Historically, sea turtles in St. Kitts have been perceived as an agricultural resource available for consumption. A sea turtle harvest still exists in St. Kitts during which sea turtles can be legally captured and consumed, as long as the capture falls within the outlined harvest season (Fisheries Regulations 2002). This perception is not unique to St. Kitts, as 21% (9/43) of Caribbean nations still have a legal harvest. Closed seasons in some countries such as Antigua, the Bahamas, and Cuba have only been implemented relatively recently (Dow et al. 2007; Stewart et al. 2016). Outside of the harvest and associated risks, sandmining, vehicular traffic, and coastal development are impacting nesting and foraging habitats and remain serious threats in St. Kitts (Eckert and Honebrink 1992; Butler 2001; Stewart et al. 2016). It is important that any conservation-based sea turtle program in St. Kitts works to shift historical perceptions and gain significant engagement of the general public in order to be successful and sustainable. To address some of the threats facing sea turtles in St. Kitts, the St. Kitts Sea Turtle Monitoring Network (SKSTMN) has initiated a number of programs including the development of nonconsumable sources of income primarily through ecotourism (Stewart et al. 2016), the Certified Turtle Approved Program, and conservation education programs.

The primary conservation education program has been an annual Sea Turtle Camp that was developed and initiated in 2007. The SKSTMN initiated the Sea Turtle Camp Program with the goal of engaging and educating youth primarily within the age range of 9–12 yrs in the conservation of sea turtle species. Summer camp programs are very popular in St. Kitts, with approximately 30 camps being offered annually from the closing of schools in July to their reopening in September. It has been demonstrated that children typically continue the same leisure pursuits as adults and, through the implementation of this Sea Turtle Camp Program, the authors aimed to provide a positive experience through conservation education with the expectation that participants would be likely to carry that into the future through proactive behaviors and attitudes (Marshdoyle et al. 1982; Eagles and Muffitt 1990; Pomerantz 1991; Basile 2000; Kruse and Card 2010). It has also been demonstrated that environmental education activities, both in a traditional classroom setting and in less traditional settings, can initiate improvement in environmental behavior (Shepard and Speelman 1985–1986; Dettmann-Easler and Pease 1999; Zelezny 1999). While knowledge levels are increased through environmental education activities, it has been reported that this increased knowledge does not always lead to changes in attitudes and behaviors regarding the issues (Barrie and Knapp 1988; Knudson et al. 1995). To this end, the authors hoped to develop a balance by combining a more traditional classroom curriculum with positive environmental activities such as crafts, games, participation in field components of the sea turtle conservation program, and community outreach projects to tie knowledge and behavior together and spark positive environmental behavioral changes. This has been demonstrated in certain programs; for example, it has been reported that youth experienced positive changes following their participation in a zoo conservation education program with a husbandry component. These changes included positive impacts on knowledge and attitude (Kruse and Card 2010). Similar changes have been observed in other conservation education programs as well (Serrell 1981; Basile 2000; Lindemann-Matthies 2001). Bogner (1998) reported a significant increase in knowledge after 1- and 5-day education programs. It was anticipated that through their engagement in the 4-day SKSTMN Sea Turtle Camp, participants would also share their knowledge with others and that, over time, the importance of sea turtle conservation would be disseminated throughout the island, as all of the schools around the island have been represented at Sea Turtle Camp (see Fig. 1). Beyond positive impacts on knowledge and behavior, education/extension programs for individuals living in or near protected areas can be successfully implemented as management activities (Ham et al. 1993; Dimopoulos et al. 2008), and the SKSTMN anticipated that this Sea Turtle Camp Program would eventually fill a similar role in the established managed areas that sea turtles use for nesting and foraging in St. Kitts.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

The focus of the SKSTMN Sea Turtle Camp is to introduce participants to the different species of endangered sea turtles in the world, with emphasis on the ones that live and nest in and around St. Kitts, their natural history and biology, natural and anthropogenic threats to survival, and how individuals can mitigate these threats. Using the Sun, Sand and Sea Turtles curriculum developed by the Wider Caribbean Sea Turtle Conservation Network (WIDECAST) as a base (Marin 2007), and combining it with an ever-evolving combination of arts and crafts, educational activities, games, guest speakers, and field trips, participants learn about the importance of sea turtle conservation (Marin 2007). Each summer offering of the SKSTMN Sea Turtle Camp Program runs for 4 days and currently 2 sessions are taught annually. On day 1 of the Program, participants are introduced to the theme of adaptations followed by the natural history and biology of the 7 extant species of sea turtles. The themed presentation is followed by a series of craft activities, games, and field trips focused on the theme. At the end of the day the activities are wrapped up and participants are encouraged to anonymously submit a description of what their favorite thing was that day. Each day has a different theme and, along with that, a different set of activities to further emphasize that theme. Themes covered include nesting behavior, turtle tracks, natural and anthropogenic threats, and how humans can help sea turtles. Over 600 children have participated in the SKSTMN Sea Turtle Camp since the initiation of this program, many of whom return in subsequent years. Once they have exceeded the accepted age group for Sea Turtle Camp participation, many former participants return as camp counselors/volunteers. Some of the former participants who have chosen to continue to participate and then volunteer have also exhibited interest in continuing to be involved in the program through ecotourism or interpretation/public education. This emphasizes the need to develop additional classroom and field curricula to build on the initial experience from Sea Turtle Camp Curriculum I and to provide additional training opportunities so that youth can carry on their participation and potentially be employed by the SKSTMN as opportunities arise.

In 2015 and 2016, the SKSTMN performed an assessment of this education program that included pre- and postparticipation tests for the 2015 and 2016 participants, administration of the postparticipation test to a control group of nonparticipants, and a survey of former participants and their parents or guardians to determine if this program has positively affected participants' perceptions regarding sea turtles and conservation, to ascertain strengths and weaknesses of the program, and to identify areas that could be further developed.

METHODS

RESULTS

Pre- and Posttests of Curriculum I Sea Turtle Camp Participants and Control Group

Pretest results were available for 74 (n = 41 in 2015 and n = 33 in 2016) participants, 73 posttest participants (n = 41 in 2015 and n = 32 in 2016), and 59 (all in 2016) controls. There was a significant difference between answers provided by pretest participants vs. posttest participants, and between posttest participants vs. the control group for the majority of the questions, with the majority of posttest participants getting the correct answers vs. the pretest and control groups. There was no significant difference between groups for responses to the true or false question regarding sea turtle eggs and hatchlings having few predators, but more of the posttest participants (n = 40, 54.8%) answered correctly than did the pretest (n = 34, 45.9%) and control (n = 26, 48.1%) groups. For the fill-in-the-blank question where respondents were asked to list 2 ways in which they could help sea turtles, the majority of all groups answered correctly and, while there was no significant difference in the answers between the groups, more posttest participants (n = 63, 86.3%) did get the answer correct vs. the pretest (n = 56, 75.7%) and control group (n = 46, 85.2%) participants. For the true or false question where respondents were asked if people other than biologists could help sea turtles, the majority of all groups answered correctly with more pretest (n = 68, 91.9%) participants answering correctly than did posttest (n = 63, 86.3%) or control group (n = 49, 90.7%) participants. For the multiple choice question where respondents were asked what adaptation does not help a sea turtle survive in the ocean, there was a significant difference in the answers provided by the posttest respondents vs. the control group, with the majority of posttest (n = 42, 57.5%) participants answering correctly vs. the control group (n = 13, 24.1%). While there was no significant difference between pretest and posttest groups for this question the majority of posttest respondents (n = 42, 57.5%) did answer correctly vs. the pretest respondents (n = 30, 40.5%). For the fill-in-the-blank question where respondents were asked to list 2 threats that sea turtles face in St. Kitts, there was a significant difference between the answers provided by the pretest participants and the control group, with the majority of control group participants providing the correct answer (n = 49, 90.7%) vs. the pretest participants (n = 53, 71.6%). While there was no significant difference between the responses given by pretest participants vs. posttest participants on this question, the majority of posttest participants (n = 60, 81.1%) vs. the pretest participants did answer correctly (Table 1).

Table 1 Results of pre- and postparticipation surveys for sea turtle camp participants and nonparticipants.

View Fullscreen

Survey of Former Participants and Their Parents or Guardians

Operational parental or guardian contact information was available for 297 former Sea Turtle Camp participants. Of the 297, 119 (40%) were reached via telephone and 115 (38.7%) agreed to participate. Of those who agreed to participate, 43 (37.4%) preferred and requested paper surveys and 72 (62.6%) preferred and requested online surveys. For the paper-based surveys, 44.2% (19/43) and 41.9% (18/43) of parents or guardians and participants responded, respectively. For the online surveys, 20.8% (15/72) parents or guardians and 22.2% (16/72) participants responded. This represents an overall participation rate of 29.6% (34/115) for both parents or guardians and participants (Table 2).

Table 2. Response rates for paper- vs. online-based surveys.

View Fullscreen

Survey of Former Participants Age 9–12 Yrs.

The survey for the 9–12-yr-old age group (n = 10) was filled out electronically by 3 (30%) of the students and on paper by 7 (70%) of the students. A majority of the students attended only once (6/10, 60%), with 2 students (20%) attending twice and 2 (20%) attending 4 yrs. The majority of the students in this survey learned about the Sea Turtle Camp from school (n = 4, 40%), with all other sources being uncommon. Parents (n = 9, 90%) were the most common source for participant registration, with 1 child registering on their own. All of the respondents had a desire to continue to attend Sea Turtle Camp. There was no significant difference in the rating of the respondent's knowledge prior to and after Sea Turtle Camp as it related to sea turtles (p = 0.398) or the marine environment (p = 0.482).

The majority (9/10, 90%) of children have used the knowledge gained at Sea Turtle Camp and shared it (9/10, 90%) with others. All of the respondents confirmed that Sea Turtle Camp changed their behavior as it relates to the marine environment while most, but not all (9/10, 90%), said it had an impact on their behavior as it relates to sea turtles. A majority (8/10, 80%) of the respondents suggested that their experience might influence future job opportunities. A majority (9/10, 90%) of the students would recommend Sea Turtle Camp to others, and all but 1 respondent were interested in an advanced version. Only a small proportion (3/10, 30%) of the respondents participated in a sea turtle patrol.

There was a significant difference (p = 0.001) in the rankings of what the students perceived as most important. Rankings were given from 1 to 5, with 1 being the least valuable and 5 being the most valuable. When evaluating each of the activities, it was found that field trips (mean rank = 4.3) were more important than guest speakers (mean rank = 2.7, z = −2.223, p = 0.02), presentations (mean rank = 2.9; z = −1.956, p = 0.05), and games (mean rank = 2.9; z = −1.956, p = 0.05), and that crafts (mean rank = 4.0; z = −2.308, p = 0.021) were more important than presentations.

Survey of Former Participants Age 13 Yrs and Older

The survey for the 13 and older age group (n = 24) was filled out electronically by 13 (54.2%) of the students and on paper by 11 (45.8%) of the students. A majority of the students attended only once (54.2%), with 8 students (33.3%) attending twice and only 1 (4.2%) and 2 (8.3%) attending 3 or 4 yrs, respectively. The majority of the students learned about the camp from school (n = 10, 41.7%), with all other sources being uncommon. Parents (n = 8, 33.3%), the Department of Agriculture Open Day (n = 6, 25%), and self-registration (n = 4, 16.7%) were the most common sources for participant registration. All but 1 of the respondents had a desire to continue to attend Sea Turtle Camp; however, a majority (n = 14, 58.3%) only attended once.

There was no significant difference in the rating of the respondent's knowledge prior to and after Sea Turtle Camp as it related to sea turtles (p = 0.450) or the marine environment (p = 0.509). The majority (19/24, 79.1%) of children age 13 and older had used the knowledge gained at Sea Turtle Camp and shared it (20/24, 83.3%) with others. All of the respondents confirmed that Sea Turtle Camp changed their behavior as it relates to the marine environment while most, but not all (19/21, 79.2%), said it had an impact on their behavior as it relates to sea turtles. A majority (14/24, 58.3%) of the age 13 and older respondents suggested that their experience might influence future job opportunities. All of the students would recommend Sea Turtle Camp to others, and all but 1 respondent were interested in an advanced version. Only a small proportion (7/23, 30.4%) of the age 13 and older respondents participated in a sea turtle patrol. There was a significant difference (p = 0.001) in the rankings of what the students perceived as most important. When evaluating each of the activities, it was found that field trips (mean rank = 3.79; z = −2.279, p = 0.023), crafts (mean rank =  3.46; z = −2.247, p = 0.025), and games (mean rank = 3.71; z = −2.279, p = 0.023) were found to be significantly more valuable than guest speakers (mean rank =  2.71).

Survey for Parents or Guardians of Former Participants

The survey for parents or guardians (n = 38) was filled out electronically by 19 (50.0%) of the respondents and on paper by 19 (50.0%). A majority of the students discussed in the surveys attended only once (67.6%, n = 25), with 4 students (10.8%) attending twice and 5 (13.5%), 1 (2.7%), and 2 (5.4%) attending 3, 4, or 5 times, respectively. The majority of the parents learned about Sea Turtle Camp from their child's school (n = 20, 51.3%), with all other sources being uncommon (no answer, n = 8, 20.5%; all others being 1–2 respondents). Parents (n = 20, 51.3%), no answer (n = 5, 12.8%), relative (n = 4, 10.3%), and teacher (n = 4, 10.3%) were the most common sources for participant registration; all others received only 1 response (5.1%). The majority of parents (32, 82.1%) noted that their children wanted to continue attending Sea Turtle Camp; 3 (7.7%) and 4 (10.3%) of respondents said their children did not want to attend again or did not answer the question, respectively. Surveys collected from parents suggested that their children's knowledge prior to and after Sea Turtle Camp regarding sea turtles (p = 0.421) and the marine environment (p = 0.423) were not significantly different (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. How would you rate your child's knowledge of sea turtles prior to participation in Sea Turtle Camp?

View Fullscreen

Table 4. How would you rate your child's knowledge of sea turtles following Sea Turtle Camp participation?

View Fullscreen

The majority (33/39, 84.6%) of the parents confirmed that their child shared their newfound knowledge with them; 6 (15.4%) of the parents did not respond to the question. A majority (29/39, 74.4%) of parents also stated that their children shared their knowledge with others; 9 (23.1%) parents did not respond to the question and 1 (2.6%) said their child did not share their new knowledge with others. A majority of parents (32/38, 82.1%) confirmed that Sea Turtle Camp changed their child's behavior as it relates to the marine environment, while 1 (2.6%) parent said it had no impact and 6 parents (15.4%) did not respond. Parents providing an answer all agreed that the camp altered their child's behavior as it related to sea turtles (yes: 34/39, 87.2%; did not answer: 5/39, 12.8%). Sixteen (16/39, 41%) parents felt Sea Turtle Camp may influence future job opportunities for their child, while 13 (33.3%) and 10 (25.6%) parents said they did not think it would influence their child's future job opportunities or did not respond, respectively. All of the parents would recommend Sea Turtle Camp to others, and all but 1 respondent said they were interested in an advanced version for their child. Only a small proportion (8/39, 20.5%) of the parents stated that their child participated in a sea turtle patrol. All of the parents that responded (33/39, 84.6%) were in favor of recommending the camp to other parents for their children; 6 (15.4%) parents did not answer the question. Again, all (34/39, 87.2%) the parents that responded were in favor of enrolling their children into an advanced Sea Turtle Camp; 5 (12.8%) parents did not respond.

There was no significant difference (p = 0.954) in the likelihood that parents would get more involved in marine conservation after their children's attendance at Sea Turtle Camp. When rating the urgency of sea turtle conservation, the responses were mainly distributed to either extreme, from extremely (n = 10) to somewhat urgent (n = 5), and not at all urgent (n = 10) to not very urgent (n = 6) (Table 5).

Table 5. How urgent is the issue of sea turtle conservation?

View Fullscreen

There was a significant difference (p = 0.002) in the rankings of what the parents perceived as most important. When evaluating each of the activities, it was found that field trips (mean rank = 3.42; z = −2.7, p = 0.007) and crafts (mean rank = 3.18; z = −1.99, p = 0.046) were significantly more valuable than presentations (mean rank = 2.67). Field trips (mean rank = 3.42; z = −2.279, p = 0.012) were also found to be more valuable then games (mean rank = 2.97).

DISCUSSION

In this study we examined the effectiveness of a Sea Turtle Camp Program on participant's knowledge and attitudes regarding sea turtles and the marine environment through a pre- and posttest exercise and an outcome assessment survey. Our sample size for the participant group was higher than our sample size for the control group because each school did not have a student with the corresponding required descriptors to match our experimental group. Because there was no significant difference between the results for the control group and participants in the pretest on any of the questions, it appears that the controls were a good match to the participants.

For the outcome assessment survey, response rates were higher for paper-based surveys than for electronic surveys for both parents or guardians and participants. The SKSTMN had expected a higher survey completion rate because each potential respondent had been contacted and asked if they would participate and then allowed to choose which survey modality they preferred, paper-based or electronic. Although the overall response rate of 29.6% for both parents or guardians and respondents was lower than anticipated, there was a high level of agreement among responders. The higher rate of responses observed on the paper-based survey vs. the electronic survey is not a new phenomenon, as it has been noted previously in a review of teaching evaluation surveys by Nulty (2008) where a comparison of 9 studies demonstrated an overall paper-based response rate of 56% vs. 33% for an electronic-based option (Baruch 1999; Cook et al. 2000; Watt et al. 2002; Dommeyer et al. 2004; Ballantyne 2005; Nair et al. 2005; Ogier 2005). As the paper-based surveys undertaken in these studies were face to face, it was inferred that if the paper-based surveys were not face to face but rather required the respondent to mail in their responses, this may give an advantage to the online surveys regarding response rates (Watt et al. 2002; Nulty 2008). To the authors' knowledge, there have been no studies published to compare these 2 modalities. As the paper-based surveys administered by the SKSTMN were not conducted in a face-to-face manner but rather delivered to the corresponding school, sent home with the respondent to complete on their own, returned by the respondent to the school, and then retrieved by SKSTMN representatives, the observation made in the SKSTMN study is that the lack of face-to-face presence for the paper-based surveys did not lend a response rate advantage to the online surveys. Recommendations have been made regarding increasing online response rates including pushing the survey (making it easy to access the survey through methods such as providing a link to the survey via e-mail), sending out reminders, offering incentives or rewards, creating survey questions that enable constructive criticism, and ensuring that respondents know their responses will be used (Nulty 1992, 2008). The SKSTMN met these recommendations—with the exception of offering rewards and incentives. For example, the invitation was sent via e-mail and an option to click on a link was within the e-mail; 1 reminder was sent and the deadline extended 1 time throughout the course of the electronic survey; questions were created with the options for individuals to provide feedback if they chose too; and, in the initial phone conversation and e-mail, potential respondents were informed that the results would be used to further develop and enhance current conservation education programs.

Regarding reminders, only 1 was sent so as to avoid the possibility of irritating potential respondents (Kittleson 1995; Cook et al. 2000). Incentives were not offered because there was no budget for this and the authors were concerned that it could create bias (Nulty 2008). The differences between paper-based and online survey response rates requires further evaluation, which was beyond the scope of this study.

The results obtained from participants in Sea Turtle Camp between the pre- and posttests confirm that the educational modalities being used are successfully relaying the desired information and that the majority of the participants are gaining and retaining this information throughout the Sea Turtle Camp Program. This was demonstrated by the majority of the posttest questions being answered correctly following Sea Turtle Camp participation. Additionally, the results of the pre- and posttests for the Sea Turtle Camp participant group vs. the control group indicate that the curriculum had a significant impact on the participants' knowledge of sea turtle natural history, biology, and St. Kitts–specific sea turtle issues, as former participants answered more questions correctly than did the control group. The authors were pleased to see that the majority of all survey participants were aware of how to help sea turtles, who to contact, and that the majority of camp participants were able to provide the Sea Turtle Hotline number following Sea Turtle Camp participation. While the curriculum and the question regarding who to contact was initially designed to have students answer that they should contact the Sea Turtle Hotline or the St. Kitts Department of Marine Resources, a wide range of answers were obtained which, although did not match the initial answer anticipated, were not entirely incorrect and would have indeed resulted in direct assistance or indirect by that individual or agency contacting the Sea Turtle Hotline or the St. Kitts Department of Marine Resources; thus they were accepted as correct answers. Respondents listed contacts including the SKSTMN, Sea Turtle Hotline, Department of Marine Resources, Police Department, Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine, fisherman, an adult, and teachers. They explained that they could help by contacting any of the aforementioned institutions or individuals, cleaning the beach and ocean, attending Sea Turtle Camp, limiting photopollution, and educating others. Interestingly, for the question in which survey participants were asked to list 2 threats that face sea turtles in St. Kitts, the majority of pretest, posttest, and control group participants answered correctly, but there was a significant difference between responses provided by the pretest group vs. the control group, with a larger percentage of the control group responding correctly than in the pretest group. While there was no significant difference between the answers provided by the posttest respondent vs. the pretest or control groups for this question, more respondents did answer correctly on the posttest vs. the pretest. The authors noted that pretest and control group answers to this question were more broadly related to marine life with answers such as predators, oil spills, extinction, and fisherman, while on the posttest, answers were more specifically related to sea turtles and included but were not limited to dog, mongoose, selling sea turtle products, overfishing, erosion, and night herons. As participants in Sea Turtle Camp tend to have prior interest in the subject matter and backgrounds in which they may have already been exposed to some elements of marine conservation issues, and are then provided with reinforcement and further development of this information during Sea Turtle Camp, the fact that the majority of pre- and posttest participants answered correctly was not surprising. Also, it was interesting to note that broadening of this knowledge base had occurred with the more specific answers that were received on the posttests. Additionally, the fact that the majority of control group participants got the answer correct for this question as well was not surprising. Broad answers to this question on who to contact can be extrapolated from other units in the curriculum related to marine conservation and emergency first response. Participants in Sea Turtle Camp were most likely more focused on providing sea turtle–specific answers, and when they did not have an answer they simply left the question blank.

Based on the responses to the outcome assessment survey, there was no significant difference in the rating of the respondent's knowledge prior to and after Sea Turtle Camp as it related to sea turtles (Tables 3 and 4) or the marine environment. This was contradictory to the results found on the pre-/posttest surveys where there was a significant difference in the knowledge gained from the beginning of the 4-day program to the conclusion, as well as the significant difference found overall in the results for former participants responses to the pre-/posttest vs. the control group. Because the outcome assessment survey lends itself to a subjective evaluation of oneself and others, it is more likely to be inaccurate, which would lead the authors to conclude that there was a positive change in the participants' knowledge base. It has been demonstrated in other studies that campers tend to provide higher self-ratings on knowledge when they have participated previously (Kruse and Card 2010). This prior knowledge may also be a result of previous conservation exposure at home, school, etc., or previous camp attendance predisposing the individual to self-directed information gathering on the subject that sparked their interest. For this study, a portion of the participants on the pretest had previously participated in Sea Turtle Camp (n = 27). Because respondents on the pre- and posttests did not list their names and no identifying information was revealed, the authors could not analyze knowledge of previous participants on the pretest to those in the participant pool who had not previously participated. It is likely that this prior participation resulted in retention of prior knowledge and/or increased confidence in the subject matter, leading to some of the ranking responses. Prior knowledge of conservation matters has been documented as playing a role in youth learning and performance in previous studies (Dochy et al. 1999; Kruse and Card 2010). Additionally, it was found that the questions requiring survey participants to rank knowledge prior to and following Sea Turtle Camp and the urgency of sea turtle conservation received answers that were distributed in such a way that around half of the respondents answered on the positive end of the ranking system and the other half negatively (Tables 3–5), which leads the authors to question the reliability of these responses considering the aforementioned results on the pre- and posttests and the feedback received on the effects that were seen in behavior of participants following participation. In the future, should ranking questions be used, a more thorough explanation of the ranking system will be employed in the survey. Interestingly, despite the fact that the majority of participants indicated that Sea Turtle Camp did not have a significant effect on their knowledge base, they did indicate that it had affected their behavior as it related to the marine environment and sea turtles. Examples provided by participants of how their behavior was affected included: “I now pick up trash off the beach”; “I am eager to tell others about turtles”; “I am now aware of the importance of the living creatures that live in the sea and the coral reefs”; “When I go to the beach I don't litter anymore and I tell people don't litter too”; “I will always clean the beach if I see any garbage”; “I am more cautious with my activities near the sea or ocean”; “It had a huge effect on the way I saw the marine world”; “Yes, because now I know that I should be cautious of how and where to walk when I'm on the beach because there can be nest”; “I know what can happen to sea turtles”; and “I know the different types of sea turtles”. The majority of parents or guardians also indicated that they had observed positive changes in behavior toward the marine environment and sea turtles, and some examples they provided included: “It has increased her awareness of why the marine environment is important and why it should remain pollution free”; “He has become more aware of how dangerous sea polluting is to the marine environment”; “She is more aware of the harm that garbage can do and the interfering with the turtles habitat, nesting places”; “Knows the reasons they come ashore and the names of a variety of turtles”; “He is more self conscious of how important all life forms are”; and “He is now eager to talk about turtles and come patrol and help the research team”. Because the majority of participants and parents or guardians also indicated that they felt field trips were the most important component of the Sea Turtle Camp Program, it was interesting to note that a number of the described positive behaviors resulting from Sea Turtle Camp participation were those that had corresponding field trips associated with them. For example, following presentations, the importance of picking up marine debris was enforced through beach clean-ups and scavenger hunts, and the importance of being able to identify sea turtle species, tracks, and nests was enforced through beach patrol activities.

The fact that the majority of respondents for all surveys indicated that participants shared their knowledge with others, including “parents, classmates, friends, and family”, indicates that the initial goal of the authors to have the children disseminate the information they have gleaned from Sea Turtle Camp to the general public is indeed working, although the actual number of individuals in the general public impacted is not directly measurable.

The majority of participants and parents or guardians learned about Sea Turtle Camp through their schools. This finding was not surprising to the authors, as the informational and registration forms for Sea Turtle Camp are delivered annually to each primary and secondary school on the island approximately 2 mo prior to Sea Turtle Camp and retrieved 2 wks prior to the start of Sea Turtle Camp. The SKSTMN has developed this system to ensure that all children have adequate access to the information, even those without an Internet connection. However, 1 concern regarding this method that has arisen over the years—and was further emphasized through survey responses—is that there is the potential for teachers to specifically select children that they feel are gifted and inclined to go into the science field or those that they would like to keep busy during the summer. This could be an indication as to why the majority of children said on the survey that they would like to participate in subsequent years, but did not, as the forms may not have been disseminated widely and may have only been at the teacher's discretion. Other factors could also include potential participants' schedules conflicting with other camps or summer activities such as travel, and the fact that the SKSTMN has a limit on enrollment, and only a certain number of forms are delivered to each school and they are then told to make additional copies as necessary. One way to avoid the inability of children to register for Sea Turtle Camp in subsequent years is for the SKSTMN to utilize the former participant registration information on file to notify former participants and their parents or guardians that registration forms have been delivered to the corresponding schools and of the deadlines for registration. The fact that the schools are supportive of the Sea Turtle Camp Program, and accept responsibility for distributing and accepting registration forms, is encouraging and highlights the need for additional educational collaborations with the SKSTMN and other relevant agencies to be developed regarding sea turtles and the marine environment.

The majority of respondents said they would recommend Sea Turtle Camp to others, would like to attend again, and would be interested in an advanced version of Sea Turtle Camp. This information, coupled with the pre-/posttest results, indicated to the SKSTMN that Sea Turtle Camp Curriculum I is sufficient and popular enough that a second curriculum should be developed. To this end, the SKSTMN partnered with the Georgia Sea Turtle Center in 2016 to develop a Sea Turtle Camp Curriculum II for former participants to further build on the knowledge base developed in Curriculum I, provide more hands on experience in the field, and engage participants in the development and implementation of a community service project during their Sea Turtle Camp exercise. Themes for this curriculum included sea turtle review, marine debris (both field and classroom based), sea turtle 911 (health and emergency first response activities), beach profiling and threats, tagging and morphometric data, genetics, and community engagement. Curriculum II was piloted in August 2016 and is now one of the regular SKSTMN Sea Turtle Camp Program options.

The majority of participants have not joined the SKSTMN patrol staff on sea turtle night patrols. Additionally, in recommendations for adjustments and improvements, some parents did indicate that they felt getting the children out on sea turtle night patrols would be beneficial. The SKSTMN does invite all participants on night patrols following Sea Turtle Camp participation. Over the years, various modalities have been used for the invitations including offering verbal invitations and information about the Sea Turtle Hotline phone number for organizing a trip through the Camp Program; a verbal invitation during the Sea Turtle Camp Graduation Ceremony; and a written voucher that included both the Sea Turtle Hotline phone number and valid dates for participation presented at the Sea Turtle Camp Graduation Ceremony inviting graduates to join a night patrol. Based on the survey results and follow-up experiences, the SKSTMN has discovered that additional methods must be employed to reinforce the importance of engaging the students with more hands-on experience. While the current Sea Turtle Camp Curriculum I does provide limited experience in fieldwork, and Curriculum II has worked to increase that exposure, there is still a need for a truly field-based camp experience where the participants are completely immersed in the field project. Hands-on opportunities have been shown to increase positive attitudes regarding conservation and promote retention and participation in night patrols or in-water capture; for example, observing a nesting female and collecting scientific data and working as a member of a research team vs. as a passive observer would serve to provide these opportunities (de White and Jacobson 1994). Additionally, former participants and parents are typically hesitant to join on night patrols due to lack of knowledge on what really happens and the associated concerns regarding safety and logistics of being outdoors at night for up to 8 hrs. While we have security patrols for the duration of patrols, unless an individual has observed the process they are often hesitant to join. Additionally, the primary mode of transportation in St. Kitts is the bus system, which has its limits. Bus pick up/drop offs are limited to the main road, requiring the students to walk unaccompanied to the beach, and the system typically stops running between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00, forcing individuals to either leave the patrol early to catch a bus, have to pay for a taxi, or find someone with access to transportation who is willing to transport them to and from the location. Therefore, the SKSTMN is working to develop a field-based curriculum that will run during the annual April school break, which will allow participants to join the SKSTMN on leatherback night patrols for 4 nights, and conclude with participation in 1 in-water capture session as members of the in-water research shore team. By organizing a formal field-based curriculum module, setting up a formal transportation system for all participants during the new program, and having a formal registration process and plan of events, individuals are more likely to participate on night patrols and the interaction with the animals, as well as develop an appreciation for the challenges of fieldwork; this should serve to further enforce positive conservation and environmental behaviors in this group of individuals.

The SKSTMN Sea Turtle Camp Program has positively affected participants and perceptions regarding sea turtles, the marine environment, and conservation in St. Kitts, and the information is being carried forward into the community through former participants. As the issues surrounding conservation of sea turtles and their ecosystems in St. Kitts are ever evolving, it is important that additional and continuing educational opportunities be provided to build on knowledge and positive environmental behaviors developed from the current programs.