Volunteer stream monitoring: Do the data quality and monitoring experience support increased community involvement in freshwater decision making?

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Recent freshwater policy reforms in New Zealand promote increased community involvement in freshwater decision making and management. Involving community members in scientific monitoring increases both their knowledge and their ability to discuss this knowledge with professionals, potentially increasing their influence in decision-making processes. However, these interactions rarely occur because, in particular, of perceptions that volunteer-collected data are unreliable. We assessed the agreement between volunteer (community group) and local government (regional council) data at nine stream sites across New Zealand. Over 18 months, community groups and regional council staff monitored, in parallel, a common set of water quality variables, physical habitat, periphyton and benthic macroinvertebrates that are routinely used by regional councils for statutory state of environment reporting. Community groups achieved close agreement (correlations ≥ 0.89, bias < 1%) with regional councils for temperature, electrical conductivity, visual water clarity, and Escherichia coli. For dissolved oxygen, nitrate, and pH, correlations were weaker (0.2, 0.53, and 0.4, respectively). Volunteer assessments of physical habitat were as consistent over time as those of councils. For visual assessments of thick periphyton growths (% streambed cover), volunteers achieved a correlation of 0.93 and bias of 0.1% relative to councils. And for a macroinvertebrate biotic index that indicates water and habitat quality, correlation was 0.88, bias was < 5%, and the average difference was 12% of the index score. Volunteers showed increased awareness of local freshwaters, understanding of stream ecosystems, and attentiveness to local and national freshwater issues. Most volunteers had shared their knowledge and interest with others in their community. Most groups had developed relationships with their regional council, and some volunteers became more interested in engaging in freshwater decision making. Given adequate professional support, community-based water monitoring can provide data reliable enough to augment professionally collected data, and increase the opportunities, confidence, and skills of community members to engage in freshwater decision making.

Black disk visibility, turbidity, and total suspended solids in rivers: A comparative evaluation

“…The most notable benefits of measurement by the black disk method are that it requires no specialized training or costly device, and results can be communicated meaningfully and scientifically. Its strengths allow it to be employed in volunteer monitoring (Storey et al ), and could enhance public awareness and involvement in water quality with programs like the North American Lake Management Society's Secchi Dip‐In (http://www.secchidipin.org). While its ease of use and broad understandability and comparability are akin to the much‐appreciated Secchi disk, BDV can also be used for broader analytical applications, such as to estimate the photopic beam attenuation coefficient of the medium (Eq.…”

Usability of Existing Volunteer Water Monitoring Data: What Can the Literature Tell Us?

“…A total of 15 studies focused specifically on water quality physical and chemical parameters (e.g., bacteria, DO, pH, temperature, conductivity,) and are included in this review (Obrecht et al 1998;Au et al 2000;Canfield et al 2002;Nicholson et al 2002;Loperfido et al 2010;Sarnelle et al 2010;Stepenuck et al 2011;Hoyer et al 2012;Coates 2013;Shelton 2013;Stepenuck 2013;Dyer et al 2014;Muenich et al 2016;Storey et al 2016;Stafford and Peters 2017). Unlike indicator species data, these parameters are often monitored by professionals and volunteers using similar equipment and sampling protocols.…”

“…Two of these studies, Shelton (2013) and Muenich et al (2016), did not use an existing program but instead recruited and trained volunteers specifically for the comparison study and, as with the bacteria studies, also compared different sampling methods between volunteers and professionals. The other four studies (Canfield et al 2002;Hoyer et al 2012;Stepenuck 2013;Storey et al 2016) did use already active volunteer water quality monitoring programs to collect data, but only for sampling events that were part of the experimental design of the study. These studies did not include, compare, or analyze any data or datasets already in existence.…”

“…Although the program had been existence longer and had additional datasets, only the experimental flow measurements collected for the study were included in the comparison analyses. Similarly, Storey et al (2016) compared 12 water quality parameters collected by an existing volunteer monitoring group to those collected by professionals, but through a study design in which professionals and volunteers sampled side-by-side. Although they found that nine of the 12 parameters showed good agreement between the two groups, this comparison study analyzed data only from those experimentally designed samples and did not utilize any of the volunteer programs' previous data.…”

“…Many of these groups have been collecting water quality sampling data such as dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, and conductivity for decades, and have generated continuous, long-term databases that often cover large regions, watersheds, or states. Long-term water monitoring datasets such as these can be useful in providing baseline information for streams and lakes for flagging further sampling needs, and/or providing evidence for impacts of land-use change or climate change (Nicholson et al 2002;Loperfido et al 2010;Hoyer et al 2012;Storey et al 2016). However, although many potentially valuable datasets already exist, they are rarely used.…”