The Accuracy of Water Quality Monitoring Data: A - CURA H2O

133 Pages·2013·2.92 MB·English

by  Ashley Shelton

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