4.3 Article

Sense and Influence: Environmental Monitoring Tools and the Power of Citizen Science

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING
卷 18, 期 3, 页码 379-397

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1523908X.2015.1100985

关键词

Citizen science; sensing technologies; environmental monitoring; energy extraction; public empowerment

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1331080, 1126235]
  2. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1331080, 1126235] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据