TY - JOUR
T1 - Sense and Influence
T2 - Environmental Monitoring Tools and the Power of Citizen Science
AU - Jalbert, Kirk
AU - Kinchy, Abby J.
N1 - Funding Information:
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.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2016/5/26
Y1 - 2016/5/26
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Citizen science
KW - energy extraction
KW - environmental monitoring
KW - public empowerment
KW - sensing technologies
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84945367405&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84945367405&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1100985
DO - 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1100985
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84945367405
SN - 1523-908X
VL - 18
SP - 379
EP - 397
JO - Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning
JF - Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning
IS - 3
ER -