Decoding ‘Community Air Monitoring’: When Marketing Overshadows Openness.

Community and citizen science are foundational to my vision for AirGradient. But for quite some time now, I’ve noticed something that needs to be called out: the increasing use of ‘community air monitoring’ and ‘citizen science’ by many air sensor companies. While the words sound great, I wonder:

Is this genuine community empowerment, or is it just clever marketing masking a less community-centric reality?

I’m all for spreading awareness and getting more people involved in understanding their air. However, I believe it’s crucial to distinguish between companies genuinely empowering communities – the kind of company we are building – and those simply leveraging the idea of community to sell more products. Why? Some practices I’m seeing just don’t add up.

Free Data for Them, Locked Data for You?

Many of these companies heavily rely on publicly available data sources – government monitoring networks, weather data, even open-source projects – to enhance their platforms and services. They happily consume this free data to provide context and value to their offerings.

That’s perfectly fine, and often beneficial! Open data sharing strengthens the entire ecosystem.

In fact, at AirGradient, we are proud to be one of the companies contributing to this open ecosystem. I believe strongly in making data from our monitors accessible, which is why we easily allow our monitor owners to give free access to their data. Currently over 1000 AirGradient outdoor monitors (and growing) around the world are sharing their data for public good.

Ironically, we even share our data with some platforms that, while happy to receive our contributions, refuse to share data from their own monitor networks back with us or with other data aggregators like OpenAQ.

For these companies “community” seems to stop at the point of collecting the data, and the sharing part becomes far less emphasized, or even actively restricted - but isn’t that equally important when it comes to maximising the impact we can have with the data?

I’ve seen examples where:

• Data is locked and only accessible for a fee. Want to download your own community’s aggregated data for independent analysis or local initiatives? Prepare to pay up.
• Data sharing is limited or non-existent. No easy way to export data, contribute to larger open datasets, or even simply share anonymized readings with researchers or local authorities who could benefit from it.

It’s a bit like borrowing ingredients from your neighbors to bake a cake, but then refusing to share a slice!

“Your” Data? Think Again

Read the fine print. I’ve been shocked to see terms of service from some “community-focused” air sensor companies that explicitly deny you ownership of the air quality data your own device collects. Yes, you bought the sensor, you placed it in your home or neighborhood, you contributed to the data stream – but according to their terms, the data itself belongs to the company.

This raises serious questions about the true spirit of citizen science. Citizen science, at its heart, is about empowering citizens to participate in scientific endeavors and contribute to a shared understanding. If the data you generate isn’t even yours to own or control, how truly empowering is that? It feels more like you’re contributing to their dataset, on their terms.

Silencing the Community

I’ve discovered instances of companies using “no-index” tags on specific pages of their websites that are intended to showcase community contributions – for example, pages listing community members who have deployed sensors or contributed to projects.

Why “no-index”? Because it tells search engines not to index those pages. This effectively hides these pages from public search results, making it harder for people to find and acknowledge the contributions of individual community members. It minimizes public attribution and keeps the focus firmly on the company brand, rather than highlighting the collective effort of the “community.” If you were truly celebrating citizen science, wouldn’t you want to shout the contributions of your community from the rooftops, not bury them in the digital shadows?

Opaque Algorithms

Finally, transparency is paramount in any genuine scientific endeavor, including citizen science. Yet, some companies promoting “community air monitoring” keep their data processing algorithms completely opaque. We have no insight into how raw sensor readings are cleaned, calibrated, aggregated, or adjusted.

This lack of transparency makes it difficult for community members to truly understand the data they are seeing and to trust its validity. How can you critically evaluate data, participate in meaningful discussions, or draw informed conclusions if you don’t understand how that data is being generated and processed? In true citizen science, methodologies and algorithms should be open to scrutiny and understanding, fostering trust and collaborative improvement.

Is This Company Really Citizen Science Minded?

Before you buy a monitor and you care about community monitoring and citizen science, ask yourself these questions:

• Data Accessibility: Can you easily access and download the data collected by your sensor? Is there a straightforward API for data access (ideally free or very low cost for non-commercial use)?
• Data Ownership: Carefully review the terms of service. Who owns the data generated by your sensor? Do you retain all rights to your data?
• Data Sharing and Openness: Does the company actively encourage data sharing and contribution to open datasets like OpenAQ? Do they facilitate sharing data with local authorities or researchers?
• Algorithm Transparency: Is there any information available about how the raw sensor data is processed? Are the algorithms and calibration methods explained or open-sourced?
• Community Engagement Beyond Marketing: Does the company genuinely engage with its community beyond just selling sensors? Are there active forums, opportunities for feedback, and evidence of community input influencing product development?
• Focus on Impact vs. Sales: Does the company’s messaging primarily focus on selling more devices, or on the positive impact community monitoring can have on air quality and public health?
• Attribution and Recognition: Does the company publicly recognize and attribute the contributions of individual community members and projects?

Different Models are Fine, Deception is Not.

Let’s be clear: companies operate under different business models, and that’s perfectly acceptable. Some may choose to have proprietary platforms and monetize data services to ensure their sustainability. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that business model.

What is problematic, in my view, is misrepresenting that model as something it’s not. It’s misleading and ultimately damaging when companies heavily market themselves as champions of “community” and “citizen science” while their underlying practices and policies contradict those very principles.

At AirGradient, we believe in honesty and transparency. I demonstrate this by providing free data access to readings from our growing network of over 1000 monitors around the world. I’m open about our open-source approach, our commitment to data accessibility, and my belief in empowering individuals and communities.

I believe that more and more people are starting to recognize these discrepancies, and I’m hopeful that this growing awareness will encourage companies to embrace true openness. AirGradient’s success, to me, shows that an open model can be viable and impactful.

I strongly believe that the air quality data generated by these “community” networks should be considered a public resource. Imagine the collective impact if these companies would contribute their data to truly open platforms like OpenAQ, furthering global understanding and action on air pollution.

I encourage you to be critical, ask questions, and support companies that genuinely walk the walk when it comes to community air monitoring and citizen science.

Share your thoughts and let’s keep this conversation going in the comments below!