IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of long-term volunteer water monitoring data: A multiscale analysis from a statewide citizen science program

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly Hibbeler Albus
  • Ruthanne Thompson
  • Forrest Mitchell
  • James Kennedy
  • Alexandra G Ponette-González

Abstract

An increasing number of citizen science water monitoring programs is continuously collecting water quality data on streams throughout the United States. Operating under quality assurance protocols, this type of monitoring data can be extremely valuable for scientists and professional agencies, but in some cases has been of limited use due to concerns about the accuracy of data collected by volunteers. Although a growing body of studies attempts to address accuracy concerns by comparing volunteer data to professional data, rarely has this been conducted with large-scale datasets generated by citizen scientists. This study assesses the relative accuracy of volunteer water quality data collected by the Texas Stream Team (TST) citizen science program from 1992–2016 across the State of Texas by comparing it to professional data from corresponding stations during the same time period. Use of existing data meant that sampling times and protocols were not controlled for, thus professional and volunteer comparisons were refined to samples collected at stations within 60 meters of one another and during the same year. Results from the statewide TST dataset include 82 separate station/year ANOVAs and demonstrate that large-scale, existing volunteer and professional data with unpaired samples can show agreement of ~80% for all analyzed parameters (DO = 77%, pH = 79%, conductivity = 85%). In addition, to assess whether limiting variation within the source datasets increased the level of agreement between volunteers and professionals, data were analyzed at a local scale. Data from a single partner city, with increased controls on sampling times and locations and correction of a systematic bias in DO, confirmed this by showing an even greater agreement of 91% overall from 2009–2017 (DO = 91%, pH = 83%, conductivity = 100%). An experimental sampling dataset was analyzed and yielded similar results, indicating that existing datasets can be as accurate as experimental datasets designed with researcher supervision. Our findings underscore the reliability of large-scale citizen science monitoring datasets already in existence, and their potential value to scientific research and water management programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly Hibbeler Albus & Ruthanne Thompson & Forrest Mitchell & James Kennedy & Alexandra G Ponette-González, 2020. "Accuracy of long-term volunteer water monitoring data: A multiscale analysis from a statewide citizen science program," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227540
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227540
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227540&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227540?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0227540. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.