TY - JOUR
T1 - Participatory research for environmental justice
T2 - a critical interpretive synthesis
AU - Davis, Leona F.
AU - Ramírez-Andreotta, Mónica D.
N1 - Funding Information:
Cacari-Stone et al. 2014; Garcia et al. 2013 Residents of Riverside, Long Beach, Wilmington, and Commerce, with other community partners in Los Angeles, CA, and the surrounding region. Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach Ports receive 40% of goods imported to the US. Related stressors include multiple rail-yards, marine terminals, highways with high diesel truck traffic, and noise. Port activities were under-regulated, in part because foreign ships fall outside regulatory jurisdiction. Several events occurred prior to the study (a lawsuit, major newspaper article, creation of a city task force) raised public aware-ness and concern about port-related pollution. Following these events, USC researchers held a town hall meeting to share their research on air pollution’s health effects and hold space for open sharing by participants. At this meeting, representa-tives from community-based organizations, advocacy groups, and researchers were able to meet and formulate plans for col-laboration. Subsequent town halls meetings were held every few years, and cited as a strong method for engagement. Primary partners University of Southern California, Occidental College, and Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, had worked together on previous projects and already had a trust relationship. Collaboration later expanded to include four other partner organizations. USC brought previous non-participatory epidemiological data on health effects of air pollution. Staff trained promotoras and other community leaders (Neighborhood Assessment Teams, or “A” Teams) to conduct traffic counts and measure particulate matter. Additional grant funding solidified collaboration among regional partners and formalized THE Impact Project. Staff conducted participatory education workshops with “A” Team members on air quality and goods movement. “A” Team-produced data and “A” Team members’ testimonies were presented at government agency hearings. Challenges cited include the difficulty of working across multiple policy jurisdictions, and time and resources required by all partners to engage with many stakeholders intensively. Authors described “shifting the policy debate” to include health considerations along with economics in goods movement deci-sion-making. Health-related language was added to official ports and transportation documents. Expansion of a major freeway through the area was delayed to assess and plan for mitigation of health effects. Ports’ Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) was adopted, facilitating policy collaboration between city, regional, state, and federal authorities under the commitment to reduce pollution from ports by 45% within 5 y. THE Impact Project representatives were elected and appointed to related advisory boards, and a government task force. When the CAAP was revised and renewed in 2010, representatives were able to stop the potential passage of a “watered-down” version of the plan, because of their positions on decision-making boards.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, Public Health Services, US Dept of Health and Human Services. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/2
Y1 - 2021/2
N2 - BACKGROUND: Environmental health risks are disproportionately colocated with communities in poverty and communities of color. In some cases, participatory research projects have effectively addressed structural causes of health risk in environmental justice (EJ) communities. However, many such projects fail to catalyze change at a structural level. OBJECTIVES: This review employs Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) to theorize specific elements of participatory research for environmental health that effectively prompt structural change in EJ communities. METHODS: Academic database search was used to identify peer-reviewed literature describing participatory research with EJ communities to address environmental health. Synthetic constructs were developed iteratively related to study characteristics, design elements, and outcomes; and data were extracted for included records. Statistical analyses were performed to assess correlations between study design elements and structural change outcomes. Through critical, comparative, and contextual analyses of the “structural change” case study group and “non-structural change” group, informed by relevant theoretical literature, a synthesizing argument was generated. RESULTS: From 505 total records identified, eligibility screening produced 232 case study articles, representing 154 case studies, and 55 theoretical articles for synthesis. Twenty-six case studies resulted in a structural change outcome. The synthesizing argument states that participatory research with EJ communities may be more likely to result in structural change when a) community members hold formal leadership roles; b) project design includes decision-makers and policy goals; and c) long term partnerships are sustained through multiple funding mechanisms. The assumption of EJ community benefit through research participation is critically examined. DISCUSSION: Recommended future directions include establishing structural change as a goal of participatory research, employing participatory assessment of community benefit, and increased hiring of faculty of color at research institutions. The power, privilege, and political influence that academic institutions are able to leverage in partnership with EJ communities may be as valuable as the research itself.
AB - BACKGROUND: Environmental health risks are disproportionately colocated with communities in poverty and communities of color. In some cases, participatory research projects have effectively addressed structural causes of health risk in environmental justice (EJ) communities. However, many such projects fail to catalyze change at a structural level. OBJECTIVES: This review employs Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) to theorize specific elements of participatory research for environmental health that effectively prompt structural change in EJ communities. METHODS: Academic database search was used to identify peer-reviewed literature describing participatory research with EJ communities to address environmental health. Synthetic constructs were developed iteratively related to study characteristics, design elements, and outcomes; and data were extracted for included records. Statistical analyses were performed to assess correlations between study design elements and structural change outcomes. Through critical, comparative, and contextual analyses of the “structural change” case study group and “non-structural change” group, informed by relevant theoretical literature, a synthesizing argument was generated. RESULTS: From 505 total records identified, eligibility screening produced 232 case study articles, representing 154 case studies, and 55 theoretical articles for synthesis. Twenty-six case studies resulted in a structural change outcome. The synthesizing argument states that participatory research with EJ communities may be more likely to result in structural change when a) community members hold formal leadership roles; b) project design includes decision-makers and policy goals; and c) long term partnerships are sustained through multiple funding mechanisms. The assumption of EJ community benefit through research participation is critically examined. DISCUSSION: Recommended future directions include establishing structural change as a goal of participatory research, employing participatory assessment of community benefit, and increased hiring of faculty of color at research institutions. The power, privilege, and political influence that academic institutions are able to leverage in partnership with EJ communities may be as valuable as the research itself.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85101431519&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85101431519&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1289/EHP6274
DO - 10.1289/EHP6274
M3 - Article
C2 - 33591210
AN - SCOPUS:85101431519
SN - 0091-6765
VL - 129
SP - 1
EP - 20
JO - Environmental health perspectives
JF - Environmental health perspectives
IS - 2
M1 - 026001
ER -