Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

  • BEACH Act (Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act). (2000) Public Law 106–284, Accessed 10 Oct 2000

  • 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

  • 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 1–13

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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):237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clean air act extension of 1970 (1970) 84 Stat. 1676, P.L. 91–604

  • Clean Water Act (1972) (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) of 1972 § 1251

  • Cohn JP (2008) Citizen science: can volunteers do real research? BioScience 58(3):192–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad CT, Daoust T (2008) Community-based monitoring frameworks: Increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environ Manag 41(3):358–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copeland C (2016) Clean Water Act: a summary of the law. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Crona B, Hubacek K (2010) The right connections: how do social networks lubricate the machinery of natural resource governance? Ecol Soc 15(4):18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 584:586–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2007) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Domroese MC, Johnson EA (2017) Why watch bees? Motivations of citizen science volunteers in the Great Pollinator Project. Biol Conserv 208:40–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doremus H (1999) Preserving citizen participation in the era of reinvention: the Endangered Species Act example. Ecol Law Q 25(4):707–717

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely E (2006) Writing a QA plan for observational monitoring. Volunt Monit 18(2):19

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely E, Hamingson E (1998) National directory of volunteer environmental monitoring programs, 5th Edn. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Endangered Species Act (1973) 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq

  • Griffin CB (1999) Watershed Councils: An emerging form of public participation in natural resource management. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(3):505–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS, Meffe GK (1996) Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management. Conserv Biol 10(2):328–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM Corp (2012) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence A (2006) ‘No personal motive?’ Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false dichotomies of participation. Ethic- Place Environ 9(3):279–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee V (1988) Rhode Island volunteers monitor the health of salt ponds. Ocean OCEAAK 31:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Margerum RA (2008) A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environ Manag 41(4):487–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin P, Khawaja M (2000) The organizational dynamics of the U.S. environmental movement: Legitimation, resource mobilization, and political opportunity. Rural Sociol 65(3):422–439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (1970) Pub.L. 91–190, Approved 1 Jan 1970

  • Overdevest, C, Orr, CH, Stepenuck, K (2004) Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecol Rev 11(2):177–185

  • Paull J (2013) The Rachel Carson letters and the making of Silent Spring. Sage Open 3(3):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer MJ, Wagenet LP (2007) Volunteer environmental monitoring, knowledge creation and citizen–scientist interaction. The SAGE handbook of environment and society. Sage, London, p 235–250

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:0909.2925

  • Rome A (2003) “Give Earth a chance”: the environmental movement and the sixties. J Am Hist 90(2):525–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 217–226

  • 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 592:738–744

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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):29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stepenuck KF, Green LT (2015) Individual-and community-level impacts of volunteer environmental monitoring: a synthesis of peer-reviewed literature. Ecol Soc 20(3):19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):32

  • U.S. EPA. (1990) Volunteer water monitoring: a guide for state managers. 440/4-90-010

  • U.S. EPA. (1996) Fact sheet series: community-based environmental protection. 100-F-96-002

  • 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-02-008

  • 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

  • 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

  • WDNR (2015b) Wisconsin Beach Monitoring and Assessments. http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/beaches/monitoring.html. Accessed 29 Mar 2016

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, 81 Carrigan Dr, Burlington, VT, 05405, USA

    Kristine F. Stepenuck

  2. Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Old Music Hall, 925 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Kenneth D. Genskow

Authors
  1. Kristine F. Stepenuck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth D. Genskow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristine F. Stepenuck.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stepenuck, K.F., Genskow, K.D. Characterizing the Breadth and Depth of Volunteer Water Monitoring Programs in the United States. Environmental Management 61, 46–57 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0956-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0956-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation