Cappiello, crowdsourcing science reporting.

Crowdsourcing environmental coverage

John Eischeid interviews Dina Cappiello from the Houston Chronicle

Dina Cappiello is an environmental reporter for the Houston Chronicle who harnessed the power of crowds to gather information for a series of articles. Eighty-four trained volunteer monitors helped Cappiello measure local air toxins for an investigative series that ran in the newspaper.

Dina's toxic air series

John Eischeid: Why did you choose to implement this type of reporting?

Dina Cappiello: Because the information I needed to answer my question wasn't out there. The Houston Chronicle had to collect it for itself.

Q: Do you know of any other projects or stories that this process has worked with? If not, can you think of any with which it would?

A: I don't, actually. I know of other investigative journalists who tested fish and that sort of thing. I believe ours was the first to tackle air.

Q: What hurdles did you face, both through the process and editorially at the paper?

A: I was fully supported by the editors here at the Chronicle. One of the big challenges was getting volunteers. A lot of the residents worked in the industry, had worked in the industry or had relatives that worked in the industry.

Q: Have those who participated in the study experienced any form of harassment?

A: I had one guy who actually worked for a company that does air pollution monitoring, and he called me after the story ran and said that he was nervous about getting fired. I said that if you get fired, call me back. As far as I know, he still has his job.

Q: About how many people did you canvass? How did you find them?

A: I knocked on a lot of doors. I had a letter in English and Spanish describing the study. It took me four weeks, probably, to find the 84 volunteers.

Q: Have you tried similar projects since?

A: No. But I would do it again. It's a significant investment. This was a very specific case. Typical reporting methods didn't work.

Q: What did you learn from the study that you could have never discovered working on your own?

A: I found out what was in the air in people's backyards and whether it posed a health risk. I was looking for concentrations at a specific location. The air quality was worse than we all thought.

Q: Did the scientists analyzing the data find it to be suitable? Did they tell you that some of the data collected might be incompatible or somehow tainted?

A: No. I was trained by scientists, and I trained the volunteers in how to use the monitor and where to place it. I picked the location, so it wasn't on the garage above the grill. In every neighborhood, we did two houses next to each other. If there was a high concentration at both houses we knew it was an area problem. The results were then sent to people independent of the Chronicle.

Q: So, it's almost like a mini-peer review?

A: It's not a peer review that was up to scientific standards. My aim was not to publish in a journal. It was to start discussion, and we did that. More than two years later, we're still seeing results.

Q: The state planned to investigate the results of the study. That was over a year ago. Has the state begun any investigation? Are there any results as of yet?

A: Yeah, the state has done a lot. First and foremost, the 2004 data that the state issued completely backed up our investigation. Everything to date has only built up our case and validated us, and led to more reaction. Since the series appeared, 1.3-butadiene emissions have declined 50 percent in the neighborhood where we found some of the highest levels.