Advertisement

Applying Citizen Science to Freshwater Ecosystem Restoration

  • Monica A. Peters
  • David Hamilton
  • Chris Eames
Chapter

Abstract

Interest in citizen science is growing globally as environmental degradation continues, information needs increase and value of stronger relationships between the science community and public is recognised. How community volunteers participate in citizen science ranges from solely collecting environmental data to being fully engaged in project design and delivery. In New Zealand, community groups lead diverse environmental restoration projects. Responding to an online questionnaire, 137 groups (from a total of 296) reported carrying out their own monitoring to measure environmental change. While 98 of 239 groups reported an interest in monitoring water quality in the future, current freshwater monitoring activities were reported as limited (33 of 143 groups). Current monitoring centred mostly on stream macroinvertebrate counts. Three case studies are presented that outline how community groups have engaged in collecting water quality data. In contrast, a strong culture of volunteer water quality monitoring exists where programmes are designed to educate participants while also providing data for fundamental research, e.g. in the USA, and for government agency-led environmental decision-making. To encourage wider participation of communities, professional scientists and government agencies in citizen science, principles underpinning the development and implementation of long-term volunteer monitoring programmes are outlined. Stronger community participation in monitoring has the potential to improve both scientific and environmental literacy while building more complete data sets describing trends in freshwater resources. Furthermore, in New Zealand an informed and engaged public is in line with goals of local, regional and national government to increase public involvement in freshwater through participatory decision-making.

Keywords

Volunteer monitoring Water quality Participatory decision-making 

References

  1. Allen A, King J, Oakden J (2014) Three case studies: companion document to the evaluation of the sustainable farming fund. Kinnect Group, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansell S, Koenig J (2010) Using CyberTracker – indigenous rangers demonstrate a flexible data collection and monitoring tool and report on extensive on-ground works. Ecol Manag Restor 12:13–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bachmann RW, Bigham DL, Hoyer MV et al (2012) Factors determining the distributions of total phosphorus, total nitrogen and chlorophyll a in Florida lakes. Lake Reserv Manag 28:10–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballantine DJ, Davies-Colley RJ (2010) Water quality trends at NRWQN sites for the period 1989–2007. NIWA Report HAM2009-026. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Hamilton, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs BJF, Kilroy C, Mulcock CM, Scarsbrook M, Ogilvie S (2002) New Zealand stream health monitoring and assessment kit. Stream monitoring manual. Version 2. NIWA Technical Report 111- 1. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  6. Bigham DL (2012) Analyses of temporal changes in trophic state variables in Florida lakes. PhD thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  7. Bone J, Archer M, Barraclough D, Eggleton P, Flight D, Head M, Jones DT, Scheib C, Voulvoulis N (2012) Public participation in soil surveys: lessons from a pilot study in England. Environ Sci Technol 46:3687–3696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonney R, Ballard HL, Jordan R, McCallie E, Phillips T, Shirk J, Wilderman CC (2009) Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Brossard D, Lewenstein B, Bonney R (2005) Scientific knowledge and attitude change: the impact of a citizen science project. Int J Sci Educ 27(9):1099–1121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brumby A, Hartley S, Salmon R (2015) Evaluation of the Great Kereru Count 2014 and recommendations for future citizen science projects. Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  11. California State Water Resources Control Board (2012) Creekwatch: explore your watershed. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell-Hunt DM, Campbell-Hunt C (2013) Ecosanctuaries: communities building a future for New Zealand’s threatened ecologies. Otago University Press, Dunedin, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  13. Canfield DE Jr, Brown CD, Bachman RW, Hoyer MV (2002) Volunteer lake monitoring: testing the reliability of data collected by the Florida LAKEWATCH Program. Lake Reserv Manag 18:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carey CC, Weathers KC, Ewing HA, Greer ML, Cottingham KL (2014) Spatial and temporal variability in recruitment of the cyanobacterium Gloeotrichia echinulata in an oligotrophic lake. Freshw Sci 33:577–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carr A (2004) Why do we all need community science? Soc Nat Resour 17:841–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clary EG, Snyder M (1999) The motivations to volunteer: theoretical and practical considerations. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8:156–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collier K, Clarkson B, Aldridge B, Hicks BJ (2008) Can urban streams be restored? Linking vegetation restoration with urban stormwater mitigation. New Zealand Water and Wastes Association. conference. www.streamcare.org.nz/Collier_2008_Stormwater_paper.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2018
  18. Conrad C, Daoust T (2008) Community-based monitoring frameworks: increasing the effectiveness of environmental stewardship. Environ Manag 41:358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conrad C, Hilchey K (2011) A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environ Monit Assess 176:273–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cottingham KL, Ewing HA, Greer ML, Carey CC, Weather KL (2015) Cyanobacteria as drivers of lake nitrogen and phosphorus cycling. Ecosphere 6:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crall AW, Jordan R, Holfelder K, Newman GJ, Graham J, Waller DM (2012) The impacts of an invasive species citizen science training program on participant attitudes, behavior, and science literacy. Public Underst Sci 22:745–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A (2005) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv 14:2507–2542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Derby M (2012) Local and regional government. https://teara.govt.nz/en/local-and-regional-government/print. Accessed 9 Sept 2018
  24. Dickinson J, Shirk J, Bonter D, Bonney R, Crain RL, Martin J, Phillips T, Purcell K (2012) The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Front Ecol Environ 10:291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ely E (2008) Volunteer monitoring and the democratization of science. Volunt Monit 19:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Firehock K, West J (1995) A brief history of volunteer biological water monitoring using macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 14:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fore LS, Paulsen K, O’Laughlin K (2001) Assessing the performance of volunteers in monitoring streams. Freshw Biol 46:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friends of Waiwhetu Stream (2013) Annual Report, 26 November 2013. Friends of Waiwhetu Stream, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  29. Goffredo S, Pensa F, Neri P, Orlandi A, Gagliardi MS, Velardi A, Piccinetti C, Zaccanti F (2010) Unite research with what citizens do for fun: “recreational monitoring” of marine biodiversity. Ecol Appl 20:2170–2187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haklay M (2015) Citizen science and policy: a European perspective, Case study series, vol 4. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Handford P (2011) Community conservation in New Zealand: towards a shared approach. PA Handford & Associates, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  32. Hilliard G, Breese T (2010) The state of environmental reporting: the best way forward for environmental reporting in New Zealand. Linc Plan Rev 2:28–29Google Scholar
  33. Horizon Research (2013) Business and consumer behaviour 2013. Prepared for the Sustainable Business Council in association with Fairfax Media. Horizon Research, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoyer MV, Wellendorf N, Frydenborg R, Bartlett D, Canfield DE (2012) A comparison between professionally (Florida Department of Environmental Protection) and volunteer (Florida LAKEWATCH) collected trophic state chemistry data in Florida. Lake Reserv Manag 28:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoyer M, Bigham D, Bachmann R, Canfield DE (2014) Florida LAKEWATCH: citizen scientists protecting Florida’s aquatic systems. Fla Sci 77:184–197Google Scholar
  36. Hoyer MV, Terrell JB, Canfield DE Jr (2015) Chain of eutrophication models for assessing the potential impact of nutrient enrichment on Choctawhatchee Bay, FL, USA. Fla Sci 78:20–35Google Scholar
  37. Hughey K, Kerr G, Cullen R (2013) Public perceptions of New Zealand’s environment: 2010. EOS Ecology, Christchurch, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  38. Ipsos MediaCT (2013a) Our mobile planet: New Zealand. Google, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. Ipsos MediaCT (2013b) Our mobile planet: United States of America. Google, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  40. Jordan R, Gray SA, Howe DV, Brooks WR, Ehrenfeld JG (2011) Knowledge gain and behavioral change in citizen science programs. Conserv Biol 25:1148–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kebo S, Bunch M (2013) Canadian ENGOs in governance of water resources: information needs and monitoring practices. Environ Monit Assess 185:9451–9460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levrel H, Fontaine B, Henry P-Y, Frederic J, Romain J, Christian K, Denis C (2010) Balancing state and volunteer investment in biodiversity monitoring for the implementation of CBD indicators: a French example. Ecol Econ 69:1580–1586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindenmayer D, Gibbons D (2012) Can we make biodiversity monitoring happen in Australia? Moving beyond ‘it’s the thought that counts. In: Lindenmayer D, Gibbons D (eds) Biodiversity monitoring in Australia. CSIRO, Collinwood, VIC, Australia, pp 193–201Google Scholar
  44. Lindenmayer D, Likens G (2010) Effective ecological monitoring. CSIRO, Collingwood, VIC, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  45. Lundmark C (2003) BioBlitz: getting into backyard biodiversity. Bioscience 53(4):329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Programme (2012) Maine Lakes Report 2012. Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Programme, Auburn, ME, USAGoogle Scholar
  47. McLean I (2014) Community action and science help restore New Zealand lakes. Solutions 5:46–55Google Scholar
  48. Miller-Rushing A, Primack R, Bonney R (2012) The history of public participation in ecological research. Front Ecol Environ 10:285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ministry for the Environment (2013) Freshwater reform 2013 and beyond. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  50. New Zealand Government (2014a) National policy statement for freshwater management. New Zealand Government, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  51. New Zealand Government (2014b) Resource Management Act 1991. New Zealand Government, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  52. New Zealand Landcare Trust (2013) End-of-drain treatment systems. NZ Landcare Trust, Hamilton, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  53. New Zealand Marine Studies Centre (2012) Marine Metre Squared: developing community tools for marine monitoring. New Zealand Marine Studies Centre, Dunedin, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  54. Newman GJ, Wiggins A, Crall AW, Graham E, Newman S, Crowston K (2012) The future of citizen science: emerging technologies and shifting paradigms. Front Ecol Environ 10:298–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Obrecht D, Milanik M, Perkins B, Ready D, Jones JJ (1998) Evaluation of data gnerated from lake samples collected by volunteers. J Lake Reserv Manag 14:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Office of the Auditor-General (2011) Managing freshwater quality: challenges for regional councils. Office of the Auditor-General, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  57. Open Air Laboratories (2013) OPAL community environment report. Imperial College London, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  58. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (2013) Water quality in New Zealand: land use and nutrient pollution. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  59. Peters MA, Hamilton D, Eames C (2015) Action on the ground: a review of community environmental groups’ restoration objectives, activities and partnerships in New Zealand. N Z J Ecol 29:179–189Google Scholar
  60. Pollock R, Whitelaw G (2005) Community-based monitoring in support of local sustainability. Local Environ 10:211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Powell MC, Colin M (2008) Meaningful citizen engagement in science and technology: what would it really take? Sci Commun 30:126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ramirez-Andreotta M, Brusseau M, Artiola J, Maier RM, Gandolfi AJ (2015) Building a co-created citizen science program with gardeners neighboring a superfund site: the Gardenroots case study. Int Public Health J 7:pii 13Google Scholar
  63. Ravine D (2007) Manawatu River Estuary Ramsar management plan 2007–2012. Manawatu Estuary Trust, Foxton, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  64. Ross D (2009) Landcare in New Zealand. In: Catacutan D, Neely C, Johnson M, Poussard H, Youl R (eds) Landcare: local action, global progress. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, pp 41–54Google Scholar
  65. Rotokare Scenic Reserve Trust (2014) Annual report: biosecurity and ecological activities July 2013–June 2014. Rotokare Scenic Reserve Trust, Taranaki, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  66. Sarnelle O, Morrison J, Kaul R, Horst G, Wandell H, Bednarz R (2010) Citizen monitoring: testing hypotheses about the interactive influences of eutrophication and mussel invasion on a cyanobacterial toxin in lakes. Water Res 4:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Savan B, Morgan AJ, Gore C (2003) Volunteer environmental monitoring and the role of the universities: the case of citizens’ environment watch. Environ Manag 31:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Scassa T, Chung H (2015) Typology of citizen science projects from an intellectual property perspective: invention and authorship between researchers and participants. Policy memo series, volume 5. Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  69. Shirk J, Ballard HL, Wilderman C, Phillips T, Wiggins A, Jordan R, McCallie E, Minarchek M, Lewenstein BV, Krasny ME, Bonney R (2012) Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol Soc 17:29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Silvertown J (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends Ecol Evol 24:467–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Spurr EB (2012) New Zealand garden bird survey – analysis of the first four years. N Z J Ecol 36:287–299Google Scholar
  72. Teacher A, Griffiths D, Hodgson D, Inger R (2013) Smartphones in ecology and evolution: a guide for the apprehensive. Ecol Evol 3:5268–5278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Terrell JB, Watson DL, Hoyer MV, Allen MS, Canfield DE (2000) Temporal water chemistry trends (1967–1997) for a population of Florida waterbodies. Lake Reserv Manag 16:177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tipa G, Teirney L (2003) A cultural health index for streams and waterways: indicators for recognising and expressing Maori values. Report prepared for the Ministry for the Environment ME475. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  75. Trumbull DJ, Bonney R, Bascom D, Cabral A (2000) Thinking scientifically during participation in a citizen-science project. Sci Educ 84:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tweddle JC, Robinson LD, Pocock MJO, Roy HE (2012) Guide to citizen science: developing, implementing and evaluating citizen science to study biodiversity and the environment in the U.K. Natural History Museum and NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology for UK-EOF, London, 29 pGoogle Scholar
  77. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (2012) The United Nations world water development report 4: managing water under uncertainty and risk. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, ParisGoogle Scholar
  78. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1996) The volunteer monitor’s guide to quality assurance project plans. EPA 841-B-96-003. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  79. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Catalog of watershed groups. http://water.epa.gov/action/adopt/network.cfm. Accessed 24 Jan 2014
  80. University of Wisconsin Parkside (2014) Algae estimator. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=appinventor.ai_yelirkered.AlgaeEstimator_WeatherAPI&hl=en. Accessed 15 Dec 2014
  81. Verburg P, Hamill M, Unwin J, Abell JA (2010) Lake water quality in New Zealand 2010: status and trends. NIWA Report HAM2010-107 to the Ministry for the Environment. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, Hamilton, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  82. Wiggins A, Newman G, Stevenson R, Crowston K (2011) Mechanisms for data quality and validation in citizen science. Proceedings of the eScience 2011 workshop on computing for citizen science, IEEE, Stockholm, Sweden 5–8 December 2011, pp 14–19Google Scholar
  83. World Bank (2014) World development indicators: size of the economy. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  84. Worthington JP, Silvertown J, Cook L, Cameron R, Dodd M, Greenwood RM, McConway K, Skelton P (2012) Evolution Megalab: a case study in citizen science methods. Methods Ecol Evol 3:303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Xiao X, Dorovskoy P, Biradar C, Bridge E (2011) A library of georeferenced photos from the field. Earth Space Sci News 92:453–454Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica A. Peters
    • 1
  • David Hamilton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Chris Eames
    • 3
  1. 1.Environmental Research InstituteThe University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.Australian Rivers InstituteGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Technology, Environmental, Mathematics and Science Education Research Centre, University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations