Members of the public participate in scientific research in many different contexts, stemming from traditions as varied as participatory action research and citizen science. Particularly in conservation and natural resource management contexts, where research often addresses complex social–ecological questions, the emphasis on and nature of this participation can significantly affect both the way that projects are designed and the outcomes that projects achieve. We review and integrate recent work in these and other fields, which has converged such that we propose the term public participation in scientific research (PPSR) to discuss initiatives from diverse fields and traditions. We describe three predominant models of PPSR and call upon case studies suggesting that—regardless of the research context—project outcomes are influenced by (1) the degree of public participation in the research process and (2) the quality of public participation as negotiated during project design. To illustrate relationships between the quality of participation and outcomes, we offer a framework that considers how scientific and public interests are negotiated for project design toward multiple, integrated goals. We suggest that this framework and models, used in tandem, can support deliberate design of PPSR efforts that will enhance their outcomes for scientific research, individual participants, and social–ecological systems

How can a participatory approach to research promote environmental learning and enhance social–ecological systems resilience? Participatory action research (PAR) is an approach to research that its’ supporters claim can foster new knowledge, learning, and action to support positive social and environmental change through reorienting the standard process of knowledge production. PAR is posited as being particularly suitable for use with historically disadvantaged groups. As such it may be a useful tool for environmental learning which would enable a social–ecological system to better respond to change as theorized by resilience thinkers. In this paper, we examine a PAR project to determine how PAR fostered environmental learning and, in turn, how the learning influenced resilience. The project partnered an ecologist, federal and state forest managers, and harvesters of salal (Gaultheria shallon), a non‐timber forest product gathered and sold for use in the floral industry in the forests of the Olympic Peninsula, Washington, USA. Based on interviews with each group of partners during and after the PAR project, we found that the PAR approach did indeed generate environmental learning, defined here as ecological literacy, civic literacy, values awareness, and self‐efficacy, and contributed to resiliency through promoting greater diversity, memory, redundancy, and adaptive capacity. However, the political vulnerability of the salal harvesters, who were largely undocumented Latino workers, inhibited the extent to which adaptive measures could be taken to revise permitting procedures and additional collaborative research. We conclude that the PAR approach is a valuable tool for environmental learning but the extent to which learning can actually promote system change and greater resilience must also be understood within the underlying context, especially political realities.

Online community and citizen science (CCS) projects have broadened access to scientific research and enabled different forms of participation in biodiversity research; however, little is known about whether and how such opportunities are taken up by young people (aged 5–19). Furthermore, when they do participate, there is little research on whether their online activity makes a tangible contribution to scientific research. We addressed these knowledge gaps using quantitative analytical approaches and visualisations to investigate 249 youths’ contributions to CCS on the iNaturalist platform, and the potential for the scientific use of their contributions. We found that nearly all the young volunteers’ observations were ‘verifiable’ (included a photo, location, and date/time) and therefore potentially useful to biodiversity research. Furthermore, more than half were designated as ‘Research Grade’, with a community agreed-upon identification, making them more valuable and accessible to biodiversity science researchers. Our findings show that young volunteers with lasting participation on the platform and those aged 16–19 years are more likely to have a higher proportion of Research Grade observations than younger, or more ephemeral participants. This study enhances our understanding of young volunteers’ contributions to biodiversity research, as well as the important role professional scientists and data users can play in helping verify youths’ contributions to make them more accessible for biodiversity research.