation (Bonney et al. 2015;
Kobori et al. 2016). In addition, the lack of young partici­
pants in these projects has been referred to in previous
studies (Kobori et al. 2016). In that sense, getting university
students to join citizen/community science activities by
including such events as part of their formal education
could be the first step to gaining new audiences (Aivelo
and Huovelin 2020).
By contrast, when it comes to how much participantslearned about threats to wildlife in the area, respondents in
Malaysia had higher scores than the others. This mightreflect the actual threats that the developing countries arefacing; in countries like Malaysia, by participating in CNC
activities participants might have observed and learned
about real threats such as the destruction of the ecosystem.
As mentioned earlier, considering the limitation of thesampling procedure, the respondents in this study are notrepresentative of the CNC participants of each country.
In Japan, a total of 156 people participated in the activities
of CNC2018, and therefore, we can assume that oursamples (n = 113) could be representing the participants

as a whole to some degree, since the response rate of thissurvey was 72.9%. On the other hand, less than 10% of theparticipants responded to our survey in Malaysia and theUnited Kingdom (number of participants and response
rates: Malaysia = 682 and 4.1%, UK = 434 and 7.8%). In
terms of the United States, among 14,364 people whojoined the activities of CNC2018, only 145 responded toour survey (response rate = 1.0%). Thus, in order toincrease the generalizability of the results to represent
each country, future studies will require a coordinatedeffort to achieve a higher response rate.
Since citizen science programmes rely on volunteer
participants, it can be argued that volunteering in general
may be perceived in different ways from country to coun­try, depending on historical, cultural, social, and politicalinfluences. The number of volunteers seems to differ
among countries; nearly half the adult population in the
United States and the United Kingdom engage in volun­
teering, as opposed to Japan where participation in volun­teer activities is ‘very low’ (Anheier and Salamon 1999,
57–60). Furthermore, the meaning and pattern of volun­
teering are changing over time (Anheier and Salamon
1999, 46). Although it is beyond the scope of this study
to discuss the historical trend in volunteering cross cultu­
rally, better understanding the background and cultural
meaning of volunteering in each country will be necessary
to further discuss the potential implications of a multicultural survey.
Motivation for joining citizen/community science
activities, and potential future research
The importance of cultivating participants’ identities ascitizen/community scientists and understanding theirmotivation to join the projects has been mentioned in theliterature (Land-Zandstra, Agnello, and Gültekin 2021);
however, studies on how to cultivate this motivation are
still limited (Jordan et al. 2011; Kobori et al. 2016). In ourstudy, although participants’ socio-demographic attributes
and reactions to events were different among the countries,
the regression analysis revealed a common factor affecting
their intention to join similar activities in the future in two
countries. For participants in the United States (mostly
adults) and Japan (mostly students), the perception oflearning about animals and plants in the area significantly
increased their intention to join similar events. Our find­ings suggest that such a potentially common factor could
encourage participants’ engagement in and retention of
CNC activities internationally. Programme managers ofcitizen/community science projects should consider how
to increase participants’ levels of learning about local ani­mals and plants during the activity in order to enhance theretention of participants.

BIODIVERSITY

Further social science research is necessary to under­
stand participants’ motivation and the outcomes of parti­
cipation. In addition, more front-end evaluation (or needs
assessment) is necessary, especially when the project aims
to recruit new participants or attract new audiences who
are not necessarily interested in the topic (Kobori et al.
2016), similar to the case of Japan in our study. By assessing
the motivations, needs, and expectations of new audiences,programme managers can tailor accordingly the activities
and messages to meet the individual and community needs
and to influence participants’ satisfaction (Bonney et al.
2009a; Aivelo and Huovelin 2020; Phillips et al. 2021). In
the case of Japan, a front-end evaluation survey could be
included to understand students’ concerns, demands, andexpectations from the events. A needs assessments will be
crucial to inform the development of relevant contents forthe programme and communication strategies that will
potentially increase the recruitment and level of engage­
ment of students.
This study presents limitations in conducting analyses
and interpreting results based on such limited samples
from different countries (i.e. unevenly distributed samples
in terms of nationalities). Our survey did not assess the
motivations driving participation in CNC activities or
how actively participants were involved (e.g. whether
and how much data they collected). The critical goals of
this research were, firstly, to conduct a coordinated eva­
luation of CNC participants from around the world using
a common questionnaire and, secondly, to explore theopportunities and challenges of such cross-cultural citi­
zen/community science initiatives. The results not only
showed some similarities and differences among coun­tries (based on the samples) but also provided insights on
how participant surveys can be conducted for interna­
tional citizen/community science activities, suggesting,for example, what questions can be asked.
Further improvements can be made to our survey. First,
because one of the goals of citizen/community science
projects is to increase public engagement in scientific activ­
ities, surveys could include items related to participants’
understanding of the scientific process, science-related
skills, attitudes towards science, and self-efficacy as poten­
tial scientists (Bonney et al. 2009a; Jordan et al. 2011).
Citizen/community science projects can maximize theirimpacts if participants are engaged in the long term and if
their level of engagement increases (i.e. they start their own
conservation activities in the neighbourhood).
Second, assessing the duration of participants’ involve­
ment and their change in behaviour as a consequence ofparticipation could be another interesting outcome tomeasure through the survey (Jordan et al. 2011; Kobori
et al. 2016). For example, by tracking the activity logs

7

(Aristeidou, Scanlon, and Sharples 2017), participants’actual behaviours during the activities could be monitored.
A study that utilized the data of activity logs was conductedon participants of CNC and revealed their behavioural
patterns changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in
Tokyo (e.g. participants were more likely to conduct activ­
ities in their neighbourhoods during the pandemic;
Kishimoto and Kobori 2021). By combining data fromboth survey questionnaire and activity logs, future research
could explore the relationship between participants’ cog­
nitive factors (e.g. perceptions and motivations) and theirresulting behaviours (e.g. the pattern of where and how
intensively they engage in nature observation).
Third, measuring participants’ self-efficacy, environ­mental stewardship, and sense of place would provide
useful information to better understand their relationshipwith participants’ engagement as well as the long-term
retention and performance throughout their involvementin the projects (McKinley et al. 2017; Sakurai et al. 2017;
Lynch et al. 2018). A framework developed for measuring
individuals’ learning outcomes (such as the one created byPhillips et al. 2018) could be used as a reference to guide thecreation of survey items that represent important cognitiveelements such as motivation and self-efficacy.
The biodiversity crisis is an urgent issue worldwide,and conservation efforts are being made internationally.
International initiatives such as the CNC have been con­ducted using a standard procedure and format that can beused for ecological research and policy recommendations
globally. While there are still a limited number of social
survey items available to evaluate international citizen/
community science projects, we believe that our researchis one of the first steps in attempting to fill this gap.

Disclosure statement
The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Funding
This work was supported by JSPS (Japan Society for the
Promotion of Science) KAKENHI [Grant Number
JP18H01073].

Notes on contributors
Ryo Sakurai is an Associate Professor at College of Policy
Science of Ritsumeikan University. His research interests
include environmental education evaluation and humandimensions of wildlife management.
Hiromi Kobori is a Professor Emeritus of Tokyo City
University. Her research interests include conservation biol­
ogy, citizen science and environmental education.

8

R. SAKURAI ET AL.

Dai Togane is an Assistant Professor at Keio University. His
research interest include conservation of biodiversity includ­ing endangered amphibians.
Lila Higgins is a Senior Manager of Community Science atNatural History Museum Los Angels County. She has experi­ence in museum education and community science
programming.
Alison Young is a Co-director at Center for Biodiversity andCommunity Science at California Academy of Sciences. Shi isbroadly interested in intertidal communities: overall biodiver­sity, effects of climate change, population distributions, range
shifts, and species interactions.
Keidai Kishimoto is a Doctoral Student at Graduate School ofMedia and Governance of Keio University. His research inter­
ests include geographic information science and green
infrastructure.
Gaia Agnello is a conservation scientists and citizen science
expert. She is a consultant for the Regional Environmental
Protection Agency of Sicily (Italy) and is a fellow at the IUSS
Pavia to research and support the National Biodiversity
Network. Her research interests include evaluation ofhuman and social dimensions of citizen science and partici­
patory approaches to biodiversity conservation.
Simone Cutajar is a researcher at the University of Malta
Green House, Malta. Her research interests include impact
evaluation, public engagement through citizen science andenvironmental education.
Young-sik Ham is an Associate Professor at Tokyo City
University. His research interests include the citizen scienceof exotic plants and environmental pollutions.

References
Aivelo, T, and S. Huovelin. 2020. “Combining Formal
Education and Citizen Science: A Case Study on Students’
Perceptions of Learning and Interest in an Urban Rat
Project.” Environmental Education Research 26 (3): 324–
340. doi:10.1080/13504622.2020.1727860.
Anheier, HK, and LM. Salamon. 1999. “Volunteering in Crossnational Perspective: Initial Comparisons.” Law andContemporary Problems 62: 43–66. doi:10.2307/1192266.
Aristeidou, M., E. Scanlon, and M. Sharples. 2017. “Profiles ofEngagement in Online Communities of Citizen Science
Participation.” Computers in Human Behavior 74: 246–
256. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.044.
Bonney, R, H Ballard, R Jordan, E McCallie, T Phillips, J Shirk,
and CC. Wilderman 2009a. Public Participation in Scientific
Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for
Informal Science Education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report.
Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal
Science Education (CAISE).
Bonney, R, CB Cooper, J Dickinson, S Kelling, T Phillips, KV
Rosenberg, and J. Shirk. 2009b. “Citizen Science: A
Developing Tool for Expanding Science Knowledge andScientific Literacy.” BioScience 59: 977–984. doi:10.1525/
bio.2009.59.11.9.

Bonney, R, TB Phillips, HL Ballard, and JW. Enck. 2015. “Can
Citizen Science Enhance Public Understanding of Science?”
Public Understanding of Science 25 (1): 2–16. doi:10.1177/
0963662515607406.
Bonney, R, JL Shirk, TB Phillips, A Wiggins, HL Ballard, AJ
Miller-Rushing, and JK. Parrish. 2014. “Next Steps for
Citizen Science.” Science 343: 1436–1437. doi:10.1126/
science.1251554.
City Nature Challenge (CNC). 2021a. “City Nature
Challenge.” Available at https://citynaturechallenge.org/
Last accessed 13 July 2021)
City Nature Challenge (CNC). 2021b. “How It Got Started?,
Date of Publication.” Available at https://citynaturechal
lenge.org/about/ Last accessed 13 July 2021)
Devictor, V, RJ Whittaker, and C. Beltrame. 2010. “Beyond
Scarcity: Citizen Science Programmes as Useful Tools forConservation Biogeography.” Diversity and Distributions
16 (3): 354–362. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00615.x.
Dickinson, JL, and R. Bonney, eds. 2012. Citizen Science:
Public Participation in Environmental Research. 1st ed.
New York: Cornell University Press.
DITOs Consortium. 2019. “Developing a Common
Evaluation Tool for Public Engagement with Biological
Recording Events Using the Case Study of City Nature
Challenge 2018 in Europe.” DITOs Policy Brief 13.
Jordan, RC, SA Gray, DV Howe, WR Brooks, and JG.
Ehrenfeld. 2011. “Knowledge Gain and Behavioral Change
in Citizen-science Programs.” Conservation Biology 25 (6):1148–1154. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01745.x.
Kishimoto, K., and H. Kobori. 2021. “COVID-19 Pandemic
Drives Changes in Participation in Citizen Science Project“City Nature Challenge” in Tokyo.” Biological Conservation
255: 109001. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109001.
Kobori, H, JL Dickinson, I Washitani, R Sakurai, T Amano, N
Komatsu, W Kitamura, et al. 2016. “Citizen Science: A New
Approach to Advance Ecology, Education, andConservation.” Ecological Research 31: 1–19. doi:10.1007/
s11284-015-1314-y.
Land-Zandstra, A, G Agnello, and YS. Gültekin. 2021.
“Participants in Citizen Science”. In The Science of Citizen
Science, edited by K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L.
Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson,
and K. Wagenknecht, 243–259. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_13.
Lynch, LI, JM Dauer, WA Babchuk, T Heng-Moss, and D.
Golick. 2018. “In Their Own Words: The Significance ofParticipant Perceptions in Assessing Entomology Citizen
Science Methods Approach.” Insects 9 (16): 16. doi:10.3390/
insects9010016.
McKinley, D, AJ Miller-Rushing, HL Ballard, R Bonney, H
Brown, SC Cook-Patton, DM Evans, et al. 2017. “Citizen
Science Can Improve Conservation Science, Natural
Resource Management, and Environmental Protection.”
Biological Conservation 208: 15–28. doi:10.1016/j.
biocon.2016.05.015.
Phillips, T., R. L. Bailey, V. Martin, H. Faulkner-Grant, and D. N.
Bonter. 2021. “The Role of Citizen Science in Management ofInvasive Avian Species: What People Think, Know, and Do.”
Journal of Environmental Management 280: 111709.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111709.

BIODIVERSITY

Phillips, T., N. Porticella, M. Constas, and R. Bonney. 2018. “AFramework for Articulating and Measuring Individual
Learning Outcomes from Participation in Citizen Science.”
Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 3 (2): 3, 1–19. https://doi/org/10.5334/cstp.126
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1): 54–67.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

Sakurai, R, T Ota, and T. Uehara. 2017. “Sense of Place andAttitudes Towards Future Generations for Conservation of
Coastal Areas in the Satoumi of Japan.” BiologicalConservation
209:
332–340.
doi:10.1016/j.
biocon.2017.02.041.
Vaske, JJ. 2008. Survey Research and Analysis:
Applications
inParks,
Recreation,and Human Dimensions, 635. Pennsylvania: Venture
Publishing.

Appendix 1. Nationality (including region) of respondents

Number of respondents
145
113
34
28
10
10
4
2
1
1
1
1
11
Total: 361

9

Nationality (including region)
USA
Japan
UK
Malaysia
CanadaColumbia
Hong Kong
Italy
Argentina
Czech Republic
Indonesia
PakistanUnknown (nationality not answered)