Engaging citizens in sustainability research: comparing survey recruitment and responses between Facebook, Twitter and qualtrics
Engaging citizens in sustainability research: comparing survey recruitment and responses between Facebook, Twitter and qualtrics
复制标题
让公民参与可持续发展研究：比较 Facebook、Twitter 和 qualtrics 之间的调查招募和回复
DOI：
10.1108/bfj-06-2020-0498
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Bridge G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bridge G
目的：本研究旨在比较Facebook、Twitter和qualics之间的调查招募率，并评估招募方法对29种食品的能量含量、食品安全、碳足迹和动物福利的影响。设计/方法/方法在公民科学平台Zooniverse上开发了两个版本的在线调查。这些调查探讨了市民对29种常见食物的能量密度（千卡）或碳足迹（二氧化碳）以及食品安全或动物福利的估计。通过Twitter和Facebook上的付费推广以及Qualtrics上的付费受访者邀请进行调查招募。该研究包括大约500名参与者（Facebook,N = 11（评分358），Twitter,N = 85（评分2184），Qualtrics，N= 398（评分11,910））。Kruskal-Wallis和卡方分析比较了公民估计值与验证值，并评估了变量对估计值的影响。发现市民无法准确估计碳足迹和能源含量，大多数市民高估了价值。市民的估计对肉制品最为准确。素质是在线调查中最成功的招聘方法。不同平台的公民估计值存在显著差异，说明Facebook和Twitter可能不适合作为公民在线调查的招募方式。实践意义方济学是调查招聘的有利平台。然而，所有招聘平台的估计数据都很差。由于像Qualtrics这样的付费招聘方法是昂贵的，作者建议继续检查社交媒体环境，为公民科学制定适当的、负担得起的和及时的在线招聘策略。原创性/价值调查结果表明，市民无法准确估计食品的碳足迹和能量含量，这表明需要关注消费者教育，使消费者能够转向更可持续和健康的饮食。如果我们要实现关于零饥饿、良好健康和福祉以及负责任消费和生产的2030年可持续发展目标，这一点至关重要。这项研究强调了Zooniverse在评估公民对碳足迹、能源含量、动物福利和食品安全的估计方面的效用。
PurposeThe study aims to compare survey recruitment rates between Facebook, Twitter and Qualtrics and to assess the impact of recruitment method on estimates of energy content, food safety, carbon footprint and animal welfare across 29 foods.Design/methodology/approachTwo versions of an online survey were developed on the citizen science platform, Zooniverse. The surveys explored citizen estimations of energy density (kcal) or carbon footprint (Co2) and food safety or animal welfare of 29 commonly eaten foods. Survey recruitment was conducted via paid promotions on Twitter and Facebook and via paid respondent invites on Qualtrics. The study included approximately 500 participants (Facebook,N˜11 (ratings 358), Twitter,N˜85 (ratings 2,184), Qualtrics,N= 398 (ratings 11,910)). Kruskal–Wallis and Chi-square analyses compared citizen estimations with validated values and assessed the impact of the variables on estimations.FindingsCitizens were unable to accurately estimate carbon footprint and energy content, with most citizens overestimating values. Citizen estimates were most accurate for meat products. Qualtrics was the most successful recruitment method for the online survey. Citizen estimates between platforms were significantly different, suggesting that Facebook and Twitter may not be suitable recruitment methods for citizen online surveys.Practical implicationsQualtrics was the favourable platform for survey recruitment. However, estimates across all recruitment platforms were poor. As paid recruitment methods such as Qualtrics are costly, the authors recommend continued examination of the social media environment to develop appropriate, affordable and timely online recruitment strategies for citizen science.Originality/valueThe findings indicate that citizens are unable to accurately estimate the carbon footprint and energy content of foods suggesting a focus on consumer education is needed to enable consumers to move towards more sustainable and healthy diets. Essential if we are to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals of zero hunger, good health and wellbeing and responsible consumption and production. The study highlights the utility of Zooniverse for assessing citizen estimates of carbon footprint, energy content, animal welfare and safety of foods.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1609/hcomp.v1i1.13051
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing
影响因子：
--
作者：
Arfon M. Smith;S. Lynn;C. Lintott
通讯作者：
C. Lintott
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Hoogland, Carolien T.;de Boer, Joop;Boersema, Jan J.
通讯作者：
Boersema, Jan J.
招募和留住公民科学参与者：可以从志愿服务文献中学到什么？
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
S. West;R. Pateman
通讯作者：
R. Pateman
将动物福利纳入生命周期可持续性评估的框架
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
影响因子：
--
作者：
L. Scherer;Brian Tomasik;O. Rueda;S. Pfister
通讯作者：
S. Pfister
影响因子：
168.9
作者：
Afshin, Ashkan;Sur, Patrick John;Murray, Christopher J. L.
通讯作者：
Murray, Christopher J. L.