Table 1
Hypotheses for how motivations will change with increasing participation.
| MOTIVATION | HYPOTHESES |
|---|---|
| Science and conservation | We predict that the motivation to contribute to scientific research and conservation efforts will be a prevalent motivator for all participation levels and (based on Larson et al. 2020) will be more important for longer term/higher observation count participants. |
| Fun | We predict that personal enjoyment will be of medium importance as a motivation. We predict that it will be more important for participants with more participation experience, based on Bible and Clarke-De Reza (2023). |
| Discovery and species knowledge | We predict that this will be an important motivation because it was cited as an important motivator in many studies. Based on Asingizwe et al. (2020), we predict that learning will be a more important motivation for lower-level, newer participants. |
| Building friendships | We predict that this will not be an important motivation for any participation level. While iNaturalist offers an online social network between users and identifiers, Maund et al. (2020) point out that projects not requiring training lack a social component. Their study used a large-scale online platform that is more similar to iNaturalist than other citizen science projects from relevant research. |
| Career | We predict that career development will be an unimportant motivation because in Bruyere and Rappe (2007), Alender (2016), and Maund et al. (2020) this was the least important motivator of those cited. Based on West, Dyke, and Pateman (2021) and Alender (2016), we expect career development to be more important for low-level participants (who are more likely to be young, novice citizen scientists). |
| Recognition | We predict that recognition will not be an important motivation due to iNaturalist’s lack of recognition methods. Based on Asingizwe et al. (2020) and Nguyen and Tran (2023), we predict that recognition will be more important for participants with more observations. |
| Connection | Based on the results of Larson et al. (2020), we predict connection with nature will be an unimportant motivation overall, but will be less important for lower-participation groups than higher-participation groups. |
| Getting outside and exercise | Based on the results of Larson et al. (2020), we predict outdoor exploration and recreation will be a less important motivation overall, but, as an egoistic motivator, will be more important for lower-participation groups than higher-participation groups (Bibleand Clarke-De Reza 2023). |
| Protecting nature | We predict this motivation will be more important for long-term, experienced participants because collectivism is more important for sustained participation (Bible andClarke-De Reza 2023; Bowler et al. 2022; Bruyere andRappe 2007). |
| Citizen science | Based on the “values and esteem” motivator in Bruyere and Rappe (2007), we predict that moral beliefs will be of medium importance as a motivation. Because egoism tends to dominate initial motivators, we predict this will be more important for participants with more observations. |
| Direct request | We predict that being asked to participate by an organization or instructor will not be important overall. However, we do think this motivation will be stronger for lower participation levels (i.e., new users) (West, Dyke, and Pateman 2021; Maund et al. 2020; Hitchcock, Sullivan, and O’Donnell 2021). |
| Right thing to do | We predict this will be an important motivation for participation based on its prevalence in the research of Measham and Barnett (2008) and West, Dyke, and Pateman (2021). We predict this will be more important for users with more participation. |
[i] Note(s): Motivations in this table are abbreviated versions of those found in the survey. Refer to Supplemental file 1: Supplementary Table 1 for full motivations as well as explanations of their meanings, a complete list of references supporting their inclusion in the survey, and the results of their importance among survey respondents.
Figure 1
Fifteen motivations for why respondents currently use iNaturalist, rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale of importance. Ratings from all respondents (n = 429) are shown. Motivations are ordered from top to bottom in descending order of percent of “very” or “extremely” important responses.
Table 2
Summary table of initial importance of motivations alongside current importance.
| INITIAL MOTIVATION | NUMBER OF RESPONSES | PROPORTION OF RESPONSES (%) | MEAN LIKERT RATING OF CURRENT IMPORTANCE | TOTAL MEAN LIKERT RATING OF CURRENT IMPORTANCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recognition | 2 | 0.47 | 2.50 | 1.89 |
| Exercise | 11 | 2.56 | 4.45 | 3.28 |
| Friendship | 16 | 3.73 | 3.81 | 2.45 |
| Right thing to do | 18 | 4.20 | 4.94 | 3.98 |
| Career | 22 | 5.13 | 4.13 | 2.22 |
| Personal metrics | 26 | 6.06 | 3.73 | 2.48 |
| Protect | 39 | 9.09 | 4.54 | 3.88 |
| Connection | 46 | 10.72 | 4.61 | 4.06 |
| Request | 54 | 12.59 | 3.09 | 2.21 |
| Outside | 71 | 16.55 | 4.59 | 4.06 |
| Fun | 79 | 18.41 | 4.53 | 4.10 |
| Citizen science | 90 | 20.98 | 4.67 | 4.07 |
| Science | 157 | 36.60 | 4.55 | 4.11 |
| Discovery | 178 | 41.49 | 4.56 | 4.34 |
| Species | 309 | 72.03 | 4.69 | 4.54 |
[i] Note(s): The mean Likert rating of current importance is among respondents that found each motivation initially important. The total mean Likert rating of current importance uses responses from all respondents. A “1” rating corresponds to “not at all important” and “5” corresponds to “extremely important.”
Figure 2
Percent of responses that rated each motivation as “very” or “extremely” important. Responses (n = 404) are grouped by the categorical observation counts of respondents on iNaturalist. Colors correspond to the same motivations across all five groups. Motivations that exhibited a significant relationship (p < 0.05) between their importance and observation count group are preceded by an asterisk.
Figure 3
Respondents ranked motivations they marked as “very” or “extremely” important for their use of iNaturalist against each other (with 1 being the most important). The five motivations with the highest percentages of “very” and “extremely” important ratings are shown with their average ranks against other top motivators given by respondents grouped by observation count.
Figure 4
Likert ratings of motivations that had significant relationships with observation count (p-value < 0.05). A “1” corresponds to a rating of “not at all important” and “5” corresponds to “extremely important.”