Figure 1
Geographic locations of Project Harvest communities in Arizona, USA.
Table 1
Project Harvest communities and participants.
| Community; # Active Participants | City/Town, County, Population1 | Participant Recruitment Methods | Participant Race/Ethnicity; Language4 | Participant Low-Income (LI) Status4 | Participant Education Level Range and Median4 | Local Environ-mental Health Risk Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tucson SERI (TS) N = 55 | Tucson, Pima, 520,116 | Recruited through community-based partner organization SERI, who works with low-income Tucsonans on environmental health issues. | 80% Latino/Hispanic 7% White 4% Multiple Races 78% Spanish 16% English | 73% LI 9% Non-LI | Range: Elementary to bachelor’s degree Median: High school | Multiple Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) sites including Tucson Interna-tional Airport Area Superfund Site and an unlined landfill. Aircraft and electronics manufacturing have largely contributed to trichloroethylene (TCE) and other contaminants observed in soil, groundwater, and municipal water (Conforma Tech, Inc. 2014; Rodenbeck Sven E. and Maslia Morris L. 1998). |
| Tucson Water (TW) N = 38 | Tucson Water recruited via email to past recipients of a rainwater harvesting system rebate. Interested respondents were screened via phone by SERI staff. | 69% White 8% Latino/Hispanic 5% Asian 5% Multiple Races 84% English 3% Spanish | 16% LI 68% Non-LI | Range: High school to graduate degree Median: Graduate degree | ||
| Dewey-Humboldt (DH) N = 12 | Dewey-Humboldt, Yavapai, 3,894 | Participants recruited at community training and by promotora. UA researchers had prior community relationships through other participatory research projects (Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2016; Ramirez-Andreotta, Brusseau, Artiola, Maier, and Gandolfi, 2015). | 58% White 8% Multiple Races 8% Other 83% English | 33% LI 33% Non-LI | Range: Some college, degree not completed, to bachelor’s degree Median: Trade or technical school | Iron King Mine – Humboldt Smelter Superfund Site includes approximately four million cubic meters of mine tailings from legacy mine and smelter. Documented dioxin spraying in Pinal Mountains in the 1960s (U.S. DHS, 1998). Arsenic level in home drinking water observed above. EPA drinking water standard in 2013 (Ramirez-Andreotta, Brusseau, Beamer, & Maier, 2013). |
| Globe/Miami (GM) N = 25 | Globe and Miami2, Gila 9,369 | 6 participants recruited through community training, others through outreach by promotora and Gila County Cooperative Extension. | 72% White 16% Latino/Hispanic 8% Asian 96% English | 44% LI 36% Non-LI | Range: High school to bachelor’s degree Median: Trade or technical school | Two active open pit mines, active smelter and rod mill, and legacy mine in Miami. Additional active open pit mine 15 mi outside of study area in Superior, AZ. Mountain View Mobile Home Estates site in Globe was on the Superfund Program’s National Priorities List (NPL) for asbestos contamination of soil and groundwater until clean-up activities completed in 1988. |
| Hayden/Winkelman (HW) N = 21 | Hayden and Winkelman3, Gila, 1,015 | Prior relationship between community and university through National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Superfund Research Program partnership. School superintendent promoted teacher involvement. Most participants recruited directly through promotora. | 76% Latino/Hispanic 10% White 86% English | 33% LI 48% Non-LI | Range: Middle school to bachelor’s degree Median: Some college, degree not completed | ASARCO Hayden Plant Alternative Superfund Site, includes the ASARCO smelter, concentrator, former Kennecott smelter and all associated tailings facilities. In 2016, ASARCO was involved in a $150 million settlement with the US Department of Justice and US Environmental Protection Agency for violations of the Clean Air Act. (Anon 1970) |
[i] 1 Data obtained from 2010 US Census.
2 These neighboring municipalities are considered as one community in this study, though they are separate municipalities (City of Globe and Town of Miami).
3 These neighboring municipalities are considered as one community in this study, though they are separate municipalities (Town of Hayden and Town of Winkelman).
4 Participant data may be missing (percentages do not sum to 100%) due to participants choosing not to answer a survey question or choosing not to consent for human research.
Figure 2
Timeline of Project Harvest data collection activities.
Table 2
Summary of data sources and analysis methods.
| Data Sources | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research question | Participant phone interviews | Participant Year One survey | Participant focus groups | Other participant communication | Promotora interviews | Participant Self-efficacy (SE) survey | Reasons cited for participant resignation |
| What motivates Project Harvest participants to join the project? | x | x | x | x | x | ||
| What supports participants in their continued participation? | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| What participant barriers deter participation? | x | x | x | x | x | x | |
| What are the differences in motivation, support, and barriers between community or demographic groups? | x | x | x | x | x | x | x |
| Analysis Methods | – Data aggregated across multiple sources, controlled for repeat participants – Qualitative coding for themes – Chi square tests conducted to determine significant different between community or demographic groups – Cramér’s V calculated for every Chi square analysis to measure effect size | – Qualitative coding for participant themes; compared to participant data – Qualitative coding for promotora themes | – Paired samples t-test used to measure change in SE over first year of participation – Kruskal-Wallis test used to determine significant difference in SE (PRE, Y1, and PRE-Y1 change) between communities. – Mann-Whitney U tests used to determine significant differences in SE (PRE, Y1, and PRE-Y1 change) between demographic groups. | – Data compiled by reason for resigning – Chi square tests conducted to determine significant difference between community or demographic group representation within the group of resigned participants | |||
Table 3
Theme frequency in promotora motivation, support, and barriers.
| Parent Code: Promotora motivation | ||
|---|---|---|
| Child Code | Example of Child Code | # Promotoras Citing (N = 7) |
| Connection to community | “The rewarding part is all the connections that I have got with my participants, the relationship. …So all these connections with people in the community- I have been privileged to be let into their homes.” – Promotora 5 | 5 |
| Connection to project purpose and personnel | “Being able to come onsite to Tucson and see the lab and see the people and, like, how I think our data-sharing was good for the participants to see us and you know what happened, was good for me to see you know what happens once I give you stuff or who are people, and names on the phone or faces, voices on the phone seeing names and people in person. Definitely make, I think, any project better. I liked the external board meeting, how that whole day went and again learning a lot about that here were people who felt our work was a value.” – Promotora 6 | 4 |
| Facilitating participant learning | “For me the best part that I like is actually making the- Going over and watching them perform the experiment. For them to do the experiment for them to put on the gloves and for them to actually look at the results, because a lot of these people have lived in the community for a while. So for them to be interested in their environment and what’s going on has been really motivating to me. For them to be more become more aware of their surroundings.” – Promotora 7 | 3 |
| Interest to learn about CS | “Interested in how you design something like this.” – Promotora 3 | 3 |
| Project is interesting/want to learn | “It’s interesting for me …because I am also learning much more than just the course we took at the beginning of the training we took.” – Promotora 1 (Translated from Spanish) | 2 |
| Parent Code: Promotora support | ||
| Child Code | Example of Child Code | # Promotoras Citing (N = 7) |
| Group membership | “I’ve wanted to stay involved because of your team- [Project Harvest staff] is amazing and everyone in your team is great.” -Promotora 3 “Then I was surprised when they gave us the certificate, even I, who was a promotora, said, ‘Wow, so cool I’m a scientist!’ That also motivates us.” – Promotora 2 | 4 |
| Adequate training and preparation | “I mean… l never felt like I was doing something and didn’t have the right tools. Because you gave them to us. Making sure we were very well trained and you know because I had participants that say, how come you [can] do [the experiments]? You know I said I well we had a lot of training and a lot of practice!” – Promotora 7 | 2 |
| Parent Code: Promotora barriers | ||
| Child Code | Example of Child Code | # Promotoras Citing (N = 7) |
| Challenges recruiting/engaging local community | “I’ve put up flyers have gotten no response. Businesses- No response. One is the librarian because we hold our events there.” – Promotora 6 | 5 |
| Computer use barrier | “And that’s the frustrating part for me because … computers didn’t come to [the community] til the maybe the last five years I want to say. We weren’t accountable to be using the computer all the time. We had to have a hard copy of everything and so I’m still kind of like old school I guess… On the computer I can spend 20–30 minutes trying to figure out what I did wrong and never get to do what I wanted to do.” – Promotora 7 | 3 |
| Parent Code: Promotora barriers | ||
| Child Code | Example of Child Code | # Promotoras Citing (N = 7) |
| Project feedback not considered | “I was there because when I attended the training in Tucson, in two different opportunities, we were invited to make comments. But those comments that we made didn’t translate to the [participant instruction] books before they were printed. So it was… I think they were kind of behind in their deadlines. But that was, for me, was something frustrating.” – Promotora 5 | 3 |
| Project methods changed after training | “The instructions- to me it’s not a problem- but maybe because of the, well that in the training it was all completely differently set up.” – Promotora 6 | 3 |
| Misconceptions about roles within project team | “They stopped having one group meeting and they divided it. And so I am fine with the English speaking meetings which is nice. But I always wonder why … If we would say we [are] all treated equally, the promotoras. So that is something that has been hard for me to deal with internally.” – Promotora 5 | 2 |
| Participant protocol more complicated than expected | “And I read the book I read all the protocols and I went to [the Project Harvest] half day training and I still…I know that you just fill the bottles but I still don’t feel comfortable.” – Promotora 4 | 2 |
Table 4
Participant motivation theme frequency and difference by group.
| Parent Code: Participant Motivation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child Code | Examples of Child Code | Total Contributing Participants (N = 120) | Significant Difference by Group1 | Omnibus Significance and Effect Size2 | # Promotoras citing theme (N = 7) |
| Positive attitude about rainwater harvesting or gardening | “Rainwater is good for my plants, it has a lot of nutrients and it helps them grow more quickly.” -T104 (Translated from Spanish) “People like the idea of saving water and they’re very enthusiastic about participating.” – Promotora 4 | 38% (N = 46) | *TS (+) (50%)(N = 23) *TW (+) (24%)(N = 11) | *Community φc = .332 | 2 |
| Want to know contaminants in local environment | “Looking forward to results- I expect most contaminants will be onsite rather than environmental/airborne. I look forward to getting my hypotheses tested.” -G413 | 24% (N = 29) | *Non-low-income (+) (59%)(N = 17) | *Income level φc = .215 | – |
| Project is interesting/want to learn | “Well, it’s been very interesting for me and the program you present is what we’re going to be seeing in the lab, too. It’s something, well, we keep learning.” -T161 (Translated from Spanish) | 21% (N = 25) | *College grads (+) (40%)(N = 10) | *College grad φc = .240 | – |
| Health risk concerns | “I live … below the Pinal Mountains, where it was sprayed with Agent Orange and lots of people here have cancer. I am curious and concerned about what might be in our soil.” -G424 | 16% (N = 19) | *GM (+) (42%)(N = 8) | *Community φc = .363 | 1 |
| Contribute to scientific research | “Collecting data for the UA and public to be informed about our environment is my main motivation.” -G412 | 13% (N = 17) | *Non-college grads (–) (6%)(N = 1) *White (+) (82%)(N = 14) *Latino (–) (12%)(N = 2) | *College grad φc = .426 *Race/ethnicity φc = .350 | 1 |
| Contribute to the environment | “It is important we better understand rainwater harvesting because we will be needing more of it when there is less water in the Colorado River” -T128 (Translated from Spanish) | 12% (N = 15) | None observed | – | 1 |
| Connection to project purpose | “I think one of the most important things is the participants feel like they’re something- the need to feel like you’re something, you’re part of something bigger. You feel like you’re contributing.” – Promotora 4 | 9% (N = 12) | None observed | – | 4 |
| Connection to the community | “Air and water quality impacts everyone in our community. These studies are very important.” -H203 | 9% (N = 11) | None observed | – | 3 |
[i] 1 Groups indicated are significantly different (p < 0.05) in their representation in the theme compared to other group(s). Directionality of difference is represented by (+) for greater representation than expected by the null hypothesis or (–) lesser representation than expected by the null hypothesis.
2 Effect size represented using Cramer’s V (φc). Effect sizes included for significant results (p < 0.05) indicated with *, and for non-significant medium or large (>0.3) effect sizes.
Figure 3
Project Harvest participant mean self-efficacy for science by community and demographic group.
Table 5
Participant support theme frequency and difference by group.
| Parent Code: Participant Support | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child Code | Example of Child Code | Total Contributing Participants (N = 120) | Significant Difference by Group1 | Omnibus Significance and Effect Size2 | # Promotoras citing theme (N = 7) |
| Direct communication with project staff to interpret data | PH staff: You spray the house with what? T158: With something for the bugs. PH staff: …maybe you could also tell us the type of [pesticide] you use and in the lab we can check if that spray– T158: If it’s contaminating… I will send you a picture. | 41% (N = 49) | None observed | – | – |
| Initial home visit training with promotora | “[Promotora] was very good at showing us what to do.” -H218 | 40% (N = 48) | *Non-college grad (+) (56%) (N = 27) | *College grad φc = .235 | – |
| Promotora support | “Insecure while we’re doing it…but I call my promotora and she helps me.” -T169 (Translated from Spanish) | 28% (N = 33) | *GM (+) (36%)(N = 12) *TW (–) (6%)(N = 2) | *Community φc = .348 | 4 |
| Direct communication with project staff to clarify methods | “Asked questions about when to upload results, whether to wash experimental vials, and if there is anything to get back to [her promotora].” -Staff notes on conversation with D308 | 23% (N = 27) | *DH (+) (26%)(N = 7) *TS (–) (7%)(N = 2) | *Community φc = .457 | – |
| Receiving/understanding results | “Every time I did a sample this year, I was so nervous that I wasn’t doing it right… Having attended tonight’s [data sharing event], and gotten the data, I realize that maybe I did okay. I think I have a lot more confidence to do it by myself next year.” -T194 | 19% (N = 24) | None observed | – | |
| Instructional booklet | “Instruction book is useful.” -T137 | 15% (N = 19) | *TW (+) (58%)(N = 11) *College grad (+) (42%)(N = 8) | *Community φc = .316 *College grad φc = .238 | 2 |
| Gain confidence with practice | “It reminds me of chemistry lab but I am getting the hang of it.” -G415 “The beginning of the first year I would go to their homes. And usually when it would rain they would call me and I would be going through the experiment and I was like wow are these people ever going to learn to just do it on their own? …But as I was doing the last sampling they were actually putting their gloves on and they were ready to do the whole thing themselves, collecting the dirt, doing the experiment. They were motivated to do it themselves.” – Promotora 7 | 9% (N = 12) | None observed | – | 4 |
| Household members working together | “nice to have Dad help.” -T004, Y1S | 6% (N = 8) | None observed | – | – |
| Talks with other participants about project | “We just live two trailers down from each other… [the other participant lives] two trailers closer to the mine than I am… And I was remembering my [DIY experiment] results, and seeing her results, and then thinking, oh my goodness, there is a difference, even within the proximity there.” -H212, Y1FG | 6% (N = 8) | None observed | – | – |
| Familiarity with past experiences | “I took [water] samples working for mines.” -G425, Y1S “No problem- just like school!” -H214, Y1S | 6% (N = 7) | None observed | – | – |
[i] Other Participant Support themes cited by promotoras but not participants: receiving recognition or rewards (3), using online instructional videos (2).
1 Groups indicated are significantly different (p < 0.05) in their representation in the theme compared to other group(s). Directionality of difference is represented by (+) for greater representation than expected by the null hypothesis or (–) lesser representation than expected by the null hypothesis.
2 Effect size represented using Cramer’s V (φc). Effect sizes included for significant results (p < 0.05) indicated with *, and for non-significant medium or large (>0.3) effect sizes.
Table 6
Participant barriers theme frequency and difference by group.
| Parent Code: Participant Barriers | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child Code | Examples of Child Code | Total Contributing Participants (N = 120) | Significant Difference by Group1 | Omnibus Significance and Effect Size2 | # Promotoras citing theme (N = 7) |
| Tasks more time-consuming or complicated than expected | “People not having a good understanding of the time commitment. For DIY, some people were overwhelmed by the amount of time it would take- sometimes people had questions, but generally felt supported by booklet, was more unwilling to take the time.” – Promotora 3 “The one problem I had was the arsenic test…Because we had this much liquid, this much space, and then a test strip that we couldn’t get wet and had to agitate it for 45 seconds…I mean, this is a lot of failure built into this process, I thought.” -D307 | 22% (N = 26) | *Latino (–) (19%)(N = 5) | *Race/ethnicity φc = .304 | 7 |
| Not confident in sampling or doing experiments | “I had to constantly review steps of collection and testing as didn’t trust my memory and didn’t want to mess up results for that reason.” -T122 | 18% (N = 21) | None observed | – | 4 |
| No computer/internet access | “Does not have internet access” – Staff notes on interview with T116 “[Participant] doesn’t have a smartphone and she doesn’t have a computer.” – Promotora 5 | 18% (N = 21) | *TS (+) (52%)(N = 11) *HW (+) (33%)(N = 7) *TW (–) (5%)(N = 1) *DH (–) (0%)(N = 0) *Non college grad (+)(70%) (N = 13) *Latino (+) (76%)(N = 16) *White (–) (10%)(N = 2) | *Community φc = .376 *College grad φc = .257 *Race/ethnicity φc = .417 | 2 |
| Technical issues with rainwater harvesting | “Not going well because gutter system not collecting.” -T133 | 13% (N = 15) | None observed | – | – |
| Difficulty with instructions | “I’m pretty sure there’s instructional booklet, but I’d rather just have her explain it to me.” I’m doing an apprenticeship program [as part of employment at the mine] and have to do so much reading, it’s hard for me to read stuff, I would rather just do it with someone.” – H213 | 11% (N = 13) | None observed | – | 3 |
| Computer/tech use barriers | “Has a smart phone but does not know how to use internet on smart phone.” -Staff notes on interview with T153 | 10% (N = 12) | *College grad (+) (67%)(N = 8) | *College grad φc = .365 | 3 |
| Logistical barriers to sample drop-off | “Only thing difficult is the limited window and location for sample drop-off. Makes it difficult for working people.” – T142 | 8% (N = 10) | None observed | – | 1 |
| Unexpected life events | “It’s been a tough month with losses in the family so we’ve been away.” -G425 | 8% (N = 10) | *Non low income (+) (80%)(N = 8) | *Income φc = .365 | – |
| Unclear on how to submit samples or results | “Did both the winter and monsoon experiments for water, have the results and photos and pages of journal notes. Have been meaning to upload them, not sure if I remember how.” -T122 | 8% (N = 9) | None observed | – | 1 |
[i] Other Participant Barrier themes cited by promotoras but not participants: local economic/political concerns about the project (2).
1 Groups indicated are significantly different (p < 0.05) in their representation in the theme compared to other group(s). Directionality of difference is represented by (+) for greater representation than expected by the null hypothesis or (–) lesser representation than expected by the null hypothesis.
2 Effect size represented using Cramer’s V (φc). Effect sizes included for significant results (p < 0.05) indicated with *, and for non-significant medium or large (>0.3) effect sizes.
Table 7
Participant reasons for resigning from project.
| Reason Cited* | # Participants (N = 23) | % Participants Resigned |
|---|---|---|
| No reason given/Not able to contact | 16 | 70% |
| Did not have enough time to participate | 5 | 22% |
| Unexpected life event | 5 | 22% |
| Technical challenges with rainwater harvesting | 5 | 22% |
| Confused or frustrated with procedures | 4 | 17% |
| Computer access challenges | 1 | 4% |
| Moved | 1 | 4% |
[i] * Participants may cite more than one reason.
Table 8
Findings from Project Harvest and responsive strategies for increasing diverse CS participants.
| Project Harvest Participant Findings | Responsive CS Project Design Strategies | |
|---|---|---|
| Motivation | Motivation to participate varies by community. |
|
| Non-traditional participants1 are more likely to be motivated by existing relationships with individuals or an organization, or by addressing a perceived risk. |
| |
| Non-traditional participants1 are less likely to be motivated by learning for the sake of learning or by contributing to science. |
| |
| Support | Non-traditional participants1 are more likely to be supported by personal interactions than by written materials. |
|
| Barriers | Non-traditional participants1 are less likely to have reliable computer or internet access. |
|
| Lack of time was the most frequently reported barrier for participants generally. |
|
[i] 1 “Non-traditional participants” defined here as non-White participants, low-income participants, and/or participants without a four-year college degree.