The Importance and Application of Citizen Science in Hydrology and Water Resources Management

Document Type : Review Article

10.22067/jwsd.v7i2.84355

Abstract

The science of hydrology is the basis for decision-making in water resources management and assessing related risks including floods, droughts, and pollution. Despite its vital relevance to the society, this discipline is facing a severe shortage of data in appropriate spatial and temporal scales. This is especially true in low-income and underdeveloped countries due to lack of information and high cost of the monitoring process. Therefore, data collection by local communities and volunteers and monitoring through public involvement is considered effective in this regard. Citizen science entails the involvement of researchers and local volunteers in the process of data collection and analysis, scientific knowledge development, sharing information and encouraging interaction and responsiveness between local communities and natural environment. Literature review shows a limited number of social studies on hydrology and water resources, indicating low leaning to citizen science in water resources management compared to other disciplines such as ecology and astronomy, but there is an increasing trend due to increasing the importance of water resources. Results of researches show that if citizens are adequately educated, the reliability of collected data by citizens can be acceptable. Therefore, considering the potential of citizen science and use of technologies, the reliable, timely and long-term hydrological data can be obtained and used in decision making and management of water resources.

Keywords

• Crowdsourcing
• Participatory monitoring
• Watershed stakeholders
• Lack of data
• Level of participation

---

References

Afshinnekoo E., Ahsanuddin S. and Mason C.E., 2016. Globalizing and crowdsourcing biomedical research. British medical bulletin, 120(1): 27-33.
Bonney R., Ballard H., Jordan R., McCallie E., Phillips T., Shirk J. and Wilderman C.C., 2009. Public Participation in Scientific Research: Defining the Field and Assessing Its Potential for Informal Science Education. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), 58p.
Bonney R., Cooper C. and Ballard H., 2016. The theory and practice of citizen science: Launching a new journal. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 1(1): 1-4.
Buytaert W., Dewulf A., De Bièvre B., Clark J. and Hannah D.M., 2016. Citizen science for water resources management: toward polycentric monitoring and governance? Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 142(4): 1-4.
Buytaert W., Zulkafli Z., Grainger S., Acosta L., Alemie T.C., Bastiaensen J., De Bièvre B., Bhusal J., Clark J., Dewulf A. and Foggin M. 2014. Citizen science in hydrology and water resources: opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development. Frontiers in Earth Science, 2: 1-21.
Célleri R., Buytaert W., De Bièvre B., Tobón C., Crespo P., Molina J. and Feyen J. 2010. Understanding the hydrology of tropical Andean ecosystems through an Andean Network of Basins. IAHSAISH Publication, 336(30): 209-212.
Cohn J.P. 2008. Citizen science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3): 192-197.
CREATE Lab, Carnergie Mellon University. 2014. Waterbot. Available online at: http://waterbot.org/ (Accessed July 25 2014).
Crocker E., Condon B., Almsaeed A., Jarret B., Nelson C.D., Abbott A.G., Main D. and Staton M., 2020. TreeSnap: A citizen science app connecting tree enthusiasts and forest scientists. Plants, People, Planet, 2(1): 47-52.
Cunha D.G.F., Casali S.P., de Falco P.B., Thornhill I., Loiselle S.A. 2017. The contribution of volunteer-based monitoring data to the assessment of harmful phytoplankton blooms in Brazilian urban streams. Sci. Total Environ, 584(52): 586–594.
Danielsen F., Burgess N.D. and Balmford A. 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(11): 2507-2542.
Del Savio L., Prainsack B. and Buyx A. 2016. Crowdsourcing the Human Gut. Is crowdsourcing also'citizen science'?. Journal of Science Communication, 15(3): 1-15.
Dickinson J.L., Shirk J., Bonter D., Bonney R., Crain R.L., Martin J., Phillips T. and Purcell K. 2012. The current state of citizen science as a tool for ecological research and public engagement. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10(6): 291-297.
Gallo T. and Waitt D. 2011. Creating a successful citizen science model to detect and report invasive species. BioScience, 61(6): 459-465.
Gura T. 2013. Citizen science: amateur experts. Nature, 496(7444): 259-261.
Hannah D.M., Demuth S., van Lanen H.A., Looser U., Prudhomme C., Rees G., Stahl K. and Tallaksen L.M. 2011. Large‐scale river flow archives: importance, current status and future needs. Hydrological Processes, 25(7): 1191-1200.
Herschy R. 2009. Streamflow Measurements, 3rd Edn. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Hochachka W.M., Fink D., Hutchinson R.A., Sheldon D., Wong W.K. and Kelling S. 2012. Data-intensive science applied to broad-scale citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27(2): 130-137.
Lee V.1994. Volunteer monitoring: a brief history. The Volunteer Monitor, 6(1): 29-33.
Leeuw T. and Boss E. 2018. The hydrocolor app: Above water measurements of remote sensing reflectance and turbidity using a smartphone camera. Sensors, 18(1): 1-15.
Little K.E., Hayashi M. and Liang S.. 2016. Community‐based groundwater monitoring network using a citizen‐science approach. Groundwater, 54(3): 317-324.
Lowry C.S. and Fienen M.N. 2013. CrowdHydrology: crowdsourcing hydrologic data and engaging citizen scientists. Ground Water, 51(1): 151-156.
Michelsen N., Dirks H., Schulz S., Kempe S., Al-Saud M. and Schüth C. 2016. YouTube as a crowd-generated water level archive. Science of the Total Environment, 568(15): 189-195.
Mishra A.K. and Coulibaly P., 2009. Developments in hydrometric network design: A review. Reviews of Geophysics, 47(2): 1-24.
Newman G., Zimmerman D., Crall A., Laituri M., Graham J. and Stapel L. 2010. User-friendly web mapping: lessons from a citizen science website. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24(12): 1851-1869.
Njue N., Kroese J.S., Gräf J., Jacobs S.R., Weeser B., Breuer L. and Rufino M.C. 2019. Citizen science in hydrological monitoring and ecosystem services management: State of the art and future prospects. Science of the Total Environment, 693(13): 1-18.
Ochoa-Tocachi B.F., Buytaert W., Antiporta J., Acosta L., Bardales J.D., Célleri R., Crespo P., Fuentes P., Gil-Ríos J., Guallpa M. and Llerena C. 2018. High-resolution hydrometeorological data from a network of headwater catchments in the tropical Andes. Scientific Data, 5: 1-16.
Overdevest C., Orr C.H. and Stepenuck K. 2004. Volunteer stream monitoring and local participation in natural resource issues. Human Ecology Review, 11(2): 177-185.
Pearson C.P. 1998. Changes to New Zealand's national hydrometric network in the 1990s. Journal of Hydrology New Zealand, 37(1): 1-17.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/tools/expertlens.html (visited 5 September 2020).
.Riesch H. and Potter C. 2014. Citizen science as seen by scientists: Methodological, epistemological and ethical dimensions. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1): 107-120.
Rinderer M., Kollegger A., Fischer B.M., Stähli M. and Seibert J. 2012. Sensing with boots and trousers—qualitative field observations of shallow soil moisture patterns. Hydrological Processes, 26(26): 4112-4120.
Rotman D., Hammock J., Preece J., Hansen D., Boston C., Bowser A. and He Y. 2014. Motivations affecting initial and long-term participation in citizen science projects in three countries. iConference 2014 Proceedings in Berlin, Germany (Humboldt University Campus), 110-124.
Royem A.A., Mui C.K., Fuka D.R. and Walter M.T. 2012. Proposing a low-tech, affordable, accurate stream stage monitoring system. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(6): 2237-2242.
Saldivar J., Báez M., Rodriguez C., Convertino G. and Kowalik G. 2016, October. Idea Management Communities in the Wild: An Exploratory Study of 166 Online Communities. In2016 International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems in Orlando Florida, USA (CTS). 81-89. IEEE.
Seymour V. and Regalado C., 2014. Extreme citizen science (excites): one end of the citizen science spectrum. In British Hydrological Society South East Section Meeting.
Silvertown J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(9): 467-471.
Starkey E., Parkin G., Birkinshaw S., Large A., Quinn P. and Gibson C. 2017. Demonstrating the value of community-based (‘citizen science’) observations for catchment modelling and characterisation. Journal of Hydrology, 548(17): 801-817.
Swan M. 2012. Crowdsourced health research studies: an important emerging complement to clinical trials in the public health research ecosystem. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(2): 1-13.
Vos L.D., Leijnse H., Overeem A. and Uijlenhoet R. 2017. The potential of urban rainfall monitoring with crowdsourced automatic weather stations in Amsterdam. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21(2): 765-777.
Weeser B., Kroese J.S., Jacobs S.R., Njue N., Kemboi Z., Ran A., Rufino M.C. and Breuer L. 2018. Citizen science pioneers in Kenya–A crowdsourced approach for hydrological monitoring. Science of The Total Environment, 631-632(5): 1590-1599.
Wiggins A. and Crowston K. 2011, January. From conservation to crowdsourcing: A typology of citizen science. Proceedings of the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences – 2011 in Kauai, Hawaii, USA, 1-10.
Williams M., Cornford D., Bastin L., Jones R. and Parker S. 2011. Automatic processing, quality assurance and serving of real-time weather data. Computers and Geosciences, 37(3): 353-362.
World Meteorological Organization, 1994. Guide to Hydrological Practices: Data Acquisition and Processing, Analysis, Forecasting and Other Applications. World Meteorological Organization.