Report of the Union County Environmental Baseline Study April 27, 2011 Union County Commissioners’ Hearing Room
Presented by: Tim Buckley, Associate Professor & Chair Liesel Seryak, Graduate Research Associate Division of Environmental Health Sciences OSU College of Public Health tbuckely@cph.osu.edu & lseryak@cph.osu.edu
Introduction
Urban and rural sprawl leads to residential populations encroaching on agriculture (Kremer et al. 2005)
In 2007 there were 64,570 farms that specialized in poultry or eggs in the United States (USDA Census of Agriculture)
90% of all poultry operations are family farms; however those only account for 31% of inventory and 61.9% of sales Corporations own only 3.7% of all poultry farms, but account for 52% of inventory and 28% of sales
Concern about public health effects from CAFOs has been rising over the past decade
Some evidence has shown adverse effects, but more research is needed to understand the relationships (e.g. Wing et al. 2008 & Sneeringer 2009)
2
April 27, 2011
Introduction
Odors from animal agriculture
Odors can cause respiratory irritation and inflammation, stress, nausea, headaches (Schiffman et al. 1998/2000 & Shusterman et al. 2001)
3
Malodor from industrial hog farming operations limits social and leisure activities that could cause public health detriment (Tajik et al. 2008) Malodor from animal agriculture triggers stress and negative mood (Horton et al. 2009)
Effects on quality of life (outdoor social activities, chores, sleep, etc.) have been observed with odors and air pollution in communities near industrial hogfarming operations (Wing et al. 2008 & 2010) April 27, 2011
Introduction – Union County
4
Home to more than 2.8 million chickens being raised on 3 farms within a 3-mile radius Proposed expansion of the poultry industry prompted public concern Stakeholders (including, government, industry, nongovernmental orgs & citizens) approached us to provide an objective assessment of baseline environmental conditions EPA assessments of the watershed in this region (latest data 1999) have shown areas of impairment by nutrients and other pollutants
April 27, 2011
Union County Environmental Baseline Study 1.
2.
5
Identify, acquire and evaluate existing environmental data to establish a baseline for the Bokes Creek watershed Assess community residents’ observations and concerns regarding the local environment Rationale: Baseline will provide means to assess future incremental environmental changes April 27, 2011
Methods Identification,
acquisition, and analysis of existing data Community survey of environmental concern
6
April 27, 2011
Criteria for Considering Relevance of Existing Data Current, ongoing, timely data access
Time
Within watershed, upstream and downstream of points of influence and usage
UC Health Dept. • Nuisance complaints • Drinking water well tests Columbus water quality
Union S&W GIS data
Health, Recreational or Ecological
Ohio EPA data Summaries of student research
Space 7
Indicator April 27, 2011
Columbus Water Quality Assurance Lab
Most recent & current dataset for Bokes Creek watershed Conducted by CWQAL with the primary purpose of predicting downstream challenges for drinking water for the city Includes Nitrate, Phosphorus, Ammonia and Atrazine Sampled across 7 sites twice per month 2005-2010 (less frequent sampling 2000-2004)
8
April 27, 2011
Methods--Survey
Census approach within 3 townships (Liberty, Taylor & York)
Anonymity
9
Controversial issues within the county Minimize risk to participants and encourage honesty
Applied for and received Institutional Review Board exempt status
Every resident had an opportunity to participate
Because no identifying information was collected
Incentive offered
Five randomly drawn participants received $50 April 27, 2011 Walmart gift cards
Survey Design
Primary research question: Do residents’ perceptions and concerns regarding their local environment differ based on their residential proximity to industrial poultry facilities? Content:
10
Personal (age & gender of respondent) Household (own/rent, # adults/children, years of residence, farming) Water (well water, recreational water use, septic system) Air (indoor AC, smoking, outdoor air, odors, soil) Environmental concern (human health & community ecology) April 27, 2011
Survey Instrument
11
Environmental factor
“Concern” response (Likert-style scales)
Environment affects community ecology
Extremely / Moderately concerned
Odors
Always / Sometimes
Environment affects family health
Extremely / Moderately concerned
Streams look or smell unpleasant
Agree / Strongly Agree
Recreational water contact safe
Disagree / Strongly disagree
Well water safe to drink
Disagree / Strongly disagree
Outdoor air safe to breathe
Disagree / Strongly disagree
Soil contact safe
Disagree / Strongly disagree
27 questions, a few with multiple parts
April 27, 2011
Survey Map
12
April 27, 2011
Methods: Data Analysis Evaluated
percent response for each question overall and by zone Difference in response by zone was determined by logistic regression, comparing each zone to the reference, Zone D Odds ratios describes the likelihood of a response in one zone compared to the reference 13
April 27, 2011
Results Existing
water quality data Survey results
14
April 27, 2011
Total phosphorus concentration (mg/L)
CWQAL results example: Phosphorus concentration
15
April 27, 2011
CWQAL results example: Phosphorus trend
16
Median phosphorous concentration plotted by time (2000-2010) with linear regression line showing trend (p = 0.13).
April 27, 2011
Survey Response Total mailed Percent returned undeliverable Total received by recipients (deliverable) Total # of surveys returned Postcards submitted for incentive drawing Response rate for surveys based on revised total
17
1690 4.4% 1616 459 396 28.4%
April 27, 2011
Response by Zone
Zone A (1) B (2) C (3) D (4) Not given 18
Number of surveys received 60 141 154 98 6
Approx. % of total % of total geographic area sampled 13% 13% 31% 36% 34% 34% 21% 17% 1% April 27, 2011
Demographics
19
Average age:
55
Median age:
54
Min age:
20
Max age:
97
Percent female:
44%
Percent own:
98%
Average # adults:
2.2
Average # children:
0.54
Average # of years lived in home:
18.5
Min years in home:
0.03
Max years in home:
67
Percent who farm: Percent of those who farm who also raise livestock:
25% 39%
April 27, 2011
Results
Demographic and objective factors that did NOT differ statistically by zone Age of respondent Gender of respondent Number of years lived in the home Number of well tests past 5 years Use of water softener/filter Use of air filter Members of household smoke Smoking allowed inside home
20
April 27, 2011
Results Average age of respondent (no statistical difference by zone) 56 55 54
Average age
53 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 A
21
B
C Zone of home
D
April 27, 2011
Results Average years of residence in home (no statistical difference by zone) 22 20 18
Average # of years
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 A
22
B
C Zone of home
D
April 27, 2011
Results Demographic
and objective factors that DIFFER by zone (p<0.05) Presence
of children in household Ownership vs. renting Farming Type of septic system Type/presence of air conditioning 23
April 27, 2011
Results Only
41% of respondents had their drinking water well tested at least once in the past 5 years. EPA recommends testing wells every year Less than 3% of households who responded have tested their well 5 or more times in the past 5 years
Well
testing did not differ by zone (p>0.05)
24
April 27, 2011
6% 18%
7%
Results
9%
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree
19%
Strongly Agree
Well water is safe to drink?
Don't Know
(No difference by zone (p>0.05)
41%
20 18 16
Percent response
14 12 10 Disagree 8
Strongly Disagree
6 4 2 0 A
25
B
C Zone of home
D
April 27, 2011
Results 14%
of households reported using the streams of the Bokes Creek watershed recreationally Households that farm and those with children were more likely to report recreational use of streams 55% of these households report recreational water contact for both adults and children
26
April 27, 2011
3%
7%
19% 18%
Results
Strongly Disagree Disagree No opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Recreational water contact is safe 53%
40 35
OR = 3.5*
OR = 3.2*
Percent response
30 25
OR = 1.8*
20 Disagree
15
Strongly Disagree 10 5 0 A
B
C
D
Zone of home
27
April 27, 2011
7%
3% 18%
Results
20% Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Streams of Bokes Creek watershed look or smell unpleasant 45
52%
OR = 2.1*
40
Percent response
35 30 25 Agree
20
Strongly Agree 15 10 5 0
28
A
B
C Zone of home
D
April 27, 2011
11%
3%
10% 6%
Results
19%
Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree Don't Know
Outdoor air is safe to breathe 35
51%
OR = 7.3*
30
Percent response
25
OR = 3.4*
20
Disagree
15
Strongly Disagree
10
5
0 A
29
B
C Zone of home
D
April 27, 2011
4% 22%
Results
Always 41%
Sometimes Rarely Never
Odors adversely affect quality of life 33% 80
OR = 9.9*
70
OR = 4.7*
Percent response
60 50 40 Sometimes Always
30 20 10 0
30
A
B
C Zone of home
D
April 27, 2011
1% 5% 20%
Results
22% Strongly Disagree Disagree No Opinion Agree Strongly Agree
Contact with the soil around my home is safe 52% 20 18
OR = 12.2*
16
Percent response
14 12 10 Disagree 8
Strongly Disagree
6
@ Note: OR is adjusted for the effect of farming, which has an OR of 0.18 in the model
4 2 0
31
A
B
C Zone of home
D
April 27, 2011
18% 31%
Results
Extremely concerned Moderately concerned Slightly concerned 22%
Not concerned
Environment affects community ecology 29%
90 80
OR = 4.1* OR = 2.5*
Percent response
70 60 50
Moderately concerned
40
Extremely concerned 30
@ Note: ORs are adjusted for the effect of septic type and own/rent status in the model
20 10
April 27, 2011
0
32
A
B
C Zone of home
D
21% 29%
Results
Extremely concerned Moderately concerned Slightly concerned 19%
Not concerned
Environment affects family health 80
31%
OR = 3.1* OR = 2.3*
70
Percent response
60 50 40 Moderately concerned Extremely concerned
30 20
@ Note: ORs are adjusted for the effect of septic type in the model
10 0
33
A
B
C Zone of home
D
April 27, 2011
Preliminary Conclusions Relative environmental concern across factors
34
Environmental factor
“Concern” response
% “No opinion” or “Don’t know”
% reporting concern
Environment affects community ecology
Extremely / Moderately concerned
N/A
60%
Odors
Always / Sometimes
N/A
45%
Environment affects family health
Extremely / Moderately concerned
N/A
40%
Streams look or smell unpleasant
Agree / Strongly Agree
52% no opinion
27%
Recreational water contact safe
Disagree / Strongly disagree
53% no opinion
25%
Well water safe to drink
Disagree / Strongly disagree
9% no opinion 18% don’t know
13%
Outdoor air safe to breathe
Disagree / Strongly disagree
6% no opinion 11% don’t know
13%
Soil contact safe
Disagree / Strongly disagree
22% no opinion
6% April 27, 2011
Preliminary Conclusions Response rate of 28.4% is good but calls into question representativeness and potential bias Among respondents, concern over environmental health is widespread
35
Odors were of greatest overall concern 60% reported concern over community ecology 40% reported concern over family’s health
April 27, 2011
Preliminary Conclusions
Resident concern about the environment increased with closeness to poultry operations (except well-water quality)
Most pronounced (zone A compared to D) • Soil (OR = 12.2) • Odors (OR = 9.9)
Drinking water wells are under-tested Recreational contact with Bokes Creek is not uncommon and warrants further investigation
36
April 27, 2011
Acknowledgements Survey
participants Union County Commissioners Stakeholders who have met with us, answered questions, and provided data for this project
37
April 27, 2011
Thank you. Discussion: How
can we keep stakeholder group together and identify future opportunities for finding solutions to environmental and health issues? Robert Wood Johnson Foundation – Health Impact Assessment Questions? This presentation and the final study report are available online: http://cph.osu.edu/biopage2.cfm?id=10 Ohio Non-point Source Success Stories – Bokes Creek Water Quality Enhancement Project (Oxbow Stream Restoration & OEPA)