Group Dynamics and Resource Availability of a Long-Term Volunteer Water-Monitoring Program

William Deutsch, Laura Lhotka, Sergio S. Ruiz-Córdova

Society & Natural Resources · 2009 · 15 citations · 13 references

Concepts

Abstract

Abstract Alabama Water Watch is a statewide, citizen volunteer water quality monitoring program with participation of 235 groups over a 14-year period (1993–2006). A variety of social and geographical resources strongly influenced the distribution, characteristics, and longevity of groups. Group location and sampling effort in each of 67 counties had significant correlation with population, income, and education. Water-monitoring groups were concentrated in the northeast quadrant of the state (where 60% of lake acreage occurs) and in the coastal southwest region, with virtually no groups in areas of persistent poverty. Though it has been demonstrated that volunteer water-monitoring programs can collect scientifically valid data that make significant contributions to natural resource management, such programs favor well-organized and educated groups with discretionary time and wealth. Different approaches are needed to make inroads into resource-limited areas, such as alternative environmental awareness programs, and partnerships with organizations that focus on community development and livelihoods. Keywords: Alabamacommunity groupsresource availabilityvolunteer water monitoring The Alabama Water Watch program is coordinated from the Auburn University Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures, and is funded in part by grants from the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4. Additional support comes from the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station and Alabama Cooperative Extension System. Preliminary data for this study were organized by Shelley England. Eric Reutebuch assisted with statistical analyses and maps. The authors thank the thousands of AWW water monitors for their dedication and commitment to clean water. Notes Note. Significant differences indicated by ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01.

References

13