Environmental agencies have long relied on reports from the public to identify potential environmental hazards or violations. Participatory science can enhance the value of public reporting, by providing quantitative information and other high quality data (e.g., videos) that are more reliable than simple personal observation. Generally, reports from the general public are not used by agencies to prove violations, but they can trigger agency investigation. However, non-governmental litigants are beginning to use privately-generated data in court or in administrative proceedings.
Nationwide Efforts
A few examples of the use of participatory science-generated data for enforcement include the following:
- A leading case in which evidence of pollution gathered by private individuals led to a large penalty is San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper v. Formosa Plastics.
- The Potomac Riverkeeper uses drones, among other things, to detect and report on violations.
- Individuals in Tonawanda, New York, were successful in triggering a major criminal investigation using data they had gathered on benzene in their neighborhoods (read more about it here and here).
Some states and cities have created online tools through which private individuals can submit evidence of violations such as engine idling or pesticide misuse, with one example being New York City and Washington D.C.’s anti-idling enforcement programs. These systems rely on a mix of personal observation and technical reporting such as videos and geographic location mapping available on smartphones.
Potential applications of participatory science to enforcement, across a variety of environmental media and geographic locations, were analyzed in a webinar series presented for the International Network on Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE).
Additional examples of citizen science programs that support enforcement and/or litigation can be found on ELI’s participatory science database.