Citation:

Mulvaney, K., N. Merrill, S. Lyon, AND M. Mazzotta. Barriers and Opportunities for the Use of Alternative Technologies to Reduce Nitrogen in Coastal Estuaries. Coastal & Estuarine Research Federation (CERF) 24th Biennial Conference, Providence, Rhode Island, November 05 - 09, 2017.

Impact/Purpose:

In addition to sewering, various technologies are being considered by communities for reducing nitrogen flow into coastal waters. These technologies have a range of certainty for reducing nitrogen, costs, and acceptance by local communities. We conducted interviews with more than 25 participants throughout southeastern Massachusetts who have worked with the different technologies either as decision makers, researchers, or contractors who installed the projects. Our work seeks to characterize the perceived social acceptance barriers and also to identify opportunities that facilitated acceptance in pilot communities.

Description:

In coastal New England, many communities wrestling with nitrogen over-enrichment from insufficient wastewater management are considering alternative technologies to supplement traditional sewering technology. In particular, communities on Cape Cod, Massachusetts are actively comparing and piloting a number of different alternative technologies as a part of the Clean Water Act’s 208 planning. A range of technologies are being considered from large-scale shellfish seeding to the use of urine-diverting toilets. The technologies vary widely in social acceptance of use, level of uncertainty for contributing to nitrogen reduction, costs, and more. This makes their use challenging for towns charged with meeting nitrogen reduction goals. To better understand these challenges, we conducted more than 25 interviews with participants from local, state and federal governments, regional planning bodies, and technology contractors to identify barriers and opportunities for the use of alternative technologies. The researched technologies included permeable reactive barriers, aquaculture, rain gardens, wetland restoration, living shorelines, and alternative septic systems. A number of opportunities were identified including the perception of reduced costs of implementation, aesthetic or recreational co-benefits, and possibilities for shorter time frames for implementation. Some barriers were also identified, including uncertainty related to the effectiveness of the technologies in reducing nitrogen and their costs, social acceptance of the “new” technologies, and unclear permitting processes. The participants consistently identified the need for improved information sharing among decision makers and with community members in order to successfully implement alternative technologies within their communities. Overall, there is an increased sense of feasibility and possibility for the use of alternative technologies, but almost always as a supplement to traditional sewering.

Record Details: