tion, such as data collection, environmental sampling, or e orts to increase public aware- ness of issues at the local level, can vary and be largely dependent on the research topic, study area, or other factors (Lin Hunter et al., 2023; Silvertown, 2009; Vohland et al., 2021; Wilderman, 2007). Despite the growing popularity of CEnR methods, more widespread adoption and uti- lization of community-generated data have been limited by the perception that data col- lected through participatory methods is of lower quality. Comparisons of community- generated and professionally generated data for environmental monitoring tell a di erent story—when projects are designed appropri- ately and provide adequate participant sup- port, the data generated are comparable with data generated by professional researchers (Danielsen et al., 2014; Kosmala et al., 2016). Researchers have identified structured research training, performance feedback, and results communication as key factors for participant follow-through and confidence in unsupervised participation (Silvertown, 2009; Stanifer et al., 2022). Additionally, data cleaning and analysis methods for the thorough validation of community-generated data and outlier identification are increas- ingly being developed and refined (Li et al., 2020). These additional steps and design considerations for community-engaged envi- ronmental monitoring projects—including large-scale recruitment, participant train- ing and onboarding, continual participant management and support, and communica- tion with community members—require a major allocation of time and resources for research teams (Silvertown, 2009; Vohland et al., 2021). Without embracing community involvement, however, research projects that strive to collect field data over a large geo- graphical area will be challenged to do so. Our research team has facilitated several e orts of community-engaged environmental research in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. This rural region covers >8,000 mi 2 of alpine desert valley with some of the lowest median household incomes in the state (San Luis Val- ley Development Resources Group & Council of Governments, 2021). As a region with high environmental levels of heavy metals due to both natural geological features and human mining activity, exposure to these metals is an ongoing community concern bolstered by
scientific evidence. Several studies have noted elevated levels of arsenic in environmental and biological samples from the San Luis Val- ley (Hamman et al., 1989; James et al., 2013, 2014; Thiros et al., 2010). More recently, there is evidence suggesting that the prolonged and significant drought in the region likely is con- tributing to even greater levels of heavy metals in the region’s groundwater, due to less dilu- tion from aquifer recharge. These changes are further exacerbating existing water quality concerns and posing new challenges for long- term water management. Residents of the San Luis Valley have an established legacy of environmental steward- ship and activism, working to protect water quality and quantity through their many community-led environmental nonprofit organizations and historical partnerships with university, state, and federal government scientists. Community collaboration in envi- ronmental health work is central to the spirit and identity of this vast and geographically isolated region of Colorado, making a partici- patory science research model both a moral and logistical imperative. Our research team led one such commu- nity-engaged project in the San Luis Valley with the goal of expanding previous water quality data sources on heavy metal con- taminants. Only 23% of environmental CEnR focuses on the abiotic elements (e.g., water quality, air pollution) and there is limited published research on the application of envi- ronmental CEnR in rural settings (Locke et al., 2019; Pocock et al., 2017). In this special report, we outline the many lessons learned throughout this endeavor and the project management tools and strategies we have used, which can provide significant benefit to the greater scientific community, especially for anyone embarking on large-scale commu- nity-engaged environmental science projects.
tion, and water resources shared recruitment information via their own private listservs and social media accounts to approximately 130 individuals. On partnering with local community leaders, we were advised to promote our e orts in local newspapers. Newspaper advertisements and coverage drastically increased recruitment to approxi- mately 500 participants, while our three local community leaders individually recruited a smaller subset of approximately 60 partici- pants. At the time this article was printed, 916 individuals have registered to participate and provide water samples from their homes. In total, 745 participants have successfully returned water samples. Participant Onboarding Several di erent modes of entry were avail- able for individuals to participate in our community water sampling e ort (Figure 1). Recruitment materials provided a monitored phone number with voicemail, emails to proj- ect coordinators, and a QR code and short URL for direct registration. All entry points were funneled through a Qualtrics survey to gather participant contact information and as much information about their private well as possible. Individual phone calls proved time- intensive but necessary to reach our target population. Contact via email was stream- lined by using templated responses and redi- rection to the Qualtrics survey. Qualtrics was invaluable as a standardized tool for informa- tion gathering but required several renditions in survey design to achieve e§ciency. Sampling Logistics Information from onboarding (e.g., address of the property where the well is located, current property owners, well permit information) was used to build a dataset with sample infor- mation. Each sample was associated with a well permit maintained by the Colorado Divi- sion of Water Resources, which allowed us to access information on well casting, depth, and latitude and longitude coordinates (Colorado Department of Natural Resources, n.d.). Participants were provided a sampling con- tainer labeled with their name, unique iden- tifier for their well, and a one-page informa- tion sheet on the sampling protocol. While standardized sample IDs are more practical for research purposes, ensuring that these identi- fiers were meaningful to participants was key
Methods
Recruitment Di erent methods of recruitment were used throughout this project. Initial recruitment e orts involved direct mailing of recruitment materials to approximately 120 individu- als who had previously participated in local water quality research. When responses from these mailings tapered o , community part- ner organizations in agriculture, conserva-
15
September 2024 • Journal of Environmental Health
Powered by FlippingBook