Although their age range is younger (13‑18) and my target is (18‑25) it is still relevant in terms of engaging youth in water/ environmental management and monitoring. Their project is about surface water quality monitoring and ecological assets in an urban watershed. My project looks at how to get young adults engaged in water conservation and volunteering. Leaving the focus on water quality monitoring is relevant to the “water conservation” side of my question. The article uses a participatory mapping approach with youth and community groups to record its data points on surface water quality and ecological assets. In my project, I conducted interviews with volunteers at Heartlands Conservancy working on tagging monarchs. So, both of our work and the paper involve community/volunteer engagement in water conservation contexts. The article states that one objective was to empower local community groups and residents “in an environmental justice neighborhood enabling informed decision‑making”. My goal is to understand how to engage young adults and what could encourage involvement. This has similar ties into themes of education, awareness, empowerment, and volunteering. The article identifies challenges (for example: limited sample size for ecosystem‑services mapping; need for education of youth to recognize biodiversity; logistical/training issues) and opportunities (youth engagement, mapping tools) in water monitoring. My project is similarly concerned with what could encourage young adult engagement or what the barriers are so, their findings can help you frame and interpret your own interview data. The difference between both of our projects are the age ranges. My target is young adults ages 18‑25. So, while the youth‑engagement aspect aligns may differ from 13‑18. The article uses participatory mapping and geospatial data collection; it appears strongly quantitative data points, hotspot analysis, GIS tools. My method is qualitative interviews with volunteers. The article does not emphasize interviews as a major method. It emphasizes mapping and geospatial survey data. If you check the full text, you might see some interviews or youth reflections, but the abstract / description focuses on mapping. The article is primarily about monitoring (data collection, mapping) in a waterway. While this is a form of engagement, it may not exactly address the volunteer behavior in the same way my project intends. My project’s focus is more on volunteering and engagement of 18‑25 year‑olds in a conservation organization’s events (monarch tagging event, water conservation volunteering). The article’s focus is more on youth doing a mapping/monitoring activity rather than a volunteering event. The article is specific to an urban stream and uses high‑tech mapping tools to identify debris, vulnerability zones, etc. It’s strong in the water monitoring technical side. My project is engagement in water conservation volunteering and in a community organization context rather than strictly mapping/debris identification.