How Certain is Good Enough? Managing Data Quality and Uncertainty in Ordinal Citizen Science Data Sets for Evidence-Based Policies on Fresh Water

Q1 Multidisciplinary
J. Stankiewicz, A. König, K. Pickar, Stefan Weiss
{"title":"How Certain is Good Enough? Managing Data Quality and Uncertainty in Ordinal Citizen Science Data Sets for Evidence-Based Policies on Fresh Water","authors":"J. Stankiewicz, A. König, K. Pickar, Stefan Weiss","doi":"10.5334/cstp.592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study investigates surface water quality in Luxembourg with the help of citizen scientists. The fundamental question explored relates to uncertainty and judgements on what constitutes adequate data sets, comparing official data and citizen science. The case study evaluates how gaps and uncertainties in official data for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 (UN SDG 6), Indicator 6.3.2 on water quality, and the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), can be served with citizen science. In two Water Blitz sampling events organised in collaboration with the NGO Earthwatch, participants sampled water bodies at locations of their choice, using field kits to estimate nitrate (NO 3--N) and phosphate (PO 43– -P) concentrations. Samples were collected (428 in total) over two weekend events, providing snapshots in time with a good geographic coverage of the water bodies across the country: 35% of nitrate and 29% of phosphate values were found to exceed thresholds used by the European Environment Agency to classify the nutrient content in water as good. Our study puts forward recommendations on how citizen science data can complement official monitoring by national agencies with a focus on how such data can be represented to serve the understanding and discussion of uncertainties associated with such ordinal data sets. The main challenge addressed is high levels of natural variation in nutrient levels with both natural and anthropogenic multi-factorial causes. In discussing the merits and limitations of citizen science data sets, the results of this study demonstrate that a particular strength of citizen science is the identification of pollution hotspots in small water bodies, which despite being critical for ecosystem wellbeing are often overlooked in official monitoring. In addition, citizen science increases public awareness and experiential learning about factors affecting surface water quality and policies concerning it.","PeriodicalId":32270,"journal":{"name":"Citizen Science Theory and Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Citizen Science Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.592","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Multidisciplinary","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates surface water quality in Luxembourg with the help of citizen scientists. The fundamental question explored relates to uncertainty and judgements on what constitutes adequate data sets, comparing official data and citizen science. The case study evaluates how gaps and uncertainties in official data for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 (UN SDG 6), Indicator 6.3.2 on water quality, and the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), can be served with citizen science. In two Water Blitz sampling events organised in collaboration with the NGO Earthwatch, participants sampled water bodies at locations of their choice, using field kits to estimate nitrate (NO 3--N) and phosphate (PO 43– -P) concentrations. Samples were collected (428 in total) over two weekend events, providing snapshots in time with a good geographic coverage of the water bodies across the country: 35% of nitrate and 29% of phosphate values were found to exceed thresholds used by the European Environment Agency to classify the nutrient content in water as good. Our study puts forward recommendations on how citizen science data can complement official monitoring by national agencies with a focus on how such data can be represented to serve the understanding and discussion of uncertainties associated with such ordinal data sets. The main challenge addressed is high levels of natural variation in nutrient levels with both natural and anthropogenic multi-factorial causes. In discussing the merits and limitations of citizen science data sets, the results of this study demonstrate that a particular strength of citizen science is the identification of pollution hotspots in small water bodies, which despite being critical for ecosystem wellbeing are often overlooked in official monitoring. In addition, citizen science increases public awareness and experiential learning about factors affecting surface water quality and policies concerning it.
有多确定才算足够好?管理数据质量和不确定性在普通公民科学数据集的证据为基础的淡水政策
这项研究在公民科学家的帮助下调查了卢森堡的地表水质量。所探讨的基本问题涉及不确定性和对什么是足够的数据集的判断,比较官方数据和公民科学。该案例研究评估了联合国可持续发展目标6 (UN SDG 6)、水质指标6.3.2和欧盟水框架指令(WFD)官方数据中的差距和不确定性如何与公民科学相结合。在与非政府组织“地球观察”合作组织的两次“水闪电战”采样活动中,参与者在自己选择的地点对水体进行采样,使用现场工具包估算硝酸盐(no3—N)和磷酸盐(po43—p)的浓度。在两个周末的活动中收集了样本(总共428个),及时提供了全国水体地理覆盖范围的快照:35%的硝酸盐和29%的磷酸盐值被发现超过了欧洲环境局(European Environment Agency)用于将水中营养成分分类为良好的阈值。我们的研究就公民科学数据如何补充国家机构的官方监测提出了建议,重点是如何表示这些数据,以帮助理解和讨论与此类有序数据集相关的不确定性。解决的主要挑战是自然和人为多因素造成的营养水平的高水平自然变化。在讨论公民科学数据集的优点和局限性时,本研究的结果表明,公民科学的一个特殊优势是识别小水体的污染热点,尽管这对生态系统健康至关重要,但在官方监测中往往被忽视。此外,公民科学提高了公众对影响地表水质量的因素和相关政策的认识和经验学习。
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
Citizen Science Theory and Practice
Citizen Science Theory and Practice Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
45 weeks
×
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