Communication and expanding participation

The initial stages of Adopt a Lake necessitated extensive preparation involving a collaborative effort from a team of scientists, stakeholders, and communication experts at Université de Montréal, who assisted in carefully crafting of the initiative. During this time, several key concerns emerged : (1) explaining the scientific goals of the campaign in simple terms and highlighting the benefits for participants; (2) clarifying the scope of the results participants could expect and emphasizing that the initiative output did not substitute for private labs or government analyses; and (3) developing a clear and concise report format that included site-specific information and details about toxins, cyanobacteria, nutrients levels, and on-site measurements along with explanation about the results and how they aligned with global regulations and guidelines. To address these concerns, a bilingual (French/English) website was created to provide comprehensive information helping participants understand the initiative’s objectives. During the registration phase, participants were reminded that the results would be included in a public database. All participants consented to voluntarily participate in this collection effort by registering on the program website.

Regular close communication (phone calls and text messages) and project updates (e.g., newsletters delivered through common mailing lists and website updates) allowed participants to track the progress of the project (Figure 3; see also Supplemental File 1). Many participants in the initial campaign volunteered again in subsequent years, indicating their continued interest in this project and in maintaining collaborative ties. Videos were made publicly available through social media for those interested in learning more about the closely related ATRAPP project. In addition to the initial registration of participants that initiated this citizen science project, participants were recruited mostly through word-of-mouth referrals. Media interventions in the local press (Blais and Langlois 2020; Blais and Mathieu 2022; Colpron 2022; Deshaies 2020; Savard-Fournier 2021) aimed at raising awareness about harmful blooms attracted more participants.

In Adopt a Lake, personalized reports written in simple terms highlighting the key findings from their sample analyses were prepared for each participant. Participants were trained for sampling through basic tutorials and straightforward protocols, and they received necessary follow-up support. Additionally, the development of a new massive open online course (MOOC) on water contaminants developed at Université de Montréal included a module dedicated to cyanobacteria and their endotoxins, further enhancing participants’ knowledge about this issue (Université de Montreal 2021).

Project overview and coordination

When implementing a citizen-science project, common hurdles and limitations may arise regarding the handling and organization of the project, data repository and accessibility, and the reliability of the generated results. One question that often arises is to what extent a sample taken by a citizen who typically lacks extensive scientific training is reliable. There are many caveats relating to the representativity of collected samples, and subsequent issues during the handling and storage of water samples (Dinh et al. 2021; Kamp et al. 2016). Protocols should be specific enough to ensure sample and data quality but must remain relatively simple and understandable. With this in mind, we consulted with other crowdsourcing campaign management teams in Canada to understand the requirements for establishing a successful sampling operation adapted to enthusiastic volunteers with little or no scientific background (Ministère de l’Environnement 2004–2020; Water Rangers 2022). Highlighted among the recommendations were clear and simple sampling protocols and channels to facilitate communications with researchers (e.g., rapid communication tools such as instant messaging applications).

The participants are residents who live near the sampled lakes or have cottages in proximity. Consequently, they were well positioned to collect samples promptly upon observing a bloom. We developed a custom sampling kit that was sent to participants a few weeks before. This kit contained the materials to sample for presence of cyanotoxins and for nutrient and genomic analysis, and to measure in situ parameters (temperature, alkalinity, hardness, pH). It also included a detailed written procedure for field sampling (Supplemental File 2 and Supplemental File 3). For improved clarity, a short tutorial video illustrating the basic steps of surface water sampling was posted online (Adopt a Lake 2022). Additionally, we regularly communicated with the participants to address any concerns they might have regarding sample protocols, handling and storage of samples prior to shipment, recommended holding times, and other considerations. The participants had to sample a lake and send the samples box back (at their expense), while the analytical cost of the laboratory analyses was assumed through research funds and crowdfunding donations.

Cost savings estimation

Many citizen science articles mention the cost-benefit potential of these initiatives (Encarnação et al. 2021; San Llorente Capdevila et al. 2020). However, a new approach to evaluate cost-benefit potential that takes into consideration the effectiveness of citizen science observations in supplementing existing data in terms of temporal and spatial coverage, and the associated costs of data production, indicates that establishing a citizen science initiative solely for data collection can be a costly endeavour impacting both the data users and the initiative itself (Alfonso, Gharesifard and Wehn 2022). In our study, we estimated the potential cost savings achieved when involving participants, contributing their time and effort to collect samples from various lakes, rather than relying on paid personnel. The participants, through their dedication and contribution, allowed us to conduct extensive fieldwork efficiently. This approach has several facets worth considering. We acknowledge that the participants may vary in their level of training and expertise compared with professional researchers, and thus, there may be uncertainty about data quality and reliability (Riesch and Potter 2013).

Costs were estimated for a subset of 19 lakes analyzed during the 2018 sampling season, assuming proximate sampling sites would have been visited during the same sampling trip. Estimated sampling costs included car rental with insurance (C$110 per day), car fuel (C$0.10 per kilometer), hotel (C$165 per day), and meal allowance (C$45 per person per day). For six field trips covering 19 lakes and 3,200 km, the logistics costs are as high as C$3,050. When extrapolated to 86 lakes, the estimated cost rises to approximately C$13,800. Factoring in personnel time (2–2.5 months per year) and stipends/salaries for students or post-doctoral fellows (C$15,000 and C$42,000), the estimated sampling cost for the four years to sample 86 lakes is between C$28,800 and C$48,800. This raises an ethical question of whether citizen science might replace jobs that would otherwise employ scientists (Walker, Smigaj and Tani 2021). In this case, the sampling timing is crucial because harmful algal blooms occur unpredictably and often have a short duration. As participants are residents who live near the sampled lakes or have cottages in proximity, it enables them to collect samples promptly upon bloom detection. Additionally, given the extensive territory covered, the logistics involved are considerably complex, raising questions about the overall project feasibility.

In comparison, shipping the sampling kits to participants, including both shipping and personnel expenses, was much lower—from C$3,000 to C$6,000. As of July 2022, the crowdfunding campaign had raised C$27,900 in donations, with 26% of the participants contributing monetarily. Through crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, total savings are between C$58,000 and C$78,000 during the four-year campaign. The participants were informed that they were required to cover the sample shipping costs. The cost of sample shipping to the university laboratory varied between C$25 and C$100 depending on the locality (remote localities being more expensive). In terms of equity and inclusivity, we recognise that asking the participant to cover the costs of sample shipping have created disparities in participation because individuals and associations might have varying levels of financial resources, potentially leading to unequal access to this initiative. Regarding the ethical oversight, the participants were not pressured to enrol in this initiative, the information is displayed on the initiative website, and the participant must register voluntarily to be enrolled in the program (Riesch and Potter 2013).

Benefits for researchers and participants

This citizen science initiative has yielded substantial benefits for researchers and participants. For researchers, the advantages are multifaceted. Firstly, acquiring lake samples and in situ analysis through citizen participation is a cost-effective alternative compared with relying solely on paid professional researchers. Secondly, considering the unpredictable timing of cyanobacterial bloom, which can last for only several days or hours, the citizen science program offers an advantage that would have been otherwise unattainable from a budget and time perspective. Thirdly, some of these lakes that were not previously reported for developing toxic cyanobacterial blooms are now part of a list of sites to be monitored, fostering strong collaborations between participants and researchers. This continuous tracking of harmful blooms in select lakes enables researchers to discern whether the issue is sporadic or chronic, contributing to a deeper understanding of the problem beyond anecdotal perceptions. It emphasizes integrating traditional and local knowledge with the scientific approach. The Adopt a Lake initiative offers participants tangible and potential benefits (Walker, Smigaj and Tani 2021). The tangible benefits include receiving a site-specific report and the opportunity for participants to engage in discussions about their results. These reports provide valuable information that participants can share within their communities, increasing social learning and empowerment. This encourages participants to engage in public meetings to raise awareness and to advocate for their concerns. In addition to these concrete advantages, there are potential benefits as well. Participation in the program can enhance knowledge and scientific literacy, fostering community engagement and ultimately contributing to advancements in the field of harmful algal blooms. By contributing to Adopt a Lake, the participants are involved in advancing the science of blue-green algae, a problem that exists in Quebec, Canada, and internationally (e.g., Australia, Brazil, and other countries).

We agree with Chase and Levine (Chase and Levine 2016) when they argue that citizen science programs should “seek to complement, rather than duplicate,” monitoring efforts already being conducted. Citizen science complements official data sources that serve as evidence for policies and practices to improve water quality (König et al. 2021). Citizens may play a role in areas where government agencies cannot (or will not) take action. For instance, when North Carolina’s Legislature scaled back funding for air quality monitoring, the Gardenroots project received a grant from the state’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct research in response to public concern, a task that the EPA could not undertake on its own (Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2015; Wyeth et al. 2019). Adopt a Lake does not duplicate governmental or academic efforts—quite the opposite. With this project, the community fills a gap in harmful cyanobacterial blooms monitoring and lists new sites to monitor. In Quebec, in the late 1990s, following the acquisition of new scientific knowledge and reporting certain cases of blue-green algae blooms, the provincial government implemented the Blue-Green Algae Bloom Episode Management Plan. Implementation of the management plan began in 2004. Based on the knowledge acquired, the government reduced its interventions, resulting in fewer lakes being monitored over the years as the focus gradually shifted from monitoring to remediation. This resulted in the identification of more than 500 affected water bodies in a document entitled List of Water Bodies Affected by a Blue-Green Algae Bloom from 2004 to 2017 and Recurring Water Bodies Reported from 2013 to 2015. (Le ministère de l’Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques [MELCC] 2018). The list indicates whether the body of water has been affected (minimum threshold of 20,000 cells of blue-green algae per millilitre), but there is no indicator of the proliferation intensity. Despite the termination of the monitoring program in 2017, citizens still have the option to report the occurrence of blooms by contacting their regional directorate or submitting a visual report form. However, the current criteria for testing waterbodies for cyanobacterial harmful blooms in Quebec, Canada, are highly restrictive. This limitation hampers the effective tracking of harmful algal blooms, potentially resulting in the under detection of toxic blooms and, consequently, downplaying the severity of the issue (Pick 2016). Under this initiative, the participants played a crucial role in scientifically documenting the presence of cyanobacterial harmful blooms in 86 lakes across Eastern Canada, specifically in Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, from 2018 to 2021. This collaborative effort ensured the ongoing acquisition of valuable data. It was observed that some of these lakes serving as domestic water sources for residents. This is of high concern as relevant exposure pathways to cyanotoxins include ingestion of contaminated drinking water and dermal contact or accidental ingestion of surface water during recreational activities (dermal contact, accidental ingestion). In these problematic cases, the participants provided additional samples and the monitoring was continued.

Challenges

As observed in other monitoring programs (Bos et al. 2019; Nanayakkara, Bos and Finlay 2017; Rich 2019), the principal challenge was to provide adequate, sufficient, and easy-to-understand information. To address this, we employed consistent terminology and utilized various communication methods, such as emails, text messages, and phone calls, while maintaining a balance in the frequency of communication. It was crucial to be accessible to participants during bloom periods to address their concerns and to answer their questions.

The planning and coordination of citizen science activities proved to be time consuming. It necessitated meticulous planning by providing detailed yet clear instructions to volunteers and allocating time for effective interaction. This initial investment in time was crucial to ensure that participants correctly understood the instructions, especially given the need for different sampling protocols for various parameters (e.g., nutrients, toxins, and DNA analysis) and the inclusion of on-site measurements requested. This requires significant human resource management as participants need close and rapid accompaniment when sampling and often request specifics on sample handling and storage. Depending on the degree of involvement, varying degrees of accuracy/precision were expected, as seen in the analysis of field sample duplicates (Roy-Lachapelle et al. 2019). A certain degree of flexibility is also necessary as protocols may need to be dynamic rather than static; for instance, sampling/storage procedures may need to be adapted as our understanding of cyanobacteria/cyanotoxin science evolves.

There are additional limitations associated with the design of the citizen science approach. While the acquired data is valuable, we refrained from providing a definitive trophic classification of lakes. Since water samples were mostly collected from one-time measurements and retrieved from the near shore, further temporal investigation of the lake (e.g., seasonal monitoring) and space (e.g., throughout the water column and at different sampling points) would be needed for this purpose. In addition, in terms of sampling methodologies, we are looking to improve DNA sampling and are currently testing new methodologies with the participants.

Perennity plan

To ensure the long-term sustainability of the initiative and to address the identified gaps, we aim for a perennity plan that focuses on improving communications, expediting lab analysis, enhancing the reporting process, and transitioning into a continuous monitoring program. The program was broadcast in the media when the problem with cyanobacteria was raised (Blais and Langlois 2020; Blais and Mathieu 2022; Colpron 2022; Deshaies 2020; Savard-Fournier 2021). Following each broadcast by published articles in the media, we noticed an increase in enrolment. Similarly, a study identifying the toxins of concern by state and region in the United States and the level of monitoring and outreach efforts for blooms, concluded that the preferred outreach and education method for the community is via press release (Hardy, Preece, and Backer 2021). The success of the program in attracting participants through media coverage indicates the value of ongoing media engagement to maintain awareness and encourage engagement.

A survey conducted among the participants (26% response rate) informed us about the gaps and strong points of the program. According to the survey, the participants found the protocol clear (91%), the sampling time reasonable (95%), and the sampling kit complete (100%). The communication pace with the coordinator was rapid (68%), and 59% of stakeholders felt that communications about the program were right. Only 45% of participants thought the time to receive the results was acceptable and that the report received was complete and detailed. In the past three years, the pandemic hindered the in-lab analysis; there is room for improvement to expedite the generation of lab results and issuance of the report document. As the program relies on participant engagement, fostering partnerships with local communities and stakeholders will be essential for its long-term success. Collaborating with local organizations such as water conservation agencies and citizen watershed or lake protection associations will enable us to tap into existing networks and to expand outreach efforts. By actively involving participants in the monitoring process and valuing their contributions, we can harness their passion for water resources protection and cultivate a sense of ownership in the program.

Continuous evaluation and improvement will be integrated into the perennity plan. Regular feedback from participants and stakeholders will enhance the program advancement. By adapting to emerging challenges and incorporating best practices, the initiative will evolve into a well-implemented community monitoring program that remains relevant and essential in tracking harmful algal blooms over the years. Overall, the perennity plan aims to ensure the long-term sustainability and success of the program by refining communications strategies, expediting lab analysis, enhancing reporting practices, fostering partnership, and embracing continuous improvement. With these measures in place, we are confident in the program’s ability to make a lasting impact on water resources management and to contribute to the well-being of the communities.