The impact of citizen science on environmental attitudes, environmental knowledge, environmental awareness to pro–environmental citizenship behaviour

Figures & data

Figure 1. Conceptual research model.

The research conceptual model representing the relationship between each variable.

Figure 2. Conceptual (mediation) model.

The research conceptual model representing the mediation model.

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Demographic	Category	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	150	38.1
	Female	228	57.9
	Not specified	16	4
Age	18–32	289	73.3
	33–47	82	20.8
	48–66	22	5.6
	More than 66 years	1	0.3
Education	Secondary school	15	3.8
	Associate degree	35	8.9
	Bachelor’s degree	292	74.1
	Master’s degree	34	8.6
	Doctorate degree	7	1.8
	Other	11	2.8
Occupation	College student	192	48.7
	Government official	32	8.1
	Office worker	65	16.5
	Self-employed	67	17
	Farmer	7	1.8
	Freelance	17	4.3
	Other	14	3.6
Monthly Income	Less than 5,000 THB	50	12.7
	5,001–15,000 THB	146	37
	15,001–25,000 THB	89	22.6
	25,000–35,000 THB	54	13.7
	More than 35,000 THB	55	14
Province	Bangkok	280	70.8
	Khon Kaen	79	20.3
	Lamphun	18	4.6
	Phuket	17	4.3

Table 2. Construct, measures, and sources.

Constructs	Indicators	Question content	Sources
Engagement in citizen science (CS)	CS1	On a scale from 1 to 7, how often do you engage in online forums or community groups that discuss sustainable consumption practices?	(Jørgensen and Jørgensen 2021; Kullenberg, Kasperowski, and Dorta-González 2016; Lin Hunter, Newman, and Balgopal 2023; MacPhail and Colla 2020; Pateman et al. 2020; Rubio-Iglesias et al. 2020; Sauermann et al. 2020; Somerwill and Wehn 2022)
	CS2	How frequently, on a scale from 1 to 7, do you participate in local environmental data collection activities related to sustainable use (e.g. water quality testing, recycling rates)?
	CS3	On a scale from 1 to 7, how often do you contribute to crowd-sourced research projects focused on evaluating the effectiveness of sustainable products?
	CS4	Rate from 1 to 7 your level of involvement in educational workshops or webinars aimed at promoting sustainable consumption habits.
	CS5	On a scale from 1 to 7, how would you rate your knowledge on the environmental impact of products you use regularly as a result of your citizen science activities?
	CS6	From 1 to 7, how often do you apply the knowledge gained from citizen science projects to make more sustainable purchasing decisions?
	CS7	On a scale from 1 to 7, to what extent do you agree that your involvement in citizen science has increased your commitment to sustainable consumption?
Citizen environmental awareness (CEA)	CEA1	On a scale from 1 to 7, how aware are you of the environmental impacts of the products you purchase?	(Fu et al. 2020; Liobikienė and Poškus 2019; Safari et al. 2018)
	CEA2	From 1 to 7, how often do you research the sustainability practices of companies before buying their products?
	CEA3	Rate from 1 to 7 your agreement with the statement: I understand the importance of reducing my carbon footprint through sustainable consumption.
	CEA4	On a scale from 1 to 7, how often do you discuss sustainable consumption with friends, family, or colleagues?
	CEA5	From 1 to 7, how much do you agree that personal consumption choices significantly impact environmental health?
	CEA6	How frequently, on a scale from 1 to 7, do you check for eco-friendly labels (e.g. Energy Star, USDA Organic) when shopping?
Citizen environmental knowledge (EK)	EK1	On a scale from 1 to 7, how well do you understand the principles of sustainability that guide responsible consumption?	(Fu et al. 2020; Liobikienė and Poškus 2019; Rustam, Wang, and Zameer 2020)
	EK2	Rate your knowledge from 1 to 7 on the environmental impact of a product’s lifecycle, from production to disposal.
	EK3	From 1 to 7, how familiar are you with your local recycling guidelines and the correct way to recycle various materials?
	EK4	From 1 to 7, how would you rate your knowledge on effective water conservation practices at home and in the community?
	EK5	Rate your understanding from 1 to 7 of how different practices in energy consumption affect the environment.
Citizen environmental attitude (EA)	EA1	I believe that choosing to consume sustainable products is an important step towards protecting the environment.	(Fu et al. 2020; Safari et al. 2018; Yaghoubi Farani et al. 2021)
	EA2	In my view, everyone should be concerned about the environment.
	EA3	Adapting my daily routine to be more environmentally friendly comes easily to me.
	EA4	I feel a sense of duty to support businesses and brands that prioritise sustainability in their products and operations.
	EA5	I am motivated to advocate for policies and initiatives that promote sustainable consumption practices within my community.
Pro-environmental citizenship behavior (PCB)	PCB1	I endeavour to buy products made from recycled materials.	(Fu et al. 2020; Kautish and Sharma 2020; Liobikienė and Poškus 2019)
	PCB2	I value the nutritional quality of a product over its appearance.
	PCB3	I opt for local and seasonal produce to minimise my carbon footprint.
	PCB4	I advocate for environmental sustainability through social media or by participating in community discussions on the topic.
	PCB5	I am inclined to purchase environmentally friendly products at a reasonable-to-premium price.
	PCB6	I use public transportation or walk instead of using a personal vehicle to reduce my environmental impact.

Table 3. Evaluation of reflective measurement model for reliability and validity.

Constructs	Indicators	Outer loadings	AVE	Cronbach’s alpha	CR ($\mathit{rh}{\mathit{o}}_{\mathit{a}}$)	VIF
Engagement in citizen science (CS)	CS1	0.773				2.006
	CS2	0.785				2.207
	CS3	0.769				2.085
	CS4	0.803				2.230
	CS5	0.613				1.579
	CS6	0.761				1.938
	CS7	0.527	0.526	0.844	0.849	1.438
Citizen environmental awareness (CEA)	CEA1	0.794				1.897
	CEA2	0.750				1.610
	CEA3	0.675				1.513
	CEA4	0.691				1.494
	CEA5	0.770				1.820
	CEA6	0.789	0.557	0.840	0.847	1.888
Citizen environmental knowledge (EK)	EK1	0.717				1.581
	EK2	0.783				2.198
	EK3	0.836				2.569
	EK4	0.817				2.001
	EK5	0.827	0.636	0.858	0.873	1.971
Citizen environmental attitude (EA)	EA1	0.755				1.616
	EA2	0.812				2.072
	EA3	0.801				2.094
	EA4	0.821				2.075
	EA5	0.681	0.602	0.833	0.834	1.448
Pro-environmental citizenship behavior (PCB)	PCB1	0.786				1.907
	PCB2	0.795				1.959
	PCB3	0.702				1.494
	PCB4	0.730				1.632
	PCB5	0.784				2.249
	PCB6	0.806	0.590	0.860	0.862	2.322

AVE = average variance extracted; VIF = variance inflation factor; CR = composite reliability.

Table 4. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) matrix.

	PCB	CEA	CS	EA	EK
PCB
CEA	0.795
CS	0.646	0.721
EA	0.761	0.806	0.792
EK	0.716	0.726	0.425	0.580

Table 5. Structural model assessment.

H	Path relationships			95% bootstrapping confidence intervals				Adjusted ${\mathit{R}}^2$	${\mathit{Q}}^2$	${\mathit{f}}^2$	Remark
				β	2.5%	97.5%	P
H1a	Engagement in citizen science	→	Citizen environmental awareness	0.612	0.520	0.701	***	0.374	0.203	0.600	Supported
H2a		→	Citizen environmental knowledge	0.378	0.283	0.474	***	0.141	0.081	0.166	Supported
H3a		→	Citizen environmental attitude	0.669	0.559	0.763	***	0.446	0.267	0.810	Supported
H1b	Citizen environmental awareness	→	Pro-environmental citizenship behavior	0.304	0.156	0.454	***	0.570	0.334	0.094	Supported
H2b	Citizen environmental knowledge	→		0.291	0.163	0.411	***			0.119	Supported
H3b	Citizen environmental attitude	→		0.288	0.146	0.436	***			0.102	Supported

p = p-value; ***p-value < 0.001.

Table 6. Mediation effect tests.

H	Path	Direct effect (c)	Indirect effect (a*b)	Total effects (a*b + c)	VAF	Results
H4	CS → CEA → PCB	0.489	0.186	0.675	27.58%	Partial Mediation
H5	CS → EK → PCB	0.489	0.110	0.599	18.36%	No Mediation
H6	CS → EA → PCB	0.489	0.193	0.681	28.28%	Partial Mediation

VAF = variance accounted for.

Figure 3. Tested structural model.

The structured model results from PLS-SEM program representing tested values.

Figure 4. Tested mediation model.

The tested mediation model representing the mediating effects in each hypothesis.

Jørgensen, F. A., and D. Jørgensen. 2021. “Citizen Science for Environmental Citizenship.” Conservation Biology 35 (4): 1344–1347. John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13649.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kullenberg, C., D. Kasperowski, and P. Dorta-González. 2016. “What Is Citizen Science? – a Scientometric Meta-Analysis.” PLOS ONE 11 (1): e0147152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lin Hunter, D. E., G. J. Newman, and M. M. Balgopal. 2023. “What’s in a Name? The Paradox of Citizen Science and Community Science.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 21 (5): 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/FEE.2635.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MacPhail, V. J., and S. R. Colla. 2020. “Power of the People: A Review of Citizen Science Programs for Conservation.” Biological Conservation 249). 108739. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108739.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pateman, R. M., A. de Bruin, E. Piirsalu, C. Reynolds, E. Stokeld, and S. E. West. 2020. “Citizen Science for Quantifying and Reducing Food Loss and Food Waste.” Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4:4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.589089.

 Google Scholar

Rubio-Iglesias, J. M., T. Edovald, R. Grew, T. Kark, A. E. Kideys, T. Peltola, and H. Volten. 2020. “Citizen Science and Environmental Protection Agencies: Engaging Citizens to Address Key Environmental Challenges.” Frontiers in Climate 2:2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2020.600998.

 Google Scholar

Sauermann, H., K. Vohland, V. Antoniou, B. Balázs, C. Göbel, K. Karatzas, P. Mooney, et al. 2020. “Citizen Science and Sustainability Transitions.” Research Policy 49 (5): 103978. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2020.103978.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Somerwill, L., and U. Wehn. 2022. “How to Measure the Impact of Citizen Science on Environmental Attitudes, Behaviour and Knowledge? A Review of State-Of-The-Art Approaches.” Environmental Sciences Europe 34 (1). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-022-00611-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fu, L., Z. Sun, L. Zha, F. Liu, L. He, X. Sun, and X. Jing. 2020. “Environmental Awareness and Pro-Environmental Behavior within China’s Road Freight Transportation Industry: Moderating Role of Perceived Policy Effectiveness.” Journal of Cleaner Production 252:119796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119796.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Liobikienė, G., and M. S. Poškus. 2019. “The Importance of Environmental Knowledge for Private and Public Sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior: Modifying the Value-Belief-Norm Theory.” Sustainability 11 (12): 3324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123324.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Safari, A., R. Salehzadeh, R. Panahi, and S. Abolghasemian. 2018. “Multiple Pathways Linking Environmental Knowledge and Awareness to employees’ Green Behavior.” Corporate Governance (Bingley) 18 (1): 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-08-2016-0168.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rustam, A., Y. Wang, and H. Zameer. 2020. “Environmental Awareness, Firm Sustainability Exposure and Green Consumption Behaviors.” Journal of Cleaner Production 268:122016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122016.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yaghoubi Farani, A., Y. Mohammadi, F. Ghahremani, and P. Ataei. 2021. “How Can Iranian farmers’ Attitudes Toward Environmental Conservation Be Influenced?” Global Ecology and Conservation 31:31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01870.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kautish, P., and R. Sharma. 2020. “Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behavior and Environmentally Conscious Consumer Behavior: An Empirical Investigation from Emerging Market.” Business Strategy & Development 3 (1): 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSD2.82.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All data related to this work will be available upon request.