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, whose
descriptions, 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 the
project. 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 (Stoecker
2009, 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 “citizen
science” rather than the more recently coined “community
scientist” 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 and
Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 7The Evergreen State College

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Table 1. Projects, organisms, outcomes, and institutions of citizen science conservation projects that involve the incarcerated.
Project

Organism(s)Outcomes

Roles of incarcerated
participants

Taylor’s
Checkerspot
Butterfly Program

Euphydryas editha taylori, afederally-endangered species. Also
grow Plantago to feed the leaves tothe larvae upon release from cold
diapause
Euphydryas editha taylori, a federally
endangered species.

24,500+ caterpillars andadult butterflies releasedin Salish lowland prairies
in WA; 18+ certificatesawarded;caterpillars and adultbutterflies released inprairies in OR
112 turtles re-released towild; 17 certificatesawarded
2.7 million+ plant-plugsdelivered; 14 pounds of
Viola adunca and Violahowellii seeds delivered

Taylor’s
Checkerspot
Butterfly Program
Western Pond
Turtle Program

Prairie
Conservation
Nursery Programs

Actinemys marmorata

80+ species of plants for lowland
prairie restoration

Woodpecker Nest
Predation Study

1,000’s of hours of video
data reviewed;
contributing toknowledge of threatened
cavity-nesting woodpecker
species; increases science
ed and engagement fortechs working with
Western pond turtles
879 frogs raised

Correctional institution(s)Duration

Technicians receive educationWAand training to rear, breed, andrelease butterflies and growPlantago.

Mission Creek Corrections
Center for Women(MCCCW)

2011–
present

Technicians receive educationand training to rear butterflies

OR

Coffee Creek Correctional
Facility

2017–present

Technicians receive educationand training to provide
extended care to turtles with a“shell disease”
Technicians receive educationand training to raise nativeplants and seeds for ecologicalrestoration

WA

Larch Corrections Center(LCC), Cedar Creek
Corrections Center (CCCC)

2013–
present

WA

Technicians receive educationand training on pacificnorthwest birds and mammals;learn to review and record
observations from wildlife
camera video data; earn
certificate in association withturtle program

WA

Stafford Creek Corrections
2009–
Center (SCCC; now inactive), present
Washington Corrections
Center for Women (WCCW),
Washington Corrections
Center (WCC)
Cedar Creek Corrections
2017–2020
Center (CCCC)

Technicians receive educationand training to captive-rearand release state-endangered
frogsTechnicians receive training
and provide all aspects of careand breeding for domestic
Suffolk sheep with aim toprovide small herd managers
stock free of a pathogen which
presents major threats to wild
bighorn sheep populations
Technicians receive educationand training to produce
emergent pre-vegetated matsand operate a complex
aquaponics system
Technicians receive educationand training to grow sage
steppe plants

WA

Cedar Creek Corrections
Center (CCCC)

2009–2017

WA

Washington State
Penitentiary (WSP)

2018–
present

WA

Stafford Creek Corrections
Center (SCCC)

2018–
present

Oregon Spotted
Frog Program

Rana pretiosa, a federally
endangered species

Bighorn Sheep
Conservation
ProgramOvis aries

46 domestic sheep born

Emergent PreVegetated Mat(EVM) Program

Mats of various wetland plant
species for habitat restoration

147+ mats and 10,000
plugs

Sagebrush,
Bitterbrush, andSliver Sage in
Prisons Project

Artemisia tridentata, Purshia
tridentata, Artemisia cana

1.5 million+ sagebrushand other sage steppe
plants grown

Mojave Desert
Seed Propagation
Project

Desert needlegrass (Achnatherum/
Stipa speciosum), desert pepperweed(Lepidium fremontii), desert
marigold (Baileya multiradiata),
eastern Mojave buckwheat(Eriogonum fasciculatum), smooth
desert dandelion (Malacothrix
glabrata), desert Indianwheat(Plantago ovata), chia (Salvia
columbariae)
Viola adunca plants are grown andleaves collected for the Oregon
Silverspot butterflies (Argynnis
zerene hippolyta)

Currently haveTechnicians receive education
germinated plants in 825+ and training to grow plants
pots and are planting
annuals in a production
field

Oregon Silverspot
Butterfly Program

Women adults in custodyraise plants. The Oregon
Zoo collects leaves to feedto the Oregon Silverspot
butterflies at the zoo.

Technicians receive educationand training related to ecology,
butterflies, and growing Viola
aduncaState(s)OR, ID, Warner Creek CorrectionalCA, NV, Facility, Snake River
WY
Correctional Facility, South
Boise Women's Correctional
Center, Idaho State
Correctional Center,
Lovelock Correctional
Center, Warm Springs
Correctional Center,Northern Nevada
Correctional Center,
Wyoming Honor Farm,Federal Correctional
Institution, Herlong, CA
CA
CA City Correctional
Facility, Federal

2016–2020

OR

2013–
present

Coffee Creek Correctional
Facility

2019–2020

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

have collaborated with correctional facilities to raise rare nativeplants for release into wild lands. Second, the act of caring forliving organisms, including animals (Ormerod 2008) and plants(Relf and Dorn 1995, Clarke 2011, Lindemuth 2014), as well as
exposure to nature imagery (Nadkarni et al. 2017a) provide
significant therapeutic value to individuals who are incarcerated.
These activities result in calmer, safer prison settings (Nadkarni
et al. 2017b). Third, individuals who engage in actions that giveback to their communities through conservation projects
demonstrate greater accountability and pro-social behavior (e.g.,
sharing readings with cellmates, describing science lectures tovisiting family members; Horns et al. 2020), as well as morepositive attitudes about the environment (Gallagher 2013). The
Great Plains Restoration Council’s Restoration Not Incarceration
program, for example, has positively engaged youth who areincarcerated to integrate with local communities in Gulf Coast
habitats by “helping young adults reintegrate into society byachieving new insights, and which was associated with improved
life outcomes” (Norton et al. 2013, Norton and Holguin 2011).
Fourth, without access to libraries that provide science resourcesor the internet, many people in custody desire but are lacking in
intellectual stimulation. Engaging in the scientific method andreceiving training and presentations from scientists and otherprofessionals provides opportunities for healthy pursuits ofcuriosity (Ulrich and Nadkarni 2009, Weber 2012, Horns et al.
2020). Lastly, vocational and general education have been
demonstrated to reduce rates of recidivism (Bouffard et al. 2000,
Wilson et al. 2000, Davis et al. 2013, Davis 2019), and improve
post-release employment rates and earnings of individuals after
they are released from incarceration (Tyler and Kling 2006, Cho
and Tyler 2013).
In addition to these challenges, the field of restoration ecology,
which has been practiced in the United States for the past century,
has only existed as a recognized sub-discipline of ecology since
the founding its research-based journal, Restoration Ecology,
which was first published in 1993, and thus is a relatively young
scientific discipline. Its youth has contributed to the only recent
emergence of empirical evaluation of restoration programs.
Combined with the other challenges outlined above, it is clear why
there has been so little formal evaluation of ICS programs to date,
which makes this study particularly timely.
Despite the growing interest in these activities, these publications
on the impacts of science outreach to people who are incarcerated
have not generally included quantitative or qualitative analysesof the impacts on the participants. Nearly all of the impacts ofthese projects have been documented anecdotally anddisseminated through the media (Table 2). Formal qualitative andquantitative data on both the expectations of and the outcomes
for the ICS who participate in such projects are lacking. Suchevidence-based information would strengthen our understandingof the benefits of citizen science projects for people who areincarcerated and create best practices for scientists andconservationists who are or wish to implement projects for ICS
and for other public groups that face some of the same barriersand challenges (e.g., lack of internet access, inability to gain
physical access to plants and animals). These data would also
yield evidence for policy makers to provide support for suchprojects in academia, conservation, and corrections arenas.

Why is it that, nearly two decades into the practice of involving
ICS in ecological restoration work, we lack evidence-based
information about the impacts on ICS? Although several states
have well-established conservation programs in prisons (Table 1),
they have had limited capacity to pursue program evaluation or
implement research on these projects. This reduced capacity has
significantly limited the scope of research and our understandingof the challenges and values of such work (Davis et al. 2013).
We recognize four challenges facing those working in this arena,
which involve a combination of logistics, pedagogy, andinstitutional values. First, the collection of formal quantitativeand qualitative data is difficult because of the limited resources
available to meet the need for strict human subject review, giventhat people who are incarcerated are justifiably designated avulnerable population (Johnson et al. 2014). This designationmeans that researchers who work with ICS must be associatedwith an institution with an Institutional Review Board (IRB) thatcan review proposals involving vulnerable human subjects, and/or must use the specific IRB approved by their state corrections
system. Extra care must be taken to implement study recruitment
methods that respect the autonomy of people who areincarcerated, and ensure that informed consent is given
voluntarily and without coercion. Research involving thispopulation also requires significant, and often limited, resourcesfrom corrections staff for review of the methods’ feasibility andsubsequent implementation. Second, correctional populations
tend to experience reduced access to education and have lower
levels of literacy than the general population. Reading and writing
responses to typical surveys can be more difficult for some, andmay necessitate short consent forms and surveys with simplified
language. Third, it can be difficult to elicit authentic responses tosurvey questions among populations who are incarcerated
because of the power dynamics in a carceral setting. Some
individuals are suspicious of authority, and may be less likely toprovide authentic responses; others wish to please authorities(researchers or corrections staff) with the hope of gaining favor,
and thus supply responses that they think are desired. Finally, thecorrections environment is not geared toward education,conservation, or evaluation activities, so there are considerable
logistical hurdles to work around, such as the use of pens incellblocks, the rapid turnover of ICS, corrections staff
collaboration to administer evaluation instruments, andunforeseen lockdowns that interfere with programming schedules.
Since 2014, a team of scientists and conservationists, based at the
University of Utah, has operated a program that addresses thesechallenges. The Initiative to bring Science Programs to the
Incarcerated (INSPIRE) has brought scientists (STEM graduate
students and faculty) from the university to present monthly
science lectures, discussions, and readings, inside the state prison,county jail, and juvenile detention centers. Their formal surveys
documented that these lectures increased science knowledge
content, shifted the self-identity of individuals who areincarcerated toward being science learners, and inspired actions
to seek more information about science (Nadkarni and Morris2018). These effects were manifested even with one or a few
exposures, but impacts were amplified by increasing the numberof lectures attended (Horns et al. 2020). Similar responses were
documented in response to science lectures in other correctional
institutions across the United States (Nadkarni et al. 2020).

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Table 2. Examples of media reports of conservation projects at the local, regional, and national level.
Level

Organism

Correctional
institution

News source (state)

Local

Sagebrush (Artemisia
tridentata)
Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly (Euphydryaseditha taylori)
Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly
Coho Salmon(Oncorhynchus kisutch)
Sagebrush

Warner Creek CF

Lake County Examiner (OR) Warner Creek AIC’s reap what they ‘sow’

May 2019

Coffee Creek CF

Oregon Zoo News (OR)With inmates’ help, rare NW butterfly ishomeward boundMar 2019

Mission Creek CC
for Women
Olympic CC

The Daily Chronicle (WA)May 2019

Salt Lake County
Jail
Coffee Creek CF

Spectrum (UT)

Endangered butterflies rebound in SouthSound prairies
Inmates and others help create salmon
habitat
BLM restoring land with aid from inmates
Oregon corrections inmates to protect, raise
endangered butterflies
Saving Nevada’s sage-grouse, with inmate
volunteers
Coffee Creek inmates help raise hundreds ofendangered butterflies
Turning education into jobs

Mar 2017

Inmates help restore habitat throughsagebrush planting program
Science behind bars is improving lives,
reducing crime
Inmates help restore sage grouse habitat: sage
grouse remains off endangered list due toprisoners’ efforts
Endangered butterfly lab at Coffee Creek
Prison nurtures insects and inmates
Inmates feel better, too, after helping ill
turtles
Raising frogs for freedom, prison project
opens doors
Prisoners do science, help to save endangered
butterfly
Do call it a comeback: how the checkerspot
butterfly found salvation in a women’s prison
Prison inmates save endangered species atCedar Creek Corrections Center
How inmates, scientists, and government
workers are teaming up to save this butterfly

Oct 2018

Biologist wants nature for everyone, including
prisoners
Returning homeSlowing Australia’s revolving prison door
through biodiversity and conservation
projects
Restoring hope and habitat: prison-based
collaborations for ecological conservation in
the USA
Former les détenus à protéger la natureSep 2016

Local

Local
Local
Local
Local
Regional
Regional
Regional

Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly
Sagebrush
Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly
Western pond turtle(Actinemys marmorata)
Sagebrush

Forks Forum (WA)Patch (OR)

Warm Springs
KTVN Ch. 2 Reno (NV)Correctional Center
Coffee Creek CF
KPTV Fox 12 (OR)Cedar Creek CC

Medium; Gov. Inslee (WA)South Boise
Women’s CC
Salt Lake County
JailNorthern Nevada
CC, Warm Springs
CC & Lovelock CC
Coffee Creek CF

Idaho Press (ID)Cedar Creek CF

Seattle Times (WA)

Oregon spotted frog
(Rana pretiosa)
Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly
Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly
Oregon spotted frog

Cedar Creek CC

New York Times (WA)Mission Creek CC
for Women
Mission Creek CC
for Women
Cedar Creek CC

Discover Magazine

National

Native plants &checkerspot butterfly

Yes! Magazine

National

Oregon spotted frog

Stafford Creek CC& Mission Creek
CC for Women
Cedar Creek CC

International Western Pond Turtle
International WA Conservation
Programs

Cedar Creek CC
WA State Prisons

UK Ministry of Justice
Solutions Journal (Australia)

International Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly

Mission Creek CC
for Women

UK Ministry of JusticeInternational Sagebrush

Correctional
Facilities in WA,
UT, ID, NV, MT

Nos Actus (France)

Regional
Regional
Regional

Regional
National

National
National
National

Least chub (Iotichthys
phlegethontis)
Sagebrush

Taylor’s checkerspot
butterfly
Western pond turtle

KSL (UT)
Nevada News Group (NV)KATU 2 (OR)PBS NewsHour
Associated Press

National Geographic

In addition to science lectures, INSPIRE has provided
experiential informal science education through hands-on
training and participation by people who are incarcerated in five
ecological restoration projects (2015–2019) at the Salt Lake
County Jail (SLCJ). These included adult ICS in the constructionof nest boxes for the American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) andparticipation in an exploratory horticulture research project tore-establish native plants in wetlands habitat around the Great

Article title

Date

Aug 2018
Nov 2016

Apr 2019
Mar 2019
Jun 2019

Nov 2015
Aug 2016

Jul 2017
Apr 2014
Sep 2012
Aug 2012
May 2016
Sep 2012
Oct 2017

Jun 2019
May 2017

Dec 2018

Mar 2017

Salt Lake (Marty and Kettenring 2017, Crockett et al. 2018). A
third conservation project involved ICS youth (14–18 years old),
who grew native milkweed that were out-planted by community
conservationists to provide habitat and food for migrating
monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). Participation by ICS
were formally assessed for two other projects: the Least Chub
Refuge Pond Project and the Sagebrush Restoration Project,described below.

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Assessment of the impacts of participation in conservation
projects on individual ICS is a complex matter that involves
different expertise from that of giving ecological science lecturesor leading conservation activities. Specifically, the design andimplementation of learning assessments requires expertise inpsychological construct validity and measurement. These skills
are not in the typical “toolbox” of ecological researchers involved
and, therefore, properly assessing the impact of ICS on
participants’ outcomes requires close collaboration with social
scientists.
First, measuring the impacts of lectures and activities onparticipants’ science knowledge content requires expertise indesigning and implementing learning assessments to becompleted by attendees before and immediately after science
presentations. We collaborated with experts in STEM educationand evaluation who helped to design these learning selfassessments. Second, it was challenging to determine how toassess participants’ expectations of ICS before engaging with an
ongoing long-term conservation project, and understanding thepsychosocial impacts of involvement in conservation activities,
including interacting with scientists over weeks or months, giventhat this type of work with this type of audience has little
precedent. These assessments required additional knowledge ofthe potential psychosocial consequences, positive and negative,that could emerge from the ICS experience and the best way toassess these impacts. Also, because the impacts of ICS can differ
from scientists’ expectations, we included open-ended survey
questions or interviews in order to capture responses unforeseenby the researchers who design and select the pre- and post-ICS
assessments.
In this paper, we provide a case study that reveals some of thechallenges to understand the impacts of participation inconservation projects on ICS. We describe assessment outcomesof two conservation projects carried out in the Salt Lake County
Jail in Utah. We report on and compare results using closed-ended
and open-ended data from surveys. We discuss the importance ofcollaboration of ecologists and other scientists involved withcitizen science projects with social scientists to more holisticallyassess impacts of these projects on participants. Finally, we
provide recommendations on how to initiate, maintain, and assess
citizen science projects with people who are incarcerated, which
may be applied to other populations who lack access to natureand traditional citizen science projects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study site
The conservation projects took place at the Salt Lake County Jail(SLCJ), which is operated by the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s
Office, and houses approximately 2300 inmates, from minimum
to maximum security. Previous baseline surveys of people
incarcerated at the SLCJ (Nadkarni and Morris 2018), documentthat 77% are men, with the majority of them White non-Hispanics(65%). Hispanics made up the largest proportion of minority
groups (26%). For the highest level of education attained, thelargest category was a high school diploma (26%), followed by“some college” (23%) and “some high school” (18%).
The ICS for this study were drawn from the general jail populationand from SLCJ’s Horticulture Program, established in 2009 under

its Jails Program Division. It provides education and vocational
training to qualified, non-violent inmates (“trustees”). Working
cooperatively with community partners to facilitate reintegration
and reduce recidivism, the program supports a 1.2 ha garden, twogreenhouses, three hoop houses (plant-growing spaces withflexible structural members), and a chicken coop on the jailpremises. The composition of the trustee pool varies because theyrotate in and out of these programs, depending on their sentences
and other responsibilities such as meetings with lawyers andfamilies. In general, the number of trustees at any time ranges
from 40 to 60 individuals, and so represents a small proportionof the general jail population. Because our study extended overa period of six years, the number of surveyed participants involved
over 200 individuals.
We assessed impacts of participation in two conservation projects.
The Least Chub Refuge Pond Project was initiated in May 2015,
when the INSPIRE program partnered with the SLCJ and the
Utah Division of Wildlife Services (DWS). The SLCJ created a
1.0 ha “refuge pond” on its property for the least chub (Iotichthys
phlegethontis), a Utah state-sensitive fish. This native mosquitoeating species plays an important role in Utah’s natural mosquito
abatement efforts, and is threatened by more aggressive
introduced species called the western mosquitofish (Gambusia
affinis; Ayala et al. 2007). The program was funded by $150,000
from the prisoner-services (commissary profits) account, and wasapproved by the Salt Lake City Council. The DWS provided 5000
native fish for the refuge pond to help repopulate this species.
Scientists from the DWS and INSPIRE provided ICS withlectures on concepts and skills in science and sustainability,
including fish biology, aquatic macroinvertebrate ecology, waterchemistry, and the rationale for and practices of conservation.
Staff at the SLCJ provided security clearances for scientists, andofficers provided oversight for safe behavior. The ICS carried out
fish censuses, cleared the pond of algae, conducted and recorded
water chemistry measurements, and attended lectures andworkshops, with accompanying readings, presented by INSPIRE
staff.
The second project, the Sagebrush Restoration Project, involved
growing seedlings of sagebrush for ongoing work to restore
burned habitat of the iconic sage grouse (Centrocercus
urophasianus), whose numbers are decreasing across theintermountain west. In 2017, INSPIRE contracted with theInstitute for Applied Ecology (IAE) to involve adults incorrectional institutions. Funded by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), this effort involved ICS (men and women)
to grow ca. 24,000 seedlings as plugs of native sagebrush fromlocal and regional provenance. The IAE provided seeds, soils,
containers, and established protocols, and coordinated the outplanting of mature seedlings with BLM staff. INSPIRE staff
provided accompanying science lectures and workshops aboutsage grouse biology, the rationale for the Endangered Species Act,and horticultural protocols.
Recruitment of participants
All participants in the least chub program were men recruitedfrom the horticulture program. The inclusion of men only was
because the large majority of people who are incarcerated are
male (nearly 95% on average across the United States), and thecapacity for gaining access to women exceeded the time and effort

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

that was available to the participants at that time. Recruitment
for the Sagebrush project was from women and men’s minimumsecurity cellblocks. In all cases, selection of participants was madeby officers and staff of the SLCJ. Participants were required tohave indicators of good behavior and no violent infractions. All
participation was voluntary and those who participated received
no extra incentive or rewards from INSPIRE. Letters ofappreciation were offered to participants, and most accepted
them. Participant demographics are provided in Table 3.
Design of surveys and evaluation protocols
Survey design and data management were carried out incollaboration with the Utah Education Policy Center (UEPC),
an independent educational research organization at the
University of Utah. This study was reviewed and approved by theInstitutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Utah
(IRB_00061095) for all protocols, consent letter, survey
documents, study logic model, and recruitment flyer texts.
Since 2004, our research team has been carrying out a range ofactivities that bring science and nature to people who areincarcerated (Ulrich and Nadkarni 2009). For the first eight years,
science lectures were sporadically delivered to adults who areincarcerated in a variety of correctional institutions without
formal and systematic evaluation instruments. These provided
opportunities for informal feedback of participants who areincarcerated and corrections staff and allowed us to gauge thelevel of appropriate lecture terminology and concepts and to gain
an understanding of the learning abilities of these audiences. This
information led us to place necessary constraints on language,
amount of text, and length of written surveys.
Using this knowledge, the questions and categories for our surveys
were created by a professional educational evaluator at the Utah
Education Policy Center (UEPC). Survey questions were basedaround the topics of science, math, nature, and conservation.
Evaluation instruments were based in part on the theory ofplanned behavior and the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen andFishbein 1980, De Leeuw et al. 2015). However, the novel natureof this audience and lack of preceding formal studies did notallow direct use of that literature. Where possible, we selected
items from validated surveys, modified items as necessary, anddeveloped our own questions when preexisting surveys did not
apply. The question topics for our surveys (listed below) were
derived from validated scales: attitudes toward science, who cando science, and enjoyment of studying science and math(Scientific Attitude Inventory; Moore and Foy 1997); perceptionof the utility of science in daily life (Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire; Pintrich and De Groot 1990); value ofknowing math to help earn a living (Fennema-Sherman
Mathematics Attitudes Scale; Fennema and Sherman 1976); andvalue of environmental protection for benefits to self and others(New Environmental/ Ecological Paradigm scale; Dunlap and
Van Liere 1978, Dunlap et al. 2000). All other survey questions
were original and not derived from validated scales.
INSPIRE staff and select SLCJ staff gave individual ICS a preparticipation survey and consent forms for assessment when they
started their work on the project, and a post-participation survey
when they left the project because of release or transfer to adifferent cell block. In many cases, neither the INSPIRE staff nor

the ICS received notice of release or transfer, which resulted in alarge number of unmatched surveys. For quantitative analysis,
only matched pre- and post-participation surveys were used in
the analyses (n = 225). For qualitative analyses, all non-duplicatecompleted entrance and exit surveys were used in the analysis.
Methods for quantitative analyses
The quantitative portion of the survey included Likert scalequestions with responses ranging from “strongly disagree tostrongly agree”; for behavioral intent questions, responses ranged
from “very unlikely” to “very likely”. Questions on the surveys
were randomly ordered but are reordered here to facilitate
interpretation. Reliability scores of greater than 0.70 indicate
acceptable agreement (Fleiss 1981); most constructs in our survey,
other than Logistics and Incarceration questions, were near or
acceptably reliable. We categorized 35 survey questions into ten
categories (with Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores for matchedentrance and exit surveys, respectively): Identity with science andscientists (ISS; α = 0.68, 0.82); Science and math connection tolife (SML; α = 0.77, 0.81); Math education (ME; one question);
General education (GE; one question); Relationship with theenvironment (RE; α = 0.80, 0.77); Employment related to theenvironment (EE; α = 0.91, 0.80); Incarceration (IN; α = 0.44,0.52); Logistics (LOG; α = 0.60, 0.41); Behaviors related to science(SB; α = 0.80, 0.89); and Personal relationships with others (PR;α = 0.86, 0.89). All questions and question categories are provided
in Table 4.
Entrance and exit surveys were matched using identification
numbers issued by the correctional institution and provided byparticipants on the surveys. We matched 44 entrance and exit
surveys from the Least Chub Project. For the Sagebrush Project,
we only obtained five matched entrance and exit surveys; thesewere not included in the quantitative analysis. Although wecollected demographic information on the survey (Table 3), thesample size of matched surveys was too small to differentiate
responses with respect to ethnicity or educational background.
To determine if survey responses changed as a result ofparticipation in the conservation project, we compared entrance
and exit survey results for both individual questions and forquestion categories using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank
tests. Significance levels were adjusted using the false discovery
rate procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995). Quantitative
analyses were carried out in the R statistical programming
environment (R Core Team 2021).
Methods of qualitative analyses
Across the two projects, there were 202 responses to the entrance
survey open-ended question and 60 responses to the exit survey
open-ended questions. Of the 202 participants who responded tothe entrance survey, 33 responded to the exit survey. An additional
27 participants, who had not responded to the entrance survey,
responded to the exit survey.
In the entrance surveys, participants were asked one question
about what they hoped to gain from the project. There were 202
unique (non-duplicate) responses to code. In the exit surveys,
participants were asked two questions, one about what benefits
they gained from the project and the other about what benefits
the project provides to the community outside of the jail. Acrossthe two questions, there were 93 unique (non-duplicate) responses

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Table 3. Demographics and education levels of participating incarcerated citizen scientists.
Least Chub Project
Total participants (n = 255)

Sagebrush Project

Matched entrance and exit
surveys (n = 44)‡

Total participants (n = 39)

Count

%

Count

%

Count

%

Ethnic background
White (non-Hispanic)
Hispanic or Latino
Native American or Alaska Native
Black or African American
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Asian
Two or more ethnicities

176
26
3
17
5
4
11

70
10
1
7
2
2
4

32
2
0
2
1
1
6

73
5
0
5
2
2
14

26
4
1
1
0
2
5

67
10
3
3
0
5
13

Highest level of education attained
Junior high or lessSome high school
HS diploma
GED
Some college
Associate’s degree
Bachelor’s degree
Graduate or professional school

7
40
65
41
39
18
8
4

3
18
29
18
18
8
4
2

1
8
12
5
6
4
2
0

3
21
32
13
16
11
5
0

2
3
11
2
6
7
4
1

6
8
31
6
17
19
11
3

†

†

Ethnic background categories sum to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one category.
Matched entrance and exit surveys for the Sagebrush Project were insufficient for analysis (n = 5).
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to some respondents choosing not to complete all portions of demographic section of the survey. All
participants in the Least Chub Project were men. Participants in the Sagebrush Project were mixed gender.
‡

to code. The responses to open-ended questions ranged from no
response (blank) to a few sentences. The blank answers were notcoded or included in the counts.
After initial read-through of the responses, we generated acoding scheme that included each of the themes mentioned by
the participants. For each participant response, themes werecoded as present or absent by two trained coders. Agreement
between the two coders was extremely high (90%), anddisagreements were resolved through discussion.
RESULTS
Quantitative results
Quantitative analysis of responses grouped by question category
indicated a significant change (P < 0.05, Wilcoxon signed ranktest) from entrance to exit survey for only two categories (Fig.
1): Math education (ME; entrance survey = 4.66 ± 0.57, exit
survey = 4.38 ± 0.17; data are means ± standard deviation), andRelationship with the environment (RE; entrance survey = 4.50
± 0.55, exit survey = 4.30 ± 0.52). However, these results were
not significant after correction for multiple comparisons using
the false discovery rate procedure. The Math education category
consisted of a single question: “I am sure that I can learn math.”
When individual questions were tested separately, four showeda significant decrease from entrance survey to exit survey (i.e.,a change indicating that the experience was negative); these were:“I am interested in learning science” (Identity with science andscientists [ISS] category), “I can contribute to science” (ISScategory), “I am sure that I can learn math” (ME category; seeabove), and “If I can, I want to start a garden after I leave here”(RE category; Table 4). In one case (“Even though I am in jail,Fig. 1. Summary of quantitative survey data from entrance
surveys (first bar for each category) and exit surveys (secondbar for each category). Bars represent mean score for eachsurvey question category ± standard deviation. Scores for Matheducation (ME) and Relationship with the environment (RE)signficantly decreased from entrance to exit survey (P < 0.05,
Wilcoxon signed rank test); however, this difference was not
significant after correction for multiple comparisons.

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Table 4. Entrance and exit survey questions and responses of incarcerated citizen scientists for this study.
Mean ± s.d.

Wilcoxon signed
rank test

Survey categories and questions

Entrance survey

Identity with science and scientists (ISS)†
1. Only highly trained scientists can understand science.
2. Scientists are not so different from me.
†
3. Scientific work is useful only to scientists.
†
4. Scientific work would be too hard for me.
5. Working in science or learning about science would be fun.
6. I am interested in learning science.
7. I am interested in doing science.
8. I can contribute to science.
Mean of question category

1.81
3.86
2.07
2.07
4.35
4.45
4.38
4.50
4.17

±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±

1.22
0.99
1.24
1.30
0.72
0.71
0.78
0.75
0.58

1.64
3.95
2.29
2.10
4.36
4.10
4.15
4.03
4.10

±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±

Science and math connection to life (SML)
9. Science helps me in my daily life.
10. Math helps me in my daily life.
11. Knowing science will help me earn a living.
12. Knowing math will help me earn a living.
Mean of question category

4.07
4.41
3.98
4.39
4.21

±
±
±
±
±

1.00
0.79
0.83
0.69
0.64

4.16
4.16
4.00
4.23
4.14

Math education (ME)
13. I am sure that I can learn math.

4.66

±

0.57

General education (GE)
14. I would like to continue my education.

4.56

±

4.55

Relationship with the environment (RE)15. Engaging in actions that help the earth, such as recycling and reducing waste,
is important to me.
16. I really enjoy being outdoors.
17. If I can, I want to start a garden after I leave here.
18. I feel a personal bond with things in my natural surroundings, like trees, astream, wildlife, or the view on the horizon.
19. In order to conserve resources, I would be willing to take personal action suchas using less water and turning off lights.
20. Environmental protection benefits everyone.
Mean of question category
Employment related to the environment (EE)
21. When I leave jail, I would prefer a job where I work with plants or animals.
22. When I leave jail, I would prefer a job that helps to protect the naturalenvironment.
Mean of question category
Incarceration (IN)23. My family or friends outside jail know what sort of work or programs I am
involved in here.
24. I don’t feel like I am a part of a community inside this jail.
25. Even though I am in jail, I still feel connected to the outside community.
26. Even though I am in jail, it is important to me to contribute to the outsidecommunity if I can.
Mean of question category
Logistics (LOG)†
27. I do not like filling out surveys.
28. I would be willing to complete a longer survey than this one.
Mean of question category
Behaviors related to science (SB)
29. How likely are you to look for information about science (for example, on‡
television or in newspapers)?
30. How likely are you to talk to someone in the jail about issues related to‡science?
Mean of question category

Exit survey

V

P

1.04
1.21
1.31
1.34
0.76
0.81
0.84
0.95
0.69

94
117
133
118.5
85.5
100.5
85.5
151.5
422.5

0.449
0.323
0.545
0.929
0.686
0.016
0.141
0.018
0.454

±
±
±
±
±

0.75
1.13
0.76
0.81
0.69

72.5
138.5
69
102.5
394

0.571
0.074
0.729
0.202
0.523

4.38

±

0.79

100

0.017

0.70

4.51

±

0.77

55.5

0.871

±

0.63

4.21

±

0.91

166

0.071

4.86
4.44
4.36

±
±
±

0.42
0.77
0.87

4.67
4.14
4.19

±
±
±

0.61
0.83
0.70

58.5
221.5
126.5

0.122
0.032
0.172

4.33

±

0.94

4.24

±

0.69

124

0.466

4.51
4.50

±
±

0.80
0.55

4.40
4.30

±
±

0.79
0.52

124.5
470

0.455
0.011

3.84
3.88

±
±

0.90
0.96

4.10
3.84

±
±

0.79
0.90

78.5
108

0.18
0.6

3.86

±

0.89

3.95

±

0.78

174

0.722

3.95

±

1.29

4.28

±

0.98

64.5

0.218

2.50
3.15
4.37

±
±
±

1.25
1.28
0.79

2.54
3.67
4.21

±
±
±

1.27
1.21
0.80

176.5
100.5
143

0.99
0.016
0.321

3.51

±

0.59

3.70

±

0.52

293

0.531

2.91
3.56
3.33

±
±
±

1.19
1.26
1.03

3.07
3.38
3.17

±
±
±

1.18
1.19
0.94

103
146.5
205

0.448
0.276
0.452

3.93

±

1.10

3.88

±

0.99

96.5

0.623

3.51

±

1.23

3.77

±

0.95

49

0.057

3.7

±

1.10

3.84

±

0.92

139.5

0.357

(con'd)

*
*

*

*

*

*

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Personal relationships with others (PR)
31. How well would you say you get along with prisoners?
32. How well would you say you get along with officers?
33. How well would you say you get along with teachers working at the jail?
34. How well would you say you get along with civilians working at the jail?
35. How well would you say you get along with your family?
Mean of question category

3.68
3.58
3.65
3.65
3.83
3.65

±
±
±
±
±
±

0.47
0.50
0.48
0.48
0.38
0.39

3.71
3.6
3.68
3.73
3.79
3.71

±
±
±
±
±
±

0.46
0.50
0.47
0.45
0.42
0.38

12
32.5
30
22
33
138.5

0.777
0.594
0.802
0.565
0.565
0.526

†

Question with reversed polarity; responses were reversed for calculation of mean of question category.
Behavioral question; Likert scale responses were 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely).
*P < 0.05; no results were significant after correction for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate method.
‡

I still feel connected to the outside community”; Incarceration[IN] category), responses were significant in the direction thatindicated a positive response to the experience. None of thedifferences for individual questions was statistically significant
after correction for multiple comparisons.

participants said they gained “knowledge of endangered fish andpesticides” and “greater knowledge of fish & wildlife care &conservation.” Several participants also reported gaining hardskills (18.6% of responses), such as “learning how to tend to fishand pond upkeep” in the Least Chub Project.

Qualitative Results
Among the responses to the entrance survey question, the modal
response was one goal mentioned and ranged from zero to five.
The mean number of goals was 1.42 (SD = 0.09); the median was
one goal provided. Of the participants who supplied responses tothis question, participants varied in the types of outcomes thatthey hoped would result from their experiences in their project
entrance surveys (Table 5). The majority of respondents (68.8%
of those who responded to the question) reported that theywanted to learn and gain knowledge. For example, participants
said they wanted to “learn more about natural resource and life
science” and gain “a better understanding of different
environments & wildlife preservation.” Another commonly
reported motivation was to gain skills (27.2% of those who
responded to the question).

Some respondents (22.1% of responses to the question)
mentioned gaining psychological benefits from the experience.
Participating in the program provided some participants with apersonal sense of accomplishment, especially from being able to
make a positive contribution to the world. For example,“Knowing that I contributed to the better health of the chub andalso the betterment of the condition of the pond and the natural
habitat of its surroundings” and “I enjoyed being a part of a
project to better our habitat.” Similarly, respondents mentionedthat the experience was a positive or even healing one: “I was able
to get a sense of accomplishment as well as educate myself. I feellike it was very therapeutic as well.” Furthermore, the experienceclearly shaped some participants’ feelings of connection with theenvironment, “We are all a part of nature!!” “It’s an opportunity
to provide a service to the community and give back to theenvironment.” A minority of responses (3.4%) stated that they
did not think there were any personal benefits of their
participation to themselves nor to society.

Most of these responses described wanting to gain concreteknowledge and/or skills that participants could use after being
released, such as “How to go about growing and processing myown food for me and my family.” Some also mentioned wanting
to gain skills for future employment: “I was told I would take aclass and if I pass a test, I will receive a certificate helping me withmy landscaping/arborist job/career.”
Some respondents (22.8% of those who responded to thequestion) also reported that they hoped the experience would help
them become a better person or give back to the community. For
example, participants hoped “to be more connected to nature andwork better with others” and “to give back to the community, andhelp the environment.” They also hoped to gain “the feeling that
I am contributing somehow” and wanting to “[give] back to thecommunity doing something positive with my time.” In addition,some respondents (17.3% of those who responded to the question)
reported that they hoped to gain a positive experience fromparticipating in the program. Many of these participants said theywanted to get “fresh air” or time outdoors. For example, “fresh
air and knowledge about sagebrush” and “good time, sunshine,and learning how to husband fish on a large scale.”In response to the open-ended question about benefits gained
personally, the modal number of benefits mentioned was one andranged from zero to four. The average number of personal benefits
was 1.51 (SD = 0.84). Most responses described scientificknowledge (68.8% of responses), with many explicitly mentioning
learning about conservation (44.1% of responses). For example,

In terms of post-project benefits to the broader community, themodal number of benefits mentioned in responses was one andranged from zero to three. The average number of benefits
mentioned was 1.10 (SD = 0.68). Of those who responded to thequestion, the majority (78.3%) mentioned conservation.
Participants mentioned that the broader community would gainfrom conservation, “by helping save an endangered species” and“everyone can benefit from the least chub by eliminatingmosquitos.” Also, “How to maintain and care for a plant so thatit grows to be a strong and healthy plant.”
Some respondents (25% of those who responded) mentioned thatthe program provided inmates the opportunity to give back tosociety, such as “That we help out in a major project to jelp [sic]our planet” and “It is providing a service to the community byproviding an ecosystem for an endangered species to survive.” A
few respondents also mentioned that the program gives them theopportunity to change people’s views about prisoners (6.7% of
those who responded). For example, “We helped in working torestore the sagebrush habitat to protect the sage grouse and several
other species. I think it helps the community know we are doingproductive things.” A very small proportion of responses (1.7%)
indicated that they did not think there were any community
benefits to the program.

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Table 5. Themes, percent of total responses, and examples of entries in written responses of incarcerated citizen scientists on entrance
and exit surveys.
Entrance question themes

Percent of total
responses

Increase knowledge

68.8

Gain skills

27.2

Gain social or personal benefits

22.8

Have positive experience

17.3

Exit survey about personal benefits themes
Learned knowledge
Learned about conservation
Psychological benefits

68.8
44.1
22.1

Gained skills
Had a positive experience

18.6
10.2

Don’t think there were any
Exit survey about societal benefits themes
Conservation

3.4
78.3

Giving back to others
Don’t think there are any

25
1.7

Examples“learn more about natural resources and life science”“a better understanding of different environments & wildlife preservation.”“How to go about growing and processing my own food for me and my family.”“I was told I would take a class and if I pass a test, I will receive a certificate helping mewith my landscaping/arborist job/career.”“to be more connected to nature and work better with others”“to give back to the community, and help the environment.”“the feeling that I am contributing somehow”“fresh air”
“Good time, sunshine, and learning how to husband fish on a large scale”“knowledge of endangered fish & pesticides”“greater knowledge of fish & wildlife care & conservation”“Knowing that I contributed to the better health of the chub and also the betterment of
the condition of the pond and the natural habitat of its surroundings”“I enjoyed being a part of a project to better our habitat.”“I was able to get a sense of accomplishment as well as educate myself. I feel like it wasvery therapeutic as well.”“We are all a part of nature!!”“learning how to tend to fish and pond upkeep”“I was able to get a sense of accomplishment as well as educate myself. I feel like it wasvery therapeutic as well.”“by helping save an endangered species” and “everyone can benefit from the least chub by
eliminating mosquitos”“How to maintain and care for a plant so that it grows to be a strong and healthy plant.”“That we help out in a major project to jelp [sic] our planet”

DISCUSSION
Incorporating concepts and actions for natural resource
conservation into correctional facilities is part of a wider
movement to broaden participation in environmental work
(Taylor 2014). The activities we describe here contribute tounderstanding and documenting the influence and impacts of theyoung but growing field of citizen science programs on people
who are incarcerated. This might lead to increasing access ofscience sustainability, and conservation actions—with its
accompanying psychological, physical, and emotional benefits—
for populations who live or work in areas without access to wild
nature, and/or in built environments that lack connection to or
views of nature, such as seniors in assisted living centers, military
personnel who live in barracks, and those in rehabilitation centers,in addition to ICS (Nadkarni et al. 2017a).
In this study, the quantitative survey data by itself suggested that
there was little apparent response to participation in conservation
projects. Our quantitative results, when taken on their own,suggest caution in how citizen science programs are implemented,
as there was some indication that these programs have thepotential to degrade the confidence of people who areincarcerated. However, the questions indicating that participation
in a conservation project had a negative effect (four out of 35
questions) were not statistically significant when multiple
comparisons were controlled for. We speculate that the mannerin which some scientific topics were discussed by academic
lecturers may have been off-putting or intimidating, because of

vocabulary or presentation style, and that the questions did not
directly measure the impacts that were documented in thequalitative responses.
In contrast, the qualitative analyses of participants’ open-ended
responses clearly document positive impacts from participation.
These included ICS reports that they had learned about science,and conservation specifically. Their responses went far beyond
learning facts about science, and included their reporting that theyfelt a sense of contribution, an emotion that is often lacking inthe sphere of people who are incarcerated. These findings also
provide additional context for the interpretation of thequantitative results. A close inspection of the numbers in Table 4
reveals a relatively high level of agreement (averages typicallyabove four on a five-point scale) with items reflecting theimportance of conservation, personal enjoyment of the outdoors,and desire to contribute to society at large. Thus, the open-ended
responses provided insights into the most rewarding aspects of
ICS for participants.
Ecologists have a tendency to focus on quantitative data to provide
evidence for patterns, and typically (with exceptions), do not havetraining in psychological theories or research design andmethodology for studying psychological processes. For thisreason, we strongly encourage ecologists to partner with social
scientists who are (generally) trained in psychological constructs
underlying human behavior and the methodologies needed torigorously assess ICS impacts.

Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Our results indicate that relying on quantitative data alone does
not reveal the entire story, particularly when the questions asked
only address a portion of the potential impacts of the experienceof the citizen scientists. Our outcomes encourage researchers to
use mixed methods, i.e., both qualitative and quantitative,
approaches to understand impacts of such projects, as survey
measures using Likert-type responses are likely to miss impacts
that are unforeseen or do not seem central to the purpose of thescientific activity. These findings are not without limitations. The
open-ended survey questions were asked at the end of the larger
closed-ended survey, and consequently participants’ responses
could have been influenced by the measures that preceded them.
It is possible that some participants used the open-ended
responses to emphasize certain aspects of their responses to theclosed-ended surveys or to highlight aspects of the experience thatthey did not feel were adequately captured by the survey items
before. Nonetheless, the results of the qualitative analysis clearly
showed that some participants gained significant psychosocial
benefits from participating. These limitations highlight the needfor deeper, more extensive qualitative research, such as a series ofinterviews and focus groups, to more fully investigate the impacts
of ICS on participants.

IRB permissions for Human Subjects Review, and many may
work at institutions where no IRB exists (e.g., small liberal arts
colleges or community colleges).

It is important to note that qualitative research is a broad categorythat is defined by collecting non-numerical data (Jansen 2010).
Although open-ended survey questions are one method ofcollecting qualitative responses, there are other tools such as
interviews and focus groups that render much richer data. Social
scientists often encourage researchers to first conduct qualitative
research (e.g., interviews, focus groups) to more deeply
understand a context and then design quantitative surveys toshow the results more definitively in a larger sample (Creswell andCreswell 2017). One barrier to this two-step approach incorrectional institutions is that you might only get “one shot” tocollect data. Although one-shot data collection is not the “ideal”
way to conduct mixed methods research, which specifies that thequalitative and quantitative methods should mutually inform one
another (Creswell and Tashakkori 2007), we contend thatcollecting both at the same time is better than the alternative of
relying on only one form of information in the single-shot datacollection scenario. Furthermore, when social scientists can be
engaged in ICS from the beginning, they may be able to conduct
truly qualitative research that informs improvements to the ICS
programs, and partner with ecologists to assess the impacts of the
ICS programs as well. As a result, the interdisciplinary
partnership between ecologists and social scientists in ICS
programs, from development to evaluation, will provide the mostrewarding outcomes across the board.

Acknowledgments:

In our study, the quantitative questions did not cover the rangeof goals and benefits reported in participants’ qualitative
responses to the open-ended questions. If we had collected andreported only the traditional Likert scale data, then we would
have missed some of the motivations behind ICS participationand the subjective impacts of these activities reported by the ICS.
In most academic settings such as R1 universities, naturalscientists and social scientists tend to occupy different arenas,
with different theories, journals, approaches, and tools. Few
ecologists have access to social science tools, and, because of thislimitation, many of the impacts of conservation and ecologicalrestoration activities on public groups might be misinterpreted or
lost. Even fewer have the time and capacity to write and maintain

Further questions that arise from this study include the following:(1) How generalizable is this approach across types of correctional
institutions, security levels, age, gender, ethnic groups, andeducation levels of ICS? (2) What are the impacts, benefits, andchallenges for the scientists who become engaged with people whoare incarcerated? (3) How might corrections institutions’ needs
and capacity constraints be addressed and shifted to improve theability to research program impacts? If ecologists can develop andsustain collaborations with social scientists, ecologists will bebetter poised to answer these questions.

Responses to this article can be read online at:https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
php/13423

We acknowledge the collaboration of the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s
Office, and the University of Utah College of Science. Samantha
Riley helped with coding. We thank Emily Gaines Crockett andMatthew Whittaker for logistical support. Stacy Eddings and theUEPC provided guidance on evaluation. We are grateful to Sheriffs
Rosie Rivera and Jim Winder, Deputy Sheriffs Matt Dumont andPam Lofgren, Capt. Brent Dietrich, Lts. Richard Morse andJennifer Stansfield, and Sgts. Terry Wall, Shon Lance, Troy Breeze,and Benjamin Page, and Joshua R. Murphy and Robin Sweeney for
their support at the SLCJ. We acknowledge the Institute for Applied
Ecology, Ronda Naseth (Oregon butterfly program), theSustainability in Prisons Project (WA Corrections Secretary, Steve
Sinclair, and SPP Education and Outreach Manager Joslyn Rose
Trivett), and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. We thank the
National Science Foundation grants (DRL-1204448 andDRL-1514494 to NMN) and the Utah State Department of
Education for financial and in-kind support.
Data Availability:
The data/code that support the findings of this study are available
on request from the corresponding author (NMN). None of thedata/code are publicly available because they contain informationthat could compromise the privacy of research participants. Ethicalapproval for this research study was granted by University of Utah
Institutional Review Board # IRB_00061095.
LITERATURE CITED
Ajzen I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes andpredicting social behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived
behavioral control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
USA.
Ayala, J. R., R. B. Rader, M. C. Belk, and G. B. Schaalje. 2007.
Ground-truthing the impact of invasive species: spatio-temporal
overlap between native least chub and introduced westernEcology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

mosquitofish. Biological Invasions 9(7):857-869. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10530-006-9087-4
Benjamini, Y., and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false
discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple
testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B(Methodological) 57(1):289-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.
tb02031.x
Bouffard, J. A., D. L. MacKenzie, and L. J. Hickman. 2000.
Effectiveness of vocational education and employment programs
for adult offenders: a methodology-based analysis of theliterature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 31(1-2):1-41.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v31n01_01
Cho, R. M., and J. H. Tyler. 2013. Does prison-based adult basic
education improve post release outcomes for male prisoners in
Florida? Crime & Delinquency 59(7):915-1005. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0011128710389588
Clarke, S. E. 2011. Assessing the rehabilitative potential of scienceand sustainability education in prisons: a study of the Sustainable
Prisons Project. Dissertation, Evergreen State College, Olympia,
Washington, USA. https://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/
Accession86-10MES/Clarke_SMESThesis2011.pdf
Creswell, J. W., and J. D. Creswell. 2017. Research design:qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
Creswell, J. W., and Tashakkori, A. 2007. Developing publishable
mixed methods manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research
1(2):107-111 https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298644
Crockett, E. G., J. E. Marty, K. M. Kettenring, N. M. Nadkarni.
2018. Providing hands-on opportunities for inmates to contributeto ecological research. Corrections Today 41-45. https://drive.
google.com/file/d/1aOvcpom4JxnXi8IhvNiw4R8cw2TwkdCD/view
Davis, L. M. 2019. Higher education programs in prison: what
we know now and what we should focus on going forward. Rand,
Santa Monica, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.7249/PE342
Davis, L. M., R. Bozick, J. L. Steele, J. Saunders, and J. N. Miles.
2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: ameta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated
adults. Rand, Santa Monica, California, USA. https://doi.
org/10.7249/RR266
De Leeuw, A., P. Valois, I. Ajzen, and P. Schmidt. 2015. Using
the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying
pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: implications
for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 42:128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.005
Dickinson, J., B. Zuckerberg, and D. Bonter. 2010. Citizen science
as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41:149-172.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 1978. The “newenvironmental paradigm.” Journal of Environmental Education
9(4):10-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones.
2000. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes:

measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised
NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425-442. https://doi.
org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Fennema, E., and J. A. Sherman. 1976. Fennema-Sherman
mathematics attitudes scales: instruments designed to measureattitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females andmales. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 7(5):324-326. https://doi.org/10.2307/748467
Fleiss, J. L. 1981. Balanced incomplete block designs for interrater reliability studies. Applied Psychological Measurement 5(1):105-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168100500115
Gallagher, B.E. 2013. Science and sustainability programs inprisons: assessing the effects of participation on inmates.
Dissertation, Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington,
USA. https://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/
Gallagher_B2013.pdf
Horns, J. J., N. M. Nadkarni, and A. Anholt. 2020. How repeatedexposure to informal science education affects content knowledgeof and perspectives on science among incarcerated adults.
PlosOne 15(5):e0233083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233083
Jansen, H. 2010. The logic of qualitative survey research and its
position in the field of social research methods. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research 11(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/
fqs-11.2.1450
Johnson, M. E., C. Brems, B. L. Hanson, S. L. Corey, G. D.
Eldridge, and K. Mitchell. 2014. Conducting ethical research withcorrectional populations: do researchers and IRB members know
the federal regulations? Research Ethics 10(1):6-16. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1747016113494652
Kaye, T. N., K. Bush, C. Naugle, and C. J. LeRoy. 2015.
Conservation projects in prison: the case for engaging
incarcerated populations in conservation and science. Natural
Areas Journal 35(1):90-97. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.035.0113
LeRoy, C. J., K. Bush, J. R. Trivett, and B. Gallagher. 2012. The
Sustainability in Prisons Project, an Overview (2004-12).
Sustainability in Prisons Project, Olympia, Washington, USA.
http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Overviewcover-text-reduced-size.pdf
Lindemuth, A. L. 2014. Beyond the bars: landscapes for healthand healing in corrections. Pages 361-374 in K. G. Tidball and
M. E. Krasny, editors. Greening in the red zone: disaster, resilienceand community greening. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9947-1_27
MacArthur, B. L., L. A. Lindenfeld, E. Aurbach, B. Bevan, andT. P. Newman. 2020. Bridging science with society: defining
pathways for engagement. Communication Center Journal 6(1):62-78. http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ccj/article/view/2062
Marty, J. E., and K. M. Kettenring. 2017. Seed dormancy breakand germination for restoration of three globally important
wetland bulrushes. Ecological Restoration 35(2):138-147. https://doi.org/10.3368/er.35.2.138
Moore, R. W., and R. L. H. Foy. 1997. The scientific attitude
inventory: a revision (SAI II). Journal of Research in ScienceEcology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Teaching 34(4):327-336. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)34:4<327::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-T
Nadkarni, N. M. 2006. The moss-in-prison project: disseminating
science beyond academia. Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment 4(8):442-443. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[442:TMPDSB]2.0.CO;2
Nadkarni, N. M., P. Hasbach, T. Thys, E. Gaines, and L.
Schnacker. 2017a. Impacts of nature imagery on people inseverely nature-deprived environments. Frontiers in Ecology andthe Environment 15:395-403. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1518
Nadkarni, N. M., J. J. Horns, J. Chen, J. Morris, D. Scalice, J.
Trivett, K. Bush, A. Anholt. 2022. Reversing the lens on public
engagement with science: positive benefits for participating
scientists. BioScience 72(7):673-683. https://doi.org/10.1093/
biosci/biac003
Nadkarni, N. M., and J. S. Morris. 2018. Baseline attitudes andimpacts of informal science education lectures on content
knowledge and value of science among incarcerated populations.
Science Communication 40(6):718-748. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1075547018806909
Nadkarni, N. M., D. Scalice, J. S. Morris, J. R. Trivett, K. Bush,
A. Anholt, J. J. Horns, B. T. Davey, and H. B. Davis. 2020. Effects
of astrobiology lectures on knowledge and attitudes about science
in incarcerated populations. Astrobiology 20(10):1262-1271.
https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2019.2209
Nadkarni, N. M., L. Schnacker, P. Hasbach, T. Thys, and E.
Gaines. 2017b. From orange to blue: how nature imagery affects
inmates in the “Blue Room”. Corrections Today 79:36-41. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dzv8nu-Eal8sQV1xjIRSmC1ww9Pi5C7P/
view
Nadkarni, N. M., C. Q. Weber, S. V. Goldman, D. L. Schatz, S.
Allen, and R. Menlove. 2019. Beyond the deficit model: theambassador approach to public engagement. BioScience 69(4):305-313. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz018
Norton, C. L., and B. Holguin. 2011. Promoting ecological health:an exploratory study of an environmentally based program forformerly incarcerated young adults. Ecopsychology 3(3):205-212.
https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2011.0040
Norton, C. L., B. Holguin, and J. Manos. 2013. Restoration notincarceration. Routledge, New York, New York, USA.
Ormerod, E. 2008. Companion animals and offender
rehabilitation: experiences from a prison therapeutic community
in Scotland. Therapeutic Communities 29(3):285-296. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/288631687
Pintrich, P. R., and E. V. De Groot. 1990. Motivational and selfregulated learning components of classroom academic
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology 82(1):33-40.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33
Raddick, M. J., G. Bracey, P. L. Gay, C. J. Lintott, C. Cardamone,
P. Murray, K. Schawinski, A. S. Szalay, and J. Vandenberg. 2013.
Galaxy zoo: motivations of citizen scientists. Astronomy
Education Review, in press. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1303.6886

R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statisticalcomputing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. https://www.r-project.org/
Relf, D., and S. Dorn. 1995. Horticulture: meeting the needs ofspecial populations. HortTechnology 5(2):94-103. https://doi.
org/10.21273/HORTTECH.5.2.94
Silvertown, J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in
Ecology and Evolution 24(9):467-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2009.03.017
Stoecker, R. 2009. Are we talking the walk of community-based
research? Action Research 7(4):385-404. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1476750309340944
Taylor, D. E. 2014. The state of diversity in environmentalorganizations. Green 2.0, Washington, D.C., USA. https://diversegreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FullReport_Gree­n2.0_FINAL.pdf
Tyler, J. H., and J. R. Kling. 2006. Prison-based education andre-entry into the mainstream labor market. Working paper 12114.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12114
Ulrich, C., and N. M. Nadkarni. 2009. Sustainability researchand practices in enforced residential institutions: collaborationsof ecologists and prisoners. Environment, Development andSustainability 11(4):815-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-008-9145-4
Weber, S. R. 2012. Environmental education in prison: acomparison of teaching methods and their influence on inmate
attitudes and knowledge of environmental topics. Thesis,
Evergreen State College, Seattle, Washington, USA. https://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/Weber_SMES2012.pdf
Wilson, D. B., C. A. Gallagher, and D. L. MacKenzie. 2000. A
meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, andwork programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency 37(4):347-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242­
7800037004001