Monica D Ramirez-Andreotta1, Mark L Brusseau2, Janick Artiola1, Raina M Maier1, A Jay Gandolfi3. 1. Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, The University of Arizona, Touson, Arizona, United States of America. 2. Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, The University of Arizona, Touson, Arizona, United States of America ; Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Department and The University of Arizona, Touson, Arizona, United States of America. 3. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, The University of Arizona, Touson, Arizona, United States of America.
Abstract
A research project that is only expert-driven may ignore the role of local knowledge in research, give low priority to the development of a comprehensive communication strategy to engage the community, and may not deliver the results of the study to the community in an effective way. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate how a research program can respond to a community research need, establish a community-academic partnership, and build a co-created citizen science program. METHODS: A place-based, community-driven project was designed where academics and community members maintained a reciprocal dialogue, and together, we: 1) defined the question for study, 2) gathered information, 3) developed hypotheses, 3) designed data collection methodologies, 4) collected environmental samples (soil, irrigation water, and vegetables), 5) interpreted data, 6) disseminated results and translated results into action, and 7) discussed results and asked new questions. RESULTS: The co-created environmental research project produced new data and addressed an additional exposure route (consumption of vegetables grown in soils with elevated arsenic levels). Public participation in scientific research improved environmental health assessment, information transfer, and risk communication efforts. Furthermore, incorporating the community in the scientific process produced both individual learning outcomes and community-level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This approach illustrates the benefits of a community-academic co-created citizen-science program in addressing the complex problems that arise in communities neighboring a contaminated site. Such a project can increase the community's involvement in risk communication and decision-making, which ultimately has the potential to help mitigate exposure and thereby reduce associated risk.
A research project that is only expert-driven may ignore the role of local knowledge in research, give low priority to the development of a comprehensive communication strategy to engage the community, and may not deliver the results of the study to the community in an effective way. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate how a research program can respond to a community research need, establish a community-academic partnership, and build a co-created citizen science program. METHODS: A place-based, community-driven project was designed where academics and community members maintained a reciprocal dialogue, and together, we: 1) defined the question for study, 2) gathered information, 3) developed hypotheses, 3) designed data collection methodologies, 4) collected environmental samples (soil, irrigation water, and vegetables), 5) interpreted data, 6) disseminated results and translated results into action, and 7) discussed results and asked new questions. RESULTS: The co-created environmental research project produced new data and addressed an additional exposure route (consumption of vegetables grown in soils with elevated arsenic levels). Public participation in scientific research improved environmental health assessment, information transfer, and risk communication efforts. Furthermore, incorporating the community in the scientific process produced both individual learning outcomes and community-level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This approach illustrates the benefits of a community-academic co-created citizen-science program in addressing the complex problems that arise in communities neighboring a contaminated site. Such a project can increase the community's involvement in risk communication and decision-making, which ultimately has the potential to help mitigate exposure and thereby reduce associated risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arsenic; capacity building; citizen science; community-academic partnership; contaminated sites; environmental exposure assessment; gardening; public participation in scientific research; risk communication
Authors: Sherry Baron; Raymond Sinclair; Devon Payne-Sturges; Jerry Phelps; Harold Zenick; Gwen W Collman; Liam R O'Fallon Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Laura Senier; Benjamin Hudson; Sarah Fort; Elizabeth Hoover; Rebecca Tillson; Phil Brown Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Monica D Ramirez-Andreotta; Mark L Brusseau; Janick F Artiola; Raina M Maier; A Jay Gandolfi Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Julia Green Brody; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Phil Brown; Ruthann A Rudel; Rebecca Gasior Altman; Margaret Frye; Cheryl A Osimo; Carla Pérez; Liesel M Seryak Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-07-31 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: S F Ryan; N L Adamson; A Aktipis; L K Andersen; R Austin; L Barnes; M R Beasley; K D Bedell; S Briggs; B Chapman; C B Cooper; J O Corn; N G Creamer; J A Delborne; P Domenico; E Driscoll; J Goodwin; A Hjarding; J M Hulbert; S Isard; M G Just; K Kar Gupta; M M López-Uribe; J O'Sullivan; E A Landis; A A Madden; E A McKenney; L M Nichols; B J Reading; S Russell; N Sengupta; L R Shapiro; L K Shell; J K Sheard; D D Shoemaker; D M Sorger; C Starling; S Thakur; R R Vatsavai; M Weinstein; P Winfrey; R R Dunn Journal: Proc Biol Sci Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 5.349
Authors: Monica D Ramirez-Andreotta; Nathan Lothrop; Sarah T Wilkinson; Robert A Root; Janick F Artiola; Walter Klimecki; Miranda Loh Journal: J Environ Stud Sci Date: 2015-07-21
Authors: Sandra J Winter; Lisa Goldman Rosas; Priscilla Padilla Romero; Jylana L Sheats; Matthew P Buman; Cathleen Baker; Abby C King Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2016-10
Authors: Kira Zeider; Nicole Van Overmeiren; Kyle P Rine; Shana Sandhaus; A Eduardo Sáez; Armin Sorooshian; Henry C Muñoz; Mónica D Ramírez-Andreotta Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 10.753
Authors: Kathryn S Tomsho; Erin Polka; Stacey Chacker; David Queeley; Marty Alvarez; Madeleine K Scammell; Karen M Emmons; Rima E Rudd; Gary Adamkiewicz Journal: Environ Health Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 7.123
Authors: Monica D Ramirez-Andreotta; Mark L Brusseau; Janick F Artiola; Raina M Maier; A Jay Gandolfi Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Lisa G Rosas; Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa; Felipe Montes Jimenez; Abby C King Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 21.870
Authors: Monica D Ramirez-Andreotta; Julia Green Brody; Nathan Lothrop; Miranda Loh; Paloma I Beamer; Phil Brown Journal: Environ Health Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 5.984