Citizen scientists play a pivotal role in providing necessary biodiversity data. To ensure the continued involvement of a strong volunteer base, insight into the concerns and motivations of voluntary recorders is crucial. This paper presents the findings of a largescale survey (N = 2193) among Dutch volunteer biodiversity recorders of diverse taxa, and focuses on three questions: what are the characteristics of these citizen scientists regarding their activities and socio-demographic background, what are their motivations for recording biodiversity, and what are their views on data sharing and ownership? Our findings show that a connection to, interest in and concern for nature are the most important motivations for biodiversity recorders. Volunteer recorders have high expectations regarding the impact of their data, both for their own learning as well as for science and management. Almost half the volunteers consider their data to be public goods, but this does not mean they support unconditional data sharing. Instead, the acceptability of data sharing with third parties seems strongly linked to the goals of the user. We discuss the implications of our findings for practitioners, such as the role of biology curricula and the importance of learning opportunities to redress the lack of younger volunteers. We argue that conceptualising volunteer recorders as data custodians rather than owners helps to Communicated by Peter Bridgewater.This article belongs to the Topical Collection: Biodiversity appreciation and engagement.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

Not much is known about lay public perceptions of non-native species and their underlying values. Public awareness and engagement, however, are important aspects in invasive species management. In this study, we examined the relations between the lay public's visions of nature, their knowledge about non-native species, and their perceptions of non-native species and invasive species management with a survey administered in the Netherlands. Within this framework, we identified three measures for perception of non-native species: perceived risk, control and engagement. In general, respondents scored moderate values for perceived risk and personal engagement. However, in case of potential ecological or human health risks, control measures were supported. Respondents' images of the human-nature relationship proved to be relevant in engagement in problems caused by invasive species and in recognizing the need for control, while images of nature appeared to be most important in perceiving risks to the environment. We also found that eradication of non-native species was predominantly opposed for species with a high cuddliness factor such as mammals and bird species. We conclude that lay public perceptions of non-native species have to be put in a wider context of visions of nature, and we discuss the implications for public support for invasive species management.

No abstract

Existing frameworks for analysing interactions between social and natural systems (e.g. Social-Ecological Systems framework, Ecosystem Services concept) do not sufficiently consider and operationalize the dynamic interactions between people's values, attitudes and understandings of the human-nature relationship at both individual and collective levels. We highlight the relevance of individual and collective understandings of the human-nature relationship as influencing factors for environmental behaviour, which may be reflected in natural resource management conflicts, and review the diversity of existing social-cultural concepts, frameworks and associated research methods. Particular emphasis is given to the contextsensitivity of social-cultural concepts in decision-making. These aspects are translated into a conceptual model aiming not to replace but to expand and enhance existing frameworks. Integrating this model into existing frameworks provides a tool for the exploration of how social-cultural concepts of nature interact with existing contexts to influence governance of social-ecological systems.

The public justification for nature conservation currently rests on two pillars: hedonic (instrumental) values, and moral values. Yet, these representations appear to do little motivational work in practice; biodiversity continues to decline, and biodiversity policies face a wide implementation gap. In seven EU countries, we studied why people act for nature beyond professional obligations. We explore the motivations of 105 committed actors for nature in detail using life-history interviews, and trace these back to their childhood. Results show that the key concept for understanding committed action for nature is meaningfulness. People act for nature because nature is meaningful to them, connected to a life that makes sense and a difference in the world. These eudemonic values (expressing the meaningful life) constitute a crucial third pillar in the justification of nature conservation. Important policy implications are explored, e.g. with respect to public discourse and the encounter with nature in childhood.