tial and high-demand function of our proj- ect management. Timely and informative feedback to participants is instrumental in continued engagement (Silvertown, 2009). Ambitious estimates on laboratory capacity resulted in prolonged wait periods for results and strained our rapport with participants, but we seemed able to remedy any distrust with more frequent and transparent project updates. These updates were better received by participants when specific issues with actionable items by the research team were listed, versus vague or general explanations. With a high sample volume, engaging with a community by providing individual results with interpretations and information sheets relevant to each participant could have proved to be a significant undertaking. This eort would not have been possible without using open-source tools. Unfortunately, these tools have limitations. Reference visuals are known to be beneficial for sharing environ- mental exposure information (Haynes et al., 2016), but an automated alternative to creat- ing individual reference visuals was not avail- able at the time of our community engage- ment. We could have remedied this deficit by using nonspecific visuals for participant results on a generalized scale of exposure risk, but the value-add of such a diagram is debatable. Furthermore, specific compari- son with acceptable exposures was unavail- able for the wide range of analysis we con- ducted, although a limited number of metal elements have maximum containment levels established by U.S. EPA. While these levels were included in our results reports, there is a notable gap in regulation that might cause alarm. We hope to address this gap in refer-
ence information by providing individual interpretations of participant results that are informed by the existing literature. To bridge the gap between the technical reporting of individual results and regional risk for environmental exposure, we created a supplemental community-wide report to better contextualize exposure risk. Previous CEnR has found mixed preference for individual versus community-wide reports (Ramírez-Andreotta et al., 2016). There is benefit, however, in dis- tributing information related to both. Individ- ual reports for a project involving samples from private well owners fulfill the individual needs of participants. As a project that aims to model potential exposure on a regional level, commu- nity reports would also benefit nonparticipants and interested parties. Our community-wide report depicted a heat map with a standard radius buer to convey spatial distribution of participation, while maintaining confidenti- ality (Ramírez-Andreotta et al., 2016). It also included basic statistical profiles to describe the distribution of metal concentrations found in water samples. Conclusion Even research more structured for the func- tion of environmental monitoring could benefit from CEnR. Incorporating CEnR into project aims can greatly alleviate the burden on the central research team of col- lecting samples. Further, community mem- bers often hold invaluable insight, which can also create a high demand for research project management. To sustain the momen- tum, CEnR must receive adequate recogni- tion as a research engagement method. Lastly, CEnR can aid in the distribution of
research results, which empirical research often limits to academic reporting. Engaging with community members at the planning stages of community-focused research can allow the research team to accu- rately prepare the organizational infrastruc- ture needed to support community-engaged activities. Community-focused collaborations initiate a sense of reciprocity in the commu- nity–science collaboration and build trust for continual collaboration with the scientific community. We urge researchers to continue modifying scientific practices to better engage local communities and explore how additional burdens can be alleviated by maximizing the utility of local knowledge, public information sources, and open-source tools. Acknowledgments: We thank all participants, community leaders, and involved organiza- tions for supporting this work. Specifically, we acknowledge Anne Lee Vargas, Shirley Romero Otero, and Augusto Basterrechea for their eorts in coordinating recruitment. Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Envi- ronmental Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award num- ber R01ES032612. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not nec- essarily represent the ocial views of NIH. Corresponding Author: Katherine A. James, Associate Professor, Department of Environ- mental & Occupational Health, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colo- rado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Campus Box B119, 13001 East 17th Place, Aurora, CO 80045. Email: kathy.james@cuanschutz.edu
References
Brenner, B.L., & Manice, M.P. (2011). Community engagement in children’s environmental health research. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine , 78 (1), 85–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/msj.20231 Colorado Department of Natural Resources. (n.d.). Well permits . https://dwr.state.co.us/Tools/WellPermits Danielsen, F., Jensen, P.M., Burgess, N.D., Altamirano, R., Alviola, P.A., Andrianandrasana, H., Brashares, J.S., Burton, A.C., Coro- nado, I., Corpuz, N., Engho, M., Fjeldså, J., Funder, M., Holt, S., Hübertz, H., Jensen, A.E., Lewis, R., Massao, J., Mendoza, M.M., . . . Young, R. (2014). A multicountry assessment of tropi-
cal resource monitoring by local communities. BioScience , 64 (3), 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu001 Flatow, I. (Host). (2021, February 26). The problem with ‘para- chute science’ [Audio podcast episode] . In Science Friday . Sci- ence Friday Initiative. https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/ parachute-science-problem/ Hamman, R.F., Marshall, J.A., Baxter, J., Kahn, L.B., Mayer, E.J., Orleans, M., Murphy, J.R., & Lezott, D.C. (1989). Methods and prevalence of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in a biethnic Colorado population. American Journal of Epidemiol-
continued on page 18
17
September 2024 • Journal of Environmental Health
Powered by FlippingBook