Research by residents still does too little for residents
Citizens are increasingly conducting their own measurements. The government and knowledge institutions no longer have a monopoly on scientific data and sometimes find this difficult to deal with. But government manager Jan Harm Brouwer and astronomer Frans Snik became aware of their blind spots.
That is why it is good when citizens do their own research
To measure the impact of particulate matter on health and the climate, scientists actually need to measure at many more locations and times. Leiden University unexpectedly got that opportunity during the development of a NASA climate satellite, says astronomer Frans Snik. He launched a prominent citizen science project in 2013: iSPEX. 'We discovered that we could use the concept of the satellite instrument SPEX to make a plastic attachment on a smartphone, too.' In 2013 and 2014, ten thousand of those attachments provided as many additional measurement points for fine-particle emissions. Snik: 'We showed that, together, we can collect much more information about air pollution, which is complementary to the data from professional measurement points and satellites.'
'We noticed that citizens were doubting the data produced by the province.’
In recent years, Jan Harm Brouwer of the Province of South Holland also handed out a large number of sensor boxes to citizens, to measure air quality and noise. 'We noticed that citizens doubted the province's data. I could keep explaining that we register fine-particle emissions very carefully, but that didn't convince them. We decided to let residents measure themselves.'
Regarding a healthy living environment, citizens and the government have different starting points, Brouwer believes. 'When it comes to complaints, the government looks at noise standards, but these don’t tell the whole story. People aren’t bothered by average noise levels, but by peak noise. That makes a big difference, even though we've hardly mapped this subjective experience. If we do, it might in time lead to stricter regulations.'
This is what citizen scientists are up against
The iSPEX project was meant to be a technical and social experiment, Snik looks back. ‘We wanted to know whether it would succeed in getting many people on board and would produce useful data. The change in mentality of authorities and scientific institutions is the main merit of iSPEX. Partly because of this, citizen science has become an accepted model for knowledge gathering and discussion.'
Thus, the trial was not primarily launched to reduce fine-particle emissions. That this logical next step was not taken is partly because of the project-based setup, Snik thinks. 'If the subsidy stops, action's no longer taken.' As far as he is concerned, funding should be more flexible, and the organisation of citizen science should be less top-down. 'Instead of a little project here and there, there should be much more room to experiment.'
Although the impact of measurements by citizens may still often be modest, they do give participants a sense of control, in Brouwer's experience. Citizens are better informed and involved if they know, for instance, exactly what the sources of pollution are. But subsequently making a point to authorities and companies is still 'very difficult', he acknowledges. Let alone that citizens can use the measurements to enforce measures.
You can read the whole article on the LDE-site.
Text: Saskia Klaassen