Getting the full picture: Assessing the complementarity of citizen science and agency monitoring data

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2017, Pages

  Hadj Hammou, Jeneen ^a,b   Loiselle, Steven ^a,c   Ophof, Daniel ^a   Thornhill, Ian ^a,d  

^a EARTHWATCH INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

^d BATH SPA UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NITRATE;

ARTICLE; CATCHMENT; CITIZEN SCIENCE; COMMUNITY; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); ENGLAND; GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; NATURAL SCIENCE; PUBLIC POLICY; SURFACE AREA; WATER QUALITY; WATER SAMPLING; COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; PROCEDURES;

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION; ENGLAND; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING;

EID: 85037155123     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188507     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Vörösmarty C, McIntyre P, Gessner M, Dudgeon D. Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature. 2010; Available: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7315/full/nature09440.html%253Fref%253Dnf?message-global=remove&ref=nf
2. Bogardi JJ, Dudgeon D, Lawford R, Flinkerbusch E, Meyn A, Pahl-Wostl C, et al. Water security for a planet under pressure: interconnected challenges of a changing world call for sustainable solutions Introduction: towards Rio+20. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2012; 4: 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.12.002
3. World Water Assessment Programme. The United Nations World Water Development Report 3: Water in a Changing World [Internet]. 2009. Available: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/wwdr3-2009/downloads-wwdr3/
4. Goodchild M. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal. 2007; Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-007-9098-4
5. Kinchy A, Parks S, Jalbert K. Fractured knowledge: Mapping the gaps in public and private water monitoring efforts in areas affected by shale gas development. Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 2015; 0: 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614684
6. Amano T, Lamming J. Spatial Gaps in Global Biodiversity Information and the Role of Citizen Science. Bioscience. 2016; Available: http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/5/393.short
7. Wiggins A, Crowston K. From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Syst Sci (HICSS), 2011 44th. 2011; Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5718708
8. Kinchy A, Jalbert K, Lyons J. What is volunteer water monitoring good for? Fracking and the plural logics of participatory science. Polit Power Soc Theory. 2014; Available: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S0198-871920140000027017
9. Lillesand T. Combining satellite remote sensing and volunteer Secchi disk measurement for lake transparency monitoring. Proc Natl Monit Conf Natl Water Qual Monit Counc. 2002; 1–11. Available: http://acwi.gov/monitoring/conference/2002/Papers-AlphabeticalbyFirstName/Thomas Lillesand-Satellite.pdf
10. Loperfido J V., Beyer P, Just CL, Schnoor JL. Uses and biases of volunteer water quality data. Environ Sci Technol. 2010; 44: 7193–7199. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100164c PMID: 20540530
11. Célleri R, Buytaert W, Bièvre B De, Tobón C, Crespo P. Understanding the hydrology of tropical Andean ecosystems through an Andean network of basins. 2009; Available: http://dspace.ucuenca.edu.ec/handle/123456789/22089
12. Galloway A, Tudor M, HAEGEN W. The reliability of citizen science: a case study of Oregon white oak stand surveys. Wildl Soc Bull. 2006; Available: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34%255B1425:TROCSA%255D2.0.CO%253B2
13. Dickinson J, Zuckerberg B, Bonter D. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: challenges and benefits. Annu Rev Ecol. 2010; Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27896218.pdf
14. Buytaert W, Dewulf A, De Bièvre B, Clark J, Hannah DM. Citizen Science for Water Resources Management: Toward Polycentric Monitoring and Governance? 2016;formerly. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000641
15. Heijden J, Heuvelhof E. The mechanics of virtue: lessons on public participation from implementing the Water Framework Directive in the Netherlands. Environ Policy Gov. 2012; Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.1583/full
16. Water Framework Directive UKTAG. About UKTAG and JAGDAG [Internet]. 2016. Available: http://www.wfduk.org/about-uktag-and-jagdag
17. Steyaert P, Ollivier G. The European Water Framework Directive: how ecological assumptions frame technical and social change. Ecol Soc. 2007; Available: http://www.academia.edu/download/3238716/PROD2007a5865ec_20080117011259410.pdf
18. Moss B. The Water Framework Directive: total environment or political compromise? Sci Total Environ. 2008; Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896970800449X
19. Catchment Based Approach: Improving the quality of our water environment A policy framework to encourage the wider adoption of an integrated Catchment Based Approach to improving the quality of our water environment. 2013; Available: www.gov.uk/defra
20. Conrad C, Hilchey K. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess. 2011; Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5
21. Whitelaw G, Vaughan H, Craig B, Atkinson D. Establishing the Canadian community monitoring network. Monit Assess. 2003; Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025545813057
22. Thornhill I, Loiselle S, Lind K, Ophof D. The Citizen Science Opportunity for Researchers and Agencies. Bioscience. Oxford University Press; 2016; 66: 720–721. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw089
23. FreshWater Watch: The Water Hub. Home page [Internet]. [cited 27 Apr 2017]. Available: https://freshwaterwatch.thewaterhub.org/
24. Lehner B, Grill G. Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world’s large river systems. Hydrol Process. 2013; Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.9740/full
25. Rowney N, Johnson A. Cytotoxic drugs in drinking water: a prediction and risk assessment exercise for the Thames catchment in the United Kingdom. Toxicol Chem. 2009; Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1897/09-067.1/full
26. Crooks S, Davies H. Assessment of land use change in the Thames catchment and its effect on the flood regime of the river. Phys Chem Earth, Part B Hydrol. 2001; Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1464190901000533
27. Bussi G, Janes V, Whitehead PG, Dadson SJ, Holman IP. Dynamic response of land use and river nutrient concentration to long-term climatic changes. Sci Total Environ. Elsevier; 2017; 590–591: 818–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.069 PMID: 28285854
28. Natural England. NCA Profile:115 Thames Valley—NE379 [Internet]. 2012. Available: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/3865943
29. Water for life and livelihoods Part 1: Thames river basin district River basin management plan. Available: www.gov.uk/environment-agency
30. Castilla EP, Cunha DGF, Lee FWF, Loiselle S, Ho KC, Hall C. Quantification of phytoplankton bloom dynamics by citizen scientists in urban and peri-urban environments. Environ Monit Assess. 2015;187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4397-6
31. Environment Agency. About us [Internet]. [cited 26 Apr 2017]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/environment-agency/about
32. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Rivers. 2016; Available: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/CSM_rivers_Sept2016.pdf
33. Taboada-Castro MM, Rodríguez-Blanco ML, Taboada-Castro MT. Assessment of seasonal variations in stream water by principal component analysis. 106. https://doi.org/10.2495/ECO070511
34. Kummu M, de Moel H, Ward PJ, Varis O. How close do we live to water? A global analysis of population distance to freshwater bodies. PLoS One. Public Library of Science; 2011; 6: e20578. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020578 PMID: 21687675
35. Carr D, Olsen A, White D. Hexagon mosaic maps for display of univariate and bivariate geographical data. Cartogr Geogr. 1992; Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1559/ 152304092783721231
36. Birch C, Oom S, Beecham J. Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology. Ecol Modell. 2007; Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0304380007001949
37. Strahler A. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. Eos, Trans Am Geophys Union. 1957; Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/TR038i006p00913/full
38. Haklay M, Weber P. Openstreetmap: User-generated street maps. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2008; Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4653466
39. Ellis PS, Shabani AMH, Gentle BS, McKelvie ID. Field measurement of nitrate in marine and estuarine waters with a flow analysis system utilizing on-line zinc reduction. Talanta. 2011; 84: 98–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2010.12.028 PMID: 21315904
40. Strickland J, Parsons T. A practical handbook of seawater analysis. 1972; Available: http://epic.awi.de/39262/1/Strickland-Parsons_1972.pdf
41. Gesser-Edelsburg A, Walter N, Shir-Raz Y. The “New Public” and the “Good Ol’Press”: Evaluating Online News Sources During the 2013 Polio Outbreak in Israel. Health Commun. 2016; Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10410236.2015.1110224
42. Silvertown J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009; Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016953470900175X
43. Snik F, Rietjens JHH, Apituley A, Volten H, Mijling B, Di Noia A, et al. Mapping atmospheric aerosols with a citizen science network of smartphone spectropolarimeters. Geophys Res Lett. 2014; 41: 7351–7358. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061462
44. Couvet D, Prevot A. Citizen-science programs: Towards transformative biodiversity governance. Environ Dev. 2015; Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211464514000840
45. Ferster C, Coops N. Integrating volunteered smartphone data with multispectral remote sensing to estimate forest fuels. Int J Digit Earth. 2016; Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17538947.2014.1002865
46. Delaney D, Sperling C, Adams C, Leung B. Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biol Invasions. 2008; Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-007-9114-0
47. Sharpe T, Savan B, Amott N. Testing the Waters: After the Ontario government abandoned much of its environmental monitoring, citizens’ groups established their own means of keeping watch. Altern J. 2000; Available: http://search.proquest.com/openview/8bba6deb0ba8b507f918505819d0fbd1/1?pqorigsite=gscholar&cbl=35934
48. Lave R. Neoliberalism and the production of environmental knowledge. Environ Soc Adv Res. 2012; Available: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/berghahn/ares/2012/00000003/00000001/art00003
49. Environment Agency. What’s In Your Backyard? In: United Kingdom [Internet]. The Environment Agency; [cited 26 Apr 2017]. Available: http://apps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/
50. Boakes E, Gliozzo G, Seymour V, Harvey M. Patterns of contribution to citizen science biodiversity projects increase understanding of volunteers’ recording behaviour. Scientific. 2016; Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020317/
51. Kosmala M, Wiggins A, Swanson A, Simmons B. Assessing data quality in citizen science-preprint. bioRxiv. 2016; Available: http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/08/074104.abstract
52. Pratt B, Chang H. Effects of land cover, topography, and built structure on seasonal water quality at multiple spatial scales. J Hazard Mater. 2012; Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389412000052
53. Ledford S, Lautz L. Floodplain connection buffers seasonal changes in urban stream water quality. Hydrol Process. 2015; Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hyp.10210/full https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10515
54. Nicolet P, Biggs J, Fox G, Hodson M, Reynolds C. The wetland plant and macroinvertebrate assemblages of temporary ponds in England and Wales. Biological. 2004; Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320704000898
55. Tulloch A, Mustin K, Possingham H. To boldly go where no volunteer has gone before: predicting volunteer activity to prioritize surveys at the landscape scale. Divers. 2013; Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2012.00947.x/full
56. Devictor V, Whittaker RJ, Beltrame C. Beyond scarcity: Citizen science programmes as useful tools for conservation biogeography. Divers Distrib. 2010; 16: 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2009.00615.x
57. Connors J, Lei S, Kelly M. Citizen science in the age of neogeography: Utilizing volunteered geographic information for environmental monitoring. Ann Assoc Am. 2012; Available: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00045608.2011.627058
58. UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive. 2008; Available: https://www.wfduk.org/sites/default/files/Media/Environmentalstandards/Environmentalstandardsphase1_Finalv2_ 010408.pdf
59. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Monitoring under the Water Framework Directive. Available: https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/63f7715f-0f45-4955-b7cb58ca305e42a8/GuidanceNo7—Monitoring(WG 2.7).pdf
60. Sheppard S, Terveen L. Quality is a verb: the operationalization of data quality in a citizen science community. 7th Int Symp Wikis . . .. 2011; Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2038565
61. Mayfield C, Joliat M, Cowan D. The roles of community networks in environmental monitoring and environmental informatics. Adv Environ Res. 2001; 5: 385–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1093-0191(01) 00090-9
62. Field SA, O’Connor PJ, Tyre AJ, Possingham HP. Making monitoring meaningful. Austral Ecol. 2007; 32: 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2007.01715.x
63. Biggs J, von Fumetti S, Kelly-Quinn M. The importance of small waterbodies for biodiversity and ecosystem services: implications for policy makers. Hydrobiologia. Springer International Publishing; 2016; 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-3007-0
64. Rosset V, Angélibert S, Arthaud F, Bornette G, Robin J, Wezel A, et al. Is eutrophication really a major impairment for small waterbody biodiversity? Arnott S, editor. J Appl Ecol. 2014; 51: 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12201
65. Céréghino R, Biggs J, Oertli B, Declerck S. The ecology of European ponds: defining the characteristics of a neglected freshwater habitat. Hydrobiologia. 2008; Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10750-007-9225-8
66. Downing J, Prairie Y, Cole J, Duarte C. The global abundance and size distribution of lakes, ponds, and impoundments. Limnol Oceanogr. 2006; Available: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.419.397&rep=rep1&type=pdf
67. Biggs, J., Nicolet, P., Mlinaric, M., and Lalanne T. Report of the Workshop on the Protection and Management of Small Water Bodies. 2013;
68. Nicholson E, Ryan J, Hodgkins D. Community data-where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. Water Sci. 2002; Available: http://wst.iwaponline.com/content/45/11/193.abstract
69. Penning-Rowsell E, Burgess J. River landscapes: changing the concrete overcoat? Landsc Res. Taylor & Francis Group; 1997; 22: 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01426399708706497
70. Conrad C, Daoust T. Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environ Manage. 2008; Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00267-007-9042-x
71. Isaac NJB, van Strien AJ, August TA, de Zeeuw MP, Roy DB. Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Anderson B, editor. Methods Ecol Evol. 2014; 5: 1052–1060. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12254
72. Muenich R, Bowling L, Peel S, Turco R, Haas M. The Wabash Sampling Blitz: A Case Study of the Effectiveness of Citizen Science. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2016; 1: 1–15.
73. Scott AB, Frost PC. Monitoring water quality in Toronto’s urban stormwater ponds: Assessing participation rates and data quality of water sampling by citizen scientists in the FreshWater Watch. Sci Total Environ. 2017; 592: 738–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.201 PMID: 28318695
74. McGoff E, Dunn F, Cachazo LM, Williams P, Biggs J, Nicolet P, et al. Finding clean water habitats in urban landscapes: professional researcher vs citizen science approaches. Sci Total Environ. 2017; 581: 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.11.215 PMID: 28069307
75. Brabec K, Zahrádková S, Pařil P, Němejcová D. Assessment of organic pollution effect considering differences between lotic and lentic stream habitats. Assess Run . . .. 2004; Available: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-0993-5_20
76. Montreuil O, Merot P, Marmonier P. Estimation of nitrate removal by riparian wetlands and streams in agricultural catchments: effect of discharge and stream order. Freshw Biol. 2010; Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02439.x/full https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02487.x
77. European Environment Agency. European Freshwater Monitoring Network Design [Internet]. 2016 [cited 17 Oct 2017]. Available: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-023-5/page011.html