A Citizen's Guide to Understanding and Monitoring Lakes and Streams
Chapter 1 - Who Cares About Monitoring?
The Advantages of Citizen Monitoring
The most tangible benefits of citizen monitoring relate to convenience and expense. Sampling programs are always expensive. Costs are incurred during sample collection, analysis, and data interpretation. Although some citizen monitoring programs involve all three tasks, most focus on sample collection. Citizens whose homes are adjacent to a lake or stream or within its watershed are available to do routine sampling, to be the daily eyes and ears for the watershed, and to do extra monitoring during periods of concern.
For example, stream or watershed investigations usually are enhanced by storm event information – that is, data collected while a storm is in progress. Even something as simple as documenting the height of the stream during a storm can be helpful. Since storm events cannot be scheduled ahead of time, it may be difficult for agency staff to obtain these data. Citizens living near the stream are often more able to collect this valuable information.
From a long-range perspective, the advantage of citizen monitoring is that it promotes development of a citizenry that is not only educated about water quality issues but also personally involved and committed. These people become strong advocates for water quality protection programs.
You may find that the greatest benefit is personal satisfaction and enthusiasm. Most of
us have childhood memories of a certain lake or stream we played in. Chances are we still
place a high personal value on that lake or stream. This same type of personal interest
develops when you become involved in monitoring. Once you have muddied your boots in the
water, collected a few samples, and taken some notes, the stream is no longer something
you drive over on the way to work, and the lake is no longer just a place to fish or ski.
They are instead familiar, interesting, complex, and integral parts of your life.
Concerns About Citizen Monitoring
Although citizens have taken on small monitoring roles for a number of years, it was only recently that their involvement became widespread. With this growth has come bigger roles and more intense interest in government actions. In the end. This citizen participation can have nothing but a positive effect on our ability to protect water quality. But in the meantime, a few problems have arisen, mainly concerning differences in expectations between government agencies and citizens monitoring groups.
From an agency perspective, citizen monitoring programs can be a valuable asset to their overall sampling program, a source of unpredictable uncontrollable workload, or both. By its very nature, citizen monitoring produces an active citizenry that is more likely to make phone calls, write letters, and demand action. While this advocacy is one of greatest benefits of citizen monitoring, it also puts responding agencies in a dilemma since they usually do not have the resources to respond immediately to the additional demands. This, in turn, cause frustration and disappointment on the part of the citizens.
A second concern is associated with agency treatment of the data collected by citizens. Unless the data collected by citizens can meet the same standards and were collected and analyzed by the same procedures as those used by the agency, the citizens’ data set will be treated differently. As discussed in the following chapters, there is a myriad of procedures for collecting and analyzing samples. The procedure selected is dependent upon sampling objectives, expertise, available equipment, and, of course, money. The procedure used determines the quality of the data collected. If less exacting procedures are used, the resultant data are not bad or useless, just of lesser quality. Data sources that are not directly comparable because of differences in procedures cannot be treated equally in scientific investigations.
| An Analogy…. You may own a dog with many mixed bloodlines – a mutt. You may claim that he is the world’s best dog, the smartest, friendliest, cutest dog ever. And he may be. But, this a relative comparison. Your dog is the "best" given what you expect and desire in a dog. Someone else may think the "best" dog can only be a purebred with a shelf full of trophies. Both views are right, the problem is that the objectives are different, so different criteria are used. It doesn’t matter which criteria are used until the dogs meet. If you mix a mutt with a purebred, you get a mutt – never a purebred. The same is true for monitoring data. A data set collected using less stringent methods may meet its objectives just as well as a data set collected using the most expensive personnel and equipment available meets its objectives. However, once you have mixed the two data sets, the quality of the resultant set is defined by the set that meets the less stringent standards. |
These concerns can be alleviated by making your monitoring objectives very clear at the onset. What is the purpose of your study? What do you want to know? What do you hope to accomplish? What would you like the final outcome to be? How ill the data be used by you or your group? Will you want to present the data to an agency or decision makers? Who will interpret the data? What are expecting from agencies or other organizations? What are you expecting from local politicians and decision makers?
The answers to these questions will determine the type of monitoring program you design, the data quality required, the people who need to be involved, and their level of involvement. If you goal has less to do with water quality assessment than with convincing agencies or politicians to make a change, then keep the monitoring simple and concentrate your efforts in the political arena.
Once you have determined your objectives and expectations for the project, be sure everyone involved knows what they are. If you are expecting agency involvement or hoping that an agency will at least look at the data for you (not a small task), then let them know. Ask for their assistance. Be sure the other citizens also understand the objectives. Be prepared to remind everyone frequently of what the objectives are. It’s exciting to collect data or discover new problems, but easy to forget that your chosen sampling or analysis procedure place limits on the use of your data.
The Value of Your Efforts
Do not let all this information about data quality, analysis techniques, and agency support deter you. It is provided to help alleviate frustrations and misunderstandings. The point is, citizen volunteers can collect high quality data, but it is expensive, requires a strong training program, and may not do a better job of meeting your monitoring objectives.
Remember, if data collected by you or your group are not accepted in the same way as data collected by a professionals, it is NOT because citizens collected it, but because of the procedures and methods used. Further, the acceptance of your data by an agency or organization does not necessarily give it any more credibility. And it certainly doesn’t guarantee that the data will be used to make decisions or take actions. It is just as valuable to monitor for the purpose of learning about a stream or lake as it is to monitor for the purpose of identifying problems and demanding change.
Last, the role of citizen monitoring is changing. Throughout the country, citizens are taking on more responsibility for monitoring and protecting their environment. They are biting off bigger and more complex chunks as they see the need for their involvement increase. The role of volunteers is destined to become an increasingly valuable component of future environmental monitoring projects.
The next chapter is - Chapter Two Lakes.
Return to Table of
Contents | Lakes-Chapter 2
| Streams-Chapter 3 | From the Field to the Lab | Hydrology
Last updated on April 01, 2008