Methods for monitoring urban street litter: a comparison of municipal audits and an app-based citizen science approach

IF 3.5 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Lisa Watkins, David N. Bonter, Patrick J. Sullivan and M. Todd Walter
{"title":"Methods for monitoring urban street litter: a comparison of municipal audits and an app-based citizen science approach","authors":"Lisa Watkins, David N. Bonter, Patrick J. Sullivan and M. Todd Walter","doi":"10.1039/D4VA00008K","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >Street litter and the plastic pollution associated with it is an economic and environmental health issue in municipalities worldwide. Most municipal litter data are derived from costly audits, performed by consultants at sparse intervals. Mobile phone apps have been developed to allow citizen scientists to participate in collecting litter data. Both municipal audits and citizen science datasets may be useful not only for informing municipal management decisions but also for increasing scientific understanding of litter dynamics in urban environments. In this analysis, we compare the spatial patterns and composition of litter in Vancouver, Canada, measured through professional municipal audits and with Litterati, a widely used citizen science app. While reported litter composition was consistent across methods, regression analysis shows that spatially, Litterati submissions were more highly correlated with human population patterns than with correlates of litter. We provide method recommendations to improve the utility of resulting data, such that these non-traditional, underutilized datasets may be more fully incorporated into scientific inquiry on litter.</p>","PeriodicalId":72941,"journal":{"name":"Environmental science. Advances","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2024/va/d4va00008k?page=search","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental science. Advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/va/d4va00008k","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Street litter and the plastic pollution associated with it is an economic and environmental health issue in municipalities worldwide. Most municipal litter data are derived from costly audits, performed by consultants at sparse intervals. Mobile phone apps have been developed to allow citizen scientists to participate in collecting litter data. Both municipal audits and citizen science datasets may be useful not only for informing municipal management decisions but also for increasing scientific understanding of litter dynamics in urban environments. In this analysis, we compare the spatial patterns and composition of litter in Vancouver, Canada, measured through professional municipal audits and with Litterati, a widely used citizen science app. While reported litter composition was consistent across methods, regression analysis shows that spatially, Litterati submissions were more highly correlated with human population patterns than with correlates of litter. We provide method recommendations to improve the utility of resulting data, such that these non-traditional, underutilized datasets may be more fully incorporated into scientific inquiry on litter.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

监测城市街道垃圾的方法:市政审计与基于应用程序的公民科学方法的比较
街头垃圾和与之相关的塑料污染是全球城市的一个经济和环境健康问题。大多数城市的垃圾数据都来自昂贵的审计,由顾问以稀疏的间隔进行。人们开发了手机应用程序,让公民科学家参与收集垃圾数据。市政审计和公民科学数据集不仅有助于为市政管理决策提供信息,还能提高对城市环境中垃圾动态的科学认识。在本分析中,我们比较了加拿大温哥华垃圾的空间模式和组成,这些数据是通过专业市政审计和广泛使用的公民科学应用程序 Litterati 测得的。虽然不同方法所报告的垃圾成分是一致的,但回归分析表明,从空间上看,Litterati 提交的数据与人类人口模式的相关性要高于与垃圾相关性的相关性。我们提供了一些方法建议,以提高由此产生的数据的实用性,从而使这些非传统的、未得到充分利用的数据集能更充分地融入垃圾科学调查中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信