COS 84-8 - Lessons learned: Recruiting stakeholder participants for water quality monitoring

Thursday, August 15, 2019: 4:00 PM
M105/106, Kentucky International Convention Center
Rebecca J. Fox1,2, Thomas R. Fisher2, Anne B. Gustafson2, Kalla L. Kvalnes2, James W. Lewis3 and Erika L. Koontz2, (1)Environmental Science and Studies, Washington College, Chestertown, MD, (2)Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD, (3)Extension, University of Maryland
Background/Question/Methods

In 2013, we started a five-year project to evaluate the impact of enhanced applications of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) on water quality in small streams. We worked within four watersheds in the Choptank Basin that are 6 to 16 km2 in size and dominated by agriculture (52-73% of land area). We focused our recruitment efforts on the 6-11 farms greater than 40 ha in each watershed. The success of this project was dependent upon getting sufficient agricultural stakeholders to participate, and we wanted participants to allow us to sample surface and groundwater on their land and take an attitude and impediments survey. We recruited participants through a number of mechanisms including mailed invitations to meetings, introduction by another participant, and contact from previous research. We also attempted to recruit using flyers at local businesses, churches, libraries, and medical centers. Outreach also occurred through local scouting troops and community events such as festivals and environmental workshops. We also reached out to the community through television, newspapers, and social media.

Results/Conclusions

During the initial two years of the project, we recruited 28 farmers representing 54% of the agricultural area within the watersheds. We underestimated the time required to build trust and relationships within the community, and our recruitment was complicated because many farms have a non-farming landowner and a farmer leasing land, both of whom must agree to participate. Targeted recruitment was more successful than our diffuse efforts. Our most successful method of recruitment was through a team member who works for University of Maryland Extension, farms within the community, and was already trusted. Mailings to houses, posted flyers, TV coverage, newspaper articles, and social media provided little recruitment success and were time consuming. However, these activities provided opportunities for general outreach. Interestingly, our lack of practical farming knowledge provided a mechanism by which we connected with farmers, as we were able to learn from them and form peer-to-peer relationships. In our project we found that it was essential to allocate sufficient time for recruitment, to include a local stakeholder as a research team member, and to create mechanisms for other team members to connect with the community. These recommendations are transferable to projects requiring stakeholder participation in other research areas.