Sense and Influence: Environmental Monitoring Tools and the Power of Citizen Science

Abstract

Automated monitoring devices are useful technologies for communities seeking to document and solve environmental problems. However, without deeper scrutiny of their design and deployment, there is a risk that they will fail to have the impact that many of their promoters intend. We develop a rubric for analysing how different kinds of monitoring devices help environmental advocates influence public debates. We apply this rubric in a study of environmental organizations in Pennsylvania that are choosing between recruiting volunteer citizen scientists and using automated sensor-based devices to gather water quality data in streams threatened by hydraulic fracturing for natural gas. Many organizations rely on volunteers using simple monitoring tools because they are affordable and produce easily managed data sets. An argument for this method of monitoring is that volunteering in the field also fosters citizen engagement in environmental debates. By comparison, we find the increased use of automated devices tends to reinforce hierarchies of expertise and constrains the agendas of nonprofessionals who participate in monitoring projects. We argue that these findings suggest that automated technologies, however effective they may be in gathering data on environmental quality, are not well designed to support broad public participation in environmental science and politics.

Key Words:

• Citizen science
• sensing technologies
• environmental monitoring
• energy extraction
• public empowerment

Notes

1 For more information on Penn State's Shale Network, see http://www.shalenetwork.org/.

2 For more information on West Virginia University's Three Rivers Quest, see http://3riversquest.org/.

3 Although these loggers were funded through a larger Marcellus Shale monitoring programme, we found it interesting that this group was not primarily concerned about gas extraction impacts since this may have relieved the group of political restrictions. Furthermore, we later learned that the group transferred their loggers to the supporting organization due to reasons identified in the previous rubric question: they ultimately lacked the expertise and resources to manage the devices and interpret the data.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation [award numbers 1331080 and 1126235]. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.