Human Dimensions of Wildlife

An International Journal

ISSN: 1087-1209 (Print) 1533-158X (Online) Journal homepage: http://china.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

Contributions of Citizen Scientists and Habitat

Volunteers to Monarch Butterfly Conservation

Eva J. Lewandowski & Karen S. Oberhauser

To cite this article: Eva J. Lewandowski & Karen S. Oberhauser (2016): Contributions of Citizen
Scientists and Habitat Volunteers to Monarch Butterfly Conservation, Human Dimensions of
Wildlife, DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1250293

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1250293

Published online: 17 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://china.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhdw20

Download by: [Fudan University] Date: 30 November 2016, At: 23:28

HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1250293

Contributions of Citizen Scientists and Habitat Volunteers to

Monarch Butterfly Conservation
Eva J. Lewandowskia and Karen S. Oberhauserb
a
Conservation Biology Graduate Program, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology,
University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA; bDepartment of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation
Biology, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Volunteers can contribute to wildlife conservation by protecting and Citizen science; conservation
restoring habitat, or by collecting citizen science data. Much remains education; habitat
unknown about how citizen scientists contribute to conservation conservation; public
participation; volunteers
beyond data collection, or the extent that volunteering with citizen
science or habitat conservation is associated with increased participa-
tion in other forms of conservation. We surveyed citizen science and
habitat volunteers from monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) programs.
Both types of volunteers conducted conservation outreach and created
and managed monarch habitat. Habitat volunteers were more likely to
create new habitat for monarchs in urban or suburban areas, whereas
citizen scientists were more likely to maintain existing habitat in rural
areas. Most volunteers increased their participation in conservation after
joining a formal monarch project. Our results provide information about
the capacity for habitat volunteers to engage in conservation, as well as
evidence of an unexplored benefit of citizen science, the creation and
protection of habitat.

Introduction
Volunteers are an essential part of conservation efforts, and they engage in a variety of
activities (e.g., Guiney et al., 2006; Measham & Barnett, 2008). Here, we focus on two
specific types of conservation volunteers. Citizen science volunteers contribute to biolo-
gical research in many ways, but usually through monitoring (Dickinson & Bonney, 2012).
Habitat volunteers engage in conservation activities such as erosion control, removal of
invasive species, and habitat restoration (Asah & Blahna, 2012; Weston, Fendley, Jewell,
Satchell, & Tzaros, 2003).
The extent that citizen science projects can involve volunteers in habitat creation above
and beyond their involvement in citizen science research remains largely unknown, but
recent work with nest box monitors indicates that many engage in some form of site
management (Larson, Cooper, & Hauber, 2016). Much of the literature on habitat con-
servation volunteers provides only anecdotal or cursory descriptions of volunteer actions
and their conservation implications, with recent work focusing primarily on volunteer
motivations (e.g., Asah & Blahna, 2012; Van Den Berg, Dann, & Dirkx, 2009; Weston

CONTACT Eva J. Lewandowski Eva.lewandowski@wisconsin.gov Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, P.O.

Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707, USA.
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/uhdw.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 E. J. LEWANDOWSKI AND K. S. OBERHAUSER

et al., 2003). Research that has been conducted to describe and quantify the importance of
habitat volunteers in conservation indicates they provide a substantial financial savings to
conservation agencies and organizations, and a large contribution to on-the-ground
conservation (Guiney et al., 2006), but these programs do not always fully meet their
initial habitat conservation goals (Ewing, Catterall, & Tomerini, 2013).
Both citizen science and habitat volunteering have been linked to changes in partici-
pants’ pro-conservation behaviors. Studies of habitat volunteers (Ryan, Kaplan, & Grese,
2001) and citizen scientists (e.g. Hvenegaard & Fraser, 2014; Lewandowski & Oberhauser,
In Press; Stepenuck & Green, 2015) have found that after joining a project, participants
increased their engagement in conservation activities outside the project. Pro-conservation
activities can take many forms, and Larson, Stedman, Cooper, and Decker (2015) divided
these types of activities into four categories. Social environmentalism involves interactions
among individuals and includes activities such as conducting outreach or recruiting other
volunteers. Land stewardship includes habitat management and creation. The conserva-
tion lifestyle category encompasses actions that are part of day-to-day private life, and
environmental citizenship describes forms of civic engagement such as advocacy or
financial donations. Here, we consider outreach (social environmentalism), habitat crea-
tion and maintenance (land stewardship), and civic engagement activities that pertain to
conservation of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus).
The monarch is a popular and much-studied insect of conservation concern through-
out North America (Oberhauser, Nail, & Altizer, 2015; Oberhauser & Solensky, 2004).
Brower et al. (2012) found a significant decline in the eastern population of overwintering
North American monarchs, and recent population estimates document a decrease in
monarch numbers of almost 90% over the past 20 years (Rendon-Salinas, Fajardso-
Arroyo, & Tavera-Alonso, 2015). The decline in size of the eastern population of North
American monarchs has been linked to herbicide use in agricultural fields and the
subsequent decline in the monarch’s host plant, milkweed, in the Midwestern region of
the United States (Pleasants & Oberhauser, 2013). Thus, it is likely that habitat loss in the
monarch breeding range is an important factor driving their decline although other
factors, including habitat loss in the Mexican overwintering sites, insecticide use, and
climate change, may also play a role (Shahani, del Rio Pesado, Schappert, & Garcia
Serrano, 2015). Most of North America’s western population of monarchs overwinters
in California. Although the decline in the western population has not been as dramatic as
that of the eastern population, there is evidence suggesting that its numbers are also
decreasing, possibly due to a combination of environmental conditions and habitat loss
(Jepsen & Black, 2015). Therefore, creating and protecting breeding habitat will likely
promote monarch conservation across the United States.
There are several factors affecting the quality of monarch breeding habitat. First,
monarchs only lay their eggs on milkweed (Asclepias) plants, necessitating their presence.
Different species of milkweed emerge and senesce at different times in the breeding
season, suggesting that multiple types of milkweed on a site can increase the time it can
be used as breeding habitat. Native species are recommended, as recent research has
revealed that the non-native A. curassavica has been linked to increased disease and
interrupted migration (Batalden & Oberhauser, 2015; Satterfield, Maerz, & Altizer,
2015). Monarchs also require nectar plants as adult butterflies and minimal or no pesticide
use. Recent research revealed that an average of one migratory adult monarch is produced
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 3

for every 29 milkweed plants, indicating that larger sites with the capacity for more
milkweed are also important (Nail, Stenoien, & Oberhauser, 2015).
Monarch conservation management and research involves extensive participation from
the public. Ries and Oberhauser (2015) found that volunteers collectively contribute more
than 35,000 hours collecting data for monarch citizen science projects over the course of a
year, and since 2000, close to two thirds of the more than 60 published field studies of
monarchs have used citizen science data. Many conservation efforts across North America
focus on creating breeding habitat for monarchs by planting nectar and host plants.
Members of the public are central to these efforts, both as private individuals and as
volunteers with conservation organizations (Shahani et al., 2015).
As volunteers, especially citizen science volunteers, become an increasingly integral part
of conservation, it is important that conservation practitioners understand their full
potential to more effectively design conservation programs and describe all possible
benefits to funders and other stakeholders. Our study was designed to explore the
conservation actions of a group of citizen scientists in comparison to habitat volunteers
by describing and comparing the: (a) current efforts being undertaken by Monarch Larva
Monitoring Project (MLMP; citizen science) and Monarch Waystation (habitat) volun-
teers, as part of their programs, to protect or create monarch habitat; and (b) extent that
citizen science volunteers and habitat volunteers, after joining their projects, changed their
involvement in on-the-ground habitat conservation, conservation outreach, and civic
engagement activities that benefit monarchs.

Methods
Volunteer projects
The MLMP is a citizen science project run by the University of Minnesota Monarch Lab
that studies how and why the North American monarch population varies in time and
space, with the purpose of informing monarch conservation. The primary role of MLMP
volunteers is to collect data; there are no direct requirements of habitat creation or
protection. Volunteers choose their own monitoring sites, which must contain milkweed
plants. Volunteers monitor the milkweed weekly and report the abundance of monarch eggs
and larvae, as well as information on the milkweed and nectar plants present. Although
there are many monarch citizen science projects (reviewed in Ries & Oberhauser, 2015), we
focus on the MLMP because it has conservation goals and is site-based, with volunteers
monitoring the same location week after week. This provides volunteers with an obvious
location at which to engage in conservation. Additionally, the MLMP is similar to other
citizen science projects, such as the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s NestWatch Project and the
University of Colorado’s Bees’ Needs, which ask volunteers to monitor the same site on a
regular basis and for which there is potential for some volunteers to create habitat to collect
data. Neither the MLMP nor the Waystation program requires or formally incorporates
volunteer-led outreach activities.
The Monarch Waystation program, which is run by Monarch Watch at the University of
Kansas, focuses on habitat creation and conservation. It is not a citizen science program.
Monarch Waystations are sites that provide habitat requirements, most notably milkweed and
nectar plants, that monarchs need to breed and sustain their migration. Sites can be established
4 E. J. LEWANDOWSKI AND K. S. OBERHAUSER

by purchasing seeds directly from Monarch Watch or from other sources. Members of the
public can register their sites with Monarch Watch for a small fee ($16).

Data collection
To gather information about the habitat characteristics of sites and personal behaviors of
MLMP and Monarch Waystation participants, we created an online questionnaire using
the survey platform Survey Monkey and following recommendations of Dillman, Smyth,
and Christian (2008). At the time of the study in 2013, there were approximately 6,300
registered Waystation users (that number has now grown to over 10,000; Monarch Watch,
2015) and all were e-mailed an invitation to complete the questionnaire online. Three
hundred and eighty-eight MLMP volunteers were considered active, having submitted
data at least once since 2005; volunteers who had not submitted data in that time were not
considered active and did not receive the e-mail invitation. Three hundred and twenty-
seven of the active MLMP volunteers had valid e-mail addresses on file and received the
e-mail invitation. We contacted all volunteers, rather than using a sampling scheme, to
maximize our total number of responses and ensure that all volunteers had the opportu-
nity to share their experiences.
We initially e-mailed an invitation to complete the questionnaire on February 4, 2013.
Reminder e-mails were sent on April 1 and April 10, 2013. Research into e-mail surveys
indicates that larger numbers of reminders have diminishing returns and potential respon-
dents can find too many reminders frustrating or intrusive (Tourangeau, Conrad, & Couper,
2013). The questionnaire was closed on April 15, 2013. We received a total of 1,053 responses.
We removed 32 respondents whose answers did not allow us to determine if they participated
in the MLMP or the Waystation program, resulting in an overall sample size of n = 1,021. Not
all respondents answered every question in the questionnaire, so we report the sample size for
each question. The full questionnaire is available on the authors’ website.
Some respondents had more than one monitoring site or Waystation. If respondents
had a site that was both a monitoring site and a Waystation, they were asked to complete
the questionnaire based on that site. If they had multiple sites, but not one registered with
both programs, they were asked to think only about the site with which they were most
familiar. Volunteers with both an MLMP site and a Waystation were classified as combi-
nation volunteers.
We asked respondents a series of questions about their site’s size, location, surrounding
area, and plant species. Respondents were also asked who owned and managed the site
and what types of land management, if any, occurred at the site. We asked volunteers to
categorize how their site had been established by choosing one of five categories. First,
sites could have been planted by humans prior to the respondent joining the MLMP or
Waystation Program, with no plants added after joining. Second, sites could have been
planted beforehand, with either nectar or milkweed plants added after joining the pro-
gram. Third, sites could have grown naturally before the respondent joined a program,
with no plants added after joining. Fourth, sites could have grown naturally beforehand,
with either nectar or milkweed plants added after joining the program. Fifth, sites could be
completely new areas that were planted when the respondent joined the program.
Additionally, respondents were asked how their engagement in a list of conservation
actions had changed since they joined the MLMP or the Waystation program. Land
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 5

stewardship actions included: planting host and nectar plants, decreasing herbicide use,
and decreasing insecticide use. Outreach actions included giving public presentations on
monarch conservation, posting signs about monarch conservation, involving others in
monarch conservation, talking informally with others about monarch conservation,
encouraging others to plant habitat for monarchs, and contacting the media about
monarch conservation. Three additional activities can be described as civic engagement:
speaking out against development that harms monarchs, advocating for monarch-friendly
land management, and contributing financially to monarch conservation. Respondents
characterized their change in participation for each conservation action by selecting “more
involved now”; “did before, no change”; “plan to in the future”; “no plans to do this”; or
“less involved now.”
Respondents were also asked to rate their initial motivation to participate in their
program in terms of interest in nature, interest in monarchs, desire to help monarchs,
desire to be outside, desire to help scientists, desire to learn about science, and desire to
provide learning opportunities for children. For each motivating factor, respondents were
asked to rank its importance as either “very important,” “slightly important,” or “not
important.” Respondents also had space to share stories about their involvement with
monarchs; these responses were used qualitatively to expand on the quantitative results.

Analyses
Statistical analyses were conducted in R version 3.0.1. Our regression of milkweed species
per site used ordinal values for site size, volunteer type (MLMP, Waystation, combina-
tion), and a binomial site creation variable (grew naturally or planted/augmented by
humans) as independent variables. Interaction terms were not significant, so they were
removed from the final model. The initial data for the number of milkweed species per site
did not meet regression assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity. These assump-
tions were met after log transformation, so we proceeded with the log transformed data.
We used Fisher’s Exact, Kruskal-Wallis, and Chi-square tests with Bonferroni correc-
tions to examine differences in other site characteristics between volunteer types. Fisher’s
Exact tests were used for site establishment, site management, site location, and site type
(e.g., garden, prairie) because these nominal variables contained some categories with few
or no data points. Fisher’s Exact tests produce more accurate results in these instances.
Chi-square tests were used to analyze the presence or absence of A. curassavica because
this nominal variable did not have categories with few or no data points. A Kruskal-Wallis
test was used to analyze differences in site size between volunteer types because our size
data were formatted as ordered categorical variable.
To analyze differences in changes in conservation action between types of volunteers,
we used Fisher’s Exact tests. For all actions, the response category “less involved now” was
chosen by 0–5% of respondents. We performed the initial Fisher’s Exact tests with and
without the “less involved now” category and found no change in results. Therefore, we
eliminated this category from our analysis and report only the results for the remaining set
of responses. For conservation actions that showed significant differences between types of
volunteers, we used pairwise Fisher’s Exact tests with Bonferroni corrections to examine
differences between “more involved now” and the other response options for specific
volunteer categories. We also used Fisher’s Exact tests and pairwise comparisons with
6 E. J. LEWANDOWSKI AND K. S. OBERHAUSER

Bonferroni corrections to examine the difference between volunteer types in the impor-
tance of initial motivating factors.

Results
Of the 1,021 respondents, 64 were MLMP volunteers, 857 had created Monarch
Waystations, and 100 had both Waystation and MLMP sites (hereafter referred to as
combination volunteers). Thus, the response rates were 50% (164/327) for MLMP volun-
teers and 15% for Waystation volunteers (957/6,300).
MLMP, Waystation, and combination volunteers were similarly motivated by an
interest in nature and a desire to be outside. MLMP volunteers were more likely than
Waystation and combination volunteers to be very motivated by an interest in science or a
desire to help scientists and Waystation volunteers were more likely to report a strong
motivation of interest in monarchs or desire to help monarchs (Table 1).

Table 1. Importance of motivations in initial participation in MLMP or Waystation program.

Volunteer type
Motivation Importance M W C
Interest in nature n = 49 n = 714 n = 63
Very 94 96 98
Slightly 6 3 2
Not 0 0.4 0
Being outside n = 46 n = 692 n = 62
Very 80 78 79
Slightly 13 19 18
Not 7 3 3
Interest in monarchs n = 48 n = 713 n = 62
Very 85 96 92
Slightlya** 15 4 8
Not 0 0.3 0
Helping monarchs n = 48 n = 713 n = 61
Very 83 96 95
Slightlya** 15 4 3
Not 2 0 2
Helping scientists n = 49 n = 649 n = 61
Very 76 49 74
Slightlya***,b*** 22 43 20
Not 2 9 7
Learn about science n = 47 n = 650 n = 60
Very 77 50 70
Slightlya***,b** 13 40 25
Not 11 11 5
Children’s learning n = 47 n = 675 n = 59
Opportunities Very 43 62 73
Slightlyc** 38 25 14
Not 19 13 14
Note. Values indicate percents. W = Waystation, M = MLMP, C = combination. Superscripts denote significant pairwise
Fisher’s Exact Tests with Bonferroni corrections for the response category “very important” compared to “slightly
important” or “not important.”
a
Significant difference between Waystation and MLMP.
b
Significant difference between Waystation and Combination.
c
Significant difference between MLMP and Combination.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 7

MLMP sites were more likely than Waystations or combination sites to be natural sites with
no additional plants and less likely to have been previously planted, with plants added after
joining the project (Figure 1a). MLMP sites were more likely than Waystations to be found in
rural areas, with the majority of sites located in rural or suburban areas (Figure 1b). Sites
ranged in size from less than 10 m2 to over 10,000 m2, and we did not find a significant
difference between the site sizes of the three types of volunteers, although there was a trend for
MLMP and combination sites to be larger than Waystations (H = 4.60, p = .100, ƞ2 = .003;
mean rank for MLMP sites = 512, Waystations = 462, Combination = 516; total cases = 938).
Many sites (52% of MLMP, 57% of Waystations, 42% of combination) were 100 m2 or less.

(a)
100
90
Percentage of Respondents

80
70 New site
60 Planted, with additionsa***,c***
50 Planted, no additions
40 Natural, with additions
30 Natural, no additionsa***,b***,c***
20
10
0
Waystation MLMP (n=55) Combination
(n=803) (n=83)
(b)
100
90
Percentage of Respondents

80
70
60 Urban
50 Suburban
40 Small town
30
Rurala**
20
10
0
Waystation MLMP (n=55) Combination
(n=822) (n=84)

Figure 1. (a) Creation and (b) Location by percentage of sites.

Note. Superscripts denote significant pairwise Fisher’s Exact Tests with Bonferroni corrections
a
Significant difference between Waystation and MLMP.
b
Significant difference between Waystation and Combination.
c
Significant difference between MLMP and Combination.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
8 E. J. LEWANDOWSKI AND K. S. OBERHAUSER

Table 2. Site types.

Site type MLMP (n = 48) Waystation (n = 789) Combination (n = 79)
Gardena***,b**,c*** 46 90 80
Old (former) field 23 12 19
Restored or reconstructed prairiea*** 23 8 13
Natural prairie or other natural habitat 8 10 11
Roadside 13 8 9
Agricultural (pasture, field, margin) 8 10 8
Nature preserve 10 5 9
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) 4 1 1
Note. Values indicate percents. Types are not mutually exclusive. Superscripts denote significant (p < .05) pairwise Fisher’s
Exact Tests with Bonferroni corrections.
a
Significant difference between Waystation and MLMP.
b
Significant difference between Waystation and Combination.
c
Significant difference between MLMP and Combination.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Most MLMP sites were described as gardens, old fields, or prairies, and the majority of
Waystation and combination sites were gardens (Table 2).
By definition, all sites must contain milkweed. MLMP sites (1.8 ± 1.0 species, n = 54,
p < .001) had significantly fewer milkweed species than Waystation (3.1 ± 1.6 SD species,
n = 795) and combination (3.1 ± 2.4 SD species, n = 81) sites, and human-created or
augmented sites had significantly more species than completely naturally occurring sites
(p < .001). Site size had significant linear (p = .001) and quadratic (p < .001) coefficients,
indicating a general trend of increasing number of species with increasing site size, with a
drop in number of species among the largest sites. The full regression model, including
coefficients, is available in Table 3. Seven percent of MLMP sites, 34% of Waystation sites,
and 27% of combination sites contained the non-native Asclepias curassavica (χ2(2,
n = 930) = 17.60, p < .001, V = .138). Pairwise chi square tests with Bonferroni corrections
revealed significant differences in the presence of A. curassavica between MLMP and
combination sites (χ2(1, n = 135) = 6.91, p = .030, Φ = .226) and MLMP and Waystation
sites (χ2(1, n = 849) = 15.00, p < .001, Φ = .133), but not between Waystations and
combination sites (χ2(1, n = 876) = 1.19, p = .830, Φ = .037).
Most sites were owned by the volunteer respondents (MLMP: 71%, n = 49; Waystation:
81%, n = 707; combination: 57%, n = 63). Sites on government property were the next
most common (MLMP: 20%, Waystation: 7%, combination: 21%). The majority of
volunteers managed their own sites (MLMP: 78%, Waystation: 92%, combination: 84%).
Weeding was the most common management technique, followed by mowing, and MLMP

Table 3. Regression results for ln(#milkweed sp)~ site.size + created.type + vol.type.

Variable Estimate Std. error t value Pr(>|t|) Significance
(Intercept) .73 .09 8.46 <2e-16 .001
Size (linear) .17 .04 3.90 .0001 .001
Size (quadratic) −.16 .04 −3.85 .0001 .001
Size (cubic) .015 .04 0.37 .71
Size (quadric) −.001 .04 −0.03 .98
Created (created) .30 .07 4.01 6.53E-05 .001
vol.type (MLMP) −.44 .10 −4.60 4.79E-06 .001
vol.type (Waystation) −.01 .06 −0.17 .87
Note. Multiple R-squared: .1021, Adjusted R-squared: .09503.
F = 14.53, p < .001.
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 9

Table 4. Respondents performing types of management.

Management type MLMP (n = 47) Waystation (n = 716) Combination (n = 65)
Weededa*** 60 88 77
Mowed 49 47 35
Fertilizeda*** 11 35 23
“Spot sprayed” unwanted plant species 21 19 15
Tilled 2 9 11
Burned 11 6 9
None 11 4 9
Planted with an agricultural crop 4 3 2
Note. Values indicate percents. Types are not mutually exclusive. Superscripts denote significant pairwise Fisher’s Exact
Tests with Bonferroni corrections.
a
Significant difference between Waystation and MLMP. There were no significant differences between Waystation and
combination or between MLMP and combination sites.
***p < .001.

volunteers were significantly less likely than Waystation volunteers to engage in weeding
or fertilizing (Table 4).
When asked to describe how their participation in specific conservation actions had
changed since joining their monarch project, the majority of respondents reported they
had increased their involvement for most actions or they had already been involved in that
action (Table 5). The exceptions to this pattern of new or continued involvement in
conservation were making financial donations and posting signs for MLMP volunteers,
and giving presentations, contacting the media, and speaking out against development for
both MLMP and Waystation volunteers. For all actions, the highest percentages of
respondents reporting increased participation in conservation were volunteers from com-
bination sites. Pairwise comparisons for changes in conservation actions revealed that
volunteers from combination sites were less likely to state they had no plans to engage in
the additional conservation actions we examined, compared to MLMP and Waystation
volunteers (Table 5).
In the questionnaire space provided for respondents to describe their experiences with
monarch conservation, volunteers shared details about the conservation activities in which
they participated. Both MLMP and Waystation volunteers described the land stewardship work
involved in creating and maintaining their monarch habitat. One MLMP volunteer wrote “I
have worked HARD to establish milkweed in my yard (it has been difficult!), so I use insecticides
sparingly if I expect any monarch activity around here.” A Waystation volunteer stated:
Registering my home garden as a Waystation raised my awareness and commitment to
avoiding invasive plants, and thinking about my garden as a habitat rather than merely a
source of pleasure. My connectedness with the natural world has increased; I want my garden
to work, not just sit there and look pretty.

Many volunteers also described their outreach efforts to get others involved in monarch
conservation. One MLMP volunteer wrote, “I’m not an activist, but I talk about my garden
and butterflies to anyone who will listen, and offer free plants to anyone who wants.” Both
MLMP and Waystation volunteers collected and distributed seeds from milkweed and
nectar plants, and some shared stories about helping to establish butterfly gardens at
schools, churches, and others’ homes. Respondents wrote about outreach efforts ranging
from informal conversations with neighbors to giving workshops on gardening for
monarchs at schools and garden clubs.
10 E. J. LEWANDOWSKI AND K. S. OBERHAUSER

Table 5. Changes in action since joining project, by percentage of respondents.

Volunteer type
Action type Action Change M W C
Stewardship Decrease n = 47 n = 683 n = 57
Herbicides More 21 33 40
Same 68 63 58
Future 2 1 0
No Plans 9 3 2
Decrease n = 48 n = 676 n = 57
Insecticides More 19 34 35
Same 69 63 60
Future 2 0 0
No Plans 10 3 5
Plant n = 49 n = 695 n = 62
More 41 46 50
Same 45 52 50
Future 4 1 0
No Plansa*** 10 1 0
Outreach Give n = 46 n = 629 n = 54
Presentations More 17 24 52
Same 17 14 15
Future 22 16 15
No Plansa***,b*** 43 45 19
Post Signs n = 44 n = 677 n = 57
More 18 57 60
Same 7 23 23
Futurea***,c*** 36 14 9
No Plansa***,c*** 39 5 9
Involve others n = 46 n = 651 n = 60
More 57 51 63
Same 17 23 30
Future 7 9 3
No Plansb** 20 17 3
Talk informally n = 47 n = 679 n = 59
More 62 59 69
Same 30 32 27
Future 4 3 3
No Plans 4 5 0
Encourage n = 48 n = 689 n = 61
Planting More 58 54 59
Same 27 40 39
Future 6 4 2
No Plans 8 2 0
Contact media n = 44 n = 609 n = 52
More 11 16 48
Samec*** 25 12 10
Futureb** 11 16 12
No Plansb***,c*** 52 56 31
Civic Financial n = 45 n = 621 n = 55
Engagement Donations More 38 36 65
Same 11 20 20
Futureb** 9 22 13
No Plansb***,c*** 42 22 2
Speak out n = 46 n = 619 n = 50
More 20 20 44
Same 22 20 14
Future 15 21 24
No Plansb***,c** 43 38 18

(Continued )
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 11

Table 5. (Continued).
Volunteer type
Action type Action Change M W C
Advocate n = 48 n = 641 n = 52
More 27 30 54
Same 40 36 31
Future 6 15 10
No Plansb***,c** 27 19 6
Note. W = Waystation, M = MLMP, C = combination. Superscripts denote significant pairwise Fisher’s Exact Tests with
Bonferroni corrections for the given response category compared to “more now.”
a
Significant difference between Waystation and MLMP.
b
Significant difference between Waystation and Combination.
c
Significant difference between MLMP and Combination.
** p < .01. *** p < .001.

A common theme among Waystation volunteers was the importance of having a

formally registered site. Volunteers with registered sites can purchase an educational
sign describing the Monarch Waystation program; respondents reported these signs
garnered interest from neighbors and passersby, creating opportunities for dialogue
about monarchs and their conservation. Registration was also used as a method to counter
complaints from neighbors and government officials who viewed the Waystations as
unruly or unappealing. For instance, a volunteer wrote:
Waystation status allowed me to justify the yard to the city officials that were attempting to cite
us for a weed violation for having a butterfly garden instead of a lawn—allowed me to educate
them about the importance of other plants, even those with the name “weed” in their title.

Discussion
MLMP volunteers, like habitat volunteers, are creating and maintaining habitat. The fact
that citizen science volunteers who participate in a site-based project are creating and
protecting wildlife habitat provides initial evidence for the importance of their role in
conservation beyond the collection of monitoring data. This result has important implica-
tions for the field of citizen science, as many projects involve repeated monitoring of the
same site, giving volunteers an opportunity to create or maintain habitat to improve the
site for the organisms they study. In addition to projects such as the MLMP whose
participants can create monitoring habitat by planting host plants, other projects can
involve habitat creation by adding nesting habitat for bees, birds, and other taxa. Our
results for Waystation volunteers align with previous work on the impacts of habitat
conservation volunteers, indicating that this type of volunteer work can lead to habitat
creation and enhancement (Ewing et al., 2013; Guiney et al., 2006). Given that the
majority of MLMP participants and Waystation volunteers owned and managed their
own sites, the individual volunteers had more control over the creation and protection of
habitat than would volunteers for citizen science or habitat protection projects that
primarily occur on public lands.
Although MLMP and Waystation volunteers did not demonstrate a difference in the
frequency with which they created new habitat, our results found some differences in their
conservation strategies. MLMP volunteers tended to protect and maintain rural, existing
12 E. J. LEWANDOWSKI AND K. S. OBERHAUSER

sites that were not intentionally planted by humans and were less likely to be weeded or
fertilized. Waystation volunteers, on the other hand, were more likely to create or enhance
sites specifically for monarchs in more urban areas and to intentionally manage these sites.
There was not a statistically significant difference in size between the types of sites,
although there was a trend for MLMP and combination sites to be larger than
Waystation sites. Larger sites can clearly support more monarchs and Nail et al. (2015)
found that MLMP sites with more milkweed plants (a proxy for site size) had higher egg
through larval survival. However, per plant monarch density tends to be higher in sites
with fewer plants (Stenoien, Nail, & Oberhauser, 2015).
There is currently a nationwide public appeal to plant and protect milkweed across the
United States, but it has been suggested that lands in agricultural areas that are not under
production are especially crucial for monarchs (Pleasants, 2015). It appears that the
MLMP is slightly better at reaching volunteers in these key rural areas, but that
Waystation volunteers are more likely to be involved in the creation of new habitat, and
that, by their sheer numbers, they are creating and protecting more habitat. Projects that
wish to target specific land types for conservation may need to use selective recruitment of
volunteers to ensure they are meeting their goals.
The full effect of milkweed diversity on monarch conservation is not yet clear, although
we have observed that monarch use of species often varies across the summer. Some
species, such as Asclepias syriaca, are most commonly used early in the season, but when
they begin to senesce in early August, monarchs begin to use other species (in the
University of Minnesota garden, A. verticillata is most commonly used in August).
Future research is needed to examine how the lower milkweed diversity on MLMP sites
quantitatively affects their habitat quality.
Although MLMP sites had fewer overall milkweed species, they were also less likely to
have A. curassavica. The presence of this non-native in some MLMP sites and many
Waystation sites is not surprising; it is a common garden plant and in many areas is
readily available in garden centers and nurseries. A. curassavica has recently become a
topic of conservation concern for biologists; without a hard freeze it does not die back
during the winter (Batalden & Oberhauser, 2015), and its continual presence provides an
opportunity for monarchs to breed year-round and has been linked to increased disease
prevalence (Satterfield et al., 2015). Additionally, it could potentially interrupt monarchs’
migration by inducing them to break their migratory diapause and breed (Batalden &
Oberhauser, 2015). It is essential to note that our questionnaire was distributed prior to
the release of research on the conservation implications of A. curassavica (Batalden &
Oberhauser, 2015; Satterfield et al., 2015). Since the story was well publicized, including in
the New York Times (Gross, 2014), it is possible that some individuals who reported
having A. curassavica have since removed the species. Research is needed to determine the
degree that the widespread news coverage and outreach about A. curassavica has influ-
enced its inclusion in gardens and other monarch habitat.
In addition to the direct habitat conservation associated with creation and protection of
MLMP and Waystation sites, the volunteers we surveyed participated in a number of other
types of conservation actions, both on and off their sites. Our study did not seek to
identify a causal relationship between volunteering and participating in other forms of
conservation. Rather, we sought to illuminate the full, multilayered engagement in con-
servation by monarch habitat volunteers and citizen scientists.
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 13

Many respondents maintained or increased their participation in monarch conserva-

tion outreach while volunteering. Similar to behaviors of citizen scientists in India
(Johnson et al., 2014), most outreach was informal, such as talking to others about
monarch conservation, with fewer volunteers engaging in more formal activities such as
giving presentations. The posting of signs at Monarch Waystations emerged as an
important part of conservation outreach for Waystation volunteers, suggesting that this
technique could be useful for other organizations as well. Informal outreach is valuable,
but organizations and projects that want their volunteers to perform more formal out-
reach activities should provide guidance on how to do so. A recent survey of butterfly
citizen scientists from across the United States found that the majority were not receiving
information from their project about how to engage in formal outreach such as contacting
the media or giving public talks (Lewandowski & Oberhauser, In Press).
There was no clear pattern of difference between citizen science and habitat volunteers’
participation in conservation actions outside their projects, despite the fact that
Waystation volunteers were more likely to be highly motivated by a desire to help
monarchs. It is possible that this difference, while significant, was not large enough to
noticeably impact volunteer behavior. A desire to help the environment has been shown to
be only one of many motivating factors that are associated with participation in conserva-
tion (Alender, 2016; Asah & Blahna, 2012, 2013). Furthermore, motivation alone is not
fully responsible for an individual’s actions or behaviors; factors such as self-efficacy,
knowledge, social norms, and situational barriers all play a role in determining whether
someone takes action (Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1987; Jensen, 2002; Kollmuss &
Agyeman, 2002). The strong conservation focus of both the MLMP and the Monarch
Waystation program could supply their volunteers with encouragement and resources to
engage in conservation beyond the extent that could be attributed to initial motivation.
Bonney, Ballard, and Jordan (2009) suggested that the more involved a volunteer is in the
full experience of scientific research, the more likely they are to change their behavior. The
MLMP can be primarily categorized as a contributory citizen science project, meaning
that the role of most volunteers is to collect data; some citizen science projects more
actively involve volunteers in the design, dissemination, or creation of the project (Bonney
et al., 2009). Future research is needed to determine if participation in citizen science has a
direct effect on participation in other types of conservation, as well as if projects that
involve their volunteers in the additional activities invoke heightened conservation actions
by creating a stronger connection to nature or concern for conservation.
Although volunteers who participated in either the MLMP or the Monarch Waystation
program were similar in their participation in conservation activities, volunteers from
combination sites, who belonged to both programs, were consistently more likely to report
participation in conservation activities. Holley (2010) used the term “super volunteers” to
describe the small number of crowd sourcing and citizen science volunteers who con-
tribute the majority of data for a project, and Hames, Lowe, and Rosenberg (2012) used
the similar concept of “super-volunteers” and “super citizen scientists” to describe citizen
scientists who engaged in arduous, complex tasks. Both of these descriptions pertain to the
work a volunteer does within a single project, but “super volunteer” could also apply to
the volunteers who participate in multiple projects that share a common goal, such as the
volunteers from combination sites here. These volunteers make substantial contributions
to conservation, and we encourage citizen science and habitat conservation project leaders
14 E. J. LEWANDOWSKI AND K. S. OBERHAUSER

to recognize the work they do across projects and to encourage all volunteers to partici-
pate in other projects. Positive feedback for environmentally responsible behavior has
been linked with increased participation in these behaviors (Hines et al., 1987), making it
an easy and effective way to foster continued volunteer commitment to conservation.
The high levels of conservation involvement demonstrated by our respondents could be
an artifact of our research methods. We sent our questionnaire to all MLMP and
Waystation participants, but we did not directly attempt to elicit responses from volun-
teers who might be considered low engagers or minimally involved participants. These
individuals would perhaps be less willing to respond to a questionnaire about their
volunteer work with monarchs. However, our respondents did demonstrate a wide
range of participation in both their projects and additional conservation actions, indicat-
ing that our analysis contained responses from both minimally and highly engaged
volunteers. The lower response rate from Waystation volunteers also suggests the possi-
bility of bias in their results, but the overall large sample size and variation in their results
is likely to minimize this effect.
Our work provides clear evidence of the conservation efforts of both habitat and more
notably citizen science volunteers as a part of, and external to, the programs with which they
volunteer. Not only are they creating, improving, and protecting habitat for monarch butter-
flies and other wildlife, but they are also engaging in formal and informal outreach to promote
conservation. Volunteers’ willingness to participate in habitat protection and conservation
education and outreach makes them substantial partners in conservation management.

Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the assistance of MLMP and Monarch Watch volunteers for completing our
questionnaire, as well as assistance from Monarch Watch staff in distributing the questionnaire. P.
Shahani and W. Caldwell assisted with the initial construction of the questionnaire. E.L. was
partially supported by a fellowship from the University of Minnesota Conservation Biology
Graduate Program during this research.

References
Alender, B. (2016). Understanding volunteer motivations to participate in citizen science projects: A
deeper look at water quality monitoring. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3), A04, 1–19.
Asah, S. T., & Blahna, D. J. (2012). Motivational functionalism and urban conservation stewardship:
Implications for volunteer involvement. Conservation Letters, 5, 470–477. doi:10.1111/
conl.2012.5.issue-6.
Asah, S. T., & Blahna, D. J. (2013). Practical implications of understanding the influence of
motivations on commitment to voluntary urban conservation stewardship. Conservation
Biology, 27, 866–875. doi:10.1111/cobi.2013.27.issue-4
Batalden, R. V., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2015). Potential changes in eastern North American monarch
migration in response to an introduced milkweed, Asclepias curassavica. In K. S. Oberhauser, K.
R. Nail, & S. M. Altizer (Eds.), Monarchs in a changing world: Biology and conservation of an
iconic butterfly (pp. 215–224). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Bonney, R., Ballard, H., & Jordan, R. (2009). Public participation in scientific research: Defining the
field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE inquiry group report.
Washington, DC: CAISE.
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 15

Brower, L. P., Taylor, O. R., Williams, E. H., Slayback, D. A., Zubieta, R. R., & Ramirez, M. I. (2012).
Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: Is the migratory phenomenon at risk?
Insect Conservation and Diversity, 5, 95–100. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4598.2011.00142.x
Dickinson, J. L., & Bonney, R. (Eds.). (2012). Citizen science: Public participation in environmental
research. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Ewing, C. P., Catterall, C. P., & Tomerini, D. M. (2013). Outcomes from engaging urban commu-
nity groups in publicly funded vegetation restoration. Ecological Management & Restoration, 14,
194–201.
Gross, L. (2014, November 17). For the monarch butterfly, a long road back. New York Times. p. D1.
Guiney, M. S., Blair, R. B., Flinn, D., Haggerty, M. M., Main, M. B., Oberhauser, K. S., . . . Wallace,
G. (2006). Master naturalist: A multiple state natural history education and community service
program. North American Association for Environmental Education 2006 Conference Proceedings,
Saint Paul, MN.
Hames, R. S., Lowe, J. D., & Rosenberg, K. V. (2012). Developing a conservation research program
with citizen science. In J. L. Dickinson & R. Bonney (Eds.), Citizen science: Public participation in
environmental research (pp. 139–149). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1987). Analysis and synthesis of research on
responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education,
18(2), 1–8. doi:10.1080/00958964.1987.9943482
Holley, R. (2010). Crowdsourcing: How and why should libraries do it? D-Lib Magazine, 16(3), 4.
doi:10.1045/march2010-holley
Hvenegaard, G., & Fraser, L. (2014). Motivations and benefits of citizen scientists engaged in purple
martin migration research. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 561–563. doi:10.1080/
10871209.2014.940562
Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental
Education Research, 8, 325–334. doi:10.1080/13504620220145474
Jepsen, S., & Black, S. H. (2015). Understanding and conserving the western North American
monarch population. In K. S. Oberhauser, K. R. Nail, & S. Altizer (Eds.), Monarchs in a changing
world: Biology and conservation of an iconic butterfly (pp. 147–156). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Johnson, M. F., Hannah, C., Acton, L., Popovici, R., Karanth, K. K., & Weinthal, E. (2014). Network
environmentalism: Citizen scientists as agents for environmental advocacy. Global Environmental
Change, 29, 235–245. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.10.006
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.
doi:10.1080/13504620220145401
Larson, L. R., Cooper, C. B., & Hauber, M. E. (2016). Emotions as drivers of wildlife stewardship
behavior: Examining citizen science nest monitors’ responses to invasive house sparrows. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife, 21, 18–33. doi:10.1080/10871209.2015.1086933
Larson, L. R., Stedman, R. C., Cooper, C. B., & Decker, D. J. (2015). Understanding the multi-
dimensional structure of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43,
112–124. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.06.004
Lewandowski, E., & Oberhauser, K. S. (In Press). Butterfly citizen scientists in the United States
increase their engagement in conservation. Biological Conservation. doi:10.1016/j.
biocon.2015.07.029
Measham, T. G., & Barnett, G. B. (2008). Environmental volunteering: Motivations, modes and
outcomes. Australian Geographer, 39, 537–552. doi:10.1080/00049180802419237
Monarch Watch. (2015). Monarch Watch. Retrieved from http://monarchwatch.org/
Nail, K. R., Stenoien, C., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2015). Immature monarch survival: Effects of site
characteristics, density, and time. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 108, 680–690.
doi:10.1093/aesa/sav047
16 E. J. LEWANDOWSKI AND K. S. OBERHAUSER

Oberhauser, K. S., Nail, K. R., & Altizer, S. M. (Eds.). (2015). Monarchs in a changing world: Biology
and conservation of an iconic butterfly. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Oberhauser, K. S., & Solensky, M. J. (Eds.). (2004). The monarch butterfly: Biology and conservation.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pleasants, J. M. (2015). Monarch butterflies and agriculture. In K. S. Oberhauser, K. R. Nail, & S. M.
Altizer (Eds.), Monarchs in a changing world: Biology and conservation of an iconic butterfly (pp.
169–178). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pleasants, J. M., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2013). Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide
use: Effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conservation and Diversity, 6, 135–144.
doi:10.1111/icad.2013.6.issue-2
Rendon-Salinas, E., Fajardso-Arroyo, A., & Tavera-Alonso, G. (2015). Forest surface area occupied
by monarch butterfly hibernation colonies in December 2014. Washington, DC: World Wildlife
Fund.
Ries, L., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2015). A citizen-army for science: Quantifying the contributions of
citizen scientists to our understanding of monarch butterfly biology. Bioscience, 65, 419–430.
doi:10.1093/biosci/biv011
Ryan, R. L., Kaplan, R., & Grese, R. E. (2001). Predicting volunteer commitment in environmental
stewardship programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44, 629–648.
doi:10.1080/09640560120079948
Satterfield, D. A., Maerz, J. C., & Altizer, S. (2015). Loss of migratory behaviour increases infection
risk for a butterfly host. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1801),
20141734. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1734
Shahani, P. C., del Rio Pesado, G., Schappert, P., & Garcia Serrano, E. (2015). Monarch habitat
conservation across North America. In K. S. Oberhauser, K. R. Nail, & S. M. Altizer (Eds.),
Monarchs in a changing world: Biology and conservation of an iconic butterfly (pp. 31–41). Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press.
Stenoien, C., Nail, K. R., & Oberhauser, K. S. (2015). Habitat productivity and temporal patterns of
monarch butterfly egg densities in the eastern United States. Annals of the Entomological Society
of America, 108, 670–679. doi:10.1093/aesa/sav054
Stepenuck, K. F., & Green, L. (2015). Individual- and community-level impacts of volunteer
environmental monitoring: A synthesis of peer-reviewed literature. Ecology and Society, 20(3),
19. doi:10.5751/ES-07329-200319
Tourangeau, R., Conrad, F. G., & Couper, M. P. (2013). The science of web surveys. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Van Den Berg, H. A., Dann, S. L., & Dirkx, J. M. (2009). Motivations of adults for non-formal
conservation education and volunteerism: Implications for programming. Applied Environmental
Education and Communication, 8, 6–17. doi:10.1080/15330150902847328
Weston, M., Fendley, M., Jewell, R., Satchell, M., & Tzaros, C. (2003). Volunteers in bird conserva-
tion: Insights from the Australian threatened bird network. Ecological Management &
Restoration, 4, 205–211. doi:10.1046/j.1442-8903.2003.00169.x