Environmental Management

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 46–57 | Cite as

Characterizing the Breadth and Depth of Volunteer Water Monitoring Programs in the United States

Article

Abstract

A survey of 345 volunteer water monitoring programs in the United States was conducted to document their characteristics, and perceived level of support for data to inform natural resource management or policy decisions. The response rate of 86% provided information from 46 states. Programs represented a range of ages, budgets, objectives, scopes, and level of quality assurance, which influenced data uses and perceived support by sponsoring agency administrators and external decision makers. Most programs focused on rivers, streams, and lakes. Programs had not made substantial progress to develop EPA or state-approved quality assurance plans since 1998, with only 48% reporting such plans. Program coordinators reported feeling slightly more support for data to be used for management as compared to policy decisions. Programs with smaller budgets may be at particular risk of being perceived to lack credibility due to failure to develop quality assurance plans. Over half of programs identified as collaborative, in that volunteers assisted scientists in program design, data analysis and/or dissemination of results. Just under a third were contributory, in which volunteers primarily collected data in a scientist-defined program. Recommendations to improve perceived data credibility, and to augment limited budgets include developing quality assurance plans and gaining agency approval, and developing partnerships with other organizations conducting monitoring in the area to share resources and knowledge. Funding agencies should support development of quality assurance plans to help ensure data credibility. Service providers can aid in plan development by providing training to program staff over time to address high staff turnover rates.

Keywords

Citizen science Public participation in scientific research Volunteer monitoring Watershed management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the input of volunteer monitoring program coordinators from across the United States that informed this research. Thanks also to Kristen Livingstone and Sergei Bluman for assistance in compiling 1998 comparison data.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with applicable ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adler JH (2002) Fables of the Cuyahoga: reconstructing a history of environmental protection. Faculty Publications Paper 191 http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/191. Accessed 29 Mar 2016
  2. BEACH Act (Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act). (2000) Public Law 106–284, Accessed 10 Oct 2000Google Scholar
  3. Biedermann, J, Blasczyk J (2006) Citizen water monitoring survey–-Streams. Final Report. http://watermonitoring.uwex.edu/pdf/level1/news/2006WAVSurveyResults.pdf. Accessed 17 Oct 2017
  4. Campbell AL (2003) Introduction: the reciprocal participation-policy relationship. In: Campbell AL (ed) How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark CF, Kotchen MJ, Moore MR (2003) Internal and external influences on pro-environmental behavior: Participation in a green electricity program. J Environ Psychol 23(3):237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clean air act extension of 1970 (1970) 84 Stat. 1676, P.L. 91–604Google Scholar
  7. Clean Water Act (1972) (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) of 1972 § 1251Google Scholar
  8. Cohn JP (2008) Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? BioScience 58(3):192–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conrad CT, Daoust T (2008) Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environ Manag 41(3):358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Copeland C (2016) Clean Water Act: a summary of the law. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Crona B, Hubacek K (2010) The right connections: how do social networks lubricate the machinery of natural resource governance? Ecol Soc 15(4):18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cunha DGF, Casali SP, de Falco PB, Thornhill I, Loiselle SA (2017) The contribution of volunteer-based monitoring data to the assessment of harmful phytoplankton blooms in Brazilian urban streams. Sci Total Environ 584:586–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  14. Domroese MC, Johnson EA (2017) Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volunteers in the Great Pollinator Project. Biol Conserv 208:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doremus H (1999) Preserving citizen participation in the era of reinvention: the Endangered Species Act example. Ecol Law Q 25(4):707–717Google Scholar
  16. Ely E (2006) Writing a QA plan for observational monitoring. Volunt Monit 18(2):19Google Scholar
  17. Ely E, Hamingson E (1998) National directory of volunteer environmental monitoring programs, 5th Edn. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Endangered Species Act (1973) 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seqGoogle Scholar
  19. Griffin CB (1999) Watershed Councils: An emerging form of public participation in natural resource management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(3):505–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management. Conserv Biol 10(2):328–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IBM Corp (2012) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21. IBM Corp, Armonk, NYGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawrence A (2006) ‘No personal motive?’ Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation. Ethic- Place Environ 9(3):279–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee V (1988) Rhode Island volunteers monitor the health of salt ponds. Ocean OCEAAK 31:5Google Scholar
  24. Margerum RA (2008) A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environ Manag 41(4):487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McLaughlin P, Khawaja M (2000) The organizational dynamics of the U.S. environmental movement: Legitimation, resource mobilization, and political opportunity. Rural Sociol 65(3):422–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (1970) Pub.L. 91–190, Approved 1 Jan 1970Google Scholar
  27. Overdevest, C, Orr, CH, Stepenuck, K (2004) Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecol Rev 11(2):177–185Google Scholar
  28. Paull J (2013) The Rachel Carson letters and the making of Silent Spring. Sage Open 3(3):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pfeffer MJ, Wagenet LP (2007) Volunteer environmental monitoring, knowledge creation and citizen–scientist interaction. The SAGE handbook of environment and society. Sage, London, p 235–250Google Scholar
  30. Raddick, MJ, Bracey, G, Gay, PL, Lintott, CJ, Murray, P, Schawinski, K, et al. (2009) Galaxy zoo: exploring the motivations of citizen science volunteers. Preprint at arXiv:0909.2925Google Scholar
  31. Rome A (2003) “Give Earth a chance”: the environmental movement and the sixties. J Am Hist 90(2):525–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rotman, D, Preece, J, Hammock, J, Procita, K, Hansen, D, Parr, C, et al. (2012) Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work, p 217–226Google Scholar
  33. Scott AB, Frost PC (2017) 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 592:738–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shirk JL, Ballard HL, Wilderman CC, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, McCallie E, Minarchek M, Lewenstein BV, Kransey ME, Bonney R (2012) Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc 17(2):29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stepenuck KF, Green LT (2015) Individual-and community-level impacts of volunteer environmental monitoring: a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature. Ecol Soc 20(3):19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Storey, R, Wright-Stow, A, Kin, E, Davies-Colley, R, Stott, R (2016) Volunteer stream monitoring: Do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making? Ecol Soc 21(4):32Google Scholar
  37. U.S. EPA. (1990) Volunteer water monitoring: a guide for state managers. 440/4-90-010Google Scholar
  38. U.S. EPA. (1996) Fact sheet series: community-based environmental protection. 100-F-96-002Google Scholar
  39. U.S. EPA. (2002) Guidelines for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/260R-02-008Google Scholar
  40. U.S. EPA. (2017) Quality Assurance Project Plan for Citizen Science Projects. https://www.epa.gov/citizen-science/quality-assurance-project-plan-citizen-science-projects Accessed 29 Oct 2017
  41. WDNR (2015a) Wisconsin’s Water Monitoring Strategy: 2015–2020. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/surfacewater/monitoring/strategy/Strategy_2015_2020.pdf. Accessed 14 Oct 2017
  42. WDNR (2015b) Wisconsin Beach Monitoring and Assessments. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/beaches/monitoring.html. Accessed 29 Mar 2016

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Planning and Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations