IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jresou/v9y2020i12p142-d457697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Potential for Citizen Science to Improve the Reach of Sanitary Inspections

Author

Listed:
  • Jo Herschan

    (Centre for Environmental Health and Engineering (CEHE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK)

  • Richard King

    (Centre for Environmental Health and Engineering (CEHE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK)

  • Theresa Mkandawire

    (Department of Civil Engineering, University of Malawi—The Polytechnic, Private Bag 303, Blantyre 312225, Malawi)

  • Kenan Okurut

    (Department of Civil and Building Engineering, University of Kyambogo, Kyambogo Road, Kiwatule—Banda, Kampala, Uganda)

  • Dan J. Lapworth

    (British Geological Survey, Wallingford OX10 8BB, UK)

  • Rosalind Malcolm

    (School of Law, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK)

  • Katherine Pond

    (Centre for Environmental Health and Engineering (CEHE), Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH, UK)

Abstract

To achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 6, universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking-water quality and sanitation for all, and 10, to reduce inequality within and among countries, additional and urgent work is required. Efforts to achieve these Goals in the context of small drinking-water supplies, which are the furthest behind in regards to progress, are of particular need. Reasons for this disparity in progress include the remoteness of access to small drinking-water supplies and the lack of technical and financial capacity for monitoring supplies. The World Health Organization promote the use of Sanitary inspection (SI) as an on-site assessment of risk. Despite the potential to increase the body of knowledge and information on supplies in a region, there has been limited research into the role of citizen science and SIs. To meet SDG targets, we need to improve the reach of SIs. This study uses a mixed methods approach of quantitative on-site SI data collection and remote SI data collection via photographic images, together with qualitative data collection, collected by non-expert students, who are citizens of Malawi, as well as a panel of experts in the field of SI. Results indicate that, although further research into the topic is required prior to widescale implementation, the potential exists for citizens to conduct SI, with remote expert verification of the results using photographic images of supplies. Further documentation or guidance is required to support citizens in this process. The results highlight a critical gap in the availability of appropriate documentation for unprotected spring sources which is urgently required. The use of citizen science for SI data collection is in its infancy. However, this study indicates that there is potential to explore the use of citizen science in this area, which will contribute to achieving SDGs 6 and 10.

Suggested Citation

  • Jo Herschan & Richard King & Theresa Mkandawire & Kenan Okurut & Dan J. Lapworth & Rosalind Malcolm & Katherine Pond, 2020. "The Potential for Citizen Science to Improve the Reach of Sanitary Inspections," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:12:p:142-:d:457697
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/12/142/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/9/12/142/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van der Linden, Sander, 2014. "On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: the case of climate change," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57689, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:3:p:219-224 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Richard King & Kenan Okurut & Jo Herschan & Dan J. Lapworth & Rosalind Malcolm & Rory Moses McKeown & Katherine Pond, 2020. "Does Training Improve Sanitary Inspection Answer Agreement between Inspectors? Quantitative Evidence from the Mukono District, Uganda," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-17, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Fesenfeld, Lukas & Maier, Maiken & Brazzola, Nicoletta & Stolz, Niklas & Sun, Yixian & Kachi, Aya, 2023. "How information, social norms, and experience with novel meat substitutes can create positive political feedback and demand-side policy change," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    2. Christophe Béné & Timothy Frankenberger & Tiffany Griffin & Mark Langworthy & Monica Mueller & Stephanie Martin, 2019. "‘Perception matters’: New insights into the subjective dimension of resilience in the context of humanitarian and food security crises," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 19(3), pages 186-210, July.
    3. Juliette N. Rooney-Varga & Florian Kapmeier & John D. Sterman & Andrew P. Jones & Michele Putko & Kenneth Rath, 2020. "The Climate Action Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 114-140, April.
    4. Christel W. van Eck & Bob C. Mulder & Sander van der Linden, 2020. "Climate Change Risk Perceptions of Audiences in the Climate Change Blogosphere," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-17, September.
    5. Victor Corral-Verdugo & Marc Yancy Lucas & César Tapia-Fonllem & Anais Ortiz-Valdez, 2020. "Situational factors driving climate change mitigation behaviors: the key role of pro-environmental family," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7269-7285, December.
    6. Heinz Welsch, 2024. "Do National Well-Being Scores Capture NationsU+0027’ Ecological Resilience? Evidence for 124 Countries," Working Papers V-443-24, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jan 2024.
    7. Anna Lena Bercht, 2017. "No climate change salience in Lofoten fisheries? A comment on understanding the need for adaptation in natural resource-dependent communities," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 144(4), pages 565-572, October.
    8. Kjær, Trine & Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2016. "An investigation into procedure (in)variance in the valuation of mortality risk reductions," DaCHE discussion papers 2016:4, University of Southern Denmark, Dache - Danish Centre for Health Economics.
    9. Josephine Bremer & Martina K. Linnenluecke, 2017. "Determinants of the perceived importance of organisational adaptation to climate change in the Australian energy industry," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(3), pages 502-521, August.
    10. R. S. Clements & S. K. Birthisel & A. Daigneault & E. Gallandt & D. Johnson & T. Wentworth & M. T. Niles, 2021. "Climate change in the context of whole-farming systems: opportunities for improved outreach," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-20, June.
    11. Frondel, Manuel & Simora, Michael & Sommer, Stephan, 2017. "Risk Perception of Climate Change: Empirical Evidence for Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 173-183.
    12. Nauges, Céline & Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2017. "The Complex Relationship Between Households' Climate Change Concerns and Their Water and Energy Mitigation Behaviour," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 87-94.
    13. Hayam Elshirbiny & Wokje Abrahamse, 2020. "Public risk perception of climate change in Egypt: a mixed methods study of predictors and implications," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 242-254, September.
    14. Martin, Gina & Cosma, Alina & Roswell, Tasha & Anderson, Martin & Treble, Matthew & Leslie, Kathleen & Card, Kiffer G. & Closson, Kalysha & Kennedy, Angel & Gislason, Maya, 2023. "Measuring negative emotional responses to climate change among young people in survey research: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).
    15. Alexa Tanner & Joseph Árvai, 2018. "Perceptions of Risk and Vulnerability Following Exposure to a Major Natural Disaster: The Calgary Flood of 2013," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 548-561, March.
    16. Ulf J. J. Hahnel & Christian Mumenthaler & Tobias Brosch, 2020. "Emotional foundations of the public climate change divide," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(1), pages 9-19, July.
    17. Lea Gärtner & Harald Schoen, 2021. "Experiencing climate change: revisiting the role of local weather in affecting climate change awareness and related policy preferences," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 167(3), pages 1-20, August.
    18. Christophe Béné, 2020. "Resilience of local food systems and links to food security – A review of some important concepts in the context of COVID-19 and other shocks," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(4), pages 805-822, August.
    19. Ambika Markanday & Steffen Kallbekken & Ibon Galarraga, 2022. "The power of impact framing and experience for determining acceptable levels of climate change-induced flood risk: a lab experiment," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 1-18, February.
    20. Craig W. Trumbo & Lori Peek & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly L. Marlatt & Eve Gruntfest & Brian D. McNoldy & Wayne H. Schubert, 2016. "A Cognitive‐Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2233-2246, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jresou:v:9:y:2020:i:12:p:142-:d:457697. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.