Community Environmental Monitoring — friend or foe?

by Leeta Caiger and Peter Coad

At a time when concepts such as accountability, quality systems and accreditation dominate our science, it may seem incongruous to some that members of the community are increasingly involved in the collection of environmental samples and data. In fact such has been the rise in Community Environmental Monitoring (CEM) that the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has recently published a directory labelled "Listening to the Land". This has over 200 entries, enlisting the help of some 150 000 to 200 000 volunteers. As this book is only the first edition, ACF points out that there may be a considerable number of projects that are yet to be included.

So just what is Community Environmental Monitoring and what are its benefits to science and society as a whole? CEM is simply the gathering of data, usually through observation or the collection of samples by lay persons. The majority of volunteers participate by monitoring some aspect of their local area. Perhaps the most well known CEM program is "Clean Up Australia Day". Whilst many of us recognise this activity as a national cleaning exercise, the monitoring of types of garbage collected, such as plastics, glass and paper, provides real information on the success of recycling, waste reduction and anti-litter campaigns.

There are many different types of CEMs, some concentrating on natural phenomena such as water, air, animals, plants and weather with others focusing on anthropogenic issues such as erosion, transport adequacy and household attitudes towards protecting the environment. Whatever the type of CEM, there are some pros and cons in using community volunteers instead of scientific staff.

Advantages

Local knowledge. This is often an issue to which professional scientists have limited access. Time and data constraints can restrict the pursuit of local knowledge to desk top studies with short (1- to 10-day) field trips for the collection of data and samples. The volunteer, however, has usually lived in the area for some time, perhaps years, and can be a mine of information, especially if questioned appropriately.

A good example here is "Listening to the Lachlan", an oral history of the Lachlan River. This study, conducted by Dr Jane Roberts at CSIRO, asked a series of standardised questions to old folk living in the Lachlan area. Through careful planning and interviewing, Jane was able to piece together information on the river which outlined its decline to its current condition. Who would have thought that the recollections of our elderly farmers would provide data that could not be retrieved using more conventional techniques?
Enthusiasm and ownership. It was once said, "one man fighting for his land is worth ten paid soldiers". Although this was in reference to war, we can transfer this value to environmental management. By giving the community the opportunity to contribute to CEMs in their local area, we can harness their sense of ownership.
Cost effective. Monitoring programs, by their very nature, usually require regular input over a given length of time or in some instances, once started, are on-going. Consequently the most expensive cost can be labour, particularly as field trips usually involve long hours and time away from offices, laboratories and other places of work.

Australians make good volunteers. Our extensive Bush Fire Brigades, Surf Lifesaving Clubs and other community based organisations are testament to that good will. Utilising this energy in CEMs can minimise the expenditure on labour and determine whether a monitoring program can proceed.

The Department of Meteorology, for example, relies heavily on trained volunteers for the collection of data in regional and outback Australia. The sheer size of our continent, combined with our relatively small gross national product, does not allow for the Department to staff weather stations in country and remote areas. By using standardised procedures and speedy reporting, this large band of amateur meteorologists has greatly enhanced our knowledge of weather and more long-term climatic trends. Next time you hear a weather report from a more isolated part of the country, the chances are you are listening to data collected by a member of the community.
Timing. One of the many problems facing a monitoring program is the question "how often do I sample or observe?" The program must have monitoring at intervals which will allow for the detection of environmental changes. If an event occurs once a year during late spring, then monitoring can be focused around this period. However many environmental phenomena are not so reliable and numerous field trips may be required to monitor changes. By having a band of workers at hand, a CEM can offer a sampling intensity that would not usually be practical for the professional scientist or environmental manager.
Guaranteed feedback. Monitoring programs can be a master weapon in sensible environmental management, as they provide information on changes in the area. By using local people, the combination of their knowledge, sampling frequency and more increasingly, online information systems, a CEM volunteer can bring to the attention of environmental managers changes or disturbances in the area. This can allow for a rapid response to problems such as illegal discharges and dumping, fish kills and unauthorised clearing of vegetation. In addition, community members can also report back on the efficiency of any management strategies.
Amateur knowledge. For most people, formal science education ends at high school before specialist knowledge and often basic scientific principles can be developed. Although some of these people do not proceed to University or Tech, this does not prevent them from attaining a level of scientific literacy and specialist knowledge. For these folk, their great interest in birds, bugs or banksias has led them to becoming quite skilled and knowledgable in a certain field.

In a recent CEM survey of creeks and creek banks in the Berowra Catchment in North West Sydney, a number of community members displayed an excellent knowledge of the sandstone flora of the area, and one fellow had a staggering understanding of beetle anatomy and taxonomy. This information greatly enhanced relevant sections of this CEM program.
Educational tool. The educational advantages are probably immeasurable, as these not only increase knowledge but instil attitudinal and behavioural changes. Approximately 66% of CEM volunteers are school students. Today’s school student may sit on the local council of tomorrow. An understanding of basic scientific methodology and environmental impacts may mean the difference between a reckless and environmentally sensitive development.
Attitude to change. As part of their studies into CEMs, the ACF questioned participants about changing their programs to make them more scientifically robust and useful, especially to environmental managers. This included the dissemination of their information. The vast majority of volunteers wanted their knowledge to be as useful as possible and consequently were open to change. In addition, community members wished for their data to be available to all and not to be seen as a commodity with a dollar value. Perhaps we as professionals have a lesson to learn from the CEM volunteers.

Disadvantages

CEM programs have been the focus of criticism from professional scientists. In some cases this has been justified. The problem here is usually twofold. If the program is not scientifically robust, then the quality and therefore the usefulness of the data must be questioned. Secondly, community members, professional scientists and environmental managers may have applied the information in an inappropriate fashion. In such cases the calibre of the data is not at fault, but the way in which it has been used is not in keeping with the initial objectives of the program.

Perhaps a good example here is Streamwatch, a school-based CEM program that regularly monitors water quality using a simple field kit and through the collection of macroinvertebrates (shrimp, insects, etc). These animals can be used as pollution indicators. Students calibrate their equipment using standards and collect their water and macroinvertebrate samples in accordance with a standardised protocol.

This program has received unfair criticism from some quarters as some managers have over rated the quality of the data. There is no doubt that Streamwatch is an excellent tool for learning scientific methodology, basic environmental monitoring and providing rapid feedback to management. It cannot, however, replace a detailed scientific study using sensitive equipment and accredited laboratories. The issue here is that Streamwatch was never intended to be the latter, although some professionals have seen it in this light.

A CEM should be devised to optimise the benefits of local knowledge, enthusiasm and community ownership and allow for the difficulty of controlling data quality and the interpretation of results. If the CEM program is correctly designed and implemented, then it greatly facilitates the identification and management of environmental issues.

Project Quack - A Model of Good Community Monitoring

Project Quack stands for Quality Assessment and Catchment Knowledge. It has been an innovative monitoring program, collecting baseline data from streams in the Berowra Catchment. This catchment drains into the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, a system already under a great deal of environmental stress.

The project was designed to assess the current status of streams and associated bushland within different landuse types in the catchment area of Berowra Creek. This provided a focus for specific needs of catchment management and a baseline for gauging the effectiveness of management initiatives. It also increased community awareness of the valuable natural resources in the local bushland and options for remedial action. The study involved analysis of scientific data obtained through water analysis, macroinvertebrate studies and floristic surveys in bushland through a full range of seasons and varied climatic conditions.

People involved in the project were given the opportunity to understand their local environment and develop the ability to distinguish between natural changes and those induced by human activities. From this understanding volunteers could identify what needed to be done, identify who or what was responsible and seek positive responses and changes required from local environmental managers.

The program monitored the Berowra Catchment for 18 months, starting in November 1995. Over 150 community volunteers have been involved in the project, assisting with water and vegetation monitoring; plant, frog and macroinvertebrate identification and data entry. In addition, volunteers participated in publishing a regular newsletter titled "Bugs, Beasties and Bushland" and information nights, "Quacker and Dips Nights". Professional staff were responsible for management and technical development.

The program for the first year consisted of monitoring 19 stream sites, representing different catchment landuses. Once a month, rain, hail or shine, volunteers would collect water and macroinvertebrate samples, perform probe measurements and make standardised observations at designated locations. The riparian (streambank) vegetation was characterised during the first month of the project. A further survey was undertaken six months later to check any changes in vegetation patterns.

Information from the first year’s program was then used to identify problem streams. These streams were targeted in the second year through a reconnaissance survey. Features of this survey included the collection of water and macroinvertebrate samples from several locations in the stream.

The program was reviewed by the Australian Museum as well as by professional members of the project steering committee. Prior to each year’s program, a training session for volunteers was held which addressed the bushland survey, water sampling techniques and collection and sorting and identification of major types of macroinvertebrates. A volunteer site coordinator was chosen and responsible for the collection and return of equipment for every sampling occasion and adherence to sampling protocol. Project staff also regularly supervised volunteers to test consistency across groups and to ensure sampling protocols were followed.

The information obtained from the project shows discrimination between creek sites and highlights parameters which need to be controlled to protect stream environments. Specific landuses were associated with particular pollutants and ecosystem impairment. Some sites were highly stable in their characteristics whereas others fluctuated, suggesting pulses of pollutants.

This knowledge can be used to determine priorities for catchment managers and landholders and direction for further investigations. The standardised nature of the data collection and its documentation in databases facilitates its use as a reference for evaluation of future water quality trends and for gauging the success of catchment management initiatives.

The program has increased community awareness of both the importance of bushland streams as well as the influence of their activities within catchments. The volunteers also proved to be a valuable resource for sampling and enabled a large number of streams and other environmental factors to be included in the program. The quality control checks indicated that, with appropriate training and commitment, a high standard of data can be obtained with community labour.

Perhaps the final word on CEMs should be left to Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of people can change the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

Leeta Caiger is with Robyn Tuft and Associates, Environmental Scientists for Project Quack and Peter Coad is with the Berowra Catchment Management Committee, Project Coordinator.

| Issue 45 Contents |