The Accuracy of Water Quality Monitoring Data: A Comparison Between Citizen Scientists and Professionals by Ashley Shelton A Thesis Submitted to Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Applied Science June 14, 2013, Halifax, Nova Scotia Copyright Ashley Shelton, 2013 Approved: Dr. Cathy Conrad Supervisor Department of Geography Approved: Dr. Shannon Sterling Supervisor Earth Sciences, Dalhousie University Approved: Dr. Kevin Garroway External Examiner Water Monitoring & Reporting Specialist Nova Scotia Environment Approved: Dr. Peter Bush Supervisory Committee Member Nova Scotia Environment Approved: Dr. Hai Wang Graduate Studies Representative Date: June 14, 2013 Abstract The Accuracy of Water Quality Monitoring Data: A Comparison Between Citizen Scientists and Professionals By Ashley M. Shelton This study compared water quality data of trained citizen scientists and a water professional. Side-by-side field measurements in Nova Scotia’s freshwater streams were conducted to determine how professional measurements compared to citizen scientists and to identify what factors improve the ability of citizen scientists to collect accurate water quality data. It was expected that no significant difference would be found between citizen scientists and the professional scientist for all freshwater parameters, within mechanical error and government data correction criteria. Results identified similarities for volunteer and professional measurements including water temperature, pH, conductivity and discharge, while there were significant differences revealed for dissolved oxygen. Changes to address the differences found include further training in calibration and field procedures, to offer a better chance of integration of volunteer data with government run programs. The study aimed to demonstrate the value of volunteer data and whether it can be used to increase the overall knowledge of water resources. Keywords. Citizen science, Community-based monitoring, Data accuracy, Data collection, Freshwater stream, Monitoring-program design, Surface water, Water quality June 14, 2013 ii Acknowledgements This project could not have been completed without many people and I wish to acknowledge their assistance and support during the course of this study. I am indebted to my supervisors, Dr. Shannon Sterling and Dr. Cathy Conrad, for all their direction, advice, patience and most of all enthusiasm for this study. I am very grateful to my committee member Dr. Peter Bush for providing me his guidance, time and academic experience. The contributions from Dr. Ron Russell and his vital expertise were instrumental in the statistical analysis of this study. I wish to thank the volunteer participants who were involved in the water quality data collection, your time and effort was greatly appreciated. I must acknowledge Melissa Healey who was invaluable during every step of this project, she is a super star. The informal support and encouragement of my family and friends has been indispensable to my sanity, as well as providing their time as proofreaders. Lastly, to Jason, my rock, I thank him. In conclusion, I would like to recognize that this research would not have been possible without the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Community-University Research Alliances program, CURA H O, Saint Mary’s 2 University Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research (FGSR Graduate Award), and the Department of Geography at Saint Mary’s University (Teaching Assistantships). iii Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .................................... 1 1.1 Motivation ................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Perceptions and Challenges of Citizen Science ....................................................... 6 1.3 Water Quality Monitoring ...................................................................................... 11 1.3.1 Water Quality Monitoring Parameters ....................................................... 12 1.3.2 Sources of Error and Variability of Water Quality Data ........................... 14 1.4 Comparative Studies: Volunteer vs. Professional .................................................. 18 1.5 Knowledge Gaps .................................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 2: METHODS ................................................................................................. 25 2.1 Study Design .......................................................................................................... 25 2.2 Study Area ............................................................................................................. 29 2.2.1 Water Quality of Study Area ..................................................................... 34 2.2.2 Geology of Study Area .............................................................................. 35 2.3 Participant Recruitment and Training .................................................................... 38 2.4 Field Methods ........................................................................................................ 40 2.4.1 Water Quality Field Measurements ........................................................... 41 2.4.2 Channel and Velocity Measurements ........................................................ 43 2.4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control ............................................................ 44 2.5 Treatment Group Survey Design and Application ................................................. 46 iv 2.6 Analysis Methods ................................................................................................... 47 2.6.1 Calculating Discharge ................................................................................ 47 2.6.2 Normality and Distribution ........................................................................ 48 2.6.3 Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test ...................................................................... 49 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ................................................................................................... 52 3.1 Water Quality Data Comparison Results ............................................................... 52 3.1.1 Water Temperature .................................................................................... 52 3.1.2 pH ............................................................................................................... 54 3.1.3 Dissolved Oxygen ...................................................................................... 58 3.1.4 Conductivity ............................................................................................... 60 3.1.5 Discharge ................................................................................................... 64 3.2 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................. 68 CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 75 4.1 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 75 4.1.1 Summary of Results ................................................................................... 75 4.1.2 General Patterns ......................................................................................... 76 4.1.3 Interpretation .............................................................................................. 77 4.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 81 4.2.1 Main Findings ............................................................................................ 83 4.2.2 Limitations and Recommendations ............................................................ 85 4.2.3 Final Conclusions ....................................................................................... 86 References .......................................................................................................................... 88 v Appendix A .......................................................................................................................... x Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... xviii List of Tables Table 1.0: List of community groups involved in study ...................................................... x Table 2.0: Professional Plus System Cable and Sensor Specifications ............................. 27 Table 2.1: Data correction criteria and maximum allowable limits for water quality monitoring sensors values .................................................................................................. 28 Table 2.2: Sample site characteristics ................................................................................ 31 Table 2.3: Water quality monitoring parameters used in study .......................................... xi Table 3.0. Treatment group channel and velocity measurements ...................................... 65 Table 3.1: Control group channel and velocity measurements .......................................... 66 Table 3.2: Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for water quality d data ............................. 70 x Table 3.3: Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for water quality d data based on natural pH breaks in control data ......................................................................................................... 71 Table 3.4: Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for water quality dischargedata ................. 72 Table 3.5: Summary of water quality comparison analysis ............................................... 73 Table 3.6: Summary of treatment group participant survey responses ............................. xix Table 3.7: Field and Calibration Observations .................................................................. xx Table 3.8: Wilcoxon signed-rank test results for water qualitydata divided by experience, education and training ...................................................................................................... xxii vi List of Figures Figure 2.0: Distribution of sample sites within watershed boundaries and provincial districts ............................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2.1: Distribution of thesis sample sites within ANC zones of risk ....................... 37 G Figure 2.2: Calibration sheet .............................................................................................. xii Figure 2.3: Field sheet ....................................................................................................... xiii Figure 2.4: Email correspondence ..................................................................................... xv Figure 2.5: Informed consent form ................................................................................... xvi Figure 2.6: Participant questionnaire ............................................................................... xvii Figure 3.1: Distribution of difference in water temperature (°C) (d ) .............................. 53 T Figure 3.2: Scatterplot of control group water temperature measurements (C ) versus T treatment group water temperature measurements (T ) ..................................................... 54 T Figure 3.3: Difference in pH data (d ) ............................................................................ 56 pH Figure 3.4: Scatterplot of control group pH measurements (C ) versus treatment group pH pH measurements (T ) .................................................................................................... 57 pH Figure 3.5: Difference in DO (mg/L) data (d ) ............................................................... 59 DO Figure 3.6: Difference of DO (%) data (d ) ..................................................................... 60 DO Figure 3.7: Difference of Conductivity (uS/cm) data (d ) ................................................. 62 C Figure 3.8: Difference of SPC (uS/cm) data (d ) ............................................................ 63 SPC Figure 3.9: Difference of TDS (mg/L) data (d ) ............................................................. 63 TDS Figure 3.10: Difference of Discharge (m3/s) data (d ) ...................................................... 67 D Figure 3.11: Difference of Bankfull Discharge (m3/s) data (d ) ...................................... 67 BD Figure 3.12: Difference in Discharge (m3/s) data (d ) and Bankfull Discharge (m3/s) data D (d ) ................................................................................................................................... 68 BD Figure 3.13: Difference in water temperature (°C) (d ) .................................................. xxiii T Figure 3.14: Difference in pH data (d ) ........................................................................ xxiii pH Figure 3.15: Difference in pH data (d ) values below 6pH .......................................... xxiv pH Figure 3.16: Scatterplot of pH measurements (C ) values less than 6pH ..................... xxiv pH Figure 3.17: Difference in pH data (d ) between 6 and 7.5pH ...................................... xxv pH Figure 3.18: Scatterplot pH measurements (C ) between 6 and 7.5pH ......................... xxv pH vii Figure 3.19: Difference in pH data (d ) greater than 7.5pH ......................................... xxvi pH Figure 3.20: Scatterplot pH measurements (C ) values greater than 7.5pH ................. xxvi pH Figure 3.21: Difference in DO (mg/L) data (d ) .......................................................... xxvii DO Figure 3.22: Difference in DO (%) data (d ) .............................................................. xxvii DO Figure 3.23: Difference in Conductivity (uS/cm) data (d ) ......................................... xxviii C Figure 3.24: Difference in SPC (uS/cm) data (d ) .................................................... xxviii SPC Figure 3.25: Difference in TDS (mg/L) data (d ) ....................................................... xxix TDS Figure 3.26: Normality of Water Temperature (°C) data ............................................... xxix Figure 3.27: Normality of transformed Water Temperature (°C) data ............................ xxx Figure 3.28: Normality of pH data ................................................................................... xxx Figure 3.29: Normality of transformed pH data ............................................................. xxxi Figure 3.30: Normality of DO (mg/L) data .................................................................... xxxi Figure 3.31: Normality of transformed DO (mg/L) data ............................................... xxxii Figure 3.32: Normality test of DO (%) data .................................................................. xxxii Figure 3.33: Normality of transformed DO (%) data....................................................xxxiii Figure 3.34: Normality of Conductivity (uS/cm) data .................................................. xxxiii Figure 3.35: Normality of transformed Conductivity (uS/cm) data ............................. xxxiv Figure 3.36: Normality of Specific Conductivity (uS/cm) data .................................... xxxiv Figure 3.37: Normality of transformed Specific Conductivity (uS/cm) data ................ xxxv Figure 3.38: Normality of Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) data ..................................... xxxv Figure 3.39: Normality of transformed Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) data................ xxxvi Figure 3.40: Normality of Discharge (m3/s) data ........................................................ xxxvi Figure 3.41: Normality of transformed Discharge (m3/s) data .................................... xxxvii Figure 3.42: Normality of Bankfull Discharge (m3/s) data ......................................... xxxvii Figure 3.43: Normality of transformed Discharge (m3/s) data ................................... xxxviii viii List of Abbreviations CABIN Canadian Aquatic Biomonitoring Network CAMP Community Aquatic Monitoring Program CBEMN Community-Based Environmental Monitoring Network CBM Community-Based Monitoring CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CEW Citizens’ Environment Watch DO Dissolved Oxygen EMAN Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Network GNL Government of Newfoundland & Labrador NGO Non-Governmental Organizations NSE Nova Scotia Environment QA/QC Quality Assurance Quality Control RCCA Reef Check California Association REB Research Ethics Board RWN River Watch Network USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey WQMN Water Quality Monitoring Network YSI ProPlus YSI Professional Plus ix Chapter One Introduction and Literature Review 1.1 Motivation Within the province of Nova Scotia, and throughout the world, the need for water quality data has become apparent, as both human and ecosystem health are intrinsically tied to this resource. Comparatively, as the public’s environmental consciousness continues to rise (Conrad & Daoust, 2008; Savan et al., 2003), so do water quality concerns such as the lack of information on water quality in rural areas (Fore, Paulsen & O'Laughlin, 2001; Roa Garcia & Brown, 2009); environmental pollution, particularly in water sources (Silva & Sacomani, 2000); and current and/or future water shortages (Asano, 2009; UNU-INWEH, 2012, p.19). To address these water quality and quantity issues, accurate water testing and monitoring are necessary to track and act on these concerns; however, the use of volunteer-based monitoring programs as a source of data collection have been historically considered unreliable (Breed, Stichter & Crone, 2012; Fore, Paulsen, O’Laughlin, 2001; Gillett et al., 2011; Loperfido, Beyer, Just & Schnoor, 2010; Schmeller et al., 2009). As the quality of this data has not yet been accepted among academic and governmental communities, this study sought to examine the accuracy of volunteer-based water quality data collection when compared to a professional water scientist to identify if volunteer data could be integrated in government run programs. Water quality data can be collected by many sources, including government agencies, educational institutions and private consulting firms. The individuals collecting the data from these sources are termed “professionals” due to their formal training and 1