A Comparative Analysis of Water Quality Monitoring Programs in the Southeast: Lessons for Tennessee Principal Investigators Ruth Anne Hanahan, Sr. Research Associate & Caitlin Cottrill, Graduate Assistant Technical Advisors David Feldman, Political Science Dept., Professor & Head & Tim Gangaware, Associate Director, WRRC TN Water Resources Research Center Social Science Research Institute University of Tennessee Funded by: Waste Management Research & Education Institute
Research Goals Provide relevant and � practical recommendations to Tennessee policy makers and other stakeholders regarding the potential establishment of a statewide volunteer monitoring program Use these recommendations � as a basis for an earnest dialogue among Tennessee stakeholders about the viability of initiating, structuring, and implementing such a program
Research Approach Literature review � Compare & contrast three Southeastern statewide � volunteer monitoring programs Administrative & programmatic structure � Evolution & lessons learned � Volunteer perceptions of benefits & limitations of � volunteer monitoring Identify Tennessee stakeholders’ perceptions of � benefits & limitations of volunteer monitoring & potential for initiating statewide program
Research Methods Program Case Studies Criteria for inclusion: Contiguous � to Tennessee, conducted statewide, operational for at least five years, & partially state supported Analysis of websites � Face-to-face interviews with � Program Managers/Staff Review of program documents �
Research Methods Survey of AL, GA, & KY Volunteers Volunteer databases: adults, telephone #s & addresses � Phone interview � Sample size (response rate), confidence level � AWW: 269 (82%); margin of error - +/- 5.2 at 95% confidence level � GA AAS: 127 (73%); margin of error is +/- 5.7 at 95% confidence level � KY Water Watch (Watershed Watch): 361 (83%); margin of error is +/- � 2.7 @ 95% confidence level
Research Methods Tennessee Stakeholder e e s s e n n e T Survey Sample s e c r u o s e R r e t a W r e t n e C h c r a e s e R Intended to obtain an � indication of stakeholder r e t a W perceptions, not statistically r e e t n u l o V y e v r valid u S g n i r o t i n o M e e s s e n n e T r o f s r Written & on-line survey: e � d l o h e k a t S Targeted water resources conference attendees, r e t n e C watershed and advocacy h c r a s e e R s c e r u o s e e R e r s e e s a t n W n e N T T o f groups t y i r s e v r n i e U n t e C c e n e r e n f o C 1 6 1 9 3 7 9 3 N x T a e , f l 8 , i l 3 v 8 x 1 o 4 - n 7 K 9 ) 6 5 8 ( e n o h p , 1 1 5 2 - 4 9 7 5 ) 6 8 Response: 159 surveys ( � completed
Initiate a Tennessee Volunteer Monitoring Program Overarching Recommendation Literature National trend – increasing credibility � Benefits – state & local governments � Case Studies Programs’ long-term viability & positive � outcomes Surveys – Volunteer Perceptions Even in the face of major challenges… � Benefits of volunteer monitoring � outweigh its limitations
AL, GA, & KY Volunteer Perceptions Primary Barriers Greatest Limitation Alabama Georgia Kentucky 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Lack of Lack of Collected data Insufficient community sufficient have not been QA/QC protocol support funding viewed as credible
AL, GA, & KY Volunteer Perceptions Primary Benefits Greatest Benefit Alabama Georgia Kentucky 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Increased Increased Increased Improved Improved aw areness of community scientific w ater quality communication w ater quality involvement in know ledge of issues w ater quality w ater quality issues issues
AL, GA, & KY Volunteer Perceptions Benefits outweigh Costs Perceived Benefits (Mean) Alabama Georgia Kentucky 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Increased Increased Increased Im proved Improved water awareness of scientific community comm unication quality water quality knowledge of involvem ent in issues water quality water quality issues issues Perceived Limitations (Mean) Alabama Georgia Kentucky 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Lack of sufficient Collected data Lack of Insufficient QA/QC funding have not been community protocol viewed as support credible
Tennessee Stakeholder Perceptions Benefits outweigh Costs Perceived Benefits Average Tennessee 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Increased Increased Increased Improved Improved water awareness of scientific community comm unication quality water quality knowledge of involvement in issues water quality water quality issues issues Perceived Limitations Average Tennessee 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Lack of sufficient Collected data have Lack of community Insufficient QA/QC funding not been viewed as support protocol credible
Recommendations by Topic & Category Structure Programmatic Long-term Elements Viability Delivery System Mission/Goals Funding Housing Volunteer QA/QC Support System Membership/ Information Volunteer Management Retention Recruitment Advisory Board Outreach Strategies
Recommendation: Structure Administer by local organizations but also be able to serve volunteers directly when no local oversight organization is in place. Primary Basis: Tennessee Survey Program Model Preference State Program Unsure Model 1 10% 8% Neither Volunteer Volunteer Volunteer 1% Model 2 State Program 81% Local Organization Local Organization Local Organization Volunteers Volunteers Volunteers
Structure: Related Survey Finding Case studies : � Each of the three programs – hybrid of two structures � Alabama – Direct support from state office � Georgia – More locally administered � Differing structures did not appear to affect volunteer level of satisfaction with support Level of Satisfaction with Program Alabama Georgia Kentucky 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Training sessions Availability of Quality of assistance when assistance when needed requested
Recommendation: Program Elements Identify multiple program strategies for meeting volunteer training and technical needs as they expand across the state. Case studies demonstrate the � merits of using multiple strategies for meeting volunteer needs including the following approaches: Trained citizen volunteer monitors – all � State college & university system � professors – GA AAS & KY Community/watershed program � coordinators – GA AAS Cooperative Extension agents –AWW, � GA AAS, & KY
Recommendation: Long-term viability Seek and implement US EPA Region 4-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Perceived Use of Monitoring Data Alabama Georgia Kentucky 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Public Identification Supporting Remediation Other Expansion of education of specific data for state or restoration treatment water quality water quality work plants problems reports Literature reveals that to broaden how data is used QA/QC is key.
Recommendation: Long-term viability Seek and implement US EPA Region 4-approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). AWW Case Study Approach � Identify quality data as intended programmatic outcome � Define potential data uses � Develop QAPP to support these uses in conjunction with � state & EPA regional office Benefits of a comprehensive QAPP � Long-term acquisition of data � Increased data credibility with state environmental agency � Use of data in watershed planning & in corroborating � agency-collected data (303d listing/ 305b report); Greater clout to volunteer advocates �
Tennesseans’ Perceptions Primary Limitations Greatest Perceived Limitation Average Tennessee 40.0% 35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% Lack of Lack of Collected data Insufficient community sufficient have not been QA/QC support funding viewed as protocol credible
Recommendations by Topic & Category Structure Programmatic Long-term Elements Viability Delivery System Mission/Goals Funding Housing Volunteer QA/QC Support System Membership/ Information Volunteer Management Retention Recruitment Advisory Board Outreach Strategies
Sounds good, so where does Tennessee go from here?
Potential Next Steps Convene stakeholder forum to consider viability of a TN � Volunteer Monitoring Program Forum objectives could include: � Revisit recommendations � Consider strategies for implementing recommendations � Explore possible barriers to implementation & how to � overcome them
Recommend
More recommend
