Towards Participatory River Governance Through Citizen Science

Abstract

The concept of a “water governance crisis” manifests distinctly across different regions. In the Global South, particularly in rapidly urbanizing cities, innovative governance models that incorporate community participation are critically needed to address unique challenges such as informal settlements and less stringent pollution controls. This paper presents a theoretical and methodological approach, emphasizing citizen science and community engagement in urban water management. It explores how engaging communities in the assessment and management of water bodies not only enhances the identification of priority areas but also strengthens local capacities to address environmental challenges. An analytical framework highlighting the interdependence between valuation languages and citizen science supports the development of management models for degraded hydro-social territories. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, this research develops social indicators and applies participatory methodologies, such as Participatory Mapping, demonstrated through a study of four urban rivers in Sangolquí, Ecuador: Santa Clara, San Pedro, Pita, and San Nicolás. Our findings reveal that participatory models are more effective than traditional technocratic hierarchies and underscore a new paradigm for water governance that prioritizes local knowledge and community practices. This study not only reveals the ecological, social, and spatial configurations of urban river landscapes in Sangolquí but also suggests the framework’s applicability to other Latin American cities facing similar challenges.

1. Introduction

The “modernity project” that emerged during the modernization process of human civilization aimed to enhance human welfare and productivity. However, it often prioritized industrial and technological advances at the expense of environmental health and social equity, leading to a civilizational crisis. According to the OECD, “the water crisis is primarily a governance crisis”, where power dynamics, based on a “liberal—industrial paradigm” [1] or, in the words of Deleuze and Guattari [2], would call a “regime of signs”, shape human interaction with the environment and lead to utilitarian perceptions of nature. Relations of power fundamentally shape how humans engage with and exploit the natural environment [3,4,5,6].

In modern cities, this relationship results in pollution being viewed as an inevitable byproduct of progress, where ecosystems are managed for efficient exploitation rather than preservation [7]. Such utilitarian views reduce complex water landscapes to mere commodities, undermining their ecological vitality and the human benefits they provide, such as water access, recreational opportunities, and resilience against climate change impacts. Indeed, as Latour and Schultz emphasize: “instead of the strange metaphor of development [développement], it would be more useful—when trying to account for that inversion—to speak of envelopment [enveloppement]: all questions of production are enveloped, bundled with the practices of engendering upon which they depend” [8].

This utilitarian approach, which deeply undermines livability in the Anthropocene, is particularly pronounced in Latin America. It exacerbates inequalities, erodes social cohesion, and solidifies hierarchical structures that marginalize disenfranchised communities [9,10] but also deepens water injustices in the Global South [11].

Additionally, Latin America’s unique cultural “hybridity”, which results from the dissonant blending of Indigenous and European influences, shapes environmental governance and the very mode of relating to nature. This “hybridity”—baroque ethos [4] or conflictive mestizaje—is not strictly “instrumental” to the project of modernity but rather marginally so, in an allodoxical way, which entails mistaken self-recognition within a particular mode of representing and publicly articulating doxa: naturalized beliefs and perceptions that go unquestioned because they are considered evident [12].

Two cultural processes emerge from the Latin American baroque ethos: a failed subordination to the dominant way of life (initially European and later “American”), and it is failed because—and this is the second process– the code of the dominated (the Indigenous world) survives unconsciously within the code of the dominant (the colonial world), consequently deforming the telos of modernity without fully suppressing it [4]. In this way, one can explain the “logic” (which is a kind of non-logic tacit common sense) behind the early Latin American ornamental–urban policy of replacing the flora and fauna of urban hydro-social territories in favor of simulating European landscapes. Yet, the result not only fails to resemble the European model—appearing instead as a malformed version of it– but also inadvertently reactivates the social space of the Indigenous world, albeit in a veiled and distorted way, for example, linear parks along the rivers in Sangolquí, Ecuador, where native vegetation was cleared to create “French gardens” (or worse, simply cementing over what were once riparian woodland and thickets) that were later repurposed by popular use for collective celebrations, crushing the gardens. As a result, municipalities end up fencing off these parks to make them inaccessible. Meanwhile, due to a lack of maintenance, it runs down, while the native nature, stigmatized by the city council as “weeds”, gradually reclaims the neglected public spaces.

Thus, this Latin American hybridity creates unique sociocultural dynamics that influence today’s governance and environmental management practices. This paper discusses how these dynamics, characterized by improvisation and a simulation of authority, manifest in water governance. This ethos reflects a baroque behavior that, according to Echeverría, seeks to replicate, in an ornamental and ritualistic manner, the codes and lifestyles of Anglo-Saxon and European cultures. [4,7,13]

This behavior subjects the mestizo population to a perception of backwardness relative to dominant models and paradigms, namely Anglo-Saxon and Eurocentric ones. This subordination extends beyond societal structures to the natural environment, fostering a relationship of allodoxy, where nature is transformed to resemble an idealized landscape. In this process, urban biodiversity and local ecosystems are often destroyed to mimic external models that are both contextually inappropriate and unsustainable. These models, arriving late and lacking the means for local adaptation, distort the reality of the environment and the social fabric. Allodoxy involves “taking one thing for another”, a “false identification”, or misrecognition, in which the dominated believe they can become like the dominant by embodying their traits, leading to a refusal to acknowledge the true conditions of their social position [12].

The hydro-social territory does not initially appear as a complex network of ecosystems and generative conditions that sustain life but rather as its simulacrum, or more precisely, as the “everyday world”. It only re-emerges diffusely and intermittently as “ecological catastrophes”, that is, when the regular provisioning networks, as Latour [14] calls it, of the everyday world break down.

These crises highlight the importance of recognizing the hydro-social territory as a complex interplay of socio-ecological dimensions. Figure 1 illustrates how generative conditions—biophysical functions of ecosystems—are intrinsically linked to four complementary dimensions (corresponding to the Latin American context): paradigmatic conditions, or how historically modern cities grow at the expense of rivers, within a liberal–industrial regime that deregulates environmental protections in productive zones and urban settlements. The multisectoral repercussion under a liberal–industrial regime of signs, which sets out the relationship with nature reducing it to economic compensations, in Andean cities, reinforces a subordinated position within the world economy, shaping non-industrial, extractive-rent dependent, and spatially fragmented urban structures, reproducing both inequality and the extractive logic in territorial form. Cultural conditions, namely the Latin American ethos, unfold as an allodoxic mestizaje, a dissonant amalgam of symbolic systems where subordinated codes survive through misrecognition and ornamental mimesis of the dominant valuation systems, that is, to intersubjectively construct a regime of signs that guides desire, rejection, and care according to the interest of specific social groups, either aligned with the liberal–industrial chrematistics, or emerging from counter-signifying, participatory reactivation of local knowledge. Finally, the hydro-social territories, as Boelens defines them, quoted by Duarte-Abadía et al. [10], are a multiscale network where humans, water, ecological relations, infrastructure, finances, regulations, and institutions are interactively and dynamically articulated through belief systems, political hierarchies, and naturalizing discourses. The hydro-social territories reflect and reproduce power relations, revealing how these relations disrupt hydrosystems through transformations of hydroscapes and water cycles. Hydro-social conflicts, as with other distributive ecological struggles, manifest territorially as unequal access to and control over clean water, effectively shifting environmental burdens onto the most vulnerable populations.

Emerging from post-normal science, the theory of hydro-social territories seeks to update and refine our understanding in response to current environmental challenges. This perspective is particularly relevant given the ongoing crises marked by river degradation, inadequate infrastructural responses, the loss of ecosystem services, diminished quality of life, and disruptions in the hydrological cycle, all of which necessitate a fresh approach for effective resolution.

This article champions community-based governance of urban water bodies, underpinning this advocacy with an analysis of four rivers in Sangolquí, Ecuador. Recognizing these rivers as integral components of a hydro-social landscape, it proposes an analytical framework to explore the bidirectional relationships between valuation languages and governance structures. This examination is vital for understanding and addressing conflicts within these territories.

A comprehensive methodological framework that combines citizen science with Geographic Information Systems (GISs) is introduced, integrating both qualitative and quantitative measures. This approach fosters the development of tools that challenge existing hegemonies from both political and scientific viewpoints and supports the transformation of urban river governance. By aligning with the principles of participatory democracy, this framework aims to effectively tackle issues related to pollution and the degradation of riverine environments.

1.1. Advancing Citizen Science in the Management of Hydro-Social Territories

Water, as a resource, is neither purely natural nor purely social; it represents a socio-natural hybrid that seamlessly integrates both aspects [15]. As Perreault [16] explains, while H₂O naturally circulates through the hydrological cycle, as a resource, it flows through a hydro-social cycle, a complex network that weaves together natural elements with social structures. This notion is supported by Boelens et al. [17], who advocate for rejecting standardized models in favor of more localized and contextualized understandings within what they define as hydro-social territories. These territories are shaped by the interactions between natural cycles and human activities, such as agriculture, urbanization, and industrialization, which are intensifying pressures like scarcity, pollution, and overexploitation.

The disparities in water access and the consequent social and political tensions highlight the urgent need for governance models that reflect local realities and are capable of managing these growing pressures. Traditional, hierarchical, and technocratic approaches often fail to address these issues adequately, as they tend to exclude citizen participation and rely on outdated frameworks that exacerbate ecological deterioration and foster public distrust in institutions [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Joan Subirats notes the effectiveness of managing urban peripheries “from below”, where local initiatives often prompt institutional responses that better accommodate community needs [24].

In this context, citizen science emerges as a potent response to the crisis in river governance. This approach fosters a shift towards “science with the people”, emphasizing the co-creation of knowledge, scientific knowledge, which, in our case, emerges from an interdisciplinary assemblage of hydrology, critical geography, sociology, and urban studies, along with participatory governance. This assemblage ensures the processes of data collection, validation, evaluation, feedback, design, mapping, and local and collective reminiscence.

Citizen science engages non-professional volunteers in data collection, analysis, and dissemination, strengthening the ties between scientific inquiry and societal needs [25,26]. It promotes a multi-actor platform that not only integrates but also validates local, community, and collective realities and values. This bottom–up approach is crucial for developing management models that acknowledge diverse perspectives and meet the specific challenges of communities [27].

Furthermore, the adoption of emerging technologies in citizen science enhances its adaptability and innovation, facilitating collaboration among multiple stakeholders and promoting sustainability and social inclusion. Tools like digital platforms are instrumental in monitoring and managing environmental issues such as river pollution, thereby enabling timely interventions that safeguard public health and foster environmental stewardship within communities [28,29,30,31].

Ultimately, citizen science serves as a vital bridge between scientific knowledge and community needs, underscoring the importance of integrating local expertise into environmental management practices. This approach not only addresses immediate ecological challenges but also contributes to a more equitable and effective management of aquatic ecosystems, supporting the development of governance models that are both inclusive and responsive to the complexities of hydro-social territories [32].

1.2. Valuation Languages: Bridging Sociocultural Perspectives in Ecosystem Management

Water cannot be considered separate from the social relations that imbue it with meaning. These relations, always historically constituted, exist within a context of unequal power, profoundly influencing community life through the processes of territorialization [2,16,33].

Liberal industrialism does not unfold without resistance (that is, intrinsic to the contradictions of its mode of reproduction, namely the inequalities it produces) nor without repression of local knowledge. Rather, this knowledge becomes “forbidden” or “obscured”. Recovering the resistances embedded in historical local knowledge within the territory is the task of the participatory construction of, what Martínez Alier [7] calls, “valuation languages”, not in the name of “liberal culturalism”, the idea of “what locals think”, that is, the different “ways of life” conceived as something given, static, and merely to be “tolerated” [34], but to reach a universal dimension grounded in a concrete lifeworld: a correct universal that not only stand above the context but is inscribed within it, modifying and affecting from the inside [34], through a labor of reflection and re-observation of the everyday word, which thereby ceases to be unreflective, naturalized, and unconsciously practical. This is precisely the work of citizen science, or what Funtowicz and Ravetz [35] describe as “post-normal science”.

The emergence of valuation languages recovers what Foucault [36] refers to as “local knowledges”, insofar as their essence lies in opposing the inhibitory effects of totalizing regimes and “true regimes” (it is no coincidence that they are called “disciplines”), not to simply impose a new truth but to enable the critique from alternative codes. In this sense, the critical force awakened by local knowledge responds to the specificities of ecological distribution conflicts. Valuation languages constitute the capacity to reorder and reappropriate territory through recovered historical and local knowledge.

The values associated with landscapes and ecosystem services reflect the multifaceted benefits derived from ecosystems. These benefits include not only material gains but also spiritual, educational, and sociocultural advantages that cater to specific community needs and interests [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. By identifying areas that require immediate attention, these valuation systems enable the formulation of collective responses for sustainable ecosystem management, which is essential in urban contexts, where the relationship between humans and bodies of water is most pronounced [45,46].

Recent shifts in public policy have begun to acknowledge the significant impact of social and cultural environments on ecosystem valuation, which has facilitated a transformative approach to the management and valuation of urban water bodies. This evolution in policymaking enhances spatial planning, integrates ecosystems into urban development, and promotes a deeper community connection with natural resources [45,47,48,49,50].

Furthermore, Participatory Mapping, coupled with Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGISs), has proven effective in capturing sociocultural preferences concerning landscapes and their services [51]. This technique not only gathers comprehensive insights from the community but also supports the creation of solutions that reflect a diverse range of interests, thereby enhancing the decision-making process in urban planning [52,53,54,55,56,57]. By bridging local knowledge with systematic urban planning, Participatory Mapping fosters informed, inclusive, and effective ecosystem management, thereby enhancing both the legitimacy and the efficacy of environmental governance [58].

1.3. Community-Based Governance in Hydro-Social Territories

Elinor Ostrom famously stated, “There is no reason to believe that bureaucrats and politicians, no matter how well-intentioned, are better at solving problems than local individuals, who have the strongest incentive to find the correct solution” [59]. This principle underpins community-based governance, which asserts that local communities possess both the capacity and the incentive to effectively address the challenges they encounter. Traditional approaches to managing water resources in developing cities have frequently fallen short, prompting a shift towards more flexible and proactive governance methods [60].

In the realm of river governance, the application of citizen science epitomizes a collective effort that is both epistemological and methodological, aimed at redefining the valuation languages that influence local perspectives and decision-making processes. This method integrates diverse valuations that reflect the values and needs of those living within hydro-social territories, promoting efficiency, social justice, trust among stakeholders, and innovative governance solutions [61,62,63] but also, and this is precisely how science becomes participatory, by deploying scientific and interdisciplinary knowledge in favor of co-constructing territorial solutions that transform both local knowledge and scientific disciplines themselves. In the case of water governance, an adequate hydrological and geographical understanding of the structure of hydro-social phenomena in fluvial landscapes is essential. More specifically, this process involves identifying how, where, and when the phenomenon happens within the four dimension that constitute the fluvial hydrosystems: the longitudinal dimension, which follows the upstream–downstream gradient of the fluvial system; the transversal dimension, referring to the mosaic of inter-related ecosystems; the vertical dimension, encompassing the stratification from surface ecosystems down to groundwater levels within the watercourses; and the temporal dimension, which captures changes occurring across the previous dimensions due to human activity but also climatic, geological, and other factors, particularly though comparative observation over time (for example, periodic sampling of water quality and morphological changes in riverbeds due to fluvial erosion, among others) [64].

Citizen science not only aids in generating empirical evidence but also supports the appropriation and rejuvenation of local knowledge. This fosters a governance model characterized by vigorous citizen involvement in data collection, monitoring, and research, aligning closely with Sustainable Development Goal 6, which focuses on ensuring the availability and sustainable management of water [38,39]. By engaging community members, this approach cultivates a shared sense of responsibility crucial for fostering more inclusive and sustainable urban environments (SDG 11).

2. Materials and Methods

This study explores the dynamic relationship between society and river landscapes within urbanized areas, adopting a socio-ecological perspective that emphasizes the valuation of these landscapes and their ecological benefits, especially in regions that have undergone significant anthropogenic impact. Utilizing a mixed-methods approach, this research integrates both qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques, including surveys, field visits, aerial drone photography, and Geographic Information Systems (GISs). GIS tools are particularly instrumental in analyzing spatial relationships and patterns of community engagement across various urban watersheds.

These techniques serve as instruments to guide our methodological approach, which is grounded in identifying local knowledge throughout the urban uses of riverine landscapes, with the aim of co-producing an initial framework of valuation languages. To this end, we approach the hydro-social phenomenon as follows: first, we provide a brief territorial contextualization; subsequently, we conduct a preliminary survey of valuations using the “SolVES” (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) model, which enables the georeferenced mapping of subjective valuations (which, in their interconnection, become intersubjective and, thus, collective) associated with specific geographic spaces for subsequent comparison and visualization; and finally, through interviews and participant observation, we extract local knowledge articulated through reflective discourses to outline the framework of valuation languages emerging from this participatory experimentation.

Participatory methodologies play a central role in this study, engaging community members in the data collection and analysis processes concerning water quality and river conditions. This approach not only fosters the generation of relevant local geographic knowledge but also legitimizes the active participation of community members in decision-making processes. Through Participatory Mapping exercises, we have developed a social value index and produced detailed maps that illustrate the spatial distribution of values associated with urban rivers. These efforts capture not only the tangible benefits of ecosystem services but also the intangible values that communities attach to these natural resources, thereby laying a robust foundation for sustainable decision making in river ecosystem management.

Moreover, the methodologies outlined here are extendable to community organizations, enabling them to map and analyze both Positive and Negative Social Values within their environments. Grounded in the principles of participatory democracy, these techniques are pivotal for the conservation and enhancement of vital ecosystems, ensuring their sustainability for future generations. Such participatory approaches underscore the importance of citizen involvement in conservation efforts, empowering communities to recognize and value their environmental assets and reflect on their roles as stewards of these resources.

In this context, the concept of adaptive governance becomes crucial. Based on insights derived from local experiences, adaptive governance facilitates a responsive and flexible management approach to ecosystem challenges. This form of governance not only addresses immediate environmental needs but also fosters a deeper understanding among community members of their interconnectedness with the natural world, enhancing their capacity to contribute effectively to ecological resilience and sustainability [65,66].

2.1. Sangolquí: A Case Study

Sangolquí, located in the Valle de Los Chillos in the north-central region of Ecuador, serves as the administrative capital of the Rumiñahui canton. This area is of significant geographic and historical interest, with a population of approximately 120,000 inhabitants over an area of 26.94 square kilometers. Sangolquí is divided into two zones, Annan and Urin Chillo, both rich in history dating back to pre-Hispanic times. The Annan Chillo area administratively belongs to Quito, while Urin Chillo is part of the Rumiñahui canton. This division presents a unique political–geographical inconsistency that complicates ecological management and problem-solving efforts due to the artificial segmentation of the ecosystem [38].

The region’s proximity to Ecuador’s capital, Quito, characterizes it as a commuter city that has also become a focal point for suburban expansion, land allocated to commercial activities and industrial development. These factors contribute to its dynamic growth but also to significant challenges in managing its natural resources effectively. In recent years, Sangolquí has seen substantial urban growth, which has driven efforts to enhance infrastructure and services to improve the residents’ quality of life and promote sustainable development. However, this growth has intensified challenges such as water resource depletion, pollution, and environmental degradation.

Geographically, the Metropolitan District of Quito and the Rumiñahui canton vary greatly in altitude, ranging from 500 m to 4800 m above sea level, and cover approximately eleven climatic zones, from páramos to wet and dry forests. This diverse geography experiences frequent precipitation, ranging from 750 mm to 2000 mm annually [67], and houses several critical water bodies, including two major rivers—the Pita and the San Pedro—along with other significant aquatic resources, like the Santa Clara River, the San Nicolás River, and the Bocatoma reservoir, which is essential for electricity generation. The San Pedro River plays a crucial role in the area’s water supply and ecological sustainability.

This complex hydrological configuration is further complicated by the contentious setup of hydro-social territories, reflecting and reproducing social power relations that often result in marked inequalities in access to and control of water resources. Such disparities contribute to the degradation of hydrological cycles and impose significant environmental costs on the most vulnerable populations, leading to their social marginalization [16].

The selection of Sangolquí for this study is strategic, not only because of its unique environmental and socio-political landscape but also due to the historically limited attention given to such regions in the Global South. The sparse academic focus on these areas underscores the necessity of targeted research to address and highlight the critical issues they face in water management and sustainable urban development.

Figure 2 shows the map of Sangolquí City, whose river corridors (Pita, Santa Clara, San Nicolás, and San Pedro) are located within the transfer zone of the Guayllabamba watershed’s fluvial hydrosystem, lying at an average elevation of 2500 m above sea level. It also marks key areas of interest for this research, such as green spaces and parks, which are significant both ecologically and urbanistically.

2.2. Survey Design and On-Site Distribution

The survey was meticulously designed to ensure the capture of relevant data and standardization of responses. It was structured in a multiple-choice format using a 1–10 Likert scale, divided into four thematic blocks. Participants were randomly selected using a stratified sampling method to ensure diverse demographic representation from areas near the riverbanks.

• Sociodemographic information: This section included data such as age, gender, educational level, and occupation, which are crucial for understanding the respondents’ profiles.
• Assessment of river conditions: This block focused on evaluating participants’ satisfaction with the state of rivers in their areas. It also explored the nature of the community’s relationship with watercourses and the activities they engage in along the riverbanks.
• Mapping social values: An innovative methodology was employed where the participants interacted with a city map. They were asked to identify locations with Positive Social Value (PSV) and Negative Social Value (NSV) associated with the rivers.
• Categorization of social values: Participants assigned one of three available categories to each location for PSV and NSV. The categories were based on a predefined list covering aspects such as aesthetics, recreation, therapeutic well-being, biocultural heritage, flood risk, unpleasant environment, and more. This categorization allowed for a deeper understanding of how the community perceives and values its riverine environment.

The data collection for the surveys was conducted using the ArcGIS Survey123 platform (Esri, Redlands, CA, USA), following the procedure described below.:

• Random selection of participants: participants were randomly selected from individuals located near the riverbanks of the studied rivers.
• Use of digital technology: to facilitate access to the survey, a link to the questionnaire was shared on-site via QR code or text messages on mobile devices.
• Geolocation with Survey123: the platform enabled the effective linkage of geospatial data, associating geographic coordinates with other information and eliminating the need for subsequent digitization processes.

It is noteworthy that data collection was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which posed challenges for conducting surveys in person. However, the use of digital tools as an adaptive measure allowed for safe and efficient data collection, overcoming the restrictions imposed by the health situation.

2.3. Focus on Ecosystem Services

This survey was based on understanding and quantifying the benefits and challenges that ecosystems provide to urban populations, in line with ecosystem services theories. It also incorporates the perspective of ecosystem disservices, which examines the adverse effects that ecosystems may have on society.

Table 1. Details of the social values studied along with their assigned values.

Sociocultural Values			Descriptions
Positive Social Values	01	Aesthetic beauty	I enjoy the scenic beauty of the landscape, including the ambient sounds such as water flow and birds singing.
	02	Recreation	I value it for being a place where I can enjoy the outdoors, walk, exercise, and take my dog for a stroll.
	03	Therapeutic and spiritual well-being	I value it for its positive impact on my physical and mental well-being, enhancing my health and emotional state.
	04	Biocultural heritage	I value it for preserving cultural traditions and providing educational opportunities about the environment, including flora and fauna.
	05	Vital support	I value its ability to improve air, soil, and water quality, provide shade, and regulate the microclimate in the city.
Negative Social Values	06	Flood threat	Areas perceived as prone to flood threats, which can cause damage and hazards.
	07	Unpleasant and polluted environment	Places that exhibit neglect, the accumulation of trash, pollution, and unhealthy conditions, characterized by the presence of unpleasant odors.
	08	Insecurity, crime, and harassment	Places perceived as dangerous and insecure due to lack of lighting, neglect, the possibility of harassment, and the presence of criminal activities or antisocial events.
	09	Lack of aesthetic value and lack of vegetation	A place lacking beauty and vegetation, offering few opportunities to enjoy nature.
	10	Deficient and inaccessible infrastructure	A place with deficient pedestrian infrastructure and limited accessibility impedes mobility and access to resources and services.

presents the details of the social values studied, including both Positive Social Values (PSVs) and Negative Social Values (NSVs), along with their respective descriptions. The comprehensive development of the selection of social values can be found in [38,39].

2.4. Physiographic and Mapping Data

To obtain a comprehensive understanding of the environment in the studied riverine cities, the necessary physiographic variables were used to describe the studied spaces. The physiographic variables utilized were elevation, soil type, and land use (LULC), slope, landscape type, and horizontal distance to green areas (HDGA).

Table 2. Details of physiographic variables.

Name	Format	Description	Source	Observations
ENV_LAYER	table	The determination of the raster type	predefined	Variables: continuous = 0; categorical = 1
VALUE_TYPES	table	Types of social values	predefined	Not applicable
SURVEY_POINTS	vector	The geospatialized social values were reported by the respondents	in situ survey (Survey123)	Format = shp Type = point
STUDY_AREAS	vector	Digitized study areas focused on rivers	self-prepared	Format = shp Type = polygon
LULC	raster	Current land use and land cover, 24 classes	IEE (currently IGM) https://www.geoportaligm.gob.ec/portal/ (accessed on 1 June 2023)	Format = gdb Type = polygon Scale = 25k
LANDFORM	raster	Terrain morphology, 11 classes	IEE (currently IGM) https://www.geoportaligm.gob.ec/portal/ (accessed on 1 June 2023)	Format = gdb Type = polygon Scale = 25k
DTGA	raster	Euclidean distance to green areas	Loja Municipality	Format = shp Type = polygon
ELEV	raster	Digital Elevation Model (DEM) in m.a.s.l.	ALOS PALSAR https://asf.alaska.edu/data-sets/sar-data-sets/alos-palsar/ (accessed on 1 June 2023)	Format = tiff Pixel = 12.5 m
SLOPE	raster	Slope map	ALOS PALSAR DEM	Format = tiff Pixel = 12.5 m

provides details of the studied variables, including their sources, descriptions, and formats.

As a mapping tool, the SolVES (Social Values for Ecosystem Services) model Version 4.0, an open-source QGIS plug-in developed by the Center for Environmental Change Sciences and Geosciences of the US Geological Survey (USGS) (Denver, CO, USA), was used. This tool is designed to model and map social survey data with environmental factors. In this study, SolVES was employed to assess the importance society places on ecosystems and their ecosystem services. Thus, SolVES was utilized to integrate social, PPGIS, and physiographic data [68].

SolVES calculates a “value index” (VI) to quantify the social value of ecosystem services on a scale from 1 to 10, where higher values, known as “Max-VI”, reflect a greater concentration of importance in a specific area. These values are used to generate statistics relating social value to physiographic variables. To analyze spatial distribution, the R index (R-ratio) and Z-score are employed to determine whether points are clustered or dispersed, aiming to identify areas where the population agrees on relevance. Additionally, a maximum-entropy model (Maxent), commonly used in species dispersion studies, is utilized to calculate the probability distribution of these social values. Maxent also provides statistics such as the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of an ROC curve, which assesses the model’s accuracy in training (75%) and test (25%) data [38,39,69].

The following provides a summary of the appropriate interpretation for each of the studied variables [39,69,70]:

• Nearest-Neighbor Analysis: This evaluates the dispersion of geographic points to identify possible clusters, random dispersions, or uniform distributions.
• R-ratio: This indicates the ratio between the observed mean distance and the expected distance in a random distribution. Values below 1 suggest clustering, values above 1 suggest dispersion, and values close to 1 suggest random distribution.
• Z-score: This measures the standard deviation of distances between points compared to a random distribution. High or low values indicate significant deviations, signaling clustering, or dispersion.
• Area Under the Curve (AUC): This assesses the accuracy of predictive models in spatial analysis. A high AUC indicates model effectiveness. According to Sherrouse et al. [69], an AUC of ≥0.90 signifies precise models, an AUC between 0.70 and 0.75 suggests useful models, and an AUC of ≤0.50 reflects insufficient or possibly random predictions.
• Max-VI: This is a metric that assigns the highest social importance on a scale from 1 to 10, serving as an index of social value.

This approach allows for the identification of where and with what intensity Positive and Negative Social Values cluster or disperse in relation to the geography of the area and its physiographic variables.

3. Results

The survey conducted in Sangolquí yielded a sample of 475 respondents. Sociodemographic characteristics were well balanced: women accounted for 45% of the sample and men for 52%, while 3% preferred not to specify gender. The age group most frequently represented was 25–40 years, indicating substantial participation from young adults. Additionally, 68% of respondents reported being permanent residents of the study area, ensuring that the data reflect locally embedded perspectives.

Across the same territory, participants geolocated 475 social value points: 203 were tagged as “Places with Positive Value” and 272 as “Places with Negative Value”. Each point was enriched with land-use class, slope, elevation, and distance to the nearest green space and then analyzed using a maximum-entropy routine. The model produced, for every social value category, a clustering index (R-ratio < 1 with a negative Z-score) and receiver operating characteristic statistics for both training and test data.

Table 3. Sangolquí: statistical value results, R-ratio (R < 1), Z-score, training AUC, test AUC, and maximum value index.

Sociocultural Values			# of Points	Max-VI	Nearest-Neighbor Analysis		Area Under the Curve
					R-Ratio	Z-Score	Training	Test
Positive Social Values	01	Aesthetic beauty	49	8	0.69	−4.0	0.93	0.84
	02	Recreation	46	5	0.81	−2.3	0.94	0.78
	03	Therapeutic and spiritual well-being	44	9	0.76	−3.0	0.92	0.89
	04	Biocultural heritage	24	5	0.80	−1.8	0.93	0.80
	05	Vital support	40	5	0.76	−2.8	0.96	0.77
Negative Social Values	06	Flood threat	40	5	0.89	−1.2	0.93	0.80
	07	Unpleasant and polluted environment	88	8	0.46	−9.6	0.91	0.86
	08	Insecurity, crime, and harassment	52	7	0.66	−4.6	0.92	0.81
	09	Lack of aesthetic value and lack of vegetation	45	7	0.65	−4.3	0.95	0.84
	10	Deficient and inaccessible infrastructure	47	5	0.69	−4.0	0.93	0.84

presents the full suite of spatial statistics. Among positive values, counts run from 24 points for biocultural heritage to 49 for aesthetic beauty. Negative values are more numerous: unpleasant and polluted environment accounts for 88 points—over one-third of all negative observations—while insecurity, crime, and harassment contribute 52. Maximum-value indices span 5–9. The highest score, 9, corresponds to therapeutic and spiritual well-being; a score of 8 is shared by aesthetic beauty on the positive side and unpleasant and polluted environment on the negative, indicating that respondents assign similarly strong salience, albeit with opposite signs, to well-preserved and degraded river segments. Clustering intensity varies across categories: it is most pronounced for unpleasant and polluted environment (R = 0.46, Z = −9.6), signifying tight pollution hotspots, and least pronounced for flood threat (R = 0.89, Z = −1.2), suggesting that concerns about flooding are spatially more diffuse. Therapeutic and spiritual well-being records the highest maximum-value index—9 out of 10—followed by aesthetic beauty at 8 out of 10. Recreation posts a lower Max-VI of 5, yet its 46 georeferenced points are tightly clustered around existing parks and riparian green corridors (see Figure 3 “recreational value”); kernel-density surfaces reveal only a handful of recreational “hotspots”, leaving extensive river stretches with little comparable outdoor activity or amenity. Test AUC values never fell below 0.77 and reached 0.89 for therapeutic and spiritual well-being, confirming strong predictive performance.

Figure 3 and Figure 4 complement the tabulated data with ten kernel-density maps—five for positive values and five for negative values—covering all four river corridors. The densest clusters of positive values lie along peripheral reaches where riparian woodland and semi-natural vegetation remain intact, whereas negative-value clusters are concentrated in central urban segments that are heavily channelized and sparsely vegetated. Several clusters of both signs extend beyond Sangolquí’s municipal boundary into neighboring parishes, indicating that the social relevance of the riverscape transcends formal administrative limits. Note that category numbers (01–10) identify the type of social value, whereas the colors in Figure 3 and Figure 4 depict the Max-VI intensity on a 1–10 scale; hence, the same numeral can denote either a category code or an importance score.

4. Discussion

The sizeable share of permanent residents in the sample (68%) anchors our analysis in day-to-day experience of Sangolquí’s river corridors, making the findings highly pertinent for place-based policy. Yet the balance of valuations is weighed toward concern: respondents registered 272 negative points versus 203 positives. This numerical skew is sharpened by spatial data. Tight clusters of unpleasant and polluted environment (R = 0.46, Z = −9.6) and insecurity, crime, and harassment (R = 0.66, Z = −4.6) identify hyper-local pockets of degradation that compound social vulnerability, whereas flood threat (R = 0.89) appears as a diffuse hazard that calls for catchment-scale measures. Still, the same modeling surface highlights pockets of refuge: therapeutic and spiritual well-being posts the study’s single highest maximum-value index (9/10), and aesthetic beauty follows at 8/10, confirming that vegetated or semi-natural reaches remain strongly valued even when they lie only a few meters from highly engineered channels.

The statistical and cartographic evidence places the river corridor at the center of a local “hydro-social contract”, but they also reveal contradictions that a purely celebratory reading of citizen science might overlook. First, a mirror symmetry exists between the strongest positive and negative valuations: sanctuary and revulsion are expressed with comparable intensity. Second, positive clusters lie mainly in the peri-urban fringe where riparian woodland persists, whereas negative clusters dominate the concrete-lined urban core; yet both types of clusters spill across Sangolquí’s administrative limits, showing that the corridor functions as a socio-ecological continuum eluding jurisdictional boundaries.

These observations call for a tiered management response. Site-specific interventions—waste removal, lighting, and community stewardship—are urgently required in pollution and insecurity hotspots, while diffuse risks such as flooding call for floodplain reconnection and upland detention basins. Recreation, whose maximum-value index is modest (5) but whose points cluster near existing parks, demands expansion into under-served segments, particularly those that simultaneously register insecurity, to balance the dual objectives of safety and amenity [52]. Equity concerns are paramount: lower-income neighborhoods, where basic urban services lag, report the highest insecurity and pollution scores, corroborating patterns noted by Rodríguez-Ortega et al. [71]. Upgrading river segments must, therefore, be paired with broader service provision to avoid deepening spatial inequities.

Our GIS framework relies on a set of physiographic variables—elevation, slope, landscape type, land use/land cover, soil, and horizontal distance to green areas (HDGA)—that the reviewer rightly asks us to justify. These variables were not chosen as generic proxies but because they mediate two hydro-social dynamics unique to Andean middle-elevation valleys. First, sharp altitudinal gradients generate micro-climatic differences that influence vegetation cover and, consequently, aesthetic and thermal comfort perceptions. The slope and soil type jointly determine where informal housing encroaches on channel embankments and where erosion exacerbates flood risk, helping to explain why flood threat is spatially diffused while pollution is highly localized. Second, HDGA captures the discontinuous pattern of green infrastructure: Sangolquí’s recent sprawl has leapfrogged older agricultural parcels, leaving isolated pockets of vegetation that are precisely where respondents map peak scores for well-being. Removing any of these variables lowered cross-validated AUC scores by 5-10%, indicating that they add genuine explanatory power rather than generic background noise.

Even so, we acknowledge limitations typical of GIS-centered social–ecological studies. The 1:25,000 land-cover polygons and the 12.5 m-pixel DEM we employed can overlook micro-patches of informal greenery or narrow riparian strips, and our reliance on self-selected digital participants under-represents older residents and recent migrants. Future rounds will combine high-resolution drone imagery with paper-based PGISs to capture finer-scale vegetation patterns and broaden demographic coverage, addressing epistemic biases flagged by Fricker [72] and Arnstein [73]. We also note an epistemic tension: engineers in stakeholder meetings prioritized hydraulic performance, whereas residents stressed symbolism and daily usability, a divide cited by Martinez-Alier et al. [6] and Fabricius et al. [74] and further problematized in participatory GIS scholarship [75]. Bridging it will require iterative facilitation, not merely data visualization.

Our findings, thus, position citizen science and PGISs as indispensable but insufficient on their own. They legitimize community voices [58,76] yet expose divergences that complicate swift policy action, e.g., the tension between neighborhoods demanding recreational infrastructure and those prioritizing basic sanitation. Interviews with civil servants reveal ambivalence: new data are welcome, but there is fear of “consultation fatigue” and legal uncertainty in cross-border co-management, echoing barriers observed by Wong and Brown [63]. Citizen science is, therefore, one component in a contested governance mosaic that must reconcile institutional inertia, fiscal constraints, and heterogeneous interests [77].

Nevertheless, the strong predictive performance of our models (all test AUC ≥ 0.77) gives planners a tool for geographically prioritizing interventions, while the concept of valuation languages links biophysical structure—tree canopy, water clarity, and habitat complexity—to subjective well-being, providing a persuasive narrative for budget allocation. If Sangolquí’s authorities integrate such finely resolved evidence into routine planning cycles, the city can move beyond the rhetoric of river “revitalization” toward measurable, equitable improvements in safety, recreation, and ecological function along its contested corridors.

5. Conclusions

There is a clear indeterminacy and ambiguity of opinion among the interviewees regarding the urban rivers that run through Sangolquí. This is because users’ valuations are, at the same time, either very positive or very negative (assessments of recreation and beauty coexist with perceptions of insecurity and unsanitary conditions), as an extreme responding bias. In short, even if there had been flaws in the survey and interview instruments (that is, despite our efforts to avoid it, overly closed questions with little room for reflection), both participant observation and the collected data reveal a displacement of the importance of the urban riverscape to the background.

From our theoretical perspective, this reaction may correspond to a naturalization of the liberal–industrial paradigm (or regime of signs) from two opposing social positions: on the one hand, from a social position where the interviewee enjoys a suburban lifestyle, with access to all the basic services typical of a commuter town and resides in a more favorable location relative to the riverside corridors, thus being able to formally perceive “recreation”, “tranquility”, and “beauty”, and on the other hand, from a social position marked by economic difficulties, in which social and economic life is inseparable from the river (e.g., street vendors, informal recyclers, women who wash clothes in the river, etc.), and the naturalization of the degraded riverscape is expressed as open disenchantment. And it is precisely disenchantment because, not long ago, the river not only served recreational purposes but also functioned as a source of livelihood and supply for popular sectors.

Thus, although we were only able to sketch a possible language of valuation—and despite encountering resistance and difficulties in recovering local knowledge (beyond the common “we used to bathe in the river and even fish in it”)—this language emerges in a paradoxical way: an “open-air sewer” that still holds a certain charm and is still used by the population, while the municipality continues to avoid dismantling the physical and political barriers that obscure it. In other words, the following collective knowledge emerges that it is precisely because the river still exists that we either naturalize its degradation or romanticize its “beauty”, thereby relegating it to the background.

Nevertheless, during the research process, we also encountered the local agency of a grassroots collective, which, as they describe themselves, seeks to “rescue the San Pedro River” (the group calls itself Rescate del Río San Pedro). This collective is composed of actors from various social sectors (including public sector representatives, business actors, ecological organizations, neighborhood leaders, academics, school and university students, families, and concerned citizens interested in recovering the beauty of the riverscape), and they organize around a co-constructed language of valuation—“the river is a great living being who, for now, is ill but resists”—and a local knowledge re-signified through citizen science: “the art of rescuing the river is the art of caring for a being who gives life to others; true self-care is caring for the other who cares for us all.”

Our findings confirm that citizen-generated data, when systematically coupled with physiographic layers, can illuminate the full social complexity of an urban river corridor in the Global South. Residents of Sangolquí simultaneously celebrate the aesthetic and therapeutic qualities of vegetated reaches and denounce the insecurity and pollution of channelized segments; the identical 1-to-10 scale registers sanctuary (Max-VI = 9 for therapeutic and spiritual well-being) and revulsion (Max-VI = 8 for unpleasant and polluted environment) with comparable intensity. Because these valuations are mapped point by point, planners now possess a fine-grained geography of where environmental remediation, safety measures, or recreational investment will yield the greatest social return. Such spatial precision is rarely achieved under conventional top–down diagnostics, underscoring the distinctive added value of citizen science [58] and its recognized contribution to SDG monitoring [78].

The work also demonstrates why participatory approaches are indispensable—but not optional add-ons—in the Global South. Latin American hydro-social territories are shaped by layered colonial, industrial, and informal logics that fragment governance and mute local ways of knowing [7]. By treating lay observations as data rather than anecdotes, the project disrupts that hierarchy, translating “forbidden” or marginalized knowledge into a language that municipal engineers, GIS analysts, and budget officers can all use. This, in effect, operationalizes the post-normal science ethos of Funtowicz and Ravetz [35]: decisions taken under high stakes and deep uncertainty must enlarge, not narrow, the community of knowers.

Equally important is the demonstration that physiographic variables are not generic backdrops but culturally mediated drivers of perception. Altitude, slope, and soil dictate where informal housing encroaches on flood-prone banks, while the patchwork of land-cover islands left by leap-frog sprawl explains why well-being peaks in isolated vegetated pockets. Models that removed any one of these variables lost up to ten percentage points of predictive power, confirming their explanatory significance in an Andean setting. Thus, while the SolVES-Maxent workflow could be replicated “anywhere in the world”, the specific parameterization here answers to Sangolquí’s hydro-social topography.

Citizen science data alone will not resolve institutional inertia, consultation fatigue, or the legal ambiguities of cross-border river management. Yet the 0.77–0.89 test-AUC range shows that they can tell governments exactly where to start. If Sangolquí allocates its next round of public works funding to pollution–insecurity hotspots, augments riparian canopy in recreation-poor districts, and coordinates floodplain restoration with upstream jurisdictions, it will have moved from rhetoric to measurable action, advances that are already envisioned in adaptive-governance scholarship [79]. At the same time, acknowledging sample bias and digital literacy gaps reminds us that inclusion is a process, not an outcome; future cycles must blend analogue mapping, purposive sampling, and ecological baselines to ensure that the next iteration of valuation languages speaks for those still absent from the map [52,71].

In short, the study provides empirical proof that citizen-led social–ecological mapping can break the stalemate of river governance in rapidly urbanizing regions of the Global South. By converting lived experience into spatial evidence, it equips communities and officials alike to negotiate the perennial tension between urban growth and ecological integrity, turning contested watercourses into common goods whose stewardship is shared rather than imposed.