Practicalities of community-led continuous water quality monitoring in rural India

Understanding the need for community involvement in water quality monitoring

Freshwater pollution is a global challenge that citizens recognize as unacceptable, despite professional efforts to monitor, manage, and regulate it. Water quality is difficult to observe at high spatial and temporal resolutions; it is costly and typically requires trained specialists in the field and in laboratories. However, the rise in citizen science monitoring has generated opportunities to overcome many barriers and fill data gaps. Citizens want access to actionable water quality information that can provide early warnings and drive change.

Our bibliographic analysis emphasizes that citizen science is rarely paired with the use of continuous sensors, and many monitoring schemes involving the public are unable to offer the detail required. This study has explored the practicalities and competencies associated with community-led (near) continuous water quality monitoring (CWQM), and has generated an extensive checklist containing technical, social, economic, and wider responsibilities that stakeholders should consider. The “UpStream” project has provided a testbed for this exploratory work and the development and deployment of the “WaterBox” CWQM device. Case studies from the UK and Taiwan, where community-led CWQM programmes have been piloted, have provided novel methodological insights. Lessons learnt have enabled researchers to determine whether, and to what extent, community-led CWQM is achievable in practice.

Continuous water quality monitoring: an essential yet underused approach

Despite clean water being vital for life, freshwater pollution is one of the biggest global challenges. Water quality has degraded significantly since the 1990s as agricultural runoff, untreated sewage and industrial waste are released into waterbodies (du Plessis, 2022). These activities occur worldwide, causing habitat destruction, spread of diseases and loss of aquatic life. While the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 specifically addresses clean water and sanitation, water pollution is intertwined across many goals given its implications for food security, health, wellbeing, biodiversity, and ecosystems (UN Environment Programme, 2016). The complexity and continued deterioration are why “water crises” have dominated the World Economic Forum’s Risk Report for the past decade (World Economic Forum, 2021).

Despite increased awareness and legislation (e.g., European Commission, 2000), a complete national (let alone global) picture of water quality status does not exist. Monitoring of streams, rivers and lakes is hampered by various constraints, spatial and temporal resolutions are limited, and technologies are still unable to observe and precisely characterize every waterbody (Chapman and Sullivan, 2022). Slow progress has meant that the public are increasingly engaged and actively involved in the water pollution debate through citizen science.

Citizen science and the involvement of volunteers in the water sector have been widely reported over the past decade (Buytaert et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2020; Kelly-Quinn et al., 2022). Alongside its potential to be cost-effective, it is the diverse combination of social and environmental benefits gained, which has made citizen science grow exponentially. Even though reported benefits are often associated with the data (including integration with traditional scientific data and data utilisation), having end users physically involved in the data collection process is also considerably beneficial.

Combining citizen science and continuous monitoring: an untapped opportunity

Continuous monitoring is important for building a complete picture of water quality issues. Comparisons of grab samples with near-continuous water quality monitoring (CWQM) show that samples or spot measurements of pollutant concentrations can underestimate their loads (Cassidy and Jordan, 2011). Higher frequency measurements (e.g., every hour or even every 15-min) enable gradual or sudden shifts in water quality status to be detected (Ramírez et al., 2023). In-situ sensors can offer this level of temporal resolution; they detect pollution incidents as they occur and generate long-term trends (O’Flynn et al., 2010; Kruse, 2018).

Growth in CWQM has been partially attributed to improvements in telecommunications, the Internet of Things (IoT), and the ability to “telemeter” readily available equipment, and wirelessly transfer “big data” back to servers (Adu-Manu et al., 2020; Jordan and Cassidy, 2022; Reljić et al., 2023). Following this, (near) real-time and archived observations can be made available in various open formats and subsequently viewed, interrogated and/or downloaded by end users (Smith and Turner, 2019; James et al., 2022). The existence of open data acts, smartphones, user-friendly data portals and tailored applications means that non-scientific audiences (including communities) are now exposed to, and can utilise, environmental data more than ever before.

However, our bibliometric analysis indicates that citizens rarely undertake CWQM and/or studies go unreported. A search for “Water Quality”, “Monitor“, “Citizen Science”, and “Continuous” found only seven publications in the Web of Science database, implying that the intersection of citizen science and CWQM is still in its infancy. In contrast, a search for “Water Quality”, “Monitor“, and “Citizen Science”, omitting “Continuous”, resulted in a corpus of 170 articles published between 2004 and 2023. The findings suggest a potential gap in the integration of citizen science initiatives with continuous monitoring systems.

Individually, citizen science and CWQM offer a vast array of benefits, but if combined and are successful, they have the potential to overcome limitations in the freshwater and surface water domains. The “UpStream” project has provided a testbed for this exploratory work and has led to the development and deployment of a cost-effective CWQM device, the “WaterBox”. Riverine case studies from the UK and Taiwan, where community-led CWQM programmes have been piloted, have provided novel methodological insights into such activities.

Piloting community-led continuous water quality monitoring in the UK and Taiwan

The UpStream project (2021–2023) was created to aid improving water quality by working with communities to collect local and actionable data. Building upon an initial prototype created by researchers at National Taiwan University (NTU), the UpStream project team further developed the “WaterBox”, a device for CWQM, along with methods for transmitting, storing, visualising, and analysing the data collected.

The WaterBox is regarded as inexpensive by an order of magnitude compared with the costs of similar commercial devices, with the prototype costing around £800 (GBP). This cost includes all materials, batteries, four basic sensors (pH, temperature, conductivity and turbidity) and associated circuits. In-situ installation costs can vary according to location and country, ranging from £30 (GBP) for a temporary river location in Taiwan to approximately £500 (GBP) at a river location in the UK.

The UpStream project centred on two citizen groups: Friends of Bradford’s Becks (FoBB) in the UK and Taiwan Clean Water Alliance (TCWA) in Taiwan. These established citizen groups are self-motivated to improve their local water environment, which removed some of the common barriers to effective citizen science.

Community-led continuous monitoring in the UK

Bradford Beck and its tributaries (known locally as “Bradford’s Becks”) are a network of predominately urban watercourses located in Northern England, UK. FoBB is an active community group that would like to see Bradford’s Becks clean, visible, accessible and thriving. Since preparing a catchment plan in 2013, FoBB has undertaken a range of local initiatives to improve water quality, including litter picks, collecting water samples for analysis, and reporting photographic evidence of pollution.

Five WaterBoxes were initially planned for the UK but only one has been installed in the catchment to date and is located at “Culture Fusion”. The practicalities associated with installation and community involvement are discussed in the following section.

Community-led continuous monitoring in Taiwan

The Touqian River is situated in north-west Taiwan. TCWA was subsequently founded by a group of local mothers in 2016–2017 with the aim of ensuring the quality and long-term availability of clean drinking water. TCWA undertakes regular river walks, gathers spot samples for analysis, and develops educational kits for use in local schools.

Although an earlier version of the WaterBox was installed in Douzipuxi River (tributary of the Touqian River) back in 2020 as part of a brief testing period, TCWA identified several locations suitable for CWQM along the Touqian River which also influenced equipment installation choices. However, it has not yet been possible to install the anticipated WaterBoxes in the Touqian River catchment within the UpStream project. The practical reasons for this and transferable learning points are explored further in the following section.

Practicalities and competencies for community-led continuous water quality monitoring

Through observational work and real-life encounters, the lessons learnt and challenges encountered have enabled researchers to determine whether, and to what extent, community-led CWQM is currently achievable in practice. This section provides the following findings and transferable guidance:

1. What practicalities should stakeholders consider when selecting and initiating community-led CWQM schemes?
2. What does a community-led CWQM approach look like in the UK and Taiwan?
3. Is community-led CWQM possible and to what extent are community groups likely to take full stewardship?
4. What do these findings mean when looking ahead over the coming years?

Practicalities and competencies for community-led CWQM

The UpStream team identified 104 individual practicalities across four main categories: Technical, Social, Economic, and Wider Responsibilities. A detailed checklist is provided in the Supplementary Material, but key insights are summarized here.

Technical considerations dominated, accounting for 75% of the total practicalities. This suggests that despite community-led monitoring being a much more social, inclusive, and collaborative activity compared to traditional monitoring, technical literacy is required to fulfil the practicalities, which is very likely to hamper a monitoring programme fully led by the community.

For example, 12 practicalities are listed under “telecommunications and data transmission” alone, and eight practicalities relate to “future proofing technology”. Technical considerations are complicated by the rapid evolution of technology, meaning that a monitoring system can quickly become outdated.

Other important technical considerations relate to the physical characteristics or behavior of the study area, which is where local knowledge is likely to prevail. However, many of the social, economic and wider responsibilities identified are typical of any kind of community-led or community-based activity, or considerations which individuals, community groups or “Friends of” networks encounter.

It has been observed that not all practicalities are relevant in every situation; the degree of relevance depends on how participatory and community-led the “project” is intending to be from the outset (hence the objectives). Three overarching considerations must be addressed before cross-checking against the full list of practicalities:

1. Realistically, are there plans for a full community-led monitoring network (completely led and driven by the community) or are there plans for partial or basic community involvement?
2. How long do you intend the CWQM system to work? Is it a temporary project or is it expected to run indefinitely?
3. Do you have the means to fund a monitoring system (short- or long-term)? What type of funding model does this fall under?

Community-led CWQM in the UK and Taiwan: experiences and lessons learnt

The narratives from the UK and Taiwan pilots provide practical context, including key competencies and challenges encountered.

In the UK, the community champion and FoBB played a leading role in identifying key parameters, pinpointing suitable monitoring locations, and considering aspects such as power, maintenance, and safe access to sites. However, technical tasks like sensor calibration, data transmission, visualization, and ongoing monitoring proved challenging for the community. The UpStream team had to provide significant support to overcome these barriers.

In Taiwan, TCWA and the community champion proposed collecting common continuous water quality indicators and emphasized the importance of E. coli monitoring due to wastewater discharge concerns. They identified seven potential monitoring locations based on resource availability and community capacity to maintain them. While TCWA members remain keen to support the installation and operation of the WaterBoxes, the full impact of social factors is yet to be assessed as the new installations are pending.

The extent of community-led CWQM: challenges and possibilities

When tracking which stakeholder group led each of the practicalities, the UpStream team found that 34% of the CWQM scheme was led by the community in both the UK and Taiwan pilots. This suggests that community-led CWQM is possible, but the extent to which it is “community-led” can vary.

Several challenges appeared to dominate the community-led CWQM schemes:

• Concerns about theft and/or vandalism of the equipment
• Sourcing specific sensors which meet the aspirations and requirements of the community
• Monitoring within confined or hazardous spaces, such as culverts
• Monitoring across large spatial areas
• Cost of data transmission (e.g., SIM cards)
• Carrying out complicated calibration activities, both initial and ongoing
• Connecting sensors to a live data portal
• Recruitment for wider community (unpaid volunteer) involvement
• Securing a budget for ongoing CWQM
• Overall level of technical support required

Even though input was partial and significant technical support was necessary, the CWQM process still fostered engagement with local people, raised awareness, and encouraged collaboration. The authors conclude that community-led CWQM, which is regarded as an “extreme” form of citizen science, offers co-design and some monitoring stewardship, but the greatest value associated with this type of involvement is likely to reside with wider water or environmental stewardship, which takes time to manifest.

The road ahead: recommendations for successful community-led continuous monitoring

Based on the lessons learnt from the UpStream pilots, the following recommendations can help increase the success of community-led CWQM over the coming years:

1. Establish the overarching project considerations before reviewing the practicalities checklist. Discuss the anticipated duration of the CWQM scheme, scale of community involvement, and likely funds available.

2. Co-develop a clear monitoring plan with roles, responsibilities, and a long-term maintenance and data utilization strategy. Review and update this plan regularly.

3. Ensure community champions, lead volunteers or environmental NGOs are part of the monitoring team to provide the necessary technical and organizational skills.

4. Consider participant payments or other incentives to increase involvement, especially where community capacities are lower.

5. Provide training and guidance manuals to maximize the number of practicalities carried out by communities, prioritizing technical aspects like sensor maintenance, data management, and visualization.

6. Adapt, refine or create user-friendly CWQM equipment and compatible systems to address technical barriers and enable wider adoption.

7. Monitor the long-term impacts and benefits of community-led CWQM, including empowerment, data quality, and influence on decision-making.

By addressing these recommendations, community-led CWQM programs can bridge the gap between data creators and data users, engage citizens, and ultimately drive improvements in water quality at the local level. The UpStream project has demonstrated the potential and practicalities of this approach, providing a valuable foundation for future initiatives.

Conclusion

This study has pushed the boundaries of citizen science by combining the benefits of continuous water quality monitoring with community-led approaches. The novel methodology implemented in the UK and Taiwan pilots has generated an extensive checklist of practicalities and insights into the competencies required for successful community-led CWQM.

While technical considerations dominated the process, the UpStream team found that community groups can lead up to 34% of the practicalities, fostering engagement, awareness, and collaboration. However, significant technical support is still necessary to overcome barriers and enable communities to take full stewardship of CWQM programs.

The recommendations provided offer a roadmap for future initiatives, focusing on establishing appropriate project considerations, co-developing monitoring plans, building community capabilities, and adapting technologies to enable wider adoption. By addressing these aspects, community-led CWQM can bridge the gap between data and decision-making, empowering citizens to drive water quality improvements in their local environments.

The lessons learnt from the UpStream pilots demonstrate that while community-led CWQM is an ambitious undertaking, it holds great potential to enhance water stewardship and catalyze meaningful change. As the water sector continues to evolve, harnessing the power of community involvement and technological advancements will be crucial in tackling the complex challenge of freshwater pollution.