Content uploaded by Miriam Aczel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Miriam Aczel on Jun 13, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING
CHILDREN
Environmental Citizen Science for Social Good: Engaging Children and Promoting Justice,
Diversity, Health and Inclusion
Karen E. Makuch
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London
Miriam R. Aczel
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Abstract
This paper makes a case for the benefits of engaging children in environmental citizen
science (defined as science conducted by non-specialists under the direction of professional
scientists) to promote social good. We interpret social good in this context as environmental
justice and sustainability. Environmental justice includes notions of equality, equity, social
inclusion, human rights, public participation, and accountability. We define sustainability as
human action that protects the environment for current and future generations and supports
human well-being. We argue here for the role of children as promoters of social good through
their participation in citizen science, as inclusivity is a core tenet of environmental justice. This
paper thus evaluates how participation in outdoor, eco-citizen science projects benefits the
child’s development, and leads to commitment to environmental stewardship and justice, and
promotion of social good as adults.
This work offers a novel contribution to discourses on social good and social justice
through explicitly calling for children to be included in environmental citizen science projects.
This connection has, to our knowledge and through our research, not yet been made in this way
and we hope that our analysis leads to more applied citizen science projects to further
corroborate our findings.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Environmental Citizen Science for Social Good: Engaging Children and Promoting Justice,
Diversity, Health and Inclusion
“I sincerely believe that for the child, and for the [adult] seeking to guide [them], it is not half
so important to know as to feel. If facts are the seeds that later produce knowledge and wisdom,
then the emotions and the impressions of the senses are the fertile soil in which the seeds must
grow. The years of early childhood are the time to prepare the soil. Once the emotions have
been aroused--a sense of the beautiful, the excitement of the new and the unknown, a feeling of
sympathy, pity, admiration or love--then we wish for knowledge about the object of our
emotional response. Once found, it has lasting meaning. It is more important to pave the way
for the child to want to know than to put [them] on a diet of facts [they are] not ready to
assimilate.” - Rachel Carson, (1965).
This paper critiques the benefits of engaging children in environmental1 citizen science
(also referred to as civic science (Bäckstrand, 2003)) as a mechanism to promote social good.
We interpret social good in this context as environmental justice and sustainability.
Environmental justice can include but not be limited to notions of equality, equity, inclusion,
rights, participation, due process, fairness and accountability (Agyeman, Bullard, and Evans,
2002). We define sustainability generally as human action that works to support environmental
and human well-being for current and future generations. Sustainable development is situated
very-much within the context of social equity, improved quality of life, aspirations for a better
life, opportunity, democracy, participation, inclusion, health and positive social change
(Brundland et al., 1987). There is an inextricable link between sustainability, social justice and
social good (Mor Barak, 2018). For example, if citizens are marginalized and victims of
environmental inequity, (such as living in an area with comparatively high levels of air pollution
and suffering ill health as a result) there is injustice (Braveman &Gruskin, 2003). If we work to
address the inequity and improve health, we are undertaking a social good, and promoting
11 For our purposes in this paper, we define eco-citizen science projects as those where the primary focus is on citizen ecology, environment,
conservation and/or nature.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
environmental sustainability, while ameliorating the injustice. These ideas are very much
connected to the Brundtland Commission definition of sustainability as action that ensures that
we meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs.” (Brundtland et al., 1987)
Thus, we take an environmental justice perspective as a cornerstone of social good and
justify the inclusion of children as actors and promoters of social good through the forum of
citizen science, showing that inclusivity is a core tenet and goal of environmental justice.
What is Citizen Science?
Citizen science is science undertaken by members of a community without professional
requirements or qualifications.2 We maintain that children are citizens, and more inclusion of
children in activities that are largely dominated by adults can promote social good for children
specifically, and the wider community (Mason & Hood, 2011; Gillett-Swan, & Sargeant, 2015;
Sargeant, 2017). We demonstrate this within the context of environmental citizen science. In
citizen science, individuals undertake scientific studies and research under the guidance of
trained scientist(s). Activities can include data collection, monitoring, measuring, questioning,
piloting new equipment, sharing observations, and others. We contend that children can be able
citizen scientists under the guidance and leadership of adults, more so if they are assigned tasks
that align with their abilities (Makuch & Aczel, 2018). The European Citizen Science
Association (ECSA) states in the opening paragraph to their ‘Ten Principles of Citizen Science’
(ECSA, 2015) that “Citizen Science is a flexible concept which can be adapted and applied
22 For a definition see, 15 U.S. Code § 3724. Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science Act 2017 https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ329/PLAW-
114publ329.pdf (accessed 21/02/19)., section 402, Part C, Definitions., section 1, Citizen Science:” (1)The term “citizen science” means a form
of open collaboration in which individuals or organizations participate voluntarily in the scientific process in various ways, including—
(A)enabling the formulation of research questions; (B)creating and refining project design; (C)conducting scientific experiments; (D)collecting
and analyzing data; (E)interpreting the results of data; (F)developing technologies and applications; (G)making discoveries; and (H)solving
problems.”
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
within diverse situations and disciplines.” We comment here that this inherent flexibility makes
it a good fit for the inclusion of children, and for attaining social good.
We assert that we can design child-focused citizen science projects (with a civic science
dimension) to promote the social good of a clean and sustainable environment, promote
inclusivity and diversity of child participants, promote environmental stewardship and education,
and promote child health, including emotional, psychological, physical and cognitive and social
development.
The international community (largely under the auspices of the United Nations, for our
purposes) has long advocated the role of children and youth in support of a pro-environmental
agenda, while also acknowledging the vital role of (environmental) education for children and
youth. We argue that these positions are united by the benefits of engaging children in citizen
science: citizen science provides education and access to the environment. Furthermore, in terms
of bringing benefits to those who run citizen science projects, children are particularly easy to
organize because of ‘ready-formed’ groups through schools, youth groups, activity clubs, sports
teams, scouting groups and so on (Wells & Lekies, 2006; Makuch & Aczel, 2018), providing
opportunity for teens or adults to work with children in civic-service and in-service learning.
We outline some potential benefits of including children in citizen science, in three main
cross-cutting categories:
1. Benefits to children (e.g., health, exposure to nature, boosting of natural immunities);
a. Citizen science benefits children’s physical health through providing
opportunities for exercise in addition to the benefits from exposure to nature
leading to boosting of natural immunities
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
b. Citizen science benefits psychological and cognitive growth of children, from
cognitive development through hands-on engaging activities, and interpersonal
and social skills development through collaborative and engaging activities
c. Access to nature and environmental spaces enhances children’s mental health and
wellbeing, including reduced stress levels following time spent in nature, lower
rates of attention disorders, and enjoyment of green spaces and recreation
d. Empowerment of children: giving them a voice, confidence, knowledge and skills.
2. Benefits to science (e.g., co-production of knowledge, diverse resources for knowledge);
and,
a. Promotion of social good through collection and generation of data. Such data can
be used to promote social good in various forms, such as through an evidence-
base that might demand accountability on an issue; by allowing citizens to be
informed and aware of issues; by giving children and adults the opportunity to
participate in data-gathering for a research project that contributes positively
towards an issue, etc.
b. Citizen science is efficient. Local citizens undertaking data collection with
qualified experts can save time and money for regulators and can also operate as a
‘gap-filler,’ when those who ought to be accountable are not willing or able to
address a socially relevant environmental issue or project.
3. Benefits to society (e.g., participatory democracy and accountability, conservation
efforts).
a. Promotion of social good: environmental justice and sustainability through the
education of individuals about the environment in a broad sense, and ecology,
species, and scientific concerns, among others, in a narrower sense.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
b. Citizen science is local (physically and temporally) to the issue at hand and not
remote or detached. Citizens who live and work in their local environment and are
more likely to notice, or be affected, by environmental change and can participate
in its caretaking and management.
c. Citizen science is participatory and can contribute towards eco justice. This is
particularly pertinent in situations where local authorities, politicians or other
decision-makers are not willing/or able to act on environmental matters, or in
situations where children’s’ voices are not considered or heard (Makuch & Aczel,
2018).
d. Empowerment and promotion of civic engagement and community involvement
for those supporting the citizen science projects. The creation of a community,
centered on a common interest.
Citizen Science and Benefits to Children
The Earthwatch Institute (Earthwatch, 2018), who runs a teen program (ages 15-18),
credits citizen science with providing opportunities for “personally transformative experiences”
(online 09/05/18). Others credit participation of children and adults in citizen science projects as
engaging harder to reach audiences, and improving self-confidence (Den Broeder et al., 2017),
advances in self-efficacy and mental well-being (Hinckso et al., 2013; Jones et al., 2013), while
community engagement is credited with a sense of belonging that is central to good mental
health (Chavis, 1990). While not a study focused on children per se, Berto (2014) points to the
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
restorative effects of nature to ameliorate stress, relevant for our purposes, as many
environmental citizen science projects require interaction with the natural environment.
Citizen science offers a structured approach to outdoor learning and engagement with
nature, with “learning opportunities, personal enjoyment, social benefits, satisfaction through
contributing to scientific evidence” (European Citizen Science Association [ECSA], 2015).
There are myriad educational, psychological and personal benefits to participants, including
motivating students to learn, engaging them and making learning more interesting (Makuch &
Aczel, 2018). Positive experiences in learning are directly beneficial to mental health (Wells et
al., 2015; Jones et al., 2015; Makuch & Aczel, 2018). Engagement with the environment and
outdoor learning opportunities such as those from citizen science projects can benefit both the
physical and mental development of children, and lead to increased levels of environmental
stewardship and protection (Mitchell et al., 2017). We assert that a structured citizen science
project can offer a child an opportunity for regular immersion in the natural environment and
science-learning experience, and the benefits this brings, along with the benefits of being part of
a team and community, having a purpose and role, and being involved in a structured activity.
Immersion and participation can be facilitated by an educational institute, community group or
guardians, among others (Makuch & Aczel, 2018). This can bring civic science, civic-service
and in-service learning benefits to the teen or adult facilitators, and can offer opportunities to
marginalized groups or individuals who are traditionally overlooked in terms of opportunities for
such engagement, for example, ethnic minority groups, and females (Hart, 1997; Dierking &
Falk, 2016).
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Participation in citizen science can benefit the child’s emotional and physical
development and wellbeing. Specifically, research has shown that exposing children to nature at
a young age helps develop emotional responsiveness, a quality that then contributes to emotional
well-being as adults (Kahn & Kellert, 2002; Cobb, 1977; Jones, Greenberg, and Crowley, 2015).
The experiences and education of a child can have a major impact on their values in adult life
(Sebba, 1991). Early childhood exposure to outdoor activities leads to future environmentally-
conscious, active adults (Faber Taylor & Kuo, 2009; Faber Taylor, Kuo & Sullivan, 2001; Kuo
& Faber Taylor 2004; Wells & Lekies, 2006). Examples include a study (Wells & Lekies, 2006)
in which 2000 adults were interviewed about their environmental childhood experiences and
their current attitudes towards the environment. The results indicated a positive relationship
between people who had participated in environmental activities as children and behaviors that
are positive to the environment as adults. It has also been asserted that early immersion in the
environment helps children to develop empathy for the natural world (Chawla, 2015; Schutte,
Torquati, and Beattie, 2015).
Increased contact with nature can improve mental wellbeing, which promotes a child’s
positive physical development (Hillman, Erickson, and Kramer, 2008). Children with conditions
such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), schizophrenia, Special Educational
Needs (SEN) and autism specifically benefit from contact with the natural world (Faber Taylor
& Kuo, 2009; Faber Taylor, Kuo, and Sullivan, 2001; Kuo & Faber Taylor, 2004; von Benzon,
Makuch K. (MacDonald), and Makuch Z., 2008). This contact is especially beneficial for autistic
children in developing their socio-personal skills and helps them more effectively focus on their
school curriculum through stimulating, structured tasks (Waite, Passy, Gilchrist, Hunt, and
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Blackwell, 2016). In addition to reducing symptoms, participation helps to induce feelings of
fulfilment and may curb high stress levels and aggressive behavior (Bird, 2007). To this end,
Makuch & Aczel (2018) assert that citizen science projects can be adapted to fit the varying
abilities and needs of individual children, and furthermore, children can contribute in a
meaningful way to the research. For example, citizen science projects can be designed to be
appropriate for various ages and skill levels, and children and can be adapted for either urban
environments or places not normally associated with the environment, such as within schools,
windowsills, and schoolyards or playgrounds (Makuch & Aczel, 2018). A recent study
comparing the results of child citizen scientists with trained scientists found that while certain
tasks such collecting estimates and measuring heights of plants were more difficult for children
—particularly as they had not yet studies fractions—counting seeds was easier and led to more
accurate responses compared to the scientists (Miczajka, Klein, and Pufal, 2015). Projects can
also planned and implemented in a manner that makes them inclusive with respect to either
learning or physical disabilities, and can be either group activities or individual activities
(Liebenberg, 2015.) For example, the citizen science software ‘CyberTracker’ was used by
citizen scientists in the Karoo National Park in South Africa who cannot read or write, and were
able to select icons depicting animals to enable participation without needing literacy (Leibenber,
2015). This illustrative example is particularly significant within the context of attaining social
good: citizen science can provide equality of opportunity to marginalized and disenfranchised
children if it is purposefully organized in a targeted manner (Leiberman & Hoody, 1998; Soleri
et al, 2016). Purcell et al. (2012) particularly advocate for such diversity in citizen science.
Including children from communities that are vulnerable to environmental injustice or providing
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
leadership opportunities to marginalized children within a citizen science project help to promote
social change. This requires constructing a citizen science project that does not necessarily adopt
the dominant cultural paradigm or world view as the norm and facilitating for this on a pragmatic
level such as via providing transportation, communication/language support, providing things
that make participation accessible such as lunches and basic or adapted equipment, or providing
role models from various minority and socially diverse or disenfranchised groups to demonstrate
that everyone can ‘do’ science. Co-creating and designing citizen science projects with
participants or their representatives will arguably help in ensuring that they input into the issues
and challenges that their demographic are facing (Soleri et al, 2016)
Benefits to Children: Physical and Behavioral Impacts
Environmental citizen science largely takes place outdoors. Access to green spaces is
known to increase children’s outdoor activity, which in turn has the capacity to produce
beneficial mental and physical health-related outcomes (McCurdy et al., 2010). Research has led
to a growing body of evidence (Strife & Downey, 2009; Kellert, 2005) that access to ‘green
space’ can give children “myriad cognitive, emotional, and physical benefits, such as increased
ability to concentrate, improved academic performance, reduced stress and aggression levels, and
reduced risk of obesity” (Strife & Downey, 2009, p. 100; Faber et al., 2006; Louv, 2007;
Lieberman & Hoody, 1990). The link between physical activity and mental well-being is
documented (Hillman et al., 2008; Louv, 2007; Faber et al., 2006; Pretty et al., 2005; Dresner &
Gill, 1994; Lieberman & Hoody, 1990).
Jenkins (2011) adds that citizen science and hands-on activities serve to both make
classroom- learning ‘less boring’ and make the science and educational concepts more accessible
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
to children (Makuch & Aczel, 2018). To this end, Hidalgo-Ruz and Thiel (2013) present a case
study of a the “National Sampling of Small Plastic Debris” program in Chile, a citizen science
project where schoolchildren ages eight to sixteen collected data on the prevalence and quantity
of plastic debris on Chilean beaches (Hidalgo-Ruz & Thiel, 2013; Makuch & Aczel, 2018). They
found that when asked to rate their level of overall satisfaction with the program, on a scale of 1
to 7, 61% of the children rated it with the highest possible mark, a 7 (Hidalgo-Ruz & Thiel,
2013). Additionally, while over 73% of students had not heard about plastic debris before, 96%
of students said that they would like to participate in future environmental activities (Hidalgo-
Ruz & Thiel, 2013; Makuch & Aczel, 2018).
Furthermore, according to Lakeman-Fraser et al. (2016), analysis of citizen science
projects show two key themes: 1. outreach and 2. research (Zoellick et al., 2012), where outreach
is an effort to bring information or services to people and “includes potential benefits to
individuals [through providing learning and training opportunities (e.g. about the natural
world)]; benefits to the scientific community [such as promoting science as a worthy cause or
expanding awareness of new application areas (e.g. astronomy)]; or benefits to society [such as
changing public behaviour (e.g. to prevent spread of invasive species).” In this manner, citizen
science projects can enable a ‘win-win’ with increasing participation leading to both
enhancement of learning opportunities—particularly for children—in addition to advancement of
the scientific research (Zoellick et al., 2012), and can therefore be a key step in promoting social
good.
Benefits to Children: Social and interpersonal development
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Understanding science, communicating science and being able to understand and
represent the environment and natural world are arguably vital if we are to advance in a
sustainable world. It is also arguable that interpersonal and social skills are vital in preparing
today's children for their well-being in the future, and that of the environment. Social skills
empower children to be confident, give them the ability to genuinely interact with people and
have a positive self-image (Caldarella et al., 1997). Interpersonal skills are a subset of social
skills where a child can learn how to communicate effectively with people from all backgrounds
and abilities. Environmental education camps for children can instill feelings of connection with
the natural world, improve interpersonal skills and environmentally responsible actions amongst
them (Dresner & McGill, 1994). Outdoor learning experiences, including participation in citizen
science, can also give children the courage to try new activities with new people which
ultimately has a have a positive effect on their self-esteem and confidence to participate in more
team-work related opportunities Dillon et al., 2006), and potential future involvement in
STEMM3-focused activities. Mental well-being and having a stable state of mind also plays a
major role in enhancing child's interpersonal and social skills (RSPB, 2010). Citizen science can
help to facilitate the development of these skills.
Benefits to Children: Changing lifestyles and ‘Nature-Deficit Disorder’
Research (Louv, (2005), focused primarily on developed nations) has shown that children
access the outdoors much less frequently for play when compared to previous generations, and
further, racially and economically marginalized children often have even less access to nature
and green spaces and are more often exposed to higher levels of pollution (Strife & Downey,
2009). Louv (2005) coined the term ‘Nature-Deficit Disorder’ to describe the growing changes in
33 Science, Technology, Engineering, Math and Medicine.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
childhood structure and the reduction in “free and unstructured outdoor playtime in nature” and
an increased percentage of childhood spent indoors (Charles & Louv, 2009). While citizen
science is structured, and thus is not completely aligned with the notions of free play outdoors, it
certainly expands opportunities to be outdoors.
Children's lifestyles are increasingly centered on technology, resulting in physical
inactivity that may lead to higher levels of obesity (Lee & Maheswaran, 2011; McCurdy et al.,
2010). We can help prevent obesity, in addition to other diseases including diabetes (Whitaker et
al., 1997). Strife and Downey (2009) in their research explain that experts (Sacks, 2005) in child
psychology and child development “agree that just a half-hour of recess, especially in green
spaces, bolsters test scores, improves academic performance, and reduces the chance of obesity
among children” (Strife & Downey, 2009, p. 113). Child-centered citizen science projects can
facilitate these positive benefits if designed with a physical component, especially in an
educational setting. To this end, there is strong evidence that being outdoors increases a child's
quality of exercise, which leads to greater likelihood of their maintaining active lifestyles as
adults (RSPB, 2010; Raychaudhuri & Sanyal (2012). Research has shown that individuals have
less anger and sadness after being exposed to a natural, as compared to a built, environment
(Maller et al., 2006; Pretty, et al., 2005). Studies also conclude that outdoor physical activity
brings physical and psychological health benefits (Pretty et al., 2005; Maller et al., 2006; Bowler
et al., 2010). These advantages indicate that the natural world can do much to provide extensive
benefits to children and should be encouraged. We aver that structured citizen science projects
for children can provide a conduit through which to attain some of the aforementioned social
goods.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Benefits to Children: The ‘Hygiene Hypothesis’ and Exposure to Microbes
There are emerging contemporary studies that point to more acute benefits for children
from spending time outdoors, such as improved gut health and the reduction of allergies, caused
by exposure to microbes in the soil (Olszak et al, 2012). The ‘Hygiene Hypothesis’ (Strachan
1989), and largely concerned at the time with Western countries and the increased incidence of
hay fever, originally suggested that an increase in childhood allergies and autoimmune illnesses
was linked to a reduction in infections during childhood that may have been attributable to fewer
people in the household and smaller families and thus a smaller germ pool (Strachan, 1989).4
More contemporary studies are validating Strachan’s hygiene hypothesis that over-cleanliness,
and lack of exposure to the ‘right’ kind of microbes has resulted in an increase of allergies and
immune-related illnesses in children (Okada et al., 2010). We welcome a decrease in childhood
infections, but if we appear to have ‘swapped’ this for an increase in allergies, immune diseases
and mental ill-health, this is an issue that needs to be addressed (Weiss, 2002; Olszak et al.,
2012; Braun-Fahrländer et al., 2002). Notably, there are established links between adverse gut
health and adverse mental health (Hoban et al., 2017), citing links between dysbiosis and
inflammation of the gut and anxiety and depression (Clapp et al., 2017). Participation in
environmental citizen science frequently requires exposure and immersion in the outdoors –
exposure to soils and microbes, pollen, lichen, grasses and so on5, and might assist in reversing
this trend.
44 Strachan used data from the National Child Development study at the time, which had monitored children born in a specific week in March
1958 until they reached the age of 23. Though Strachan’s main thesis was not related to hygiene, but the impact of the decreasing size of the
household, he ended his research paper with the following statement: “Over the past century declining family size, improvements in household
amenities, and higher standards of personal cleanliness have reduced the opportunity for cross infection in young families. This may have resulted
in more widespread clinical expression of atopic disease, emerging earlier in wealthier people, as seems to have occurred for hay fever.”
55 Of course, allergies and sensitivities will need to be accounted for
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Braun-Fahrländer et al. (2002) worked from the hypothesis that “in early life, the innate
immune system can recognize both viable and nonviable parts of microorganisms. Immune
activation may direct the immune response, thus conferring tolerance to allergens such as animal
dander or tree and grass pollen.” The authors of these studies have recommended that children be
exposed to the natural environment and ‘dirt’ in a manner that is safe and responsible in order to
boost immunity against allergies and autoimmune illnesses. Of course, it is not a proposal to
encourage children to eat soil, yet it is advocated to let them play or research in areas that are not
completely clean, where there might be dust or flecks of soil, in order to boost immunity.
Participation in citizen science projects offers a great opportunity for children to attain
such benefits from the natural environment under supervised conditions.
Benefits to Children: The impact of an outdoor learning environment on motor
coordination, concentration and attention
A Swedish study (Grahn et al., 1997, cited in Strife & Downey, 2009) compared the
natural environment's impact on children in two types of day-care settings. The first was an
urban day-care center, with a playground area with low levels of vegetation and a brick cycling
path, enclosed by buildings that blocked out surrounding traffic noise (Strife & Downey, 2009).
The second day-care building had an orchard surrounded by large rocks, pasture, woodlands with
tall trees and a wild overgrown garden. After the children were tested, it was found that those
exposed to the environment of the second day-care center had better motor coordination,
concentration and attention abilities when measured by the Attention Deficit Disorders
Evaluation Scale (McCarney & Arthaud, 1995).
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Being surrounded by trees and vegetation also promotes higher usage of such spaces by
children and young adults leading to an increase in social interactions (Torquati, 2010). Studies
have highlighted that access to green areas play a major role in developing a child's cognitive and
social capacities (Faber et al., 1998; Faber et al., 2006) and that access to neighborhood green
spaces may promote emotional well-being in poor urban children in early childhood (Flouri et
al., 2014). We propose that organized community citizen science projects can facilitate
children’s access to green spaces.
Greater exposure to the natural environment, particularly beginning at a young age,
enhances a child's learning abilities, as found by child psychologist Aric Sigman (2007) who
coined the term “countryside effect” (Pretty et al., 2006). The countryside effect demonstrates
that increased contact with nature improves a child's concentration, reasoning, observational
skills and overall improvement in academic performance. This, coupled with formal immersion
in a citizen science project, arguably has great potential to enhance feelings of well-being and
personal growth and achievement, academic or otherwise, for a child (though we concede that
further studies are required to substantiate this claim).
There is an abundance of literature examining childhood behaviour (inter alia, Wells,
2000; Cheng & Monroe, 2012), education (Littledyke, 2004; White & Stoeck, 2008), psychology
(Kellert, 2002) and participation (Hart, 2013; Wells & Lekies, 2006), within the context of the
environment and access to nature, highlighting the benefits to be gained from exposure to nature,
and the deficits from lack of exposure. Literature shows that one way of re-connecting children
to nature, or enhancing their experience of the environment, is through the use of citizen science
(Purcell et al., 2012).
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Models and studies suggest that attitude is a vital element in behaviour (Cheng &
Monroe, 2012). It is thus a convincing argument that we need to shape the behaviour of children
so that they might become concerned environmentalists and responsible citizen scientists as
children and also as adults. Research indicates that connection to, and respect for, the
environment does not only depend on cognitive development of the child (i.e., being given
information and developing a belief or a position) but also depends on affective development,
that is to say, the development of feelings and empathy for nature (Fromm, 1964; Cheng &
Monroe, 2012). “Sense of inclusion with nature is associated with understanding how an
individual identifies his or her place in nature, the value that he or she places on nature, and how
he or she can affect nature […] Connectedness to nature, caring for nature and commitment to
protect nature are core components of inclusion within nature” (Cheng & Monroe, 2012).
Engagement in environmental citizen science can potentially assist in the development of
the above values, benefits and attributes (Cheng & Monroe, 2012). If children find their
engagement on a nature-focused citizen science project exciting, and their experience of being
outdoors stimulating, it could help to imbue a sense of personal worth, along with connection to
the environment, responsibility and empathy. Where children might lack family support or
environmentally proactive role-models, working with others in a pro-environment setting
through citizen science engagement might also fill this void. Further, citizen science and the
practical tasks involved, such as preparation of the experiment, the measuring, the collection of
samples, monitoring and data tracking etc., can also help to develop the sense of responsibility
for their actual work and for the environment and/or species with which they are engaged.
Citizen science can empower children while also forming positive lifelong connections with
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
nature and the environment. Citizen science can offer the opportunity for children and youth to
undertake research and ask questions from a perspective that differs from that of adults, and to
present their views in a way that might offer an alternative position or understanding of an issue
(Wells & Lekies, 2006).
Benefits to Science: Management of the Environment
Engaging children in citizen science now, noting that they will be the future guardians of
the environment, is a useful way to teach them about wildlife and habitats, to engage them in
conservation efforts, and to attain useful monitoring data and evidence on biodiversity, species
health and populations and environmental impacts that could contribute towards careful
management and planning. Citizen science is about current circumstances but is also about
legacy planning and safeguarding the future. We can use citizen science to collect baseline data
and evidence that could help to mitigate against future environmental changes such as species
decline. Here there is scope for citizen science networks to work together in sharing data, which
children may have a role in collating, and cooperating on transboundary environmental issues.
Benefits to Science: Education, Awareness and Participation in Decision-Making
Further, one of the clear benefits of engaging children in citizen science is the inherent
educational dimension. We cannot underestimate the importance of disseminating “information
of an educational nature on the need to protect and improve the environment in order to enable
[humans] to develop in every respect” (United Nations, 1972) and of the role of children in
contributing to the collection of information. This activity need not be prohibitively expensive
and could involve the voluntary experience of locals (subject to safeguarding approvals and basic
training) with a particular environment-related skill-set and knowledge to lower costs and
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
promote civic engagement. Citizen science offers a contemporary means by which to focus on
inclusion and integration of children in environmental decision-making and participatory
processes, or to enhance these where they already, to some extent, exist, and promote
enfranchisement. If we are to refer to the merits of citizen science in relation to this, we can
make the case that if children are involved in science and the acquisition of information and
facts, they are better placed to understand an issue, make an informed decision or express a view
not only as children but later as adults. Dietz and Stern (2008) explicitly state that children are
part of the ‘public’ that are to be included in public participation in environmental decision-
making. This is a view very much supported by those who research children and nature including
Louv (2005), Kellert (2002) and others.
Benefits to Science: Accessibility, Inclusivity and Generation of Scientific Data
Citizen Science ought to be inherently inclusive given the use of the word ‘citizen.’
Purcell et al. (2012) support an inclusive approach: “[e]arly surveys of Citizen Science projects
at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology were disappointing with respect to diversity; participants in the
majority of projects were highly educated, upper-middle class, middle-aged or older, and white.”
It makes sense that the broader a mix of participants that you have within a field of scientific
enquiry or even on a particular project, the broader a range of perspectives that you will garner
and that can inform the research. An inclusive approach will also benefit the participants. Citizen
science ought not to recognize age, geographical, racial, economic, disability, gender or other
boundaries. One of the many benefits of citizen science is that projects can be designed to be age
appropriate. In this way it can engage and inspire a love of nature and learning in children of
varying ages. It can also unite children and more senior adults, creating integration between
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
generations, which might help to combat social ills such as isolation and loneliness, which is
prevalent in older people (Landeiro et al, 2017). Citizen science can arguably take place in urban
environments or places that are not ‘normally’ associated with the exploration of nature such as
playgrounds and sparse backyards. For example, connection to nature and citizen science can
even be made through a project that requires a child to grow a plant indoors on a windowsill.
Projects can also be designed to be inclusive in relation to learning disabilities and physical
disabilities, and ought not to be exclusive or discriminatory (Von Benzon et al., 2008). Though
not focused on children per se, a cyber tracker project using an Icon User Interface for handheld
computers enabled non-literate trackers to upload complex environmental data in the Congo
(Liebenberg et al., 2016). This is a useful example of adapting the project top fit the needs and
abilities of the participants.
Including children in citizen science not only broadens the scope of the research (for
example, children have different ways of viewing and enquiring about the world [Louv, 2005]),
the inclusive and accountable nature of citizen science is that children as a defined grouping, can
also accommodate all genders ethnicities and all socio-economic circumstances, (this is vital
given the historical gender, cultural and economic divisions in STEMM). There is evidence that
girls as a specific group are being specifically included in citizen science, such as through the
Girls Scouts (Dickinson, Shirk et al, 2012, p. 294), with civic-engagement benefits, here.
We can deliberately design citizen science projects that aim to overcome the gender and other
bias often associated with STEMM and girls (Williams & Williams, 2014; Reuben, 2014) and
have outlined ways to do this, such as through concerted citizen science programs (Dierking &
Falk, 2016).
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
An additional argument here is that generating an interest in, or opportunity for
engagement in, citizen science, STEMM and nature, amongst groups that might traditionally
have been excluded from these fields, or groups that might suffer from environmental
discrimination or inequity--and this includes children–can bring about social, educational, health
and developmental benefits (Corburn, 2005, Mor Barak, 2017). Research shows that socio-
economic inequalities in the living environment of children have impacts on their health and
development (Bolte et al, 2009). Where children tend to live in areas with less access to the
natural environment or exposure to nature, and less access to high levels of education (Evans,
2004) there is an adverse impact. It is our position that citizen science projects can help to
address these deficits by getting children out into the environment and engaged in a learning
experience (Kellert, 2002; Louv, 2005).
Thus, we assert that citizen science has a large role to play here given its inherently
inclusive nature and accessibility. The nature of citizen science projects to date, have provided
evidence that this inclusive approach can be employed amongst children (Makuch & Aczel,
2018; Hidalgo Ruz & Thiel, 2013).
Benefits to Society: Democracy and Civic Science
Using political rights to empower individuals and communities and encourage the
participation of minors in environmental decision-making processes could arguably advance
environmental democracy and environmental protection, giving voices to youth and children6.
Our argument follows the idea that the children of today will comprise the generation of the
future, and thus safeguarding environmental rights will in turn arguably lead to positive
66 This is already starting to happen, see for example, UK Youth Climate Coalition http://ukycc.org.
and Youth Environment Council Australia http://www.yecsa.net.au/home.html; Peace Child International
http://peacechild.org.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
environmental objectives and perspectives in the future, in line with the concept of sustainable
development, as well as lead to increased quality of life and other benefits for children as
individuals (von Benzon et al., 2008l Makuch & Aczel, 2018). This therefore will lead to greater
‘social good’ both through their development as engaged individuals and, later, as adults, and
also lead to future environmental stewardship.
Arguably, cultural and political norms need to be present, or be generated, in order for
citizens and children to have a role in participatory and democratic environmental decision-
making, long-term. Such processes can be, and ought to be, used positively, for the benefit of
nature, science and humans. We thus require on-the-ground capacity in the form of teachers,
trained scientists and supportive parents/guardians/helpers, and some basic equipment so that
citizen science might contribute to the above and need not be prohibitively inaccessible or
expensive. If the political will is not there it can be generated or promoted by communities,
NGOs, opposition parties, environmental groups, child advocate groups or other supporters.
Children have a role to play in collecting baseline data, observing species proliferation
and decline, forming an opinion, and so on. Experience and participation in citizen science
projects can contribute towards the active participation of children and youth in environmental
decision-making, whether directly through reporting to a panel, or indirectly, through their
contributions to a report or other form of evidence. Citizen science is increasingly being linked to
participatory democracy and accountability (Bäckstrand, 2003; Moran & Rau 2016). Though not
exclusively centered on children per se, a study evaluating whether citizen science can enhance
the public understanding of science (Bonney et al, 2015) concluded that "citizen science can
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
contribute positively to social well-being by influencing the questions that are being addressed
and by giving people a voice in local environmental decision making."
Furthermore, citizen science participation allows for the co-production of knowledge
(Freitag & Pfeffer, 2013), making decision-making more democratic and inclusive “in creating
distributive justice and legitimate outcomes (as perceived by the public)” (ibid.) and also in
giving children a role and agency (Mason & Hood, 2011).
Moreover, in relation to social inclusivity is a potential for historical underrepresentation
of children, particularly in the environmental arena. It has been posited that environmental
advocacy and environmental justice approaches can be a powerful too against competing or
dominant forces such as polluting industries among others (Kerns, 2013). Therefore, a citizen-
science based approach can be seen to encourage inclusion, and therefore promote social good
human rights as the approach is a “moral appeal to parties to do the right thing”, which can be
bolstered by hand-on engaging citizen science activities (Kerns, 2013).
Benefits to Society: Citizen Science, Children and the Preservation of Cultural Identity
An important argument in relation to environmental protection and conservation is the
need to share knowledge between generations in order to safeguard the methods and practices
that are used in maintaining species and processes that protect nature and ecosystems, and/or that
are part of human cultural identity. This notion of guardianship along with cultural and
indigenous knowledge can be imparted via citizen science projects. Having local people who
know how to safeguard or ‘use’ their local environment and share that knowledge with children
through citizen science projects will assist in these endeavors. This is arguably a much more
effective approach than having a remote, centralized decision-making authority prescribe
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
management plans that are detached from the local culture (ideally the local citizens would work
together with such body, if these were the circumstances, and report back to the body with the
data and findings, in an inclusive and participatory manner, before decisions over the local
environment be made). It is often the case that the senior adults7 ‘know how to do things’ in a
way that children may not, or that even parents of the children may not. There is often,
particularly in the West, a huge generational disconnect between nature and environmental
management. We can give examples such as growing potatoes from a seeded crop, harvesting
bees for honey and pollination, knowing how to coppice a tree, being able to identify native bird
species, or even knowing how to grow flowers. There is also certainly a role that indigenous
communities can play in citizen science engagement with children that can assist in the sharing
and preservation of cultural knowledge and traditions (Kimura & Kinchy, 2016).
Citizen science projects which join children with individuals from a different generation
or culture can be beneficial all round. Older people can pass on their skills and knowledge,
children can learn new skills, cultural traits can be preserved, and from a human-centered
perspective, individuals can belong to a project that gives them a purpose and arguably also gets
everyone outdoors and away from the television, united in a joint endeavor, sharing from the
experiences of others while nurturing nature.
Conclusion
While there is a need to further explicitly study the beneficial effects (eco-psychological,
educational, developmental, physical and so on) for children of inclusion in citizen science
projects per se, this paper is optimistic in highlighting some likely benefits.
77 We are referring to the retired, to grandparents, to ‘elders’, etc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Citizen science can play a key role in promoting and improving children’s cognitive
development through various interactive learning opportunities and can also improve their
physical health through encouraging outdoor physical activities and increasing exposure to vital
microbes. Citizen science projects are enjoyable and can improve social and emotional benefits,
and the opportunities to spend time with nature can be equally important, as demonstrated by
research on the importance of engagement with nature, particularly from a young age.
Using citizen science as a means of joining the dots between structured environmental
engagement, environmental education and play, physical health and well-being, community
involvement, personal purpose, satisfaction and self-efficacy provides opportunities for enhanced
eco-psychological well-being. Inclusion of children in citizen science can promote inclusion,
civic science and participation in communities, cultures and generations, thus enhancing and
benefitting greater social good through environmental engagement (McKinley et al, 2015) and
justice as well as individual and societal development.
In order to maximize benefits to society and greater social good, there is a need for
science to be legitimate, rigorous and accurate (Bultitude, 2011). This is a concern that has been
commented on by academics involved in citizen science projects (Riesch & Potter, 2014;
Makuch & Aczel, 2018). A sensible approach for children is keeping research methods simple,
which will produce simple results, and as a consequence are likely to be fairly accurate (Riesch
& Potter, 2014). Other scientists researching citizen science projects have commented that “there
is no such thing as quality of data, it’s what you use the data for. Different uses will require
different quality” (Riesch & Potter, 2014). Although quality depends on the age and level of
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
development of the child participants, children can still make valuable contributions to a project,
particularly ones that require extensive monitoring over time and space (Miczajka, Klein, and
Pufal, 2015). Furthermore, involving large numbers of children and changing the pool of
researchers will increase accuracy. In this vein, evidence provided from an OPAL event in 2014
when conducting a group level and species level identification exercise, observations showed
that had a tendency to make a species identification using their own existing knowledge, while
children were more methodical, followed the guidance and came to the correct identification
more often than their parents (OPAL, 2014; Makuch & Aczel, 2018). To this end, advocates
have produced guidelines and methodologies for including children in research (Johnson, Hart,
and Colwell, 2014).
Another concern that needs to be raised is the extent to which you ‘let children do it for
themselves.’ If we are to view citizen science participation in part as a learning experience, or in
relation to the participation/inclusivity aspect of decision-making, how do we know that children
are forming their own views on environmental issues and not those offered by adults? (Hart,
1997). To this end, participation in citizen science arguably helps children to understand the
factual basis behind reasoned decision-making and scientific evidence. It is hoped, further, that
this aspect of childhood engagement in citizen science, the investigating and questioning and
discovery, will carry through to adulthood, leading to more adults who become stewards of the
environment and promote greater social and environmental good.
Potential ethical issues related to children as citizen scientists
In terms of getting ‘free labor’ and ‘free data’ from children participating in citizen
science projects, ethical questions have been raised (Riesch & Potter, 2014). Riesch and Potter
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
(2014) comment that many citizens are willing to participate, pro bono, in citizen science
projects in exchange for the learning and engagement opportunities. Here we will add then, that
guardians, school teachers and parents have to act legitimately in the best interests of the child
when consenting to the participation of minors in citizen science projects. We add at this juncture
that the larger benefits arguably outweigh the pitfalls. Further, any concerns over ‘ownership of
data’, the role of participants, and safeguarding of precise or personal data can be ironed out at
the onset of the project, as seems to be the case in practice, and should not be a barrier to the
participation of children in citizen science (Duke & Porter, 2013; Bowser, 2014).
Textbox 1: ‘Common sense’ policies for engaging child Citizen Scientists (Makuch and Aczel, 2018):
- “Always obtain prior informed consent from parents/guardians and children (if
there are specific vulnerable children, schools etc., will likely already be aware - this is why
working with schools is sensible);
-
Do not post photographs of child participants or name child volunteers (even if you
are thanking them for their involvement!) unless consent obtained;
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Implications for Policy and Future Research
There are many positive contributions that children can make to citizen science and that
citizen science can contribute to children. Although there are challenges to engaging children
with citizen science, if a project is engaging and appropriately designed, children are likely to
contribute positively (Kellert, 2002; Makuch & Aczel, 2018).
Moreover, children will view the environment and their place in it differently, as
compared to adults, and there is therefore an important role for children’s perspectives and
participation in environmental citizen science projects. If we include children in citizen science
they will develop important cognitive and substantive skills, grow as individuals, and promote
greater social good through future environmental stewardship and participation (McKinley et al,
2015). There is a need for further research on best practices for engaging children in citizen
science and how to further the collective good from their engagement, as well as managing
potential challenges of involved child citizen-scientists.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
References
Agyeman J., Bullard R. D., & Evans, B. (2002). Exploring the nexus: Bringing together
sustainability, environmental justice and equity. Space and Polity, 6(1), 77-90.
doi:10.1080/13562570220137907
Bäckstrand, K. (2003). Civic science for sustainability: Reframing the role of experts.
Global Environmental Politics, 3(4), 24-41.
Berto R. (2014). The role of nature in coping with psycho-physiological stress: A literature
review on restorativeness. Behavioral Sciences, 4(4), 394-409. doi:10.3390/bs4040394
Bird, W. (2007) Natural Thinking A report for the RSPB: Investigating the links between the
natural environment, biodiversity and mental health (1st ed.) UK: RSPD.
Bonney, R., Phillips, T., Ballard, H. & Enck, J. (2015). Can citizen science enhance public
understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science, 25, 2–16.
Bonney, R., Shirk, J. L., Phillips, T. B., Wiggins, A., Ballard, H. L., Miller-Rushing, A. J., &
Parrish, J. K. 2014. Next steps for citizen science. Science, 343(6178), 1436–1437.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1251554.
Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L. M., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). A systematic review of
evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments. BMC
Public Health, 10(456).
Bowser, A. (2014) Sharing data while protecting privacy in citizen science. ACM (Association
for Computing Machinery Interactions,70-73. http://andreawiggins.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/10/Bowser2014Interactions.pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Bowser, A., Hansen, D. L., He, Y., Boston, C., Reid, M., Gunnell, L., & Preece, J. (2013). Using
gamification to inspire new citizen science volunteers. The First International
Conference on Gameful Design, Research, and Applications, Toronto (Gamification ’13),
ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 19–25.
Braun-Fahrländer, C., Riedler, J., Herz, U., Eder, W., Waser, M., Grize, L.,...von Mutius, E.
(2002). Environmental exposure to endotoxin and its relation to asthma in school-age
children. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347(12), 869-77.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa020057
Braveman, P., Gruskin, S. (2003) Defining equity in health. Journal of Epidemiology &
Community Health, 57(4), 254-258.
Brundtland G., Khalid M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L.,…Hauff, V .
(1987) Our Common Future ('Brundtland Report'), 21 May 1987.
Bultitude, K. (2011) The why and how of science communication. In Rosulek, P. (Ed.), Science
Communication (1-18). European Commission: Pilson.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/bultitude/KB_TB/Karen_Bultitude_-
_Science_Communication_Why_and_How.pdf
Caldarella, P., Merrell, K.W. (1997). Common dimensions of social skills of children and
adolescents: A taxonomy of positive behaviors. School Psychology Review, 26(2), 264-
78.
Carson, R. (1965). The Sense of Wonder. New York: Harper & Row.
Charles, C., & Louv, R. (2009). Children's nature deficit: What we know and--don't know. Santa
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Fe, NM: Children & Nature Network.
https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/downloads/c_nnevidenceofthedeficit_0
1_3final.pdf.
Chavis D. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst for participation
and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1).
Chawla, L. (2009). Growing up green: Becoming an agent of care for the natural world. The
Journal of Developmental Processes, 4(1), 6-23.
Clapp, M., Aurora, N., Herrera, L., Bhatia, M., Wilen, E., & Wakefield, S. (2017). Gut
microbiota’s effect on mental health: The gut-brain axis. Clinics and Practice, 7(4), 987.
doi:10.4081/cp.2017.987
Cobb, E. (1977). The ecology of the imagination in childhood. Dallas, TX: Spring Publications.
Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Books.
Den Broeder, L., Lemmens, L., Uysal, S., Kauw, K., Weekenborg, J., Schönenberger, M.,…
Wagemakers A., (2017) Public health citizen science; Perceived impacts on citizen
scientists: A case study in a low-income neighbourhood in the Netherlands. Citizen
Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 1–17. doi:10.5334/cstp.89
Dierking, L. & Falk, J. H. (2016). 2020 Vision: Envisioning a new generation of STEM learning
research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 1–10.
Dillon, J., Rickinson, M., Teamey, K., Morris, M., Choi, M. Y., Sanders, D., & Pauline
Benefield, P. (2006). The value of outdoor learning: Evidence from research in the UK
and elsewhere. School Science Review, 87(320).
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Dresner, M. & Gill, M. (1994). Environmental education at summer nature camp. The
Journal of Environmental Education, 25, (3).
Duke, C. & Porter, J. (2013) The ethics of data sharing and reuse in biology. BioScience, 63(6),
483-489.
EarthWatch. (2018). Retrieved April 23, 2018, from
http://earthwatch.org/Research-Funding/Benefits-of-Citizen-Science
European Citizen Science Association. (2015). Ten principles of citizen science.
Retrieved from https://earthwatch.org/Research-Funding/Benefits-of-Citizen-Science
Fabber Taylor, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping with ADD: The surprising
connection to green play setting. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 54-77.
Faber Taylor, A., Kuo, F. E. (2006). Is contact with nature important for healthy child
development? State of the evidence. In Spencer, C. & Blades, M., (Eds.), Children and
their environments: Learning, using and designing spaces. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 124–140.
Faber Taylor, A., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city:
Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 3-27.
Faber Taylor, A. & Kuo, F. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after
walk in the park. Journal Attention Disorders, 12(5), 402-409.
doi.org/10.1177/1087054708323000
Flouri, E., Midouhas, E., Joshi, H. (2014). The role of urban neighbourhood green space in
children’s emotional and behavioural resilience. Journal of Environmental Psychology.
Gillett-Swan, J. & Sargeant, J. (2015). Empowering the disempowered through
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
voice-inclusive practice: Children’s views on adult-centric educational provision.
European Educational Research Journal, 14, 177-191. doi:10.1177/1474904115571800.
Grahn, P., Martensson, F., Lindblad, B., Nilsson, P., Ekman, A. (1997). UTE pa DAGIS, Stad &
Land nr. 93/1991 Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Alnarp.
Hart, R.A. (1997). Children's participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens
in community development and environmental care. London: Earthscan.
Hidalgo-Ruz, V. & Thiel, M. (2013). Distribution and abundance of small plastic debris on
beaches in the SE Pacific (Chile): A study supported by a citizen science project. Marine
Environmental Research, 87-88, 12-18.
Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K.I., Kramer, A.F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise
effects on brain and cognition. Nature Review Neuroscience, 9(1), 58-65.
Hinckson, E., Schneider, M., Winter, S.J., Stone, E., Puhan, M., Stathi, A.,…King, A. C. (2013).
Citizen science applied to building healthier community environments: Advancing the
field through shared construct and measurement development. The International Journal
of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14(133). doi:10.1186/s12966-017-05886.
Hoban, A. E., Stilling, R. M., Moloney, G., Moloney, R., Shanahan, F., Dinan, T.G.,…Clarke, G.
(2017). Microbial regulation of microRNA expression in the amygdala and prefrontal
cortex. Microbiome, 5(1), 102. doi.org/10.1186/s40168-017-0321-3
Jenkins, L. L. (2011). Using citizen science beyond teaching science content: A strategy for
making science relevant to students’ lives. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 501-
508.
Johnson, V., Hart, R. & and Colwell J. (2014). Steps to Engaging Young Children in Research—
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Vol. 1: The Guide. Retrieved from https://bernardvanleer.org/publications-reports/steps-
engaging-young-children-research-volume-1-guide/
Jones M., Riddell, K., Morrow, A., (2013). The impact of Citizen Science activities on
participant behaviour and attitude. Project Report November, Scottish Environmental
Protection Agency (SEPA).
Jones, D., Greenberg, M., Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public
health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness.
American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283-2290.
Kellert, S. R. (2002). Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development.
In Kahn, P. H. & Kellert, S. R. (Eds.) Children and nature: Psychological, sociocultural,
and evolutionary investigations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kellert S. (2005). Building for life: Designing and understanding the human-nature connection.
Washington, DC: Island Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uppsala/Doc?
id=10149925&ppg=37
Kerns, T. (2013). Ten practical advantages of a human rights approach to environmental
advocacy. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 3(4): 416-420,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0143-y.
Kimura, A. H. & Kinchy, A. (2016). Citizen science: Probing the virtues and contexts of
participatory research. Engaging Science Technology, and Society, 2, 331-361.
Kuo, F.E. & Faber Taylor, A. (2004). A potential natural treatment for Attention-
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of
Public Health, 94(9), 1580-1586.
Lakeman-Fraser, P., Gosling, L., Moffat, A.J., West, S.E., Fradera, R., Davies, L.,…van der Wal,
R., (2016). To have your citizen science cake and eat it? Delivering research and outreach
through Open Air Laboratories (OPAL). BMC Ecology, 16(Suppl 1),16.
doi.org/10.1186/s12898-016-0065-0
Landeiro, F., Barrows P., Nuttall Musson, E., Gray, E. M., & Leal, J. (2017). Reducing social
isolation and loneliness in older people: A systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013778
Lee, A.C. & Maheswaran, R. (2011). The health benefits of urban green spaces: A review of the
evidence. Journal of Public Health, 33(2), 212-22.
Lieberman, G.A., Hoody, L.L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as
an integrating context for learning. Poway, CA: SEER.
Liebenberg, L., Steventon, J., Brahman, N., Benadie, K., Minye, J., Langwane, H., Quashe, X.
(2017). Smartphone icon user interface design for non-literate trackers and its
implications for an inclusive citizen science. Biological Conservation, 208, 155-168.
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.04.033
Liebenberg, L. (2015, January 7) Citizen science: Creating an inclusive, global network for
conservation. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/07/citizen-science-creating-an-inclusive-
global-network-for-conservation
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Louv R. (2007). Leave no child inside. Orion Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/240/
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.
Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Makuch, K. E. & Aczel, M., (2018). Citizen science and children. In Hecker, S., Haklay, M.,
Bowser, A, Makuch, Z., Vogel, J., Bonn, A. (Eds.), Citizen Science: Innovation.
in open science, society and policy (391-409). London: UCL Press.
Maller, C., Townsend, M., Pryor, A., Brown, P., St Leger, L. (2006). Healthy nature healthy
people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for
populations. Health Promotion International, 21(1): 45-54.
Mason, J. & Hood, S. (2011). Exploring issues of children as actors in social research. Children
and Youth Services Review, 33(4), 490-495.
McCarney, S.B., & Arthaud, T.J. (1995) Attention deficit disorders evaluation scale, (4th ed.)
Columbia, MO: Hawthorne Educational Services.
McCurdy, L., Winterbottom, K., Mehta, S., Roberts, J. (2010). Using nature and outdoor activity
to Improve Children's Health. Current Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Health
Care, 40(5), 102-117.
McKinley, D. C., Miller-Rushing, A. J., Ballard, H. L., Bonney, R., Brown, H., Evans, D. M.,
…Soukup, M.A. (2015). Investing in citizen science can improve natural resource
management and environmental protection. Issues in Ecology 19. Retrieved from
https://www.esa.org/esa/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Issue19.pdf
Miczajka, V. L., Klein, A-M., Pufal, G. (2015). Elementary school children contribute to
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
environmental research as citizen scientists. PL0S ONE, 10(11).
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143229
Miller, J., (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience TRENDS.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(8).
Mitchell, N., Triska, M., Liberatore, A., Ashcroft, L., Weatherill, R., Longnecker, N., (2017).
Benefits and challenges of incorporating citizen science into university education. PLOS
ONE, 1 (11). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186285
Mor Barak, M. E. (2017). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mor Barak, M. E. (2018). The practice and science of social good: Emerging paths to positive
social impact. Research on Social Work Practice. doi.org/10.1177/1049731517745600
Moran, L., Rau, H. (2016) Mapping divergent concepts of sustainability: lay knowledge, local
practices and environmental governance. Local Environment 21:(3344-360).
Okada, H., Kuhn, C., Feillet, H., Bach, J. F. (2010). The ‘Hygiene Hypothesis’ for autoimmune
and allergic diseases: An update.” Clinical and Experimental Immunology, 160(1), 1–9.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2249.2010.04139.x
Olszak, T., An, D., Zeissig, S., Vera, M. P., Richter, J., Franke, A.,...Blumberg, R. S. (2012).
Microbial exposure during early life has persistent effects on natural killer T Cell
Function. Science, 336(6080): 489–493.
Pretty, J., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N., & Griffin, M. (2006). Green exercise in
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
the UK countryside: Effects on health and psychological well-being, and implications for
policy and planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(2), 211 –
231.
Pretty J., Peacock, J., Sellens, M., & Griffin M. (2005). The mental and physical health outcomes
of green exercise. International Journal of Environmental Health Research,15(5), 319-37.
doi:10.1080/09603120500155963
Purcell, K., Garibay, C., & Dickinson, J. L., (2012). A gateway to science for all: Celebrate
urban birds. In Dickinson, J. L., Louv, R. & Bonney, R., (Eds.) Citizen science: Public
participation in environmental research. Ithaca, NY: Comstock Pub. Associates.
Raychaudhuri, M. & Sanyal, D. (2012). Childhood obesity: Determinants, evaluation, and
prevention. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 16(Suppl 2), S192-S194.
doi:10.4103/2230-8210.104037.
Riesch, H. & Potter, C. (2014) Citizen Science as seen by scientists: Methodological,
epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 107-20.
RSPB (2010). Every child outdoors. UK Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB),
Retrieved from https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/everychildoutdoors_tcm9-259689.pdf
Sacks P. (2005). “No child left”: What are schools for in a democratic society? In Olfan S.,
(Ed.) Childhood lost: How American culture is failing our kids. Westport, CT:
Greenwood, 185–202.
Sargeant, J. (2017). Towards voice‐inclusive practice: Finding the sustainability of participation
in realising the child’s rights in education. Children and Society, 32.
doi:10.1111/chso.12247.
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
Schutte, A., Torquati, J., Beattie, H. (2015) Impact of urban nature on executive functioning in
early and middle childhood. Environment and Behavior, September 2, 2015.
Sebba, R. (1991). The landscapes of childhood: the reflection of childhood's environment in
adult memories and in children's attitudes. Environment and Behavior, 23 (4), 395-422.
Sigman, A. (2007). Agricultural Literacy: Giving concrete children food for thought. Retrieved
from www.face-online.org.uk/resources/news/Agricultural%20Literacy.pdf
Soleri, D., Long, J. W., Ramirez-Andreotta, M. D., Eitemiller, R. & Pandya, R. (2016). Finding
pathways to more equitable and meaningful public-scientist partnerships. Citizen Science:
Theory and Practice, 1(1), 9. doi: http://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.46
Strachan D. P. (1989). Hay fever, hygiene, and household size. British Medical Journal,
299(6710), 1259-1260. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1838109/pdf/bmj00259-0027.pdf 8
Strife, S., Downey, L. (2009). Childhood development and access to nature: A new direction for
environmental inequality research. Organization and Environment. 2009, 22(1), 99-122.
doi:10.1177/1086026609333340.
Torquati, J. (2010). Environmental education: A natural way to nurture children's
development and learning, YC Young Children, 65(6)98-104.
United Nations. (1972). Principle 19, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment, Stockholm, 1972. Retrieved http://www.un-
documents.net/unchedec.htm
von Benzon, N., Makuch (MacDonald), K. E, & Makuch, Z. (2008), The right for disabled
ENVIRONMENTAL CITIZEN SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD: ENGAGING CHILDREN
children to access the natural environment: A law and policy critique. Willamette Journal
of International Law and Dispute Resolution. 16(1),76-105.
Waite, S., Passy, R., Gilchrist, M., Hunt, A. & Blackwell, I. (2016). Natural Connections
Demonstration Project, 2012-2016: Final Report. Natural England Commissioned
Reports, Number 215.
Weiss, S. M. (2002). Eat dirt -The hygiene hypothesis and allergic diseases. New England
Journal of Medicine,347, 930-931.
Wells, N, & Lekies, K. (2006). “Nature and the life course: pathways from childhood nature
experiences to adult environmentalism.” Children, Youth and Environments 16(1): 1-24.
Wells, N. M., Myers, B. M., Todd, L. E., Barale, K., Gaolach, B., Ferenz, G.,…Falk, E.
(2015). The effects of school gardens on children's science knowledge: A randomized
controlled trial of low-income elementary schools. International Journal of Science
Education, 37(17), 2858-2878.
37(17), 2858-2878.
Whitaker, R. C., Wright J. A., Pepe, M. S., Seidel K. D., Dietz W. H. (1997). Predicting obesity
in young adulthood from childhood and parental obesity. New England Journal Medicine.
337:869–873. doi:10.1056/NEJM199709253371301
Zoellick, B., Nelson, S. J, Schauffler, M. (2012). Participatory science and education: Bringing
both views into focus. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 310–313.