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 of
conservation activities on people who are incarcerated: a case study based on qualitative and quantitative analyses. Ecology and
Society 27(3):44. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13423-270344

Insight

Impacts of conservation activities on people who are incarcerated: a case

study 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 have
a positive impact on their environment, and for ecologists to communicate science and the importance of nature with people in nature-
deprived 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 coordinated
by these ecologists at the Salt Lake County Jail, Utah, using quantitative and qualitative approaches, including voluntary pre- and
post-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 the
importance of collaborations between scientists who use quantitative and qualitative approaches and analytical tools, which, when
combined, provide the capacity to measure, analyze, and interpret data from human participants. These considerations should be
further explored with collaborations of natural scientists, social scientists, corrections staff, and people who are incarcerated as ecological
restoration projects in correctional institutions become more prevalent.
Key Words: citizen science; conservation; incarcerated; prisons; qualitative analyses; restoration ecology

INTRODUCTION Nadkarni et al. 2022). Because the resources for implementing

Engagement between ecologists and groups outside of academia formal evaluative have been limited, the media have played an
is increasingly common, to the benefit of both groups (Stoecker important role in giving people who are incarcerated and
2009, Nadkarni et al. 2019, MacArthur et al. 2020). Some of these corrections staff a platform to describe anecdotal program
undertakings have been through citizen science projects impacts. In the last decade, scientists and conservationists have
(Silvertown 2009, Raddick et al. 2013), in which non-scientists crossed sectoral and institutional borders to directly engage
participate in collecting or analyzing data for projects established “incarcerated citizen scientists (ICS)” in rearing endangered and
by scientists. Typically, these projects have engaged volunteers rare animal and plant species that have been released or out-
who are able to travel to field sites or who can gain access to planted for ongoing projects (Table 1). We use the term “citizen
internet-based data. Participation in citizen science projects science” rather than the more recently coined “community
therefore tends to be limited to people with financial and scientist” because all of the participants are citizens of the United
educational privilege, and involvement by those without such States and because it links them to established and well-respected
privileges and access has understandably been limited. However, “citizen science” efforts in which people who are not incarcerated
individuals who lack access to field sites and the internet—many participate.
of whom have been underserved by science and deprived of the
Citizen science projects involving non-incarcerated citizens have
physical, psychological, and emotional benefits of nature—would
provided benefits for conservation, which, among other projects,
also be likely to be interested in and benefit from participation in
include greater numbers and high quality of organisms produced
these scientific engagement activities.
overall (Dickinson et al. 2010). These same benefits have also
In the past two decades, scientists and conservationists have accrued from projects with individuals who are incarcerated that
innovated programs and projects that directly involve one such were carried out in state prisons and county jails, and juvenile
group—adults and youth who are incarcerated—with detention centers. A summary of such projects (Kaye et al. 2015)
conservation and ecological restoration. The media described highlighted multiple benefits of prison-based citizen science
these early efforts in positive ways, reporting that people who are activities to date. First, participation in habitat conservation
incarcerated demonstrated their value, care, and interest for projects improves ecologists’ capacity to restore landscapes,
nature and conservation. The positive reception of such programs conduct research, and recover threatened and endangered species
encouraged incarcerated people and participating corrections (Nadkarni 2006). Restoration ecologists partnering with
institutions to participate in these programs (Horns et al. 2020, Sustainability in Prisons Project (LeRoy et al. 2012), for example,

1
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 State(s) Correctional institution(s) Duration

participants
Taylor’s Euphydryas editha taylori, a 24,500+ caterpillars and Technicians receive education WA Mission Creek Corrections 2011–
Checkerspot federally-endangered species. Also adult butterflies released and training to rear, breed, and Center for Women present
Butterfly Program grow Plantago to feed the leaves to in Salish lowland prairies release butterflies and grow (MCCCW)
the larvae upon release from cold in WA; 18+ certificates Plantago.
diapause awarded;
Taylor’s Euphydryas editha taylori, a federally caterpillars and adult Technicians receive education OR Coffee Creek Correctional 2017–
Checkerspot endangered species. butterflies released in and training to rear butterflies Facility present
Butterfly Program prairies in OR
Western Pond Actinemys marmorata 112 turtles re-released to Technicians receive education WA Larch Corrections Center 2013–
Turtle Program wild; 17 certificates and training to provide (LCC), Cedar Creek present
awarded extended care to turtles with a Corrections Center (CCCC)
“shell disease”
Prairie 80+ species of plants for lowland 2.7 million+ plant-plugs Technicians receive education WA Stafford Creek Corrections 2009–
Conservation prairie restoration delivered; 14 pounds of and training to raise native Center (SCCC; now inactive), present
Nursery Programs Viola adunca and Viola plants and seeds for ecological Washington Corrections
howellii seeds delivered restoration Center for Women (WCCW),
Washington Corrections
Center (WCC)
Woodpecker Nest 1,000’s of hours of video Technicians receive education WA Cedar Creek Corrections 2017–2020
Predation Study data reviewed; and training on pacific Center (CCCC)
contributing to northwest birds and mammals;
knowledge of threatened learn to review and record
cavity-nesting woodpecker observations from wildlife
species; increases science camera video data; earn
ed and engagement for certificate in association with
techs working with turtle program
Western pond turtles
Oregon Spotted Rana pretiosa, a federally 879 frogs raised Technicians receive education WA Cedar Creek Corrections 2009–2017
Frog Program endangered species and training to captive-rear Center (CCCC)
and release state-endangered
frogs
Bighorn Sheep Ovis aries 46 domestic sheep born Technicians receive training WA Washington State 2018–
Conservation and provide all aspects of care Penitentiary (WSP) present
Program and breeding for domestic
Suffolk sheep with aim to
provide small herd managers
stock free of a pathogen which
presents major threats to wild
bighorn sheep populations
Emergent Pre- Mats of various wetland plant 147+ mats and 10,000 Technicians receive education WA Stafford Creek Corrections 2018–
Vegetated Mat species for habitat restoration plugs and training to produce Center (SCCC) present
(EVM) Program emergent pre-vegetated mats
and operate a complex
aquaponics system
Sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata, Purshia 1.5 million+ sagebrush Technicians receive education OR, ID, Warner Creek Correctional 2016–2020
Bitterbrush, and tridentata, Artemisia cana and other sage steppe and training to grow sage CA, NV, Facility, Snake River
Sliver Sage in plants grown steppe plants WY Correctional Facility, South
Prisons Project 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
Mojave Desert Desert needlegrass (Achnatherum/ Currently have Technicians receive education CA CA City Correctional 2019–2020
Seed Propagation Stipa speciosum), desert pepperweed germinated plants in 825+ and training to grow plants Facility, Federal
Project (Lepidium fremontii), desert pots and are planting
marigold (Baileya multiradiata), annuals in a production
eastern Mojave buckwheat field
(Eriogonum fasciculatum), smooth
desert dandelion (Malacothrix
glabrata), desert Indianwheat
(Plantago ovata), chia (Salvia
columbariae)
Oregon Silverspot Viola adunca plants are grown and Women adults in custody Technicians receive education OR Coffee Creek Correctional 2013–
Butterfly Program leaves collected for the Oregon raise plants. The Oregon and training related to ecology, Facility present
Silverspot butterflies (Argynnis Zoo collects leaves to feed butterflies, and growing Viola
zerene hippolyta) to the Oregon Silverspot adunca
butterflies at the zoo.
 Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

have collaborated with correctional facilities to raise rare native Why is it that, nearly two decades into the practice of involving
plants for release into wild lands. Second, the act of caring for ICS in ecological restoration work, we lack evidence-based
living organisms, including animals (Ormerod 2008) and plants information about the impacts on ICS? Although several states
(Relf and Dorn 1995, Clarke 2011, Lindemuth 2014), as well as have well-established conservation programs in prisons (Table 1),
exposure to nature imagery (Nadkarni et al. 2017a) provide they have had limited capacity to pursue program evaluation or
significant therapeutic value to individuals who are incarcerated. implement research on these projects. This reduced capacity has
These activities result in calmer, safer prison settings (Nadkarni significantly limited the scope of research and our understanding
et al. 2017b). Third, individuals who engage in actions that give of the challenges and values of such work (Davis et al. 2013).
back to their communities through conservation projects
We recognize four challenges facing those working in this arena,
demonstrate greater accountability and pro-social behavior (e.g.,
which involve a combination of logistics, pedagogy, and
sharing readings with cellmates, describing science lectures to
institutional values. First, the collection of formal quantitative
visiting family members; Horns et al. 2020), as well as more
and qualitative data is difficult because of the limited resources
positive attitudes about the environment (Gallagher 2013). The
available to meet the need for strict human subject review, given
Great Plains Restoration Council’s Restoration Not Incarceration
that people who are incarcerated are justifiably designated a
program, for example, has positively engaged youth who are
vulnerable population (Johnson et al. 2014). This designation
incarcerated to integrate with local communities in Gulf Coast
means that researchers who work with ICS must be associated
habitats by “helping young adults reintegrate into society by
with an institution with an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that
achieving new insights, and which was associated with improved
can review proposals involving vulnerable human subjects, and/
life outcomes” (Norton et al. 2013, Norton and Holguin 2011).
or must use the specific IRB approved by their state corrections
Fourth, without access to libraries that provide science resources
system. Extra care must be taken to implement study recruitment
or the internet, many people in custody desire but are lacking in
methods that respect the autonomy of people who are
intellectual stimulation. Engaging in the scientific method and
incarcerated, and ensure that informed consent is given
receiving training and presentations from scientists and other
voluntarily and without coercion. Research involving this
professionals provides opportunities for healthy pursuits of
population also requires significant, and often limited, resources
curiosity (Ulrich and Nadkarni 2009, Weber 2012, Horns et al.
from corrections staff for review of the methods’ feasibility and
2020). Lastly, vocational and general education have been
subsequent implementation. Second, correctional populations
demonstrated to reduce rates of recidivism (Bouffard et al. 2000,
tend to experience reduced access to education and have lower
Wilson et al. 2000, Davis et al. 2013, Davis 2019), and improve
levels of literacy than the general population. Reading and writing
post-release employment rates and earnings of individuals after
responses to typical surveys can be more difficult for some, and
they are released from incarceration (Tyler and Kling 2006, Cho
may necessitate short consent forms and surveys with simplified
and Tyler 2013).
language. Third, it can be difficult to elicit authentic responses to
In addition to these challenges, the field of restoration ecology, survey questions among populations who are incarcerated
which has been practiced in the United States for the past century, because of the power dynamics in a carceral setting. Some
has only existed as a recognized sub-discipline of ecology since individuals are suspicious of authority, and may be less likely to
the founding its research-based journal, Restoration Ecology, provide authentic responses; others wish to please authorities
which was first published in 1993, and thus is a relatively young (researchers or corrections staff) with the hope of gaining favor,
scientific discipline. Its youth has contributed to the only recent and thus supply responses that they think are desired. Finally, the
emergence of empirical evaluation of restoration programs. corrections environment is not geared toward education,
Combined with the other challenges outlined above, it is clear why conservation, or evaluation activities, so there are considerable
there has been so little formal evaluation of ICS programs to date, logistical hurdles to work around, such as the use of pens in
which makes this study particularly timely. cellblocks, the rapid turnover of ICS, corrections staff
collaboration to administer evaluation instruments, and
Despite the growing interest in these activities, these publications
unforeseen lockdowns that interfere with programming schedules.
on the impacts of science outreach to people who are incarcerated
have not generally included quantitative or qualitative analyses
Since 2014, a team of scientists and conservationists, based at the
of the impacts on the participants. Nearly all of the impacts of
University of Utah, has operated a program that addresses these
these projects have been documented anecdotally and
challenges. The Initiative to bring Science Programs to the
disseminated through the media (Table 2). Formal qualitative and
Incarcerated (INSPIRE) has brought scientists (STEM graduate
quantitative data on both the expectations of and the outcomes
students and faculty) from the university to present monthly
for the ICS who participate in such projects are lacking. Such
science lectures, discussions, and readings, inside the state prison,
evidence-based information would strengthen our understanding
county jail, and juvenile detention centers. Their formal surveys
of the benefits of citizen science projects for people who are
documented that these lectures increased science knowledge
incarcerated and create best practices for scientists and
content, shifted the self-identity of individuals who are
conservationists who are or wish to implement projects for ICS
incarcerated toward being science learners, and inspired actions
and for other public groups that face some of the same barriers
to seek more information about science (Nadkarni and Morris
and challenges (e.g., lack of internet access, inability to gain
2018). These effects were manifested even with one or a few
physical access to plants and animals). These data would also
exposures, but impacts were amplified by increasing the number
yield evidence for policy makers to provide support for such
of lectures attended (Horns et al. 2020). Similar responses were
projects in academia, conservation, and corrections arenas.
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 News source (state) Article title Date

institution
Local Sagebrush (Artemisia Warner Creek CF Lake County Examiner (OR) Warner Creek AIC’s reap what they ‘sow’ May 2019
tridentata)
Local Taylor’s checkerspot Coffee Creek CF Oregon Zoo News (OR) With inmates’ help, rare NW butterfly is Mar 2019
butterfly (Euphydryas homeward bound
editha taylori)
Local Taylor’s checkerspot Mission Creek CC The Daily Chronicle (WA) Endangered butterflies rebound in South May 2019
butterfly for Women Sound prairies
Local Coho Salmon Olympic CC Forks Forum (WA) Inmates and others help create salmon Aug 2018
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) habitat
Local Sagebrush Salt Lake County Spectrum (UT) BLM restoring land with aid from inmates Nov 2016
Jail
Local Taylor’s checkerspot Coffee Creek CF Patch (OR) Oregon corrections inmates to protect, raise Mar 2017
butterfly endangered butterflies
Regional Sagebrush Warm Springs KTVN Ch. 2 Reno (NV) Saving Nevada’s sage-grouse, with inmate Apr 2019
Correctional Center volunteers
Regional Taylor’s checkerspot Coffee Creek CF KPTV Fox 12 (OR) Coffee Creek inmates help raise hundreds of Mar 2019
butterfly endangered butterflies
Regional Western pond turtle Cedar Creek CC Medium; Gov. Inslee (WA) Turning education into jobs Jun 2019
(Actinemys marmorata)
Regional Sagebrush South Boise Idaho Press (ID) Inmates help restore habitat through Oct 2018
Women’s CC sagebrush planting program
Regional Least chub (Iotichthys Salt Lake County KSL (UT) Science behind bars is improving lives, Nov 2015
phlegethontis) Jail reducing crime
Regional Sagebrush Northern Nevada Nevada News Group (NV) Inmates help restore sage grouse habitat: sage Aug 2016
CC, Warm Springs grouse remains off endangered list due to
CC & Lovelock CC prisoners’ efforts
Regional Taylor’s checkerspot Coffee Creek CF KATU 2 (OR) Endangered butterfly lab at Coffee Creek Jul 2017
butterfly Prison nurtures insects and inmates
National Western pond turtle Cedar Creek CF Seattle Times (WA) Inmates feel better, too, after helping ill Apr 2014
turtles
Oregon spotted frog Cedar Creek CC New York Times (WA) Raising frogs for freedom, prison project Sep 2012
(Rana pretiosa) opens doors
National Taylor’s checkerspot Mission Creek CC Discover Magazine Prisoners do science, help to save endangered Aug 2012
butterfly for Women butterfly
National Taylor’s checkerspot Mission Creek CC PBS NewsHour Do call it a comeback: how the checkerspot May 2016
butterfly for Women butterfly found salvation in a women’s prison
National Oregon spotted frog Cedar Creek CC Associated Press Prison inmates save endangered species at Sep 2012
Cedar Creek Corrections Center
National Native plants & Stafford Creek CC Yes! Magazine How inmates, scientists, and government Oct 2017
checkerspot butterfly & Mission Creek workers are teaming up to save this butterfly
CC for Women
National Oregon spotted frog Cedar Creek CC National Geographic Biologist wants nature for everyone, including Sep 2016
prisoners
International Western Pond Turtle Cedar Creek CC UK Ministry of Justice Returning home Jun 2019
International WA Conservation WA State Prisons Solutions Journal (Australia) Slowing Australia’s revolving prison door May 2017
Programs through biodiversity and conservation
projects
International Taylor’s checkerspot Mission Creek CC UK Ministry of Justice Restoring hope and habitat: prison-based Dec 2018
butterfly for Women collaborations for ecological conservation in
the USA
International Sagebrush Correctional Nos Actus (France) Former les détenus à protéger la nature Mar 2017
Facilities in WA,
UT, ID, NV, MT

In addition to science lectures, INSPIRE has provided Salt Lake (Marty and Kettenring 2017, Crockett et al. 2018). A
experiential informal science education through hands-on third conservation project involved ICS youth (14–18 years old),
training and participation by people who are incarcerated in five who grew native milkweed that were out-planted by community
ecological restoration projects (2015–2019) at the Salt Lake conservationists to provide habitat and food for migrating
County Jail (SLCJ). These included adult ICS in the construction monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). Participation by ICS
of nest boxes for the American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) and were formally assessed for two other projects: the Least Chub
participation in an exploratory horticulture research project to Refuge Pond Project and the Sagebrush Restoration Project,
re-establish native plants in wetlands habitat around the Great described below.
 Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Assessment of the impacts of participation in conservation its Jails Program Division. It provides education and vocational
projects on individual ICS is a complex matter that involves training to qualified, non-violent inmates (“trustees”). Working
different expertise from that of giving ecological science lectures cooperatively with community partners to facilitate reintegration
or leading conservation activities. Specifically, the design and and reduce recidivism, the program supports a 1.2 ha garden, two
implementation of learning assessments requires expertise in greenhouses, three hoop houses (plant-growing spaces with
psychological construct validity and measurement. These skills flexible structural members), and a chicken coop on the jail
are not in the typical “toolbox” of ecological researchers involved premises. The composition of the trustee pool varies because they
and, therefore, properly assessing the impact of ICS on rotate in and out of these programs, depending on their sentences
participants’ outcomes requires close collaboration with social and other responsibilities such as meetings with lawyers and
scientists. families. In general, the number of trustees at any time ranges
from 40 to 60 individuals, and so represents a small proportion
First, measuring the impacts of lectures and activities on
of the general jail population. Because our study extended over
participants’ science knowledge content requires expertise in
a period of six years, the number of surveyed participants involved
designing and implementing learning assessments to be
over 200 individuals.
completed by attendees before and immediately after science
presentations. We collaborated with experts in STEM education We assessed impacts of participation in two conservation projects.
and evaluation who helped to design these learning self- The Least Chub Refuge Pond Project was initiated in May 2015,
assessments. Second, it was challenging to determine how to when the INSPIRE program partnered with the SLCJ and the
assess participants’ expectations of ICS before engaging with an Utah Division of Wildlife Services (DWS). The SLCJ created a
ongoing long-term conservation project, and understanding the 1.0 ha “refuge pond” on its property for the least chub (Iotichthys
psychosocial impacts of involvement in conservation activities, phlegethontis), a Utah state-sensitive fish. This native mosquito-
including interacting with scientists over weeks or months, given eating species plays an important role in Utah’s natural mosquito
that this type of work with this type of audience has little abatement efforts, and is threatened by more aggressive
precedent. These assessments required additional knowledge of introduced species called the western mosquitofish (Gambusia
the potential psychosocial consequences, positive and negative, affinis; Ayala et al. 2007). The program was funded by $150,000
that could emerge from the ICS experience and the best way to from the prisoner-services (commissary profits) account, and was
assess these impacts. Also, because the impacts of ICS can differ approved by the Salt Lake City Council. The DWS provided 5000
from scientists’ expectations, we included open-ended survey native fish for the refuge pond to help repopulate this species.
questions or interviews in order to capture responses unforeseen Scientists from the DWS and INSPIRE provided ICS with
by the researchers who design and select the pre- and post-ICS lectures on concepts and skills in science and sustainability,
assessments. including fish biology, aquatic macroinvertebrate ecology, water
chemistry, and the rationale for and practices of conservation.
In this paper, we provide a case study that reveals some of the
Staff at the SLCJ provided security clearances for scientists, and
challenges to understand the impacts of participation in
officers provided oversight for safe behavior. The ICS carried out
conservation projects on ICS. We describe assessment outcomes
fish censuses, cleared the pond of algae, conducted and recorded
of two conservation projects carried out in the Salt Lake County
water chemistry measurements, and attended lectures and
Jail in Utah. We report on and compare results using closed-ended
workshops, with accompanying readings, presented by INSPIRE
and open-ended data from surveys. We discuss the importance of
staff.
collaboration of ecologists and other scientists involved with
citizen science projects with social scientists to more holistically The second project, the Sagebrush Restoration Project, involved
assess impacts of these projects on participants. Finally, we growing seedlings of sagebrush for ongoing work to restore
provide recommendations on how to initiate, maintain, and assess burned habitat of the iconic sage grouse (Centrocercus
citizen science projects with people who are incarcerated, which urophasianus), whose numbers are decreasing across the
may be applied to other populations who lack access to nature intermountain west. In 2017, INSPIRE contracted with the
and traditional citizen science projects. Institute for Applied Ecology (IAE) to involve adults in
correctional institutions. Funded by the U.S. Bureau of Land
MATERIALS AND METHODS Management (BLM), this effort involved ICS (men and women)
Study site to grow ca. 24,000 seedlings as plugs of native sagebrush from
The conservation projects took place at the Salt Lake County Jail local and regional provenance. The IAE provided seeds, soils,
(SLCJ), which is operated by the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s containers, and established protocols, and coordinated the out-
Office, and houses approximately 2300 inmates, from minimum planting of mature seedlings with BLM staff. INSPIRE staff
to maximum security. Previous baseline surveys of people provided accompanying science lectures and workshops about
incarcerated at the SLCJ (Nadkarni and Morris 2018), document sage grouse biology, the rationale for the Endangered Species Act,
that 77% are men, with the majority of them White non-Hispanics and horticultural protocols.
(65%). Hispanics made up the largest proportion of minority Recruitment of participants
groups (26%). For the highest level of education attained, the All participants in the least chub program were men recruited
largest category was a high school diploma (26%), followed by from the horticulture program. The inclusion of men only was
“some college” (23%) and “some high school” (18%). because the large majority of people who are incarcerated are
The ICS for this study were drawn from the general jail population male (nearly 95% on average across the United States), and the
and from SLCJ’s Horticulture Program, established in 2009 under capacity 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 the ICS received notice of release or transfer, which resulted in a
for the Sagebrush project was from women and men’s minimum- large number of unmatched surveys. For quantitative analysis,
security cellblocks. In all cases, selection of participants was made only matched pre- and post-participation surveys were used in
by officers and staff of the SLCJ. Participants were required to the analyses (n = 225). For qualitative analyses, all non-duplicate
have indicators of good behavior and no violent infractions. All completed entrance and exit surveys were used in the analysis.
participation was voluntary and those who participated received
no extra incentive or rewards from INSPIRE. Letters of Methods for quantitative analyses
appreciation were offered to participants, and most accepted The quantitative portion of the survey included Likert scale
them. Participant demographics are provided in Table 3. questions with responses ranging from “strongly disagree to
strongly agree”; for behavioral intent questions, responses ranged
Design of surveys and evaluation protocols from “very unlikely” to “very likely”. Questions on the surveys
Survey design and data management were carried out in were randomly ordered but are reordered here to facilitate
collaboration with the Utah Education Policy Center (UEPC), interpretation. Reliability scores of greater than 0.70 indicate
an independent educational research organization at the acceptable agreement (Fleiss 1981); most constructs in our survey,
University of Utah. This study was reviewed and approved by the other than Logistics and Incarceration questions, were near or
Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Utah acceptably reliable. We categorized 35 survey questions into ten
(IRB_00061095) for all protocols, consent letter, survey categories (with Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores for matched
documents, study logic model, and recruitment flyer texts. entrance and exit surveys, respectively): Identity with science and
scientists (ISS; α = 0.68, 0.82); Science and math connection to
Since 2004, our research team has been carrying out a range of
life (SML; α = 0.77, 0.81); Math education (ME; one question);
activities that bring science and nature to people who are
General education (GE; one question); Relationship with the
incarcerated (Ulrich and Nadkarni 2009). For the first eight years,
environment (RE; α = 0.80, 0.77); Employment related to the
science lectures were sporadically delivered to adults who are
environment (EE; α = 0.91, 0.80); Incarceration (IN; α = 0.44,
incarcerated in a variety of correctional institutions without
0.52); Logistics (LOG; α = 0.60, 0.41); Behaviors related to science
formal and systematic evaluation instruments. These provided
(SB; α = 0.80, 0.89); and Personal relationships with others (PR;
opportunities for informal feedback of participants who are
α = 0.86, 0.89). All questions and question categories are provided
incarcerated and corrections staff and allowed us to gauge the
in Table 4.
level of appropriate lecture terminology and concepts and to gain
an understanding of the learning abilities of these audiences. This Entrance and exit surveys were matched using identification
information led us to place necessary constraints on language, numbers issued by the correctional institution and provided by
amount of text, and length of written surveys. participants on the surveys. We matched 44 entrance and exit
surveys from the Least Chub Project. For the Sagebrush Project,
Using this knowledge, the questions and categories for our surveys
we only obtained five matched entrance and exit surveys; these
were created by a professional educational evaluator at the Utah
were not included in the quantitative analysis. Although we
Education Policy Center (UEPC). Survey questions were based
collected demographic information on the survey (Table 3), the
around the topics of science, math, nature, and conservation.
sample size of matched surveys was too small to differentiate
Evaluation instruments were based in part on the theory of
responses with respect to ethnicity or educational background.
planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and
To determine if survey responses changed as a result of
Fishbein 1980, De Leeuw et al. 2015). However, the novel nature
participation in the conservation project, we compared entrance
of this audience and lack of preceding formal studies did not
and exit survey results for both individual questions and for
allow direct use of that literature. Where possible, we selected
question categories using nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank
items from validated surveys, modified items as necessary, and
tests. Significance levels were adjusted using the false discovery
developed our own questions when preexisting surveys did not
rate procedure (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995). Quantitative
apply. The question topics for our surveys (listed below) were
analyses were carried out in the R statistical programming
derived from validated scales: attitudes toward science, who can
environment (R Core Team 2021).
do science, and enjoyment of studying science and math
(Scientific Attitude Inventory; Moore and Foy 1997); perception Methods of qualitative analyses
of the utility of science in daily life (Motivated Strategies for Across the two projects, there were 202 responses to the entrance
Learning Questionnaire; Pintrich and De Groot 1990); value of survey open-ended question and 60 responses to the exit survey
knowing math to help earn a living (Fennema-Sherman open-ended questions. Of the 202 participants who responded to
Mathematics Attitudes Scale; Fennema and Sherman 1976); and the entrance survey, 33 responded to the exit survey. An additional
value of environmental protection for benefits to self and others 27 participants, who had not responded to the entrance survey,
(New Environmental/ Ecological Paradigm scale; Dunlap and responded to the exit survey.
Van Liere 1978, Dunlap et al. 2000). All other survey questions
were original and not derived from validated scales. In the entrance surveys, participants were asked one question
about what they hoped to gain from the project. There were 202
INSPIRE staff and select SLCJ staff gave individual ICS a pre- unique (non-duplicate) responses to code. In the exit surveys,
participation survey and consent forms for assessment when they participants were asked two questions, one about what benefits
started their work on the project, and a post-participation survey they gained from the project and the other about what benefits
when they left the project because of release or transfer to a the project provides to the community outside of the jail. Across
different cell block. In many cases, neither the INSPIRE staff nor the 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 Sagebrush Project
Total participants (n = 255) Matched entrance and exit Total participants (n = 39)
surveys (n = 44)
Count % Count % Count %
†
Ethnic background
White (non-Hispanic) 176 70 32 73 26 67
Hispanic or Latino 26 10 2 5 4 10
Native American or Alaska Native 3 1 0 0 1 3
Black or African American 17 7 2 5 1 3
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 5 2 1 2 0 0
Asian 4 2 1 2 2 5
Two or more ethnicities 11 4 6 14 5 13

Highest level of education attained

Junior high or less 7 3 1 3 2 6
Some high school 40 18 8 21 3 8
HS diploma 65 29 12 32 11 31
GED 41 18 5 13 2 6
Some college 39 18 6 16 6 17
Associate’s degree 18 8 4 11 7 19
Bachelor’s degree 8 4 2 5 4 11
Graduate or professional school 4 2 0 0 1 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 not Fig. 1. Summary of quantitative survey data from entrance
coded or included in the counts. surveys (first bar for each category) and exit surveys (second
After initial read-through of the responses, we generated a bar for each category). Bars represent mean score for each
coding scheme that included each of the themes mentioned by survey question category ± standard deviation. Scores for Math
the participants. For each participant response, themes were education (ME) and Relationship with the environment (RE)
coded as present or absent by two trained coders. Agreement signficantly decreased from entrance to exit survey (P < 0.05,
between the two coders was extremely high (90%), and Wilcoxon signed rank test); however, this difference was not
disagreements were resolved through discussion. significant after correction for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS
Quantitative results
Quantitative analysis of responses grouped by question category
indicated a significant change (P < 0.05, Wilcoxon signed rank
test) 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), and
Relationship 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 showed

a 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 and
scientists [ISS] category), “I can contribute to science” (ISS
category), “I am sure that I can learn math” (ME category; see
above), 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,
 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 Exit survey V P
Identity with science and scientists (ISS)
†
1. Only highly trained scientists can understand science. 1.81 ± 1.22 1.64 ± 1.04 94 0.449
2. Scientists are not so different from me. 3.86 ± 0.99 3.95 ± 1.21 117 0.323
†
3. Scientific work is useful only to scientists. 2.07 ± 1.24 2.29 ± 1.31 133 0.545
†
4. Scientific work would be too hard for me. 2.07 ± 1.30 2.10 ± 1.34 118.5 0.929
5. Working in science or learning about science would be fun. 4.35 ± 0.72 4.36 ± 0.76 85.5 0.686
6. I am interested in learning science. 4.45 ± 0.71 4.10 ± 0.81 100.5 0.016 *
7. I am interested in doing science. 4.38 ± 0.78 4.15 ± 0.84 85.5 0.141
8. I can contribute to science. 4.50 ± 0.75 4.03 ± 0.95 151.5 0.018 *
Mean of question category 4.17 ± 0.58 4.10 ± 0.69 422.5 0.454

Science and math connection to life (SML)

9. Science helps me in my daily life. 4.07 ± 1.00 4.16 ± 0.75 72.5 0.571
10. Math helps me in my daily life. 4.41 ± 0.79 4.16 ± 1.13 138.5 0.074
11. Knowing science will help me earn a living. 3.98 ± 0.83 4.00 ± 0.76 69 0.729
12. Knowing math will help me earn a living. 4.39 ± 0.69 4.23 ± 0.81 102.5 0.202
Mean of question category 4.21 ± 0.64 4.14 ± 0.69 394 0.523

Math education (ME)

13. I am sure that I can learn math. 4.66 ± 0.57 4.38 ± 0.79 100 0.017 *

General education (GE)

14. I would like to continue my education. 4.56 ± 0.70 4.51 ± 0.77 55.5 0.871

Relationship with the environment (RE)

15. Engaging in actions that help the earth, such as recycling and reducing waste, 4.55 ± 0.63 4.21 ± 0.91 166 0.071
is important to me.
16. I really enjoy being outdoors. 4.86 ± 0.42 4.67 ± 0.61 58.5 0.122
17. If I can, I want to start a garden after I leave here. 4.44 ± 0.77 4.14 ± 0.83 221.5 0.032 *
18. I feel a personal bond with things in my natural surroundings, like trees, a 4.36 ± 0.87 4.19 ± 0.70 126.5 0.172
stream, wildlife, or the view on the horizon.
19. In order to conserve resources, I would be willing to take personal action such 4.33 ± 0.94 4.24 ± 0.69 124 0.466
as using less water and turning off lights.
20. Environmental protection benefits everyone. 4.51 ± 0.80 4.40 ± 0.79 124.5 0.455
Mean of question category 4.50 ± 0.55 4.30 ± 0.52 470 0.011 *

Employment related to the environment (EE)

21. When I leave jail, I would prefer a job where I work with plants or animals. 3.84 ± 0.90 4.10 ± 0.79 78.5 0.18
22. When I leave jail, I would prefer a job that helps to protect the natural 3.88 ± 0.96 3.84 ± 0.90 108 0.6
environment.
Mean of question category 3.86 ± 0.89 3.95 ± 0.78 174 0.722

Incarceration (IN)
23. My family or friends outside jail know what sort of work or programs I am 3.95 ± 1.29 4.28 ± 0.98 64.5 0.218
involved in here.
24. I don’t feel like I am a part of a community inside this jail. 2.50 ± 1.25 2.54 ± 1.27 176.5 0.99
25. Even though I am in jail, I still feel connected to the outside community. 3.15 ± 1.28 3.67 ± 1.21 100.5 0.016 *
26. Even though I am in jail, it is important to me to contribute to the outside 4.37 ± 0.79 4.21 ± 0.80 143 0.321
community if I can.
Mean of question category 3.51 ± 0.59 3.70 ± 0.52 293 0.531

Logistics (LOG)
†
27. I do not like filling out surveys. 2.91 ± 1.19 3.07 ± 1.18 103 0.448
28. I would be willing to complete a longer survey than this one. 3.56 ± 1.26 3.38 ± 1.19 146.5 0.276
Mean of question category 3.33 ± 1.03 3.17 ± 0.94 205 0.452

Behaviors related to science (SB)

29. How likely are you to look for information about science (for example, on 3.93 ± 1.10 3.88 ± 0.99 96.5 0.623
‡
television or in newspapers)?
30. How likely are you to talk to someone in the jail about issues related to 3.51 ± 1.23 3.77 ± 0.95 49 0.057
‡
science?
Mean of question category 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? 3.68 ± 0.47 3.71 ± 0.46 12 0.777
32. How well would you say you get along with officers? 3.58 ± 0.50 3.6 ± 0.50 32.5 0.594
33. How well would you say you get along with teachers working at the jail? 3.65 ± 0.48 3.68 ± 0.47 30 0.802
34. How well would you say you get along with civilians working at the jail? 3.65 ± 0.48 3.73 ± 0.45 22 0.565
35. How well would you say you get along with your family? 3.83 ± 0.38 3.79 ± 0.42 33 0.565
Mean of question category 3.65 ± 0.39 3.71 ± 0.38 138.5 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 participants said they gained “knowledge of endangered fish and
[IN] category), responses were significant in the direction that pesticides” and “greater knowledge of fish & wildlife care &
indicated a positive response to the experience. None of the conservation.” Several participants also reported gaining hard
differences for individual questions was statistically significant skills (18.6% of responses), such as “learning how to tend to fish
after correction for multiple comparisons. and pond upkeep” in the Least Chub Project.
Qualitative Results Some respondents (22.1% of responses to the question)
Among the responses to the entrance survey question, the modal mentioned gaining psychological benefits from the experience.
response was one goal mentioned and ranged from zero to five. Participating in the program provided some participants with a
The mean number of goals was 1.42 (SD = 0.09); the median was personal sense of accomplishment, especially from being able to
one goal provided. Of the participants who supplied responses to make a positive contribution to the world. For example,
this question, participants varied in the types of outcomes that “Knowing that I contributed to the better health of the chub and
they hoped would result from their experiences in their project also the betterment of the condition of the pond and the natural
entrance surveys (Table 5). The majority of respondents (68.8% habitat of its surroundings” and “I enjoyed being a part of a
of those who responded to the question) reported that they project to better our habitat.” Similarly, respondents mentioned
wanted to learn and gain knowledge. For example, participants that the experience was a positive or even healing one: “I was able
said they wanted to “learn more about natural resource and life to get a sense of accomplishment as well as educate myself. I feel
science” and gain “a better understanding of different like it was very therapeutic as well.” Furthermore, the experience
environments & wildlife preservation.” Another commonly clearly shaped some participants’ feelings of connection with the
reported motivation was to gain skills (27.2% of those who environment, “We are all a part of nature!!” “It’s an opportunity
responded to the question). to provide a service to the community and give back to the
environment.” A minority of responses (3.4%) stated that they
Most of these responses described wanting to gain concrete did not think there were any personal benefits of their
knowledge and/or skills that participants could use after being participation to themselves nor to society.
released, such as “How to go about growing and processing my
own food for me and my family.” Some also mentioned wanting In terms of post-project benefits to the broader community, the
to gain skills for future employment: “I was told I would take a modal number of benefits mentioned in responses was one and
class and if I pass a test, I will receive a certificate helping me with ranged from zero to three. The average number of benefits
my landscaping/arborist job/career.” mentioned was 1.10 (SD = 0.68). Of those who responded to the
question, the majority (78.3%) mentioned conservation.
Some respondents (22.8% of those who responded to the Participants mentioned that the broader community would gain
question) also reported that they hoped the experience would help from conservation, “by helping save an endangered species” and
them become a better person or give back to the community. For “everyone can benefit from the least chub by eliminating
example, participants hoped “to be more connected to nature and mosquitos.” Also, “How to maintain and care for a plant so that
work better with others” and “to give back to the community, and it grows to be a strong and healthy plant.”
help the environment.” They also hoped to gain “the feeling that
I am contributing somehow” and wanting to “[give] back to the Some respondents (25% of those who responded) mentioned that
community doing something positive with my time.” In addition, the program provided inmates the opportunity to give back to
some respondents (17.3% of those who responded to the question) society, such as “That we help out in a major project to jelp [sic]
reported that they hoped to gain a positive experience from our planet” and “It is providing a service to the community by
participating in the program. Many of these participants said they providing an ecosystem for an endangered species to survive.” A
wanted to get “fresh air” or time outdoors. For example, “fresh few respondents also mentioned that the program gives them the
air and knowledge about sagebrush” and “good time, sunshine, opportunity to change people’s views about prisoners (6.7% of
and learning how to husband fish on a large scale.” those who responded). For example, “We helped in working to
restore the sagebrush habitat to protect the sage grouse and several
In response to the open-ended question about benefits gained other species. I think it helps the community know we are doing
personally, the modal number of benefits mentioned was one and productive things.” A very small proportion of responses (1.7%)
ranged from zero to four. The average number of personal benefits indicated that they did not think there were any community
was 1.51 (SD = 0.84). Most responses described scientific benefits to the program.
knowledge (68.8% of responses), with many explicitly mentioning
learning about conservation (44.1% of responses). For example,
 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 Examples

responses
Increase knowledge 68.8 “learn more about natural resources and life science”
“a better understanding of different environments & wildlife preservation.”
Gain skills 27.2 “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 me
with my landscaping/arborist job/career.”
Gain social or personal benefits 22.8 “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”
Have positive experience 17.3 “fresh air”
“Good time, sunshine, and learning how to husband fish on a large scale”
Exit survey about personal benefits themes
Learned knowledge 68.8 “knowledge of endangered fish & pesticides”
Learned about conservation 44.1 “greater knowledge of fish & wildlife care & conservation”
Psychological benefits 22.1 “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 was
very therapeutic as well.”
“We are all a part of nature!!”
Gained skills 18.6 “learning how to tend to fish and pond upkeep”
Had a positive experience 10.2 “I was able to get a sense of accomplishment as well as educate myself. I feel like it was
very therapeutic as well.”
Don’t think there were any 3.4
Exit survey about societal benefits themes
Conservation 78.3 “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.”
Giving back to others 25 “That we help out in a major project to jelp [sic] our planet”
Don’t think there are any 1.7

DISCUSSION vocabulary or presentation style, and that the questions did not
Incorporating concepts and actions for natural resource directly measure the impacts that were documented in the
conservation into correctional facilities is part of a wider qualitative responses.
movement to broaden participation in environmental work
In contrast, the qualitative analyses of participants’ open-ended
(Taylor 2014). The activities we describe here contribute to
responses clearly document positive impacts from participation.
understanding and documenting the influence and impacts of the
These included ICS reports that they had learned about science,
young but growing field of citizen science programs on people
and conservation specifically. Their responses went far beyond
who are incarcerated. This might lead to increasing access of
learning facts about science, and included their reporting that they
science sustainability, and conservation actions—with its
felt a sense of contribution, an emotion that is often lacking in
accompanying psychological, physical, and emotional benefits—
the sphere of people who are incarcerated. These findings also
for populations who live or work in areas without access to wild
provide additional context for the interpretation of the
nature, and/or in built environments that lack connection to or
quantitative results. A close inspection of the numbers in Table 4
views of nature, such as seniors in assisted living centers, military
reveals a relatively high level of agreement (averages typically
personnel who live in barracks, and those in rehabilitation centers,
above four on a five-point scale) with items reflecting the
in addition to ICS (Nadkarni et al. 2017a).
importance of conservation, personal enjoyment of the outdoors,
In this study, the quantitative survey data by itself suggested that and desire to contribute to society at large. Thus, the open-ended
there was little apparent response to participation in conservation responses provided insights into the most rewarding aspects of
projects. Our quantitative results, when taken on their own, ICS for participants.
suggest caution in how citizen science programs are implemented,
Ecologists have a tendency to focus on quantitative data to provide
as there was some indication that these programs have the
evidence for patterns, and typically (with exceptions), do not have
potential to degrade the confidence of people who are
training in psychological theories or research design and
incarcerated. However, the questions indicating that participation
methodology for studying psychological processes. For this
in a conservation project had a negative effect (four out of 35
reason, we strongly encourage ecologists to partner with social
questions) were not statistically significant when multiple
scientists who are (generally) trained in psychological constructs
comparisons were controlled for. We speculate that the manner
underlying human behavior and the methodologies needed to
in which some scientific topics were discussed by academic
rigorously assess ICS impacts.
lecturers may have been off-putting or intimidating, because of
 Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

Our results indicate that relying on quantitative data alone does IRB permissions for Human Subjects Review, and many may
not reveal the entire story, particularly when the questions asked work at institutions where no IRB exists (e.g., small liberal arts
only address a portion of the potential impacts of the experience colleges or community colleges).
of the citizen scientists. Our outcomes encourage researchers to
Further questions that arise from this study include the following:
use mixed methods, i.e., both qualitative and quantitative,
(1) How generalizable is this approach across types of correctional
approaches to understand impacts of such projects, as survey
institutions, security levels, age, gender, ethnic groups, and
measures using Likert-type responses are likely to miss impacts
education levels of ICS? (2) What are the impacts, benefits, and
that are unforeseen or do not seem central to the purpose of the
challenges for the scientists who become engaged with people who
scientific activity. These findings are not without limitations. The
are incarcerated? (3) How might corrections institutions’ needs
open-ended survey questions were asked at the end of the larger
and capacity constraints be addressed and shifted to improve the
closed-ended survey, and consequently participants’ responses
ability to research program impacts? If ecologists can develop and
could have been influenced by the measures that preceded them.
sustain collaborations with social scientists, ecologists will be
It is possible that some participants used the open-ended
better poised to answer these questions.
responses to emphasize certain aspects of their responses to the
closed-ended surveys or to highlight aspects of the experience that
they did not feel were adequately captured by the survey items Responses to this article can be read online at:
before. Nonetheless, the results of the qualitative analysis clearly https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses.
showed that some participants gained significant psychosocial
php/13423
benefits from participating. These limitations highlight the need
for deeper, more extensive qualitative research, such as a series of
interviews and focus groups, to more fully investigate the impacts
of ICS on participants.
It is important to note that qualitative research is a broad category Acknowledgments:
that is defined by collecting non-numerical data (Jansen 2010).
We acknowledge the collaboration of the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s
Although open-ended survey questions are one method of
Office, and the University of Utah College of Science. Samantha
collecting qualitative responses, there are other tools such as
Riley helped with coding. We thank Emily Gaines Crockett and
interviews and focus groups that render much richer data. Social
Matthew Whittaker for logistical support. Stacy Eddings and the
scientists often encourage researchers to first conduct qualitative
UEPC provided guidance on evaluation. We are grateful to Sheriffs
research (e.g., interviews, focus groups) to more deeply
Rosie Rivera and Jim Winder, Deputy Sheriffs Matt Dumont and
understand a context and then design quantitative surveys to
Pam Lofgren, Capt. Brent Dietrich, Lts. Richard Morse and
show the results more definitively in a larger sample (Creswell and
Jennifer Stansfield, and Sgts. Terry Wall, Shon Lance, Troy Breeze,
Creswell 2017). One barrier to this two-step approach in
and Benjamin Page, and Joshua R. Murphy and Robin Sweeney for
correctional institutions is that you might only get “one shot” to
their support at the SLCJ. We acknowledge the Institute for Applied
collect data. Although one-shot data collection is not the “ideal”
Ecology, Ronda Naseth (Oregon butterfly program), the
way to conduct mixed methods research, which specifies that the
Sustainability in Prisons Project (WA Corrections Secretary, Steve
qualitative and quantitative methods should mutually inform one
Sinclair, and SPP Education and Outreach Manager Joslyn Rose
another (Creswell and Tashakkori 2007), we contend that
Trivett), and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. We thank the
collecting both at the same time is better than the alternative of
National Science Foundation grants (DRL-1204448 and
relying on only one form of information in the single-shot data
DRL-1514494 to NMN) and the Utah State Department of
collection scenario. Furthermore, when social scientists can be
Education for financial and in-kind support.
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 Data Availability:
ICS programs as well. As a result, the interdisciplinary
The data/code that support the findings of this study are available
partnership between ecologists and social scientists in ICS
on request from the corresponding author (NMN). None of the
programs, from development to evaluation, will provide the most
data/code are publicly available because they contain information
rewarding outcomes across the board.
that could compromise the privacy of research participants. Ethical
In our study, the quantitative questions did not cover the range approval for this research study was granted by University of Utah
of goals and benefits reported in participants’ qualitative Institutional Review Board # IRB_00061095.
responses to the open-ended questions. If we had collected and
reported only the traditional Likert scale data, then we would
have missed some of the motivations behind ICS participation LITERATURE CITED
and the subjective impacts of these activities reported by the ICS. Ajzen I., and M. Fishbein. 1980. Understanding attitudes and
In most academic settings such as R1 universities, natural predicting social behavior: attitudes, intentions, and perceived
scientists and social scientists tend to occupy different arenas, behavioral control. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
with different theories, journals, approaches, and tools. Few USA.
ecologists have access to social science tools, and, because of this Ayala, J. R., R. B. Rader, M. C. Belk, and G. B. Schaalje. 2007.
limitation, many of the impacts of conservation and ecological Ground-truthing the impact of invasive species: spatio-temporal
restoration activities on public groups might be misinterpreted or overlap between native least chub and introduced western
lost. Even fewer have the time and capacity to write and maintain
 Ecology and Society 27(3): 44
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol27/iss3/art44/

mosquitofish. Biological Invasions 9(7):857-869. https://doi. measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised
org/10.1007/s10530-006-9087-4 NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):425-442. https://doi.
org/10.1111/0022-4537.00176
Benjamini, Y., and Y. Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false
discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple Fennema, E., and J. A. Sherman. 1976. Fennema-Sherman
testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B mathematics attitudes scales: instruments designed to measure
(Methodological) 57(1):289-300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995. attitudes toward the learning of mathematics by females and
tb02031.x males. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 7
(5):324-326. https://doi.org/10.2307/748467
Bouffard, J. A., D. L. MacKenzie, and L. J. Hickman. 2000.
Effectiveness of vocational education and employment programs Fleiss, J. L. 1981. Balanced incomplete block designs for inter-
for adult offenders: a methodology-based analysis of the rater reliability studies. Applied Psychological Measurement 5
literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 31(1-2):1-41. (1):105-112. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168100500115
https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v31n01_01
Gallagher, B.E. 2013. Science and sustainability programs in
Cho, R. M., and J. H. Tyler. 2013. Does prison-based adult basic prisons: assessing the effects of participation on inmates.
education improve post release outcomes for male prisoners in Dissertation, Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington,
Florida? Crime & Delinquency 59(7):915-1005. https://doi. USA. https://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/
org/10.1177/0011128710389588 Gallagher_B2013.pdf
Clarke, S. E. 2011. Assessing the rehabilitative potential of science Horns, J. J., N. M. Nadkarni, and A. Anholt. 2020. How repeated
and sustainability education in prisons: a study of the Sustainable exposure to informal science education affects content knowledge
Prisons Project. Dissertation, Evergreen State College, Olympia, of and perspectives on science among incarcerated adults.
Washington, USA. https://archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/ PlosOne 15(5):e0233083. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233083
Accession86-10MES/Clarke_SMESThesis2011.pdf
Jansen, H. 2010. The logic of qualitative survey research and its
Creswell, J. W., and J. D. Creswell. 2017. Research design:
position in the field of social research methods. Forum:
qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage,
Qualitative Social Research 11(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/
Thousand Oaks, California, USA.
fqs-11.2.1450
Creswell, J. W., and Tashakkori, A. 2007. Developing publishable
Johnson, M. E., C. Brems, B. L. Hanson, S. L. Corey, G. D.
mixed methods manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research
Eldridge, and K. Mitchell. 2014. Conducting ethical research with
1(2):107-111 https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298644
correctional populations: do researchers and IRB members know
Crockett, E. G., J. E. Marty, K. M. Kettenring, N. M. Nadkarni. the federal regulations? Research Ethics 10(1):6-16. https://doi.
2018. Providing hands-on opportunities for inmates to contribute org/10.1177/1747016113494652
to ecological research. Corrections Today 41-45. https://drive.
Kaye, T. N., K. Bush, C. Naugle, and C. J. LeRoy. 2015.
google.com/file/d/1aOvcpom4JxnXi8IhvNiw4R8cw2TwkdCD/view
Conservation projects in prison: the case for engaging
incarcerated populations in conservation and science. Natural
Davis, L. M. 2019. Higher education programs in prison: what
Areas Journal 35(1):90-97. https://doi.org/10.3375/043.035.0113
we know now and what we should focus on going forward. Rand,
Santa Monica, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.7249/PE342 LeRoy, C. J., K. Bush, J. R. Trivett, and B. Gallagher. 2012. The
Sustainability in Prisons Project, an Overview (2004-12).
Davis, L. M., R. Bozick, J. L. Steele, J. Saunders, and J. N. Miles.
Sustainability in Prisons Project, Olympia, Washington, USA.
2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: a
http://sustainabilityinprisons.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Overview-
meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated
cover-text-reduced-size.pdf
adults. Rand, Santa Monica, California, USA. https://doi.
org/10.7249/RR266 Lindemuth, A. L. 2014. Beyond the bars: landscapes for health
and healing in corrections. Pages 361-374 in K. G. Tidball and
De Leeuw, A., P. Valois, I. Ajzen, and P. Schmidt. 2015. Using
M. E. Krasny, editors. Greening in the red zone: disaster, resilience
the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying
and community greening. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: implications
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9947-1_27
for educational interventions. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 42:128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.03.005 MacArthur, B. L., L. A. Lindenfeld, E. Aurbach, B. Bevan, and
T. P. Newman. 2020. Bridging science with society: defining
Dickinson, J., B. Zuckerberg, and D. Bonter. 2010. Citizen science pathways for engagement. Communication Center Journal 6
as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annual (1):62-78. http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ccj/article/view/2062
Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 41:149-172.
Marty, J. E., and K. M. Kettenring. 2017. Seed dormancy break
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636
and germination for restoration of three globally important
Dunlap, R. E., and K. D. Van Liere. 1978. The “new wetland bulrushes. Ecological Restoration 35(2):138-147. https://
environmental paradigm.” Journal of Environmental Education doi.org/10.3368/er.35.2.138
9(4):10-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1978.10801875
Moore, R. W., and R. L. H. Foy. 1997. The scientific attitude
Dunlap, R. E., K. D. Van Liere, A. G. Mertig, and R. E. Jones. inventory: a revision (SAI II). Journal of Research in Science
2000. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes:
 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 R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical
(199704)34:4<327::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-T computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. https://www.r-project.org/
Nadkarni, N. M. 2006. The moss-in-prison project: disseminating
science beyond academia. Frontiers in Ecology and the Relf, D., and S. Dorn. 1995. Horticulture: meeting the needs of
Environment 4(8):442-443. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295 special populations. HortTechnology 5(2):94-103. https://doi.
(2006)4[442:TMPDSB]2.0.CO;2 org/10.21273/HORTTECH.5.2.94
Nadkarni, N. M., P. Hasbach, T. Thys, E. Gaines, and L. Silvertown, J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in
Schnacker. 2017a. Impacts of nature imagery on people in Ecology and Evolution 24(9):467-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
severely nature-deprived environments. Frontiers in Ecology and tree.2009.03.017
the Environment 15:395-403. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1518
Stoecker, R. 2009. Are we talking the walk of community-based
Nadkarni, N. M., J. J. Horns, J. Chen, J. Morris, D. Scalice, J. research? Action Research 7(4):385-404. https://doi.
Trivett, K. Bush, A. Anholt. 2022. Reversing the lens on public org/10.1177/1476750309340944
engagement with science: positive benefits for participating
Taylor, D. E. 2014. The state of diversity in environmental
scientists. BioScience 72(7):673-683. https://doi.org/10.1093/
organizations. Green 2.0, Washington, D.C., USA. https://
biosci/biac003
diversegreen.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FullReport_Gree­
Nadkarni, N. M., and J. S. Morris. 2018. Baseline attitudes and n2.0_FINAL.pdf
impacts of informal science education lectures on content
Tyler, J. H., and J. R. Kling. 2006. Prison-based education and
knowledge and value of science among incarcerated populations.
re-entry into the mainstream labor market. Working paper 12114.
Science Communication 40(6):718-748. https://doi.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge,
org/10.1177/1075547018806909
Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w12114
Nadkarni, N. M., D. Scalice, J. S. Morris, J. R. Trivett, K. Bush,
Ulrich, C., and N. M. Nadkarni. 2009. Sustainability research
A. Anholt, J. J. Horns, B. T. Davey, and H. B. Davis. 2020. Effects
and practices in enforced residential institutions: collaborations
of astrobiology lectures on knowledge and attitudes about science
of ecologists and prisoners. Environment, Development and
in incarcerated populations. Astrobiology 20(10):1262-1271.
Sustainability 11(4):815-832. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-008-9145-4
https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2019.2209
Nadkarni, N. M., L. Schnacker, P. Hasbach, T. Thys, and E. Weber, S. R. 2012. Environmental education in prison: a
Gaines. 2017b. From orange to blue: how nature imagery affects comparison of teaching methods and their influence on inmate
inmates in the “Blue Room”. Corrections Today 79:36-41. https:// attitudes and knowledge of environmental topics. Thesis,
drive.google.com/file/d/1dzv8nu-Eal8sQV1xjIRSmC1ww9Pi5C7P/ Evergreen State College, Seattle, Washington, USA. https://
view archives.evergreen.edu/masterstheses/Accession86-10MES/Weber_S-
MES2012.pdf
Nadkarni, N. M., C. Q. Weber, S. V. Goldman, D. L. Schatz, S.
Allen, and R. Menlove. 2019. Beyond the deficit model: the Wilson, D. B., C. A. Gallagher, and D. L. MacKenzie. 2000. A
ambassador approach to public engagement. BioScience 69 meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and
(4):305-313. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz018 work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 37(4):347-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242­
Norton, C. L., and B. Holguin. 2011. Promoting ecological health:
7800037004001
an exploratory study of an environmentally based program for
formerly 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 not
incarceration. 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 self-
regulated 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