1. Barriers to Sharing Water Quality Data: Lessons from the Marcellus Shale Region
Abby Kinchy
Presentation for the Teach-In on Disappearing Data
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
April 26, 2017

2. Watershed Knowledge Mapping Project
Why is water quality data “missing” in so many places affected by natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale (“fracking”)?
What prevents the sharing of water quality data, when it exists?

3. Missing data – gaps in monitoring
When I talk about missing data, sometimes this implies secrecy or an unwillingness to share information. I will be talking about this problem in just a moment. But I also mean the failure to generate essential data in the first place. Here is a map of Pennsylvania’s watersheds. The cream colored spaces are watersheds where neither state nor federal agencies are monitoring surface water quality in any regular or systematic way. So there are gaps in knowledge about pollution in these places.

4. The focus of the Watershed Knowledge Mapping Project was to understand how citizen scientists were responding to gaps in knowledge about the effects of fracking on surface water quality. We used GIS mapping to understand how citizen science was spatially distributed, in relation to government water monitoring efforts and the gas industry.
This map shows the extensive geographic range of citizen science efforts in the regions impacted by gas development.

5. Shale Network
Project based at Penn State dedicated to compiling water quality data
Brings together community groups, researchers, educators, industry representatives, and government agency personnel, to encourage data sharing
Data is compiled in HydroDesktop, a free and open source hydrologic information system
This research brought us in contact with researchers at Penn State who were trying compile many different sources of water quality data to get a better understanding of the effects of fracking on watersheds and aquifers.
[explain Shale Network]
The coordinators of Shale Network were frustrated that many people did not want to share their data. We decided to collaborate to investigate the barriers to data sharing.

6. Data for this study
Observations across multiple settings, including one-on-one encounters, formal meetings and trainings, annual workshops, conferences, and Shale Network Leadership Team conference calls
Pre- and post- workshop surveys over several years of Shale Network workshops
Interviews with three academic scientists, six government scientists and regulators, and nine civil society organizations

7. Stakeholders share data for three main reasons
to improve water science to make more informed management decisions of natural resources
to increase transparency and public access to information
to be part of a broader water quality community

8. Common barriers to data sharing
inadequate resources for obtaining and organizing data
concerns about consistency and quality control
lack of intuitive tools for data analysis
confidentiality of data collection sites
Organizations collect data for their own purposes and interests, which create some barriers to sharing the data with a larger water monitoring community.

9. Volunteer Monitoring Groups
Volunteers become discouraged from sharing data if they perceive watershed experts as unresponsive to their concerns.
Some scientists think citizen science lacks credibility and do not want to compile their data with volunteer- collected data.

10. Academic Researchers
Competition for resources and the reward structure in academic institutions hinder data sharing.
Some scientists expressed concerns about being seen as biased or as an activist if they share data with industry or advocacy groups.

11. Government Agencies
The data government scientists are authorized to collect are for regulation by separate agencies, which are not integrated.
In PA, their methods are still largely paper-based and there are technical barriers to digitizing information.
Sharing is also limited by confidentiality concerns.

12. The Gas Industry
Competition and liability concerns limit what companies are willing to disclose.
Legal and regulatory settlements often place limitations on information disclosure.

13. How Shale Network attempts to encourage sharing
Providing resources and support for data management
Applying standards for quality assurance and confidentiality
Building infrastructure to increase confidence that data has a long- term home
Increasing collaboration across sectors through the annual Shale Network workshops
Building capacity in the water monitoring community through trainings and technical support
Creating processes that complement organizational interests

14. Broader lessons
Data “disappears” not just because of direct attacks on transparency
Failure to collect data creates spatial gaps – geographical areas of ignorance
Even when data is collected, there are many technical and social obstacles to sharing it
Promoting data sharing requires not only technological solutions but also social, legal, and organizational changes that may be difficult to achieve

15. Thanks! This talk was based on the following paper:
Brasier, K., K. Jalbert, A. Kinchy, S. Brantley, and C. Unroe “Barriers to Sharing Water Quality Data: Experiences from the Shale Network.”  Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.
The Watershed Knowledge Mapping Project was supported by an NSF Standard Grant (Award # ).