Public Participation in Soil Surveys: Lessons from ... - ACS Publications

Mar 7, 2012 - Lessons from this pilot study in England highlight that with strategic planning .... England is presented as an example of a public surv...
0 downloads 0 Views 4MB Size
Download PDF
Policy Analysis pubs.acs.org/est

Public Participation in Soil Surveys: Lessons from a Pilot Study in England James Bone,† Michael Archer,‡ Declan Barraclough,‡ Paul Eggleton,§ Dee Flight,∥ Martin Head,† David T. Jones,†,§ Catherine Scheib,∥ and Nikolaos Voulvoulis†,* †

Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom Environment Agency, Evidence Directorate, Red Kite House, Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxon OX10 8BD, United Kingdom § Soil Biodiversity Programme, Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom ∥ British Geological Survey, Kingsley Dunham Centre, Keyworth, Nottingham NG12 5GG, United Kingdom ‡

S Supporting Information *

ABSTRACT: In many countries there are policies in place that impact on soils, but very few legislative or policy tools specifically for the protection of soil. Recent EU legislative proposals on soil protection have been met with opposition on the grounds of excessive cost and resource demands. With the need for evidence based policy, and recognition that involving the public in environmental monitoring is an effective way of increasing understanding and commitment, there has been growing interest in soil surveys. In addition, it is accepted that the success of environmental policies depends greatly on how effectively scientists, regulators, stakeholders, and society communicate. This paper presents the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) Soil and Earthworm Survey as an example of public participation in soil surveys that aims to integrate the above. It is demonstrated how such surveys generate data that can be used to prioritise soil assessment, in order to address some of the concerns and objections to soil protection policies. Lessons from this pilot study in England highlight that with strategic planning of civic participation activities, this approach can deliver improvements in the quality of the evidence collected and allow for effective public involvement in policymaking and implementation, on top of direct educational benefits.

■

INTRODUCTION Involving the public in environmental monitoring activities is an effective way of increasing understanding of issues and commitment from the public.1−3 With the need for evidencebased policy, and the recognition of the benefits of public participation in this process, there has been increased interest in public environmental surveys. There has recently been a greater interest in civic participation4 as a mechanism to implement cost savings,5 such as the UK’s ‘Big Society not Big Government’ policy plans.6 An example of civic participation is public surveys, and there has been a large growth in use of “citizen scientists”, volunteers who collect and process data as part of a scientific enquiry.7 There have been numerous surveys in which the public have been used to collect data from their local environment, often on the distribution of species through recording schemes, for example, refs 8−12. The use of the public to collect data on environmental quality has been comparatively lower; however, with concerns about changes in environmental quality, citizen science, with its broad spatial and temporal reach, will play an increasingly important role.12 While there has been an increase in the number of citizen science projects, there has been reluctance in some countries to move beyond well-established biological recording schemes toward those that offer evidence collection, public participation © 2012 American Chemical Society

in policy making, and scientific outputs in addition to education. There are a number of issues cited with collection of data using the public, which has been a significant hurdle for citizen science projects. However, with appropriate design of tools for public participation and methods for implementation, issues of data quality can be addressed and taken into account. Careful data management and an understanding of how to work with data will minimize error and bias, while very large sample sizes will tend to lessen sampling error.12 In addition, there has recently been an increased interest in soil across the world,13,14 in part due to increased pressure on land for critical socioeconomic activities.15 Despite this, soil policy has not followed the same development pathway as air and water policy, and there is now a growing pressure for the protection of soil.16,17 There is also demand for consideration of soil in the shift from local or regional based regulation to more ecosystem and system based environmental management.18 The increased awareness and drive for protection of soil is partly due to increased understanding of the threats from degradation processes.19−21 There is a realization that Received: Revised: Accepted: Published: 3687

October 31, 2011 February 15, 2012 March 7, 2012 March 7, 2012 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

bringing scientists, amateur-experts, local interest groups, and the public closer together.35 The OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey, one of six surveys across England aiming to learn more about the state of the environment, was designed as a pilot of an approach where data on soil characteristics generated by a public survey are used to prioritize the need for further soil assessment. The survey aimed (objectives in Figure 1) • to address the deficiency in soils knowledge and collect data on soil quality and earthworm abundance to identify areas for further soil assessment (Data); • to get as many people as possible interested in soil, helping them learn how to identify different soil types, test soil health and quality, and discover the many different species of earthworms found in England (Education); • to increase public engagement through activities running alongside the scientific research program (Participation). Successful holistic environmental management depends greatly on how effectively scientists, regulators, stakeholders, and society communicate.18 The survey was developed through collaboration between such parties (Figure 1), with regulatory input was from the EA; stakeholders including the British Geological Survey and the NHM; educators from school teachers and the Field Studies Council; and society including the public, interest groups and school children. The survey was launched in spring 2009. It aimed to gain a high level of responses from areas that would not have normally been sampled in prior soil surveys, and to collect useful data that will contribute toward practical outcomes. The survey was developed considering the multifunctionality of soils, which suggests that for a soil to function effectively multiple factors must be addressed related to degradative processes.36,37 For the survey, participants are asked to choose a location to collect site, soil, and biological data. They are requested to remove a 20 × 20 cm soil core dug to a depth of 10 cm and to hand sort the removed topsoil for earthworms, and to extract deeper burrowing (anecic) earthworms using a mustard solution vermifuge.38,39 The abundance of juvenile and adult earthworms is recorded and the adult earthworms are identified using a simple taxonomic key.40 They are requested to answer questions about the site and soil in and around the pit. The basic materials (see Supporting Information (SI)) are provided to participants free of charge (cost excluding staff around £1 per pack in 2009). Questions on the chemical, physical and biological properties of the soil were selected to provide data to indicate possible areas of soil degradation based upon a number of criteria including relevance to outputs, applicability, robustness, Pedotransfer function ability, availability of a method and ability to be achieved within a reasonable time frame.41 Further to this, the survey was designed so that the information collected was not only of use to scientists but provided data that would be of interest to participants about the soil they were surveying, in this way promoting participant engagement and attention to data quality. Table 1 presents the three main themes of questions: (1) site, environmental, and climatic characteristics; (2) soil properties; and (3) biological characteristics along with rational for collection and collection method. Particular attention was given to issues of data quality with each task addressed separately.12

development and implementation of soil protection policies is necessary to prevent negative effects on human health, ecosystems, and climate change and for the protection of biodiversity.22−24 Soil quality is a regulating ecosystem service, which has been adversely affected by pressures from the expansion of agriculture, forestry, and new settlements to meet the needs of the growing population.25 With the increasing demand for the protection of soil, policy makers have reacted by developing legislation that increasingly treats soil as a holistic environmental medium, for example, the European Union (EU) Soil Thematic Strategy19 and proposed Soil Framework Directive (SFD).26 The need for more coherent policymaking, better integration with other policies, consideration of the economic and social constraints associated with evidence collection, and engagement of the public in implementation are attracting a lot of concern and debate in this area. The increased scrutiny of government spending and the greater control of environmental risk have resulted in a need to improve the quality of environmental management by basing choices on reliable data and analysis. There is also a growing move toward a participatory approach to environmental management, which is decentralized, community oriented, and holistic in its view of the environment.27 One key feature of the proposed EU SFD is the identification of areas requiring protection from soil degradation processes. Despite revisions to the proposed directive that have aimed to introduce flexibility in the identification of such areas,28 a number of jurisdictions remain critical of the proposed directive on the grounds of high costs and administrative burden. 28−30 The Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) Soil and Earthworm Survey of England (“the survey”) was designed in collaboration with the Environment Agency of England and Wales (EA), and the Natural History Museum (NHM) as a tool that aimed, through data on soil properties and earthworm fauna collected by the public, to inform policy makers about the state of soils. Worldwide there have been a number of public surveys of soil organisms, including earthworms, for example, refs 31−33. There have however been no documented public surveys of earthworms in England and no surveys that aim to integrate the collection of data on soils and earthworms. In this paper, the OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey of England is presented as an example of a public survey that can be used not just for educational purposes, but to collect practical data for use in directing investigation of soils at risk from degradation. The survey incorporates in its aims the collection of evidence, public participation in policy making, and scientific outputs. The paper presents results and lessons learnt from the survey, which was developed as an appropriate tool to collect useful and valid data on soils from across England, to prioritize the need for further soil assessment. It shows how data collected were processed and interpreted to identify areas for further assessment in preparation for forthcoming policies on soil protection. The Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) Soil and Earthworm Survey. The OPAL network is an exciting initiative of a wide range of local and national programs funded by the Big Lottery Fund for England to encourage people from all backgrounds to get back in touch with nature, at the same time generating valuable scientific data concerning the state of the environment.34 This is mainly achieved by getting people to explore, study, enjoy and protect their local environment, by 3688

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

Figure 1. A conceptual model for soil surveys to fulfill objectives regarding public participation, data on soil quality, and education.

Accuracy and application of the survey was refined before the survey launch with pilot studies using different groups. The survey materials were designed to be accessible to children aged 11 and above (coinciding with stages in the state education system in England), and having no upper age limit. They were particularly designed not to ‘dumb down’ the issues addressed in order to maintain attraction across multiple groups. Results are recorded by participants in the workbook provided, with a request to upload them to a Web site (www. opalexplorenature.org), or return to a free post address. In that process, participants are asked to locate the survey location on an interactive Google map, including postcode or grid reference. The Web site entry form contains a number of input masks and internal checks, to ensure data are entered in the correct format. Extensive information is available online which participants can consult to increase their understanding of the results and what they will be used for. Participants can immediately view their results on a map alongside other survey results, plot maps of earthworm species distributions, and draw graphs of soil properties. Following the submission of data, further analysis (Figure 1) aimed to inform areas of further, more detailed assessment to determine the risk of soil degradation processes occurring.41 This screening for further investigation was integrated with the citizen science model through the collection of soil property data, interpretation of that data, and selection of areas for further assessment, Figure 2. A key part of the survey design was community scientists, located across England. They worked with participants providing training, support, and education, as well as promoting the survey, enabling a higher level of supported survey uptake, and working with deprived and otherwise unreached communities. Sessions were also held to train group leaders,

across the country, in an effort to allow them to educate participants and to improve data quality. The design of the survey aimed to address some common concerns with citizen science and to address these as opportunities, Table 2 and Figure 5. Data gathered from the survey were processed to highlight areas where further and more detailed soil quality assessment may be necessary. The survey, having been designed to take quality, resolution, and level of detail of the public survey data into account, has provided data suitable for further analysis for this purpose. The analysis method takes input data from site, soil and biological observation, along with sample density and data from other sources. This process was carried out at a macroscopic level and single data points were not assessed individually. The assessment looks at the results for an area as a function of the local data points, with the effect of partly correcting for erroneous values. The unit area of land over which the soil was assessed is based upon existing data concerning the distances over which soil processes operate. In this case, in England, there are a number of relevant data sets that can then be used to define such areas; in this pilot study the National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI) soil association47 has been used as it has comprehensive and high-resolution coverage. The density of survey locations is a crucial consideration to make valid analysis of the survey results. The density of survey locations was calculated using ArcGIS (V10.0), and categorized according to quartiles highlighting areas of high survey density. This has also been used to direct future survey promotion activities toward low density areas. Following consideration of data spatial density, areas with sufficient data can be assigned levels of further assessment priority. 3689

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

observation/comparison to pictures/description in workbook observation/comparison to pictures/description in workbook

visible potential pollution sources in surrounding area. (possible pollution sources) weather conditions. (encourage environmental observation)

distance to nearest road. (possible aerial pollution)

habitat description. (degree of disturbance)

observation/comparison to pictures/description in workbook observation/comparison to pictures/description in workbook observation/question in workbook

collection method

surrounding area description. (human population density)

site characteristics (reason for collection)

color (indicate organic content/ gley soil)

topsoil ph (indicate acidic/alkaline soils) texture (determine proportions of sand, silt and clay) odor (indicate soil microbial content/gley soils)

moisture (determine very dry or saturated)

reaction with weak acid (indicate presence of carbonates)

infiltration rate (indicate rate soil is able to absorb rainfall or irrigation) anthropogenic objects in soil (indicate possible disturbance/ made ground) soil penetrability (indicate soil compaction)

soil properties (reason for collection)

participants observing soil odor, and matching to a description comparison to a color chart

degree of wetness is evaluated by eye and by manipulation by hand pehanon ph indicator strips range ph 4.0 - 9.0 hand texturing method42

penetration resistance using simple estimation of resistance application of vinegar to soil and observation

observation/question in field guide

measuring infiltration of water in a period of time

collection method

proportion of soil covered by vegetation. (determine plant abundance in a small plot)

plant root presence (determine root structure)

other organism presence (to indicate other soil fauna)

earthworm properties (to check species/indicate ecological group)

immature and adult earthworm abundance in topsoil and from vermifuge (to determine earthworm abundance present) adult earthworm species (determine species distribution and diversity)

biological characteristics (reason for collection)

observation/comparison to pictures/description in workbook

observation/question in field guide

observation/question in workbook and field guide

observation using hand lens/question in workbook

hand sorting/extraction of earthworms using mustard vermifuge and counting numbers present comparison to simple taxonomic key to common british earthworms

collection method

Table 1. Data Requirements and Method of Collection for Public Participation Study to Select Areas of Further Assessment, Split into Thematic Categories41

Environmental Science & Technology Policy Analysis

3690

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

where the submission was from outside England (0.6%). Duplicate records were identified as those where all of the fields including the location information were exactly the same value (16.9%). Of these submissions identified as duplicates, 84.3% were from school groups. After data screening, there were 2671 records remaining (80.2% of the original records collected). Comparison of Survey Data to Existing Sources. The survey data were compared with existing data sources to assess the extent of agreement. The soil classification using the World Reference Base for Soil Resources system45 of surveyed sites was compared to the proportion of the land area in England under each soil classification using data from the European Soil Database (ESDB) Vol. 2.46 The proportion of surveyed sites defined as belonging to a soil classification45 varied from the proportion of land area of England made up of these soil classifications:46 (SI Figure S1). Notably, a much higher proportion of soils surveyed were classified as towns than makes up the proportion of soil classification by area of England, whereas the proportion of soil classified as Cambisol and Gleysol were under-surveyed. At surveyed locations, topsoil pH frequency distributions were compared with mapped NSRI data;47 the apparent error between the surveyed pH and the mapped pH was calculated by subtracting the mapped pH from the surveyed pH. The median pH recorded at all sites was pH 6, whereas the median pH of the NSRI soil association at survey locations was pH 6.5: (SI Figure S2). There was an exact match between the surveyed and NSRI soil association pH values at 3.8% of sites and 30.8% of survey results were reported within 0.5 pH units of the NSRI soil association value: (SI Figure S3). The majority of survey responses (77.5%) under-reported the pH compared to the NSRI soil association. There are differences between the apparent error for different land uses, Kruskal-Walis H = 39.19, P < 0.001, with the biggest apparent error found for survey locations in gardens: (SI Figure S4). There was a generally representative spatial pattern in the pH data from the survey when compared to existing data sets with trends of acidic and alkaline soils highlighted, Figure 3. The NSRI map provides typical percentage values for sand, silt and clay for each soil series, using the soil texture triangle, and each set of the values was subsequently converted into a

Figure 2. Method used to assess data in the OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey pilot to determine areas requiring further detailed investigation for soil degradation processes (based on Toth & Montanarella43).

■

RESULTS

Survey Returns and Quality Control. This section documents the analysis of the first 3332 survey responses received up until the 24th May 2010. Most survey submissions (90.8%) were received from March to July 2009, when the survey was heavily promoted. As a result of work to reach deprived communities, 12.5% of surveys were submitted from areas defined as being in the 20% most deprived parts of England.44 Before subsequent analysis of the public data, all submissions were screened and responses were flagged if location information was not thought to be accurate (2.5%) and

Table 2. Lessons Learned from the Development and Pilot Studies of the OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey issue

action taken

uncertainty associated with identifying species by nonexperts the role of earthworms from a public participation aspect the usability of the tool kit

presence or absence of earthworms per pit; total numbers of earthworms found, or the numbers of different species found within the pit are still very useful. additional information gathered on the earthworm pigmentation and size can help check earthworm species and ecological group

sustaining participant interest throughout the survey access problems for submission sustaining media interest the level of complexity errors inputting data errors associated with location information understanding data limitations from different groups

earthworms are used to attract interest to learning about soil. a balance is however required to collect useful data on soil, and to prevent negativity if earthworms not found or if participants do not like them. testing demonstrated that a variety of activities in collecting data keeps people engaged and interested. use of experts in producing environmental education materials enabled clear, eye-catching and methodological survey materials to be developed. language used was carefully edited to be comprehensible to all users. participation for the duration of the survey process was promoted using the survey materials. extra information was added in the form of “hints” and opportunities to take photos were labeled. if every question could not be answered then as much data as was collected was able to be returned. a number of participants or groups did not have access to the internet or were not able to use the internet form. for this reason, a free postal address was provided to return the survey forms. media events were put on throughout the survey period using well-known spokespeople. outcome of pilot studies suggested that activities were too complicated for some age groups and so a recommended lower age put on survey materials. training was provided for group leaders on running the survey if required. format masks applied to online submission forms and option to select question not answered to prevent blanks in data. entry of site postal code and selection of location on a map giving two references for location. this enabled later cross checking between the two locations. participants asked how they are taking part in the survey, to enable subsequent analysis of survey returns from different groups separately.

3691

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

Figure 3. Soil pH plots produced from data from the OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey (a), and NSRI (b).

texture class48,49 (see SI). The lowest proportion of consistent texture determination was for soils reported as loamy sand (33.2%) and silty clay (46.9%) and greatest for sandy clay loam (85.3%), sand (81.0%), and loam (85.0%) (SI Table S1, Figure S5). The LCM200050,51 is a map that classifies land-use within one of 16 broad habitats.50,51 Between 60.6% and 100% of individual land-use descriptions reported during the survey were considered consistent with LCM2000 mapped habitats, with the exception of ploughed land, where 16.7% were considered consistent (see SI Table S2, Figure S6). Soil and Earthworm Survey Results. Sampling sites were most frequent around urban centers, and especially close to community scientist regional bases; despite this, sites were classified as suburban (45.0%), countryside (33.5%), and urban areas (21.3%). Gardens were the most frequent land-use (25.8%), followed by playing fields (24.1%), open grassy fields (12.2%), wood or forest (11.8%), parkland (9.4%), grassy verge (5.7%), heath or moorlands (1.8%), industrial sites (1.2%), and ploughed fields (0.4%). Earthworm total abundance (juvenile and adult) ranged from 0 to 88 in a single pit; however, almost half the sites surveyed (49.9%) had three earthworm individuals or fewer. Abundance varied between habitats, with highest numbers (median >4) found in gardens, unclassified land uses, industrial sites, playing fields, and open grassy fields, and least in ploughed fields (median = 1); Kruskal-Walis H = 143.05, P < 0.001: (SI Figure S7). There was no difference between site settings with only small differences in earthworm abundance found in urban (median = 3), rural (median = 3), and suburban (median = 4) settings; Kruskal-Walis H = 2.6, P = 0.28. The proportion of surveys sites where specific earthworm species were recorded was greatest for Lumbricus rubellus (15.0%), Aporrectodea longa (14.1%), and Apporectodea caliginosa (13.6%). Species found at the lowest number of sites were Satchellius mammalis (3.5%), Dendrobaena octaedra (4.6%), and Lumbricus castaneus (5.9%) (SI Figure S8). The maximum number of species reported from a single survey site

was 10; however 93.0% of surveys reported the presence of three species or fewer. The most frequently observed topsoil pH were pH 6 (26.5%) and pH 5.5 (25.9%) and there was skew in the frequency distribution toward slightly acidic conditions. The most frequently encountered soil texture classes were silty clay loam (14.9%) and silty loam (14.6%), and the least frequent sand (2.2%), sandy clay (4.0%) and clay (4.7%). Anthropogenic materials were reported as being present in the topsoil at 36.5% of survey locations, with 3% of survey responses reporting the presence of multiple types of object. The most frequent type of material found was construction material (14.6%), unclassified material (11.9%) and glass (9.5%). There were differences in the number of types of objects found in the topsoil between habitat types; KruskalWalis H = 119.94, P < 0.001. The highest proportion of sites with objects found was in industrial sites (57.6%), and gardens (47.9%), the lowest proportion of sites with objects found being ploughed fields (8.3%). There are also differences in the proportion of sites where objects were found in topsoil between site settings (Kruskal-Walis H = 128.67, P < 0.001), with 50.0% of urban sites containing objects, 40.6% of suburban sites and 22.3% of rural sites. Recorded infiltration rates of 750 mL of liquid (dilute mustard solution) to the soil varied from almost instantly infiltrating to the maximum category of over 3 min, with the majority (61.1%) of survey sites taking over 3 min for the liquid to infiltrate. The majority of soil colors were reported as being medium brown (43.3%), light brown (22.2%), and brownish black (22.1%). Colors with the fewest responses were gray/white (0.3%), blue/gray (0.4%), yellow (0.5%), red (0.7%), and green (0.7%). The majority of responses (56.6%) reported an earthy, sweet, fresh smell; no soil odor was reported in 35.3% of survey responses, and a sour, putrid, or chemical smell in a small proportion of surveys (5.1%). A measure of penetration resistance was reported as easy (44.1%) and difficult (43.0%) in similar proportions and very 3692

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

Figure 4. Plot of England showing soil association categorized by (a) the requirement for further assessment based on survey data (b) earthworm abundance.

efficiencies in evidence based policy through increased availability of data. General public perception of the environment is an important factor in gauging the impact of environmental protection legislation.52 It has been suggested that environmental science practitioners fall in to three categories: large scale, small scale, and citizen scientists, with reference to available infrastructure.53 The input of these parties into a tool to meet the objectives of providing data, education, and public participation could be an effective way of improving environmental quality, meeting the objectives of citizen science projects for soil protection, and bridging the gap between different scale environmental science practitioners. Furthermore, there has been pressure for improved access to environmental justice.54−57 The higher than expected returns from disadvantaged communities highlights that approaches such as the survey could help to support research that employs participatory principles and integrates social and physical sciences aimed at understanding solutions to environmental and health inequalities.55 The survey has collected data on soil properties and earthworm fauna using nonexpert members of the public; however, it was not just a citizen science project to deliver data, but through integration of the objectives of data collection, education, and public participation to give a net benefit over existing approaches. Figure 5 details the objectives of the survey and examples of how these have been met. Through careful design and strategic planning of this public participation project, data collection materials and support, it has been shown how an approach like this can be used for a practical outcome. The use of such an approach has demonstrated that it can deliver improvements in the amount and quality of evidence that can be used to inform policy implementation. While the number of survey responses received has been high and there is a good spatial coverage of England, the scale on which soil processes operate means that as survey density increases so will the confidence in findings from the data. The survey has high-density coverage of many urban areas and the predominance of survey locations in these settings shows an advantage of collection of data by the public, which have

difficult in a lower number of sites (11.8%). Soil was reported to fizz on application of vinegar at 10.2% of sites. Interpretation and Application of Survey Data. Use of the method detailed in this work demonstrates how the public survey data can be used to prioritise and highlight areas for further investigation, Figure 4a. This example is an interpretation of the data based on evaluation of single indicators against threshold values, giving a number of exceedances per survey site, which can be averaged across each NSRI soil association in England. Priority for more detailed investigation can then be assigned based on the score for the soil association. The density of surveyed locations highlights areas where more valid further analysis can be made, and where it is too low to make assessments (SI Figure S9). There are a number of clearly defined areas that the approach highlighted for further detailed assessment in order to understand if, and which, soil degradation processes are taking place. The pilot study data can also be used to produce representative plots of soil and earthworm properties in the areas surveyed. An example is for earthworm abundance (Figure 4b), which again has been averaged for each soil association and can be used to target further investigation. Interpretation of the survey pilot study data has demonstrated that observing information at a large spatial scale can provide comparable information to expert data sets. Additional benefits of an increase in education and public participation have been demonstrated through the program of outreach events and high levels of media attention.

■

DISCUSSION

To address the need for evidence led decision-making, and the outstanding issues surrounding resource and capital requirements of new soil protection polices, there appear to be particular benefits in inclusion of public participation as a mechanism for developing and implementing soil protection policies. Such public participation will not only raise awareness of soil, but will increase the perceived ownership and acceptability of policies for its protection. The potential cost savings from an effective public participation tool could lead to 3693

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

Figure 5. Objectives, examples of resulting outcomes, and key lessons of the OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey.

Data collection of this type has the potential, not to replace existing monitoring, but to guide it to prioritise resources to areas with the highest need for detailed assessment. There is a need to maintain the capacity to collect new data on soils in order to report changes over time and to take informed decisions based on actual soil condition and not on outdated or estimated information.59 Data collected by the public can also be used to direct specific further assessment of the interaction between soil properties, chemical compounds, and soil organisms. The use of public data in such a way and communication of the value of their contribution should encourage further involvement in science and policy. With 8.1 million students in schools in England alone60 the potential for large scale data collection for future research projects is massive. Further to the Soil and Earthworm Survey, use of members of the public to collect and return soil samples from areas not covered by existing soil surveys for chemical analysis could provide a relatively quick and cheap method to provide data for geochemical baseline and contaminant mapping. The impact of the survey is being continually evaluated through analysis of how members of public are positioned in relation to such projects; how people engage with the opportunities presented to them; how they use and understand science, and what relevance they see science as having to them, their community, and their locality. The pilot study has proved an important insight into use of public participation in soil surveys which future larger scale regulatory agency backed programmes will hopefully follow up. While the OPAL project was funded for an initial 5 year period (2007−2012), it is envisaged that a legacy project will continue in some form, continuing to work with regulators. The Soil and Earthworm survey itself will leave resources for schools and interested parties to learn about soil and biodiversity. The results will continue to be available from the National Biodiversity Network for use by regulators, researchers, and the public.

provided access to soils largely not sampled by existing soil surveys. Data received by the survey was of acceptable quality, especially for the large-scale practical interpretation reported in this work. Increases in data quality would be unlikely to change significantly the overall interpretation of the data at the scale used, once a “critical mass” of data has been reached. There are some areas that have been under surveyed such as cambisols compared to the proportion by land area in England, which is likely to be due to these soils making good agricultural land.45 The under-surveying of gleysols is likely to be due to the public not having access to such sites. The frequency distribution of topsoil pH appears to be roughly consistent with existing data, with a slight skew of surveyed topsoil pH toward acidic conditions compared to the pH of the NSRI soil association at the same location.47 It was considered that the results of the survey were suitably representative of the land uses encountered with a good level of consistency between the surveyed land use and the LCM2000 mapped land use (median 84.3% consistent). It appears that garden soils are the most altered environments from the survey results and comparison to other data; however, this does not appear to be causing a decline in earthworm numbers. Earthworm abundance is likely to react positively to a number of land management activities in gardens such as addition of organic material, liming, and turning over of the soil. Although confidence in individual results is variable, when observed question by question it depends upon the difficulty and degree of subjectivity of the data collection method. For example with earthworm fauna there is more confidence in the abundance of earthworms recorded than the presence of individual species, as counting individuals is less prone to error than using a taxonomic key. There is an ongoing evaluation of the quality of earthworm identification using the key by comparison to expert identification, which will be published separately.58 Comparison of earthworm data to existing sources has been limited due to the lack of such records for England. 3694

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

(10) Chatterjee, R. Citizen Science Takes Flight in India. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42 (11), 3911−3913, DOI: 10.1021/es0871210. (11) Spencer, M. A.; Stevens, G.; Rumsey, F. J. Exploring British Wildlife: Bluebells. 2006. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/ british-natural-history/survey-bluebells/(accessed January 18, 2011). (12) Dickinson, J.; Zuckerberg, B.; Bonter, D. N. Citizen science as an ecological research tool: Challenges and benefits. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 2010, 41 (1), 149−172, DOI: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636. (13) Vestberg, M.; Kukkonen, S.; Saari, K.; Uosukainen, M.; Palojärvi, A.; Tuovinen, T.; Vepsäläinen, M.; Niemi, M. Cropping system impact on soil quality determinants. Agric. Food Sci. Finland 2002, 11, (4), (14) Ingram, J.; Fry, P.; Mathieu, A. Revealing different understandings of soil held by scientists and farmers in the context of soil protection and management. Land Use Policy 2010, 27 (1), 51−60, DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.005. (15) Cai, X.; Zhang, X.; Wang, D. Land availability for biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 1488−1491, DOI: 10.1021/ es103338e. (16) Van-Camp, L.; Bujarrabal, B.; Gentile, A. R.; Jones, R. J. A.; Montanarella, L.; Olazabal, C.; Selvaradjou, S. K. Reports of the Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2004; Vol. EUR 21319 EN/5, pp 872 pp. (17) Bone, J.; Head, M.; Jones, D. T.; Barraclough, D.; Archer, M.; Scheib, C.; Flight, D.; Eggleton, P.; Voulvoulis, N. From chemical risk assessment to environmental quality management: The challenge for soil protection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (1), 395−430, DOI: 10.1021/es101463y. (18) Apitz, S. E.; Elliott, M.; Fountain, M.; Galloway, T. S. European environmental management: Moving to an ecosystem approach. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manage. 2006, 2 (1), 80−85, DOI: 10.1002/ ieam.5630020114. (19) EC. Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection; Commission of The European Communities: Brussels, Belgium, 2006; Vol. COM(2006) 231, pp 1−12. (20) EC Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for the Protection of Soilpolitical Agreementpresidency Proposal; Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2009; Vol. 10387/09, pp 1−47. (21) Creamer, R. E.; Brennan, F.; Fenton, O.; Healy, M. G.; Lalor, S. T. J.; Lanigan, G. J.; Regan, J. T.; Griffiths, B. S. Implications of the proposed Soil Framework Directive on agricultural systems in Atlantic EuropeA review. Soil Use Manage. 2010, 26 (3), 198−211, DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00288.x. (22) Potočnik, J. Biodiversityour Lifeline: Opening Session of the Green Week 2010; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; Vol. SPEECH/10/282. (23) Bardos, P. Continuing interest in a soil framework Directive by the European Commission (June 2010). http://www.eugris.info/ displaynewsitem2.asp?n=713&t=Continuing (accessed June 29, 2011). (24) Gardi, C.; Montanarella, L.; Arrouays, D.; Bispo, A.; Lemanceau, P.; Jolivet, C.; Mulder, C.; Ranjard, L.; Römbke, J.; Rutgers, M. Soil biodiversity monitoring in Europe: Ongoing activities and challenges. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2009, 60 (5), 807−819, DOI: 10.1111/j.13652389.2009.01177.x. (25) UNEP-WCMC. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the KeyFindings; UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre: Cambridge, UK, 2011; p 87. (26) EC. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for the Protection of Soil and Amending, Directive 2004/35/EC, 2006; COM 232 final. (27) Kapoor, I. Towards participatory environmental management? J. Environ. Manage. 2001, 63 (3), 269−279, DOI: 10.1006/ jema.2001.0478. (28) EC. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework for the Protection of Soil - Progress Report; Council of the European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2010; Vol. 7100/10, pp 1−5.

The survey has ultimately resulted in thousands of individuals in England getting outdoors into their local environment and collecting useful data on soil properties and earthworms. This first major public survey of soil and earthworms has demonstrated that there is value in data collected by the public on such subjects. Ultimately it is hoped that the project has raised awareness of the importance of soils, biodiversity and environmental quality, and increased public understanding and acceptance of soil protection policy.

■

ASSOCIATED CONTENT

S Supporting Information *

Information and a number of tables relating to the method of comparison of data to other sources and figures illustrating analysis of the results. It also contains the OPAL Soil and Earthworm Field guide and Workbook which are described in this work. The OPAL Soil and Earthworm Survey data has been deposited with the National Biodiversity Network, Nottingham, UK (http://www.nbn.org.uk). This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*Phone: +44 (0) 207594 7459; fax: +44 (0) 207594 9334; e-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We gratefully acknowledge participants of the OPAL Soil and Earthworm survey for collecting data and to community scientists for working with communities in their region. We acknowledge the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for a PhD studentship and the Big Lottery Fund for funding the OPAL Soil Centre, which facilitated collaboration between Imperial College London, the Natural History Museum, the British Geological Survey and the Environment Agency.

■

REFERENCES

(1) DEFRA. Defra’s Evidence Investment Strategy: 2010−2013 and beyond. 2011 Update; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2011; Vol. pb13471, pp 1−58. (2) CEH Isle of May Long-Term Study. 2011. http://www.ceh.ac.uk/ sci_programmes/IsleofMayLong-TermStudy.html (accessed July 11, 2011). (3) DEFRA UK Acidifying and Eutrophying Atmospheric Pollutants. 2009. http://pollutantdeposition.defra.gov.uk/ukeap (accessed November 7, 2011). (4) Skelcher, C.; Torfing, J. Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe. Regul. Governance 2010, 4 (1), 71−91, DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01072.x. (5) Jordan, B. Why the Third Way Failed: Economics, Morality and the Origins of the’Big Society’; Policy Press: UK, 2011; pp 232. (6) Conservative Party Big Society Not Big Government; . Conservative Party: London, 2010, 1−16. (7) Silvertown, J. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends. Ecol. Evolut. 2009, 24 (9), 467−471, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.017. (8) Butcher, G. S. Audubon Christmas Bird Counts. Biol. Rep. U. S. Fish Wildl. Serv. 1990, 90 (1), 5−13. (9) RSPB Big Garden Birdwatch. 2011. http://www.rspb.org.uk/ birdwatch/ (accessed February 16, 2011). 3695

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696

Environmental Science & Technology

Policy Analysis

(29) Local Government Association. Soil Framework Directive; Local Government Association: UK, 2010; p 5. (30) PLC Environment. EU Soil Framework Directive Practice Note; Practical Law Company: UK, 2011. (31) Baker, G. H.; Thumlert, T. A.; Meisel, L. S.; Carter, P. J.; Kilpin, G. P. Earthworms downunder: A survey of the earthworm fauna of urban and agricultural soils in Australia. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1997, 29 (3−4), 589−597, DOI: 10.1016/S0038-0717(96)00184-8. (32) Nature Watch WormWatch Canada. 2010. http://www. naturewatch.ca/english/wormwatch/intro.html (accessed). (33) Natural Resources Research Institute and The University of Minnesota. Great Lakes Worm Watch. 2006. http://www.nrri.umn. edu/worms/ (accessed). (34) Davies, L.; Bell, J. N. B.; Bone, J.; Head, M.; Hill, L.; Howard, C.; Hobbs, S. J.; Jones, D. T.; Power, S. A.; Rose, N.; Ryder, C.; Seed, L.; Stevens, G.; Toumi, R.; Voulvoulis, N.; White, P. C. L. Open Air Laboratories (OPAL): A community-driven research programme. Environ. Pollut. 2011, 159 (8−9), 2203−2210, DOI: 10.1016/ j.envpol.2011.02.053. (35) Rose, N.; Turner, S.; Davidson, T. Sampling and analytical protocols for the Open Air Laboratories (OPAL) Water Projects, ECRC Research Report 127; Environmental Change Research Centre, UCL: London, UK, 2008. (36) Bone, J.; Head, M.; Barraclough, D.; Archer, M.; Scheib, C.; Flight, D.; Voulvoulis, N. Soil quality assessment under emerging regulatory requirements. Environ. Int. 2010, 36, 609−622, DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2010.04.010. (37) Lal, R. Degradation and resilience of soils. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 1997, 352, 997−1010, DOI: 10.1098/rstb.1997.0078. (38) Muramoto, J.; Werner, M. R. Mustard powder vermifuge: an alternative to formalin expulsion method for earthworm sampling. Edaphologia 2002, 70, 7−12. (39) Pelosi, C.; Bertrand, M.; Capowiez, Y.; Boizard, H.; RogerEstrade, J. Earthworm collection from agricultural fields: Comparisons of selected expellants in presence/absence of hand-sorting. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2009, 45 (2), 176−183, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2008.09.013. (40) Jones, D. T. Lowe, C. N. Key to Common British Earthworms; OPAL Soil Centre, Imperial College London: UK, 2009. (41) Bone, J.; Barraclough, D.; Eggleton, P.; Head, M.; Jones, D. T.; Voulvoulis, N. Prioritising soil quality assessment through the screening of sites: the use of publicly collected data. Land Degrad Dev 2012 In Press, DOI 10.1002/ldr.2138 (42) Thien, S. J. A flow diagram for teaching texture by feel analysis. J. Agronomic Education 1979, 8, 54−55. (43) Tóth, G. Montanarella, L. An European Perspective on Soil Quality: Implications for Monitoring and Assessemnt; Joint Research Commission, European Comission: Brussels, Belgium, 2009; pp 35. (44) DCLG Indices of Deprivation 2007. Department of Communities and Local Government: UK, 2007; (45) IUSS Working Group WRB World Reference Base for Soil Resources, 2nd ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2006. (46) European Soil Bureau Network and the European Commission. The European Soil Database Distribution Version 2.0, 2004; CD-ROM, EUR 19945 EN. (47) NSRI. Land Information System (LandIS); National Soil Resources Institute (NSRI), Cranfield University: Cranfield, UK, 2007. (48) Teh, C. B. S.; Rashid, M. Object-oriented code to lookup soil texture classes based on any soil classification scheme. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2003, 34, 1−11, DOI: 10.1081/CSS-120017410. (49) Christopher, T. B. S.; Mokhtaruddin, A. M. A computer program to determine the soil textural class in 1−2−3 for Windows and Excel. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1996, 27 (9), 2315−2319, DOI: 10.1080/00103629609369705. (50) Fuller, R. M.; Cox, R.; Clarke, R. T.; Rothery, P.; Hill, R. A.; Smith, G. M.; Thomson, A. G.; Brown, N. J.; Howard, D. C.; Stott, A. P. The UK land cover map 2000: Planning, construction and calibration of a remotely sensed, user-oriented map of broad habitats.

Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. 2005, 7 (3), 202−216, DOI: 10.1016/ j.jag.2005.04.002. (51) Fuller, R. M.; Smith, G. M.; Sanderson, J. M.; Hill, R. A.; Thomson, A. G. The UK Land Cover Map 2000: Construction of a parcel-based vector map from satellite images. Cartogr. J. 2002, 39 (1), 15−25. (52) Lutchman, I.; Brown, J.; Kettunen, M. Transatlantic Platform For Action On The Global Environment (T-Page); Institute for European Environmental Policy: London, UK, 2007. (53) Kolok, A. S.; Schoenfuss, H. L. Environmental scientists, biologically active compounds, and sustainability: The vital role for small-scale science. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (1), 39−44, DOI: 10.1021/es100455d. (54) Rechtschaffen, C. Advancing environmental justice norms. UC Davis Law Review 2003, 37, 95. (55) U.S. EPA. Plan EJ 2014; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011; pp 1−189. (56) U.S. EPA. FY 2011−2015 EPA Strategic Plan: Achieving Our Vision; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010; pp 1−60. (57) Molitor, J.; Su, J.; Molitor, N. T.; Rubio, V. G.; Richardson, S.; Hastie, D.; Morello-Frosch, R. A.; Jerrett, M. Identifying vulnerable populations through an examination of the association between multipollutant profiles and poverty. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45 (18), 7754−7760, DOI: 10.1021/es104017x. (58) Jones, D. T. OPAL soil and earthworm survey: Correct identification rates of a key to common british earthworms. (in preparation). (59) Montanarella, L. European soil data in support to the EU Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection; Joint Research Commission, European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. (60) Department for Education. Schools, Pupils, and Their Characteristics, January 2011; Department for Education: London, UK, 2011.

3696

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es203880p | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 3687−3696