What I Learned Hosting a Citizen Science Event No One Attended

by Christin Bratton

Christin Bratton

I hosted a citizen science Earth Day event this month with a clear goal: to encourage people to visit a local park, document what they observed, and come together on April 15 for a Zoom discussion to share those findings. The format was simple and accessible, allowing folks to attend after work hours. When the time came, no one attended. After waiting 30 minutes, it was clear the event would not move forward as planned. Rather than dismissing that outcome, I chose to examine it. I am using this as data to identify barriers and better understand how peo ple engage with environmental action.

Planning for the event began before April. I shared a post er ahead of the official launch to give people time to prepare. On April 1, I released full details, allowing a two-week window for participants to visit a park, take photos, and be ready for the discussion. The time line was designed to be flexible while still structured.

I circulated the poster across my network and asked others to share it. Some people did immediately, which I appreciated. Others engaged passively by liking the post but did not RSVP or take further action. No confirmed participants emerged.

I also explored targeted outreach. I contacted a professor in the environmen tal science field to share the event with students, who would have been a strong fit for this type of activity. I did not receive a response for a few days and chose not to follow up. That decision limited access to a key audience.

I reached out to a director at the Western New York Land Conservancy as well. We discussed a potential collaboration, and they agreed to contribute to a blog feature, but communication did not continue even after attempts to follow up with them. That piece would have strengthened the event, though the lapse was outside of my control.

Additional feedback came from a professional in the environmental field who responded a few days before the event. They supported the concept but noted areas for improvement, including more accessible information on park locations, and more direct outreach such as phone calls. The event was not shared within their network.

The effort behind this event was consistent, but the out come revealed a gap between environmental interest and participation. Many people express concern for environmental issues, yet participation drops when the action requires time, no incentive, planning, or physical presence. An open invitation alone does not create com mitment. This now begs the question: what assistance exists that helps me market events and meaning further? Environmental and climate work requires collective effort and teamwork to reach a big impact.

There are clear areas for improvement. The task must be defined in a more direct way, so expectations are immediately understood, although my website homepage lists step-by-step participation details. Supporting information should be easy to locate and use. Outreach needs to extend beyond posts into more direct communication, especially when engaging with groups already connected to environmental work. Requiring RSVPs may also help establish commitment.

I am also reconsidering the format. Instead of creating new events independently, it may be more effective to align with existing Earth Day activities and build around them. Working within established spaces could increase participation and reduce barriers to entry. If you were unable to attend, I’d like to hear what the barrier was for you via the survey. This information will help shape future event development.

The intention behind this event remains the same. Encouraging people to engage with their environment in a real, physical way is still necessary. This was not a loss. It was a test. The next iteration will reflect what this one revealed.