The Challenge of Collecting and Using Environmental Monitoring Data

Biber, Eric

doi:10.5751/es-06117-180468

Cited by 49 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While government-based natural resources monitoring is notoriously hard to fund and implement owing to a variety of political and practical challenges (Biber 2013), recent reviews suggest that citizen science has great potential to meet monitoring needs cost effectively (Aceves-Bueno 2015;Berkes 2009;Connors et al 2012;Danielsen et al 2007;Roy et al 2012). Consequently, increasing numbers of citizen science programs and projects are striving to meet agency needs for monitoring data.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies Employed by Citizen Science Programs to Increase the Credibility of Their Data

Freitag

Meyer

Whiteman

2016

CSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The success of citizen science in producing important and unique data is attracting interest from scientists and resource managers. Nonetheless, questions remain about the credibility of citizen science data. Citizen science programs desire to meet the same standards of credibility as academic science, but they usually work within a different context, for example, training and managing significant numbers of volunteers with limited resources. We surveyed the credibility-building strategies of 30 citizen science programs that monitor environmental aspects of the California coast. We identified a total of twelve strategies: Three that are applied during training and planning; four that are applied during data collection; and five that are applied during data analysis and program evaluation. Variation in the application of these strategies by program is related to factors such as the number of participants, the focus on group or individual work, and the time commitment required of volunteers. The structure of each program and available resources require program designers to navigate tradeoffs in the choices of their credibility strategies. Our results illustrate those tradeoffs and provide a framework for the necessary discussions between citizen science programs and potential users of their data-including scientists and decision makers-about shared expectations for credibility and practical approaches for meeting those expectations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies Employed by Citizen Science Programs to Increase the Credibility of Their Data

Freitag

Meyer

Whiteman

2016

CSTP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In either case, the potential cost to an ecorestoration program that does not include rigorous QA/QC can be considerable. Legal issues can arise without rigorous QA assessment of ecorestoration data (Biber and references therein). Sample design and methodology, data quality, and qualifications of sampling crews (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing accuracy and precision for field and laboratory data: a perspective in ecosystem restoration

Stapanian

Lewis

Palmer

et al. 2015

Restoration Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unlike most laboratory studies, rigorous quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures may be lacking in ecosystem restoration (“ecorestoration”) projects, despite legislative mandates in the United States. This is due, in part, to ecorestoration specialists making the false assumption that some types of data (e.g. discrete variables such as species identification and abundance classes) are not subject to evaluations of data quality. Moreover, emergent behavior manifested by complex, adapting, and nonlinear organizations responsible for monitoring the success of ecorestoration projects tend to unconsciously minimize disorder, QA/QC being an activity perceived as creating disorder. We discuss similarities and differences in assessing precision and accuracy for field and laboratory data. Although the concepts for assessing precision and accuracy of ecorestoration field data are conceptually the same as laboratory data, the manner in which these data quality attributes are assessed is different. From a sample analysis perspective, a field crew is comparable to a laboratory instrument that requires regular “recalibration,” with results obtained by experts at the same plot treated as laboratory calibration standards. Unlike laboratory standards and reference materials, the “true” value for many field variables is commonly unknown. In the laboratory, specific QA/QC samples assess error for each aspect of the measurement process, whereas field revisits assess precision and accuracy of the entire data collection process following initial calibration. Rigorous QA/QC data in an ecorestoration project are essential for evaluating the success of a project, and they provide the only objective “legacy” of the dataset for potential legal challenges and future uses.

show abstract

“…Temporal scale mismatches also are prevalent in environmental governance. Challenges include overcoming the short-term thinking that results from annual budgeting, tenure of those in leadership positions, and political election cycles, in order to achieve long-term management goals, such as ecological restoration (Meadowcroft 2002, Biber 2009, 2013, DeLuca et al 2010. These considerations all are relevant in the context of U. S. forest governance and can include coordinating across jurisdictions to affect ecological processes like fire, or maintaining a coordinated program of work over time to support long-term goals like ecological restoration (Table 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy tools to address scale mismatches: insights from U.S. forest governance

Schultz¹,

Timberlake²,

Wurtzebach³

et al. 2019

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent literature has highlighted the growing array of scale mismatches in environmental governance and offered policy design principles for improved governance approaches. A next step is to develop our understanding of specific policy tools that can address scale mismatches. This paper reviews the range and importance of scale-related challenges and solutions in environmental governance, situating this discussion in the context of forest governance. We then tackle the matter of policy tools to address scale mismatches, by synthesizing findings from recent policy research on two contemporarily important issues in forest governance, collaborative landscape restoration and multilevel monitoring for ecological integrity, each of which presents distinct challenges related to scale matching and coordination. The research suggests that policy innovations are supporting greater scale sensitivity, through specific legal mandates that require scale considerations and promotion of partnerships and networks. Successful strategies balance requirements to work across scales and levels, with flexibility to tailor approaches to local contexts; our work demonstrates how policy tools can facilitate this in particular contexts. Future research should seek to understand the trade-offs of working at particular scales and continue to explore examples of how design principles for adaptive governance manifest in policy and practice across different contexts.

show abstract

The Challenge of Collecting and Using Environmental Monitoring Data

Cited by 49 publications

References 65 publications

Strategies Employed by Citizen Science Programs to Increase the Credibility of Their Data

Strategies Employed by Citizen Science Programs to Increase the Credibility of Their Data

Assessing accuracy and precision for field and laboratory data: a perspective in ecosystem restoration

Policy tools to address scale mismatches: insights from U.S. forest governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About