Copyright © 2022 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Nadkarni, N. M., J. M. Chen, J. S. Morris, A. E. Carriero, T. N. Kaye, K. Bush, M. Young, and L. George. 2022. Impacts ofconservation activities on people who are incarcerated: a case study based on qualitative and quantitative analyses. Ecology andSociety 27(3):44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13423-270344

Insight

Impacts of conservation activities on people who are incarcerated: a casestudy based on qualitative and quantitative analyses
Nalini M. Nadkarni 1, Jacqueline M. Chen 2,3, Jeremy S. Morris 4, Amanda E. Carriero 1, Thomas N. Kaye 5,6, Kelli Bush 7, Megan
Young 1 and Laura George 1
ABSTRACT. In the past two decades, conservationists and the corrections sector have implemented collaborative ecological restoration
projects, creating more inclusive arenas for conservation. These venues provide people who are incarcerated with opportunities to havea positive impact on their environment, and for ecologists to communicate science and the importance of nature with people in naturedeprived environments. We provide examples of conservation programs and their associated media pieces nationwide, whosedescriptions, to date, have been almost entirely anecdotal and without formal evaluation. In this study, a collaboration of ecologists
and social scientists analyzed impacts on the “incarcerated citizen scientists” who participated in two conservation projects coordinatedby these ecologists at the Salt Lake County Jail, Utah, using quantitative and qualitative approaches, including voluntary pre- andpost-surveys. The quantitative results informed potential outcomes, but were inconclusive. However, the qualitative results revealed
that a majority of the participants reported gaining knowledge about science and conservation, and that about a quarter of them
reported psychological benefits from participating, such as feeling that they were able to give back to their community through theproject. These results document the potential positive impacts that participation in ecological restoration projects can help promote
well-being and community involvement, and to increase science knowledge from all participants. The results also reinforce theimportance of collaborations between scientists who use quantitative and qualitative approaches and analytical tools, which, whencombined, provide the capacity to measure, analyze, and interpret data from human participants. These considerations should befurther explored with collaborations of natural scientists, social scientists, corrections staff, and people who are incarcerated as ecologicalrestoration projects in correctional institutions become more prevalent.
Key Words: citizen science; conservation; incarcerated; prisons; qualitative analyses; restoration ecology
INTRODUCTION
Engagement between ecologists and groups outside of academia
is increasingly common, to the benefit of both groups (Stoecker2009, Nadkarni et al. 2019, MacArthur et al. 2020). Some of theseundertakings have been through citizen science projects(Silvertown 2009, Raddick et al. 2013), in which non-scientists
participate in collecting or analyzing data for projects establishedby scientists. Typically, these projects have engaged volunteers
who are able to travel to field sites or who can gain access tointernet-based data. Participation in citizen science projects
therefore tends to be limited to people with financial andeducational privilege, and involvement by those without suchprivileges and access has understandably been limited. However,individuals who lack access to field sites and the internet—manyof whom have been underserved by science and deprived of thephysical, psychological, and emotional benefits of nature—would
also be likely to be interested in and benefit from participation inthese scientific engagement activities.
In the past two decades, scientists and conservationists haveinnovated programs and projects that directly involve one suchgroup—adults and youth who are incarcerated—withconservation and ecological restoration. The media described
these early efforts in positive ways, reporting that people who areincarcerated demonstrated their value, care, and interest for
nature and conservation. The positive reception of such programs
encouraged incarcerated people and participating corrections
institutions to participate in these programs (Horns et al. 2020,1

Nadkarni et al. 2022). Because the resources for implementing
formal evaluative have been limited, the media have played an
important role in giving people who are incarcerated andcorrections staff a platform to describe anecdotal program
impacts. In the last decade, scientists and conservationists havecrossed sectoral and institutional borders to directly engage“incarcerated citizen scientists (ICS)” in rearing endangered andrare animal and plant species that have been released or outplanted for ongoing projects (Table 1). We use the term “citizenscience” rather than the more recently coined “communityscientist” because all of the participants are citizens of the UnitedStates and because it links them to established and well-respected“citizen science” efforts in which people who are not incarcerated
participate.
Citizen science projects involving non-incarcerated citizens haveprovided benefits for conservation, which, among other projects,
include greater numbers and high quality of organisms produced
overall (Dickinson et al. 2010). These same benefits have also
accrued from projects with individuals who are incarcerated thatwere carried out in state prisons and county jails, and juvenile
detention centers. A summary of such projects (Kaye et al. 2015)highlighted multiple benefits of prison-based citizen science
activities to date. First, participation in habitat conservation
projects improves ecologists’ capacity to restore landscapes,
conduct research, and recover threatened and endangered species(Nadkarni 2006). Restoration ecologists partnering with
Sustainability in Prisons Project (LeRoy et al. 2012), for example,

School of Biological Sciences, University of Utah, 2Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 3Department of Psychological Sciences,
University of Connecticut, 4Department of Biology, Wofford College, 5Institute for Applied Ecology, Corvallis, Oregon, 6Department of Botany andPlant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 7The Evergreen State College