Dataset supporting: Does citizen science foster conservation? Evidence from wildlife monitoring programs

1. Overview This dataset compiles information extracted from peer-reviewed studies on citizen science and community-based biodiversity monitoring schemes. It focuses on initiatives involving local participants in ecological data collection and evaluates both ecological and conservation-relevant social outcomes, including awareness, values, attitudes, and behaviours. The dataset is structured into four thematic blocks: General information about the monitoring scheme Type of support and level of engagement of monitoring scheme Conservation outcomes Challenges and recommendations 2. Data structure and unit of analysis Each row in the dataset represents a study–outcome combination. This means that a single study may appear multiple times when it reports different conservation outcomes (e.g., awareness, attitude, behaviour, values). This structure allows analysis at the level of both study characteristics and outcome-specific effects. 3. Variables description 3.1 General information about the monitoring scheme Study ID: Unique identifier for each study (the same Study ID may appear in multiple rows when different conservation outcomes are reported) Authors: Authors of the study Year: Year of publication Title: Full title of the study DOI: Digital Object Identifier or URL Study site (country): Geographic location(s) of the study Main taxa: Taxonomic group(s) studied (e.g., birds, mammals) No of spp monitored: Number of species monitored (NA if not reported) Metrics measured: Ecological metrics assessed (e.g., abundance, diversity) Type of monitoring scheme: Classification adapted from Danielsen et al. (2008) Category 2: Joint monitoring by professionals and local participants Category 3: Collaborative monitoring with primary data collection by local participants Category 4: Locally led monitoring with external scientific support Note: Category 1 studies (fully externally driven monitoring) were excluded from this dataset. 3.2 Type of support and level of engagement Support (yes/no): Whether any support was provided to participants Type of support provided: Material: Field equipment, guides, protocols, tools, cameras, GPS, etc. Training: Capacity-building, workshops, species identification, and methodological instruction Incentive: Financial or material rewards Supervision: Guidance, feedback, and data quality control Level of engagement: Classification based on information reported in each study and interpreted according to predefined criteria High: Strong, consistent participation and high effort in monitoring activities Medium: Moderate participation with occasional limitations in consistency or effort Low: Limited participation and low engagement in monitoring activities 3.3 Conservation outcomes Conservation outcomes are grouped into four categories: Awareness: Knowledge and understanding of biodiversity and conservation issues Values: Core principles and beliefs guiding conservation-related judgments Attitudes: Evaluative positions toward wildlife and conservation initiatives Behaviour: Self-reported or observed conservation-related actions Additional variables: Outcome measured: Specific conservation outcome assessed Evaluation design: Study design (e.g., before–after, after-only) Type of data: Qualitative or quantitative Evaluation method: Method used (e.g., questionnaire, interview, discussion) Reported effect: Direction of reported effect (e.g., positive) 3.4 Challenges and recommendations Challenges: Reported limitations such as data quality issues, funding constraints, participant-related limitations, or methodological constraints Recommendations: Suggestions for improving future monitoring schemes and citizen science initiatives 4. Data format and technical information No information: recorded as "NA" Duplicate rows: present intentionally when multiple conservation outcomes are reported within the same study 5. Data provenance and usage notes This dataset was compiled through systematic extraction and harmonisation of peer-reviewed literature on citizen science and community-based monitoring. Data were standardised across studies to ensure comparability of variables and categories. 6. Data availability This dataset is publicly available via Zenodo (DOI to be assigned upon publication). 7. References for classification framework Monitoring scheme categories follow Danielsen et al. (2008) Conservation outcome definitions are based on established literature in conservation science and environmental psychology 8. Suggested citation Please cite both the dataset (Zenodo DOI) and the associated publication (to be updated upon acceptance). 9. Contact For questions regarding the dataset, please contact the corresponding author of the study.