Disparate Environmental Monitoring as a Barrier to the Availability and Accessibility of Open Access Data on the Tidal Thames

Abstract

Open Access data plays an increasingly important role in discussions of environmental issues. Limited availability or poor quality data can impede citizen participation in environmental dialogue, leading to their voices being undermined. This study assesses the quality of Open Access environmental data and barriers to its accessibility in the Thames Estuary. Data quality is assessed by its ability to track long-term trends in temperature, salinity, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen. The inconsistencies found in the data required analyses and careful interpretation beyond what would be expected of a citizen. The lack of clear documentation and centralized database acted as a major barrier to usability. A set of recommendations are produced for estuarine monitoring, including defining minimum standards for metadata, creating a centralized database for better quality control and accessibility, and developing flexible monitoring protocols that can incorporate new hypotheses and partnerships. The goal of the recommendations is to create monitoring which can encourage better science and wider participation in the natural environment.

A niche of their own: variations of information practices in biodiversity citizen science

“…The study has, however, found knowledge and interpretation discrepancies between the validation practices and the decision-making practices; there is no clear consensus of how to apprehend data validity. Intermediary participants can serve to minimise the distance between variations of positions in Artportalen, resolving issues of unclear documentation reported in previous research (Lanoue, 2020). Contributing to scholarly information practices research on materiality (e.g.…”

“…Peer production of knowledge comprises a recurring area of investigation both in library and information science and in citizen science research. Library and information science research have been occupied with exploring scholarly information practices through material aspects (Pilerot et al, 2017), reading practices in scholarly work (Late et al, 2019) and co-production of knowledge (Lanoue, 2020). Citizen science research has been particularly engaged with understanding modes of participation and typologies of citizen scientists (e.g.…”

“…, 2017), reading practices in scholarly work (Late et al. , 2019) and co-production of knowledge (Lanoue, 2020). Citizen science research has been particularly engaged with understanding modes of participation and typologies of citizen scientists (e.g.…”

“…, 2018). Lack of clear documentation and centralised databases have been identified as barriers to the usability of citizen science data (Lanoue, 2020). Furthermore, a virtual peer has been found to increase participants’ contributions to projects (Laut et al.…”

“…Regarding participants' abilities to influence their participation, it has been suggested that volunteers ought to be provided more power to make decisions of their own as scientific assistants (Jackson et al, 2018). Lack of clear documentation and centralised databases have been identified as barriers to the usability of citizen science data (Lanoue, 2020). Furthermore, a virtual peer has been found to increase participants' contributions to projects (Laut et al, 2017).…”