scientific irrigation scheduling update

56
Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update Regional Technical Forum June 17, 2014

Upload: aida

Post on 23-Feb-2016

67 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update. Regional Technical Forum June 17, 2014. Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Measure Overview. Current Category: ( tbd ) Current Status: Under review for compliance w/ RTF Guidelines Current Sunset Date: [none] - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

Scientific Irrigation SchedulingUpdate

Regional Technical ForumJune 17, 2014

Page 2: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

2

Scientific Irrigation SchedulingMeasure Overview

• Current Category: (tbd)

• Current Status: Under review for compliance w/ RTFGuidelines

• Current Sunset Date: [none]

• Reason for Update/Review: Need to categorize this measure incompliance with the Guidelines

Page 3: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

3

Overview

• RTF Scientific Irrigation Scheduling (SIS) measure has been out of compliance with the Guidelines since the Guidelines were developed three years ago.

• Attempts by RTF contractors (2012) and RTF Staff (2013) to update the measure to a Standard Protocol have been unsuccessful.– Challenges in determining both the baseline and efficient cases– Available baseline data insufficient

• RTF Staff have discussed possible approaches to updating the measure with regional experts and stakeholders and still don’t have a feasible path forward.

• BPA is researching the feasibility of a method to estimate savings, which is based on the statistical methods that they are currently using for custom industrial measures.

• Staff is now asking the RTF for guidance on next steps for this measure.

Page 4: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

4

Today’s Objectives

1) Review the measure and its recent RTF history2) Discuss proposed research plans3) Discuss RTF options for categorizing this measure4) RTF decision on categorization

Page 5: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

5

1) Review the measure and its recent RTF history2) Discuss proposed research plans3) Discuss RTF options for categorizing this measure4) RTF decision on categorization

Page 6: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

6

What is SIS?See backup slides for • an overview of the measure• why the current measure is out of compliance

with the Guidelines

Page 7: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

7

Current Savings Method• The current SIS Calculator estimates water savings as 10% of

the Water Requirement (WR)– WR is based on crop type, location, soil type, weather

• This “10%” savings estimate is based on research conducted by Quantec from 2003 - 2005– Quantec, “A Study of Irrigation Scheduling Practices in the Northwest”

December 2003, for BPA.– Quantec, “Phase II: Measurement of Water and Electricity Impacts”,

June 2005, for BPA, NEEA, Pac. NW Generating Cooperative• These studies estimated that water savings of growers going

from inefficient water management practices to efficient water management practices was about 10% of the WR.

Page 8: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

8

Guidelines Issues• The 10% savings number is not statistically

significant.• The 10% savings number does not reflect the already

efficient irrigation practices of many eligible irrigators– The first phase of this study found that 43% of irrigated

acres currently (as of 2003) use efficient water management practices.

– The 10% savings estimate does not account for this baseline mix of practices.

– However, the current measure is available to all growers, including previous participants and other efficient irrigators.

Page 9: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

9

Recent History of Measure• http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/measures/measure.asp?id=184• Subcommittee meetings – July 9, 2013 / August 8, 2013 / November 8, 2013

– Reviewed current measure, discussed Guidelines compliance issues, discussed feasibility of research

– Meeting minutes and supporting documents: http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/SIS/meetings.htm

• RTF Presentation – Provisional Standard Protocol proposal – November 19, 2013– RTF Decision: refer the entire measure to the SIS Subcommittee to evaluate the baseline

conditions and the potential inclusion of a screen based on crop type and contract type.• Subcommittee Survey – retrofit or current practice baseline? – December 2013

– Conclusions: SIS is a current practice measure because every year a grower “shops” for an irrigation strategy, and no SIS equipment is left in place for the next year.

• Staff and BPA visit to IRZ Consulting - January 23, 2014– Discussed technical details of SIS, the RTF’s challenge, and problems with proposed

research options

Page 10: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

10

Recent History of Measure (cont’d)• Staff conclusions:

– Existing data is not sufficient for a proven Standard Protocol– A feasible research plan to obtain reliable baseline data for a

provisional Standard Protocol has not been identified• BPA agrees to look into bringing measure into compliance

with the Guidelines – January, 2014• Subcommittee meeting – June 2, 2014

– BPA discusses their research intentions. Much work to be done in developing model, selecting sample, collecting data.

– Subcommittee recommendation to RTF: Provisional Standard Protocol• Subcommittee expressed concern over losing the measure

Page 11: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

11

1) Review the measure and its recent RTF history2) Discuss proposed research plans3) Discuss RTF options for categorizing this measure4) RTF decision on categorization

Page 12: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

12

Proposed Research Approaches• Staff have proposed several research approaches, but none have been deemed

feasible by the Subcommittee and other experts we’ve spoken with. Barriers to research:– Sample size required (100s to 1000s of farms)– Burden on utilities– Unreliability of self-reported water consumption – need for metered water or metered

kWh plus pumping system– Cost of metering water– Complexity of systems– Complexity of irrigation decision making– [see backup slides for details]

• BPA is looking into the use of a regression-based model similar to what they use for custom industrial projects.

• The Subcommittee has not offered any other research plan proposals.

• There is interest among regional experts in meeting to discuss this issue and to coordinate ongoing research.

Page 13: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

13

1) Review the measure and its recent RTF history2) Discuss proposed research plans3) Discuss RTF options for categorizing this measure4) RTF decision on categorization

Page 14: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

14

RTF Guidance is Needed• We have

– A Standard Protocol that has been out of compliance since the Guidelines were developed

– No sufficiently reliable best practice baseline– No feasible research plan– No promise of such a plan in the near future– More regional potential and interest than a Small-Saver– A lot of interest in keeping this measure

• The RTF needs to categorize this measure. Options:– Proven,– Provisional, or– Deactivated

Page 15: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

15

Options for the RTF - ProvenRTF accept the Quantec study results as Best Practice and sufficiently reliable• Use Quantec Phase 2 results – SIS saves 10% relative

to inefficient irrigation practices• Use Quantec Phase 1 results - 57% of acreage in the

baseline is subject to inefficient irrigation practices– 57% of acres irrigated without water management (10%

savings)– 43% of acres irrigated with water management (0%

savings)• [Water Savings %] = [10%]x[57%] + [0%]x[43%]

= 5.7%

Page 16: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

16

Options for the RTF – Proven (cont’d)

Guidelines issues regarding accepting the Quantec study for a proven measure:• Savings Reliability - “…the sampling, data collection

and other errors are sufficiently small and unbiased. Sufficiency is determined by the collective opinion of the RTF.” (Guidelines, Roadmap Section 1.3.6)

• Best Practice Savings Estimate – Estimate relies on the “best practical and reliable data collection and estimation methods.” – “Practical” = “can be carried out with proven techniques

and resources deemed reasonable by the RTF.” (Guidelines, Roadmap Section 1.3.8. )

Page 17: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

17Options for the RTF – Proven (cont’d)• RTF would need to agree that:

– The uncertainty in the Quantec 10% savings estimate is “sufficiently small and unbiased”.• But Staff have shown that this savings estimate is not statistically

significant – The Quantec study remains the best practical and reliable data

collection and estimation method.• However, if this is true, then repeating the study to obtain a larger

sample seems like a feasible option.• The market portion of the study is 12 years old.

– Measure identifiers such as crop type and location are not necessaryOr

– Crops that are commonly subject to efficient practices and areas that are subject to water constraints are ineligible for the measure

Page 18: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

18Options for the RTF - Provisional• Savings Model

1. [Savings from inefficient to efficient practices] x [prevalence of inefficient practices] [pick A or B] and [pick C or D]

• Savings from inefficient to efficient practices– Option A – regression-based pre/post analysis of billing data

plus farm data (crops, pumping system details, soil type)– Option B - Accept 10% as best practical. While we do not

have statistically significant validation of this, experts have told us that this is a reasonable estimate.

• Prevalence of inefficient practices– Option C – Phone survey – similar to Quantec Phase 1– Option D – Custom query of USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation

Survey2. Other savings model

• ?

The Subcommittee recommends the RTF accept SIS as a Provisional Standard Protocol

Page 19: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

19

Options for the RTF – Provisional (cont’d)

• Any provisional option will require a provisional savings estimate– Staff recommends using the Quantec-based 5.7% savings derived

earlier in this presentation.– Staff have received recommendations for 10% savings so that program

willingness-to-pay remains high enough to attract participants.• Staff does not recommend this since it is known that some level of

efficient irrigation practices exist in the region, and choosing 10% ignores that fact.

Page 20: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

20

Options for the RTF - Deactivate• Acknowledge that while SIS is a useful service and most likely

results in energy savings, it may be too expensive to determine these savings with the level of certainty required by the RTF for a Standard Protocol.

• If/when a feasible research plan is developed, RTF could make this a Provisional Standard Protocol.

• Guidelines still allow for utilities to use this measure as a Custom Protocol or Other UES - Savings would be determined through impact evaluation

• Staff recommends that the RTF deactivate the SIS measure until a Provisional Standard Protocol research plan is developed.

Page 21: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

21

1) Review the measure and its recent RTF history2) Discuss proposed research plans3) Discuss RTF options for categorizing this measure4) RTF decision on categorization

Page 22: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

22

Proposed Decision – Staff Recommendation

“I _______________ move that the RTF deactivate the Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Standard Protocol.”

Page 23: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

23Proposed Decision – Subcommittee Recommendation

“I _______________ move that the RTF approve the Scientific Irrigation Scheduling measure as a Provisional Standard Protocol

• with a research plan developed by BPA to estimate inefficient-to-efficient savings based on regression-based pre/post analysis;

or • accepting the estimate inefficient-to-efficient savings of 10% as best practical and reliable;

a research plan to estimate the baseline prevalence of efficient irrigation practices by• a regional phone-survey;

– or• a custom query of USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey;

a provisional savings estimate of 5.7% of Water Requirement;

and a deadline for the development this research plan of October 1, 2014”

Page 24: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

24

Back-up Slides

Page 25: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

25

Extra material:An overview of Scientific Irrigation Scheduling

Page 26: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

26

Overview of Measure• “Scientific irrigation scheduling is a process growers of agricultural

products can use to improve irrigation water management. When used properly, scientific irrigation scheduling provides information on when to irrigate, how much water to apply, and how to apply water to satisfy crop water requirements and avoid plant moisture stress. When used appropriately, irrigation scheduling saves water, energy, labor, and fertilizer, and in many cases improves crop yields and crop quality.”– http://www.bpa.gov/energy/n/agriculture.cfm (emphasis added)

• Uses soil moisture monitors, and modeling specific to crop type, soil type, and local meteorology to determine when/how much to water.

• Traditional methods rely more on look/feel of soil and crops, predetermined watering calendars, and water availability.

Page 27: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

Water Balance

Transpiration: passage of water through plant, from soil to atmosphere

Evaporation: liquid in soil becomes vapor in atmosphere

Irrigation: water applied to field by grower

Precipitation: water from atmosphere to soil

Page 28: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

Water Balance - Evapotranspiration

Transpiration: passage of water through plant, from soil to atmosphere

Evaporation: liquid in soil becomes vapor in atmosphere

Evapotranspiration = Evaporation + Transpiration• Combined transfer of water from soil to

atmosphere from evaporation and transpiration.

• The rate of evapotranspiration depends on:• Weather (temp, humidity, insolation, wind)• Soil type• Crop type

Page 29: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

Water Balance – Water Requirement

Transpiration: passage of water through plant, from soil to atmosphere

Evaporation: liquid in soil becomes vapor in atmosphere

Irrigation: Water applied to field by grower

Precipitation: water from atmosphere to soil

Water Required = Evapotranspiration - PrecipitationIdeally, the Irrigation water applied is exactly the amount of water required.

Page 30: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

• Precise determination of the timing and amount of irrigation required in a field using three techniques in coordination: – Evapotranspiration and precipitation monitoring– Soil moisture monitoring– Water application monitoring

What is Scientific Irrigation Scheduling (SIS)?

Page 31: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

• Application of SIS in irrigation decision-making• Can be applied by either a consultant or by

the grower• Service is provided for a single growing season– Soil moisture meters are removed at end of

season– Crops may rotate from season to season– Climatic data will vary from year to year

What is the SIS measure?

Page 32: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

How do non-participants make irrigation decisions?

Method% of Farmers Reporting1,2

Condition of crop 75%Feel of soil 42%Personal calendar 32Scheduled by water delivery organization 14%Other 11%Soil moisture sensors 9%Evapotranspiration reports 7%Neighbors 7%Commercial or governmental scheduling service 6%Plant moisture sensors 2%Computer simulations 2%Media reports 0%1. Respondents may select multiple methods

2. Note that percentages are of farmers , not of acres . Larger farms tend to use more sophisticated methods.

Source: United States Department of Agriculture, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Surveys. Methods Used in Deciding When to Irrigate. Survey year 2008, respondents in WA, OR, and ID.

Page 33: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

Does not using SIS imply inefficient irrigation?Quantec Study, Phase 1. Baseline Practices• Survey of 776 farms across the PNW• Characterized irrigation practices• Compared reported water use to estimated water

requirement

Findings• Practice Group II used

10% less water than Practice Group III

• Practice Group I used 12% less water than Practice Group III

Page 34: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

34

What is the Quantec “10%” number?Phase 2 of the Quantec examined the impact of SIS• 19 treatment group sites received SIS• 19 control group sites did not receive SIS

– The control group was farms known not to use water management practices.

– I.e., the control group was not a random sample of the population, it was only the least efficient irrigators.

• Findings: on average, – The treatment group used the “ideal water” amount.– The control group used 10% more water than the “ideal water”

amount.– Conclusion: “SIS saves 10% of the ideal water amount”

Page 35: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

35Overview of Measure: Energy Savings• 1) Ex post estimate water savings (acre-ft) at end of

season – SIS service provider reports how much water was used for irrigation– [Water savings] = [Water consumption] x [10%]

• 2) Estimate energy intensity (kWh/acre-ft), as a function of pump system at site: – Total Dynamic Head (a function of Lift and Discharge Pressure)– Pump System Efficiency estimates (a function of Pump Type, Pumping

Plant Size, and Lift)

• 3) Estimate energy savings (kWh)– [Energy Savings] = [Water Savings] x [Energy Intensity] = [Water Consumption] x [10%] x [Energy Intensity]

Page 36: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

36

Details of the Quantec Study

Page 37: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

37

Quantec Study – Phase 1. Baseline Practices

43% of irrigated acres are irrigated efficiently– Survey of 776 farms across the PNW– Quantec categorized farms according to irrigation decision-making

practices• “Examination of reported water

use and their deviations from known irrigation requirements indicated that, by and large, farms in practice level I tend to use less water than farms that use less sophisticated practices. Comparison of mean water use derived from a regression model of water use showed that application of the combination of methods used in practice levels I and II are likely to result in water savings of approximately 12% and 10%, respectively.”

Page 38: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

38

Quantec Study – Phase 2. Impact Study

The impact study compared growers known to use outside SIS services to growers known not to practice water management. I.e. – compare the best to the worst.

“It was therefore decided to select the treatment group from among growers who received water management services through GWMA or IRZ Consulting, and to select the control group from farms in close proximity to the treatment farms. The main advantage of this approach was that it offered a more consistent basis for defining water management practices among the treatment group and significantly helped the recruitment and data collection processes.

“To ensure comparability with the treatment group, each treatment field was matched with a local control field with the same crop grown by a farmer known not to practice water management.”

Page 39: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

39

Quantec Study – Impact Study• Analysis

– Meter irrigation water use - indirect measurement: log line pressure at point of delivery, multiply by sprinkler design flow rate

– Estimate “ideal” water use – use water balance model specific to county-level weather, field soil type, crop type (evapotranspiration rates)

– Ideal water use is the normalizing factor for all fields (control and treatment)

• Findings– Control group used 12% more water than ideal– Treatment group used 2% more water than ideal– Based on this, a 10% water savings for SIS is proposed

Page 40: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

40

Quantec Study – Impact Data

Note:• Small sample size• Limited crop type• High variance

Page 41: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

41

Quantec Study – Impact Data

Variance = ( [actual] – [ideal] ) / [ideal]

Impact appears to be on the least efficient irrigators.

Page 42: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

42

Quantec Study – Limitations of Analysis• Small sample size – 19 treatment, 19 control

– Results not statistically significant– But SIS subcommittee and regional experts have said that 10% is a

reasonable estimate of savings for growers who weren’t using efficient methods before.

– Others have suggested that savings are as high as 20%.• If we only know that our Best Practice savings are between 0 and 20%, we can’t say if

our 10% Simplest Reliable estimate is within 10% of the Best Practice estimate.

• Limited geography and crop type• Dated – study conducted 2003 – 2005• Baseline only represents a subset of the population (non-SIS

users)• Does not examine take-back – (i.e., use of saved water

elsewhere on farm)

Page 43: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

43

References• Quantec, “A Study of Irrigation Scheduling Practices

in the Northwest” December 2003, for BPA. [link]• Quantec, “Phase II: Measurement of Water and

Electricity Impacts”, June 2005, for BPA, NEEA, Pac. NW Generating Cooperative [link]

Page 44: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

44

Extra material:Why is the current measure out of compliance with the RTF Guidelines?

Page 45: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

45

Guidelines Compliance IssuesA Proven Standard Protocol requires• Best Practice method of estimating savings

– Best practice method would require direct (water) or indirect (kWh) metering of treatment and control sites

– We have some of this data from the Quantec study, but it is neither current or statistically significant.

• Simplest Reliable method that is sufficiently reliable (Guidelines, Savings, Section 3.4.2)– With +/- 20% of Best Practice per site, or +/-10% overall– The 10% of Water Requirement is a candidate Simplest Reliable method.– Because we don’t have a Best Practice savings estimate, we can’t say if

our 10% estimate meets this criteria.

Page 46: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

46

Guidelines Compliance IssuesA Proven Standard Protocol requires (cont’d)• Current Practice or Pre-conditions baseline– Current Practice:

• SIS subcommittee indicated that SIS is best described as a current practice measure: each year growers are in the market for an irrigation strategy. There is no SIS infrastructure left in place at the site.

• Savings for a current practice SIS measure could be claimed repeatedly.

• A current practice baseline “is defined by the recent typical choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services” (Roadmap, Section 3.2.1)– This would include both inefficient and efficient irrigation practices.– The 10% savings estimate only includes inefficient irrigation practices in the

baseline

Page 47: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

47

Guidelines Compliance IssuesA Proven Standard Protocol requires (cont’d)• Current Practice or Pre-conditions baseline (cont’d)– Pre-Conditions:

• If SIS were seen as a behavioral change, with impacts lasting more than one growing season, then a pre-conditions baseline would be appropriate.

• For the pre-conditions baseline, the 10% savings estimate (if it were sufficiently reliable), would be appropriate.

• However, savings could not be claimed repeatedly, because once SIS was implemented at a site, the pre-condition at that site in future years would be SIS.

• Effectively, the program would be limited to sites that had not previously used SIS or similar efficient irrigation practices.

Page 48: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

48

Guidelines Compliance IssuesA Proven Standard Protocol requires (cont’d)• Measure identifiers (Roadmap, Section 3.1)

– Measure identifiers should be used to uniquely identify measure applications where there are large differences in savings

– The current measure applies the same savings 10% in all cases.– However, we have heard from the Subcommittee that savings

depend on• Crop type – Current practice varies by crop type• Water availability and rights – savings primarily occur where water consumption

is not constrained. The frequency of water constraint varies by area (e.g. some areas have more water scarce years than others).

• Prevalence of SIS in territory – Infrastructure and local adoption drive additional adoption.

Page 49: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

49

Guidelines Compliance IssuesA Provisional Standard Protocol requires• “… a research plan is required that describes how

data and analyses will be conducted in order to prove reliability of a simplified method and achieve approval for the Proven category.”

Guidelines, Roadmap Section 7.1

• Despite the efforts of the RTF Staff and RTF contractors, no such research plan has been deemed feasible by the SIS community.

Page 50: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

50

Extra material:Proposed research approaches

Page 51: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

51

Proposed Research Approaches• RTF Staff have discussed several possible research

approaches to obtain reliable baseline data with the Subcommittee and other regional experts

• The following slides detail several proposed methods that staff believes could result in a proven RTF measure

Page 52: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

52

Proposed Research Approaches• Pre/post study of participants, estimating water

consumption from electric meter records (proposed to RTF in Nov. 2013)– Pros:

• Baseline Data already exists and/or could be collected via survey

– Cons: • Would only work on “simple systems” – pump/pumps on a

dedicated meter and only serving a single crop. These tend to be small farms, and wouldn’t be representative of the market.

• Would require sample size of 100s to 1000s simple systems which is unlikely to be obtained

• Utilities have limited staff to support data collection

Page 53: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

53

Proposed Research Approaches• Regression-based pre/post study of participants,

including complex systems (recent BPA proposal)– Pros:

• Sample could be representative of market because it would not be limited by system complexity.

• On-site data collection limited to survey and inspection of pumping system.– kWh data used to estimate water consumption

– Cons:• Sample size needed get a reliable estimate for a Standard Protocol

would be 100s to 1000s of sites, which is unlikely to be obtained. Sample size increases for results by crop type, farm size, etc.

• Utilities have limited staff to support data collection

Page 54: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

54

Proposed Research Approaches• Phone survey (similar to Quantec, Phase 1) – ask

about irrigation practices and water consumption, by crop type.– Pros:

• Could be used to determine the baseline portions of the market using efficient and inefficient practices

• Inexpensive– Cons:

• Couldn’t be used for savings percentage: Subject matter experts do not consider self-reported water consumption number reliable for non-participants.

Page 55: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

55

Proposed Research Approaches• Custom query of USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation

Survey (FRIS) data – look at irrigation decision practices and water applied per crop type.– Pros:

• Could be used for an inexpensive, crude estimate of baseline irrigation practices

– Cons: • FRIS asks for irrigation practices at the farm level, not more

granularly at the crop-type level. – Could assume that irrigation practice applies to most prevalent

(acreage) crop type at each farm.• Subject matter experts do not consider self-reported water

consumption number reliable for non-participants.• Would need to know soil type to estimate Water Requirement

Page 56: Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Update

56

Proposed Research Approaches• Metered study (water consumption, at the

field level) of growers with and without SIS.– Pros: • Would provide the most accurate estimate of savings

– Cons:• Sample size needed get a reliable estimate would be

100s to 1000s of sites, which is unlikely to be obtained. Sample size increases for results by crop type, farm size, etc.• Cost of study would be prohibitive.• Recruiting study participants would be challenging