Environmental Research Translation: Enhancing Interactions with Communities at Contaminated Sites

Abstract

The characterization and remediation of contaminated sites are complex endeavors fraught with numerous challenges. One particular challenge that is receiving increased attention is the development and encouragement of full participation by communities and community members affected by a given site in all facets of decision-making. Many disciplines have been grappling with the challenges associated with environmental and risk communication, public participation in environmental data generation, and decision-making and increasing community capacity. The concepts and methods developed by these disciplines are reviewed, with a focus on their relevance to the specific dynamics associated with environmental contamination sites. The contributions of these disciplines are then synthesized and integrated to help develop Environmental Research Translation (ERT), a proposed framework for environmental scientists to promote interaction and communication among involved parties at contaminated sites. This holistic approach is rooted in public participation approaches to science, which includes: a transdisciplinary team, effective collaboration, information transfer, public participation in environmental projects, and a cultural model of risk communication. Although there are challenges associated with the implementation of ERT, it is anticipated that application of this proposed translational science method could promote more robust community participation at contaminated sites.

1.0 Introduction

The impacts of past human activities on water, air, and land pollution and ecosystem degradation continue to present complex challenges to human health and economic development. In the United States alone, there are more than 126,000 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERLA or Superfund, enacted in 1980), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, enacted in 1976), and other contaminated sites that have not yet reached closure (National Research Council (NRC), 2012). These contaminated sites pose a known or potential risk to human health, and jeopardize the ecosystem services upon which our livelihood depends.

Challenges at hazardous waste and contaminated sites are persistent, complex, and multifactorial, and there has been a lack of significant progress in finding holistic solutions that incorporate all affected parties. This can be attributed in part to the lack of collaboration, information transfer, and partnership building among government, the affected community, scientists, site owners, industry and other interested parties. Issues pertaining to public participation in environmental decision-making, collaboration between all stakeholders and the affected communities, and communicating risk to the communities add an additional layer of complexity for which most environmental scientists have not been trained to manage. Traditionally, environmental scientists and engineers are not introduced to the nuances of environmental communication and the social sphere associated with contaminated sites. Hence, they may not be aware of the voices and practices that various stakeholders and community groups use when discussing environmental issues, and they are not instructed in how to raise public awareness, or work with the communities neighboring contamination (Cox 2013). This set of deficiencies is likely to hinder the effectiveness of environmental scientists in their efforts to address environmental issues. Understanding how to work with all stakeholders, build partnerships, elicit local knowledge, and increase community capacity can enhance their success.

Communication about environmental issues and solutions is too often restricted to the technical sphere, and thus excludes those who are most affected, such as the communities neighboring contaminated sites (Cox 2013). Issues beyond the technical aspects of site remediation can hinder the clean up of a site and as a result, a legacy of mistrust can permeate the relationship between regulatory officials, scientists, and the affected communities (Senier et al. 2008; Galvez et al. 2007). Exposure to risks is unevenly distributed across the population, and based on historical reference, the burden of coping with environmental issues has had a tendency to fall upon the most vulnerable human populations (Beck 1992). Social factors such as socioeconomic conditions, race/ethnicity, gender, and occupation, as well as the actions of government, civil society, and markets, determine who is exposed to what level of environmental health hazards (Martuzzi et al. 2010; Freudenberg, 2004; Morello-Frosch et al. 2002; Williams and Florez 2002). Efforts to address and resolve local environmental issues are most effective when scientists from various disciplines, regulatory officials, industry, and the affected community are fully engaged working towards a unified solution. To effect meaningful changes in the environments and health of communities, community-based organizations and leaders must engage the larger public and work in coalition with government agencies, academic institutions, public and private foundations, policymakers, legal experts, and local businesses (Shepard et al. 2002). Freudenberg (2004) argues that it is at the community level where environmental health issues should be confronted because it is frequently the site for health promotion interventions and because it is the place where the individual is confronted with socioeconomic factors that then influence specific patterns of health and disease.

How do regulatory agencies engage the communities neighboring contaminated sites, and are these community involvement mechanisms effective? Chess and Purcell (1999) reviewed the usefulness of traditional public participation methods (public meetings, workshops, and Community Advisory Committees), and developed a set of “public participation rules of thumb” to improve public involvement efforts. They are: clarify goals, begin participation early and invest in advanced planning, modify participation format to community style and needs, provide multiple forms of public participation, and collect feedback on public participation efforts to determine whether they worked (Chess and Purcell 1999). In 2008, the NRC (2008) published a report entitled: “Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making”, emphasizing the importance of public participation in environmental issues. When done well, public participation improves the quality and legitimacy of a decision, builds the capacity of all involved to engage in the public process, and leads to better results in terms of environmental quality and other social objectives such as environmental health (NRC 2008).

Land grant colleges or universities that were established under the First Morrill Act passed in 1862 are a classic example of outreach and research translation. The goal of the Morrill Act was to provide the agricultural and industrial workers with a practical education that had direct relevance to their daily lives (Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, 2012). Later, the Hatch Act of 1887 established the agricultural experiment station program, which prompted the Cooperative Extension Service associated with each land grant institution to disseminate findings from their experimental stations.

In the 1990s, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) began a translational research program designed specifically to address environmental health challenges and the growing disparities found in rural and minority communities due to low socioeconomic status (O’Fallon and Dearry 2001). Translational research is defined as the conversion of findings from basic, clinical, or epidemiologic environmental health science research into information, resources, or tools that can be applied by healthcare providers and community residents to improve public health outcomes in at-risk neighborhoods (O’Fallon, Tyson and Dearry, 2000). In 2003, NIEHS’ Superfund Research Program (SRP) began to require a research translation core, defined as communicating— and facilitating the application of— its grantees' accomplishments…by establishing partnerships with government agencies, administering technology transfers, and disseminating information to other end users, including the general public (NIEHS, 2011). Additionally, the NIEHS SRP has a community engagement component dedicated to the bidirectional interaction between community stakeholders and research centers. Community engagement activities may include: providing scientific expertise in response to a community's questions, assisting community access to pertinent information or translating materials into its native language, and partnering with communities in determining exposure pathways relevant to their traditional and cultural practices (NIEHS, 2011).

Research translation and community engagement activities may engage different constituencies and have different goals, but it is important to recognize that stakeholders often share common goals and objectives in the clean up of contaminated sites. Thus, research translation and community engagement programs should collaborate and identify opportunities to bring stakeholders together to cooperate on these common goals (Senier et al. 2008). Here, we group both forms under environmental research translation. Regardless of what one titles the activities, there are similar challenges embedded within the goals and activities of research translation and community engagement efforts, such as:

• What methods need to be employed to advance the communication of complex problems found at contaminated sites?

• How can we increase public participation in environmental decision-making?

• How can we increase collaboration between other stakeholders and the affected communities?

• How do we effectively communicate risk to the affected communities?

• How do we build the ability of communities to take action at the individual, community, and policy level to improve environmental health (community capacity)?

As discussed above, the importance of developing and supporting full participation by communities and community members affected by a given site has been well established. However, the method by which to most effectively accomplish such participation has yet to be determined. Many disciplines have been grappling with the challenges associated with environmental and risk communication, public participation in environmental data generation and decision-making, and increasing community capacity. We posit that it is advantageous to synthesize and integrate the observations and approaches of these disciplines to develop an effective toolkit for environmental scientists. This paper provides an overview of selected public participation approaches to research and education, and then describes an integrated approach for environmental research translation (ERT) designed to facilitate participation of and communication with communities affected by contamination. This approach can be employed at any contaminated site (regardless of contaminant or demographics) to improve collaboration, bidirectional information transfer, and partnership building among scientists, the affected community, and other stakeholders. The goal of this paper is to provide a relevant review of current theory and approaches, and then to synthesize the various concepts and themes into a cohesive framework that an environmental scientist can use to increase public participation in environmental decision-making, collaboration between all stakeholders and the affected communities, and risk communication to the communities neighboring contamination. This manuscript is based on the perspective of environmental scientists in the field trying to do good science that directly addresses the needs of the people. Two brief case studies are provided to illustrate ERT in action.

2.0 Participatory Approaches

Experts and practitioners from public health sociology, science and technology studies, psychology, philosophy, communication, education, and urban planning have suggested approaches and introduced terminology to address some of the challenges mentioned above. Not surprisingly, there are common threads among the participatory approaches, as shown in Table 1. It is quite striking and noteworthy that these different disciplines have come to similar conclusions regarding how to increase public participation. This section will describe a variety of approaches that exist to increase the level of public participation in decision-making. It should be noted that these are not the only approaches that exist, but they are the methods most relevant for environmental health.

Table 1. Components of selected participatory-based approaches to promote community engagement.

Similarities between approaches are highlighted by different colors. Purple represents scientific inquiry, green represents community/group empowerment, orange represents information dissemination and intervention strategies, and blue represents long-term commitment. As highlighted in the grey top row, all approaches have a participation component. Cells left uncolored are still of importance, just not a highlight theme.

Public Participation in Scientific Researcha	Popular Epidemiologyb	Community- based participatory Researchc	Community Capacityd	Community Sciencee	Popular Educationf
Participatory process where community or public choose or define question(s) for study	Public participation in lay observations of health effects and pollutants	Involves public participation in systems development through a cyclical and iterative process	Participation	Participatory	People should be active participants, rather than passive recipients in their learning process
Gather information and resources	Hypothesizing connections	Builds on strengths and resources within the community	Leadership	Values- linked	Create an atmosphere of trust so that people can share ideas and experiences
Develop explanations (hypotheses)	Creating a common perspective	Facilitates collaborative, equitable involvement of all partners in all phases of the research	Skills	Scientific	Start with what people already know or do.
Design data collection methodologies	Looking for answers from government and science	Integrates knowledge and intervention for mutual benefit of all partners	Resources	Utilization- technology transfer approach	The knowledge gained through life experiences is as important as the knowledge gained through formal education
Collect samples and/or record data	Organizing a community group	Promotes a co-learning and empowering process that attends to social inequalities	Social and organizational networks	Systems- Oriented	Education should progress from action to reflection to action (cycle of praxis)
Analyze samples	Official studies are conducted by experts	Recognizes community as an unit of identity	Sense of community	Contextual - aspects of a community	Knowledge is constructed in the interaction between people
Analyze data	Activists bring in their own experts	Addresses health from both positive and ecological perspectives	Understanding of community history	Longitudinal Research and Longer Timelines	Equality between the “teacher” and “student” and democratic decision making
Interpret data and draw conclusions	Litigation and confrontation	Disseminates findings and knowledge gained to all partners	Community power	Additional Standards of Evidence to the p Level	It is important that educators share the life experiences of those they want to teach and/or organize.
Disseminate conclusions/translate results into action	Pressing for official corroboration	Requires a long-term process and commitment to sustainability by all partners	Community values	Capacity	Learning is with our heads, hearts and bodies
Discuss results and ask new questions	Continued Vigilance		Critical reflection		The arts (music, drama, visual arts, etc) are important tools for teaching and organizing

Please note: components are as outlined by authors below.

^aBonney et al. 2009

^bBrown 1997, it should be noted that the steps outlined above are what have been observed in contaminated communities.

^cIsreal et al. 2008; Isreal et al. 1998

^dGoodman et al. 1998, Freudenberg 2004, Minkler et al. 2008

^eWandersman 2003

^fFreire, 1973; Wiggins, 2007; Wiggins 2012

2.1 Informal Science Education - Education

Informal Science Education (ISE) has been growing and evolving and science education scholars have been investigating ways to increase public science literacy to increase the public’s capacity to make informed decisions. Falk (2001) elucidated how people have a greater motivation to engage and learn when the subject matter is directly related to their lives and if the learning process is interactive. Furthermore, Falk posited that science understanding is derived from leisure time, free-choice learning, and is primarily acquired for reasons related to personal interest, need, and/or curiosity (Falk et al. 2007; Osborne and Dillon 2007). This can be considered inquiry-based learning.

It has been recognized that science is essentially a question-driven, open-ended process and that learners must have personal experience with scientific inquiry to understand this fundamental aspect of science (NRC 1996). Furthermore, inquiry-based activities provide a valuable context for learners to acquire, clarify, and apply an understanding of science concepts (Edelson et al. 1999). In response, many ISE programs have aspired to actively involve the public directly in the multifaceted and iterative processes of scientific investigation and these efforts have taken the form of citizen science, volunteer monitoring, and participatory action research (Bonney et al. 2009). Public participation in scientific research (PPSR), often termed citizen science, is a form of ISE, and is broadly defined as partnerships between scientists and non-scientists in which authentic data are collected, shared, and analyzed (e.g. Jordan et al. 2012; Bonney et al. 2009; Ely 2008; Brossard el al. 2005). The term “Citizen Science” was originally coined by Irwin (1995) and refers to, in general, redefining the public’s participation in science policy. PPSR is not new, and in fact, contributions by non-trained scientists dating back to the 17^th century have helped build some of the most valuable collections of animals, plants, rocks, fossils, artifacts, and other specimens worldwide (Miller-Rushing et al. 2012; Silbertown 2009). The U.S. National Weather Service’s Cooperative Observer Program has had volunteers collecting basic weather data across the U.S. since 1890. This is one of the most important and widely used weather datasets in existence that has informed much of what is known about variability and directional changes in climate over the past 120 years (Miller-Rushing et al. 2012). Most ecological research once followed the co-created PPSR model where participants were involved in most or all of the steps in the scientific process. However, due to the professionalization of science over the last 150 years, the role of the amateur scientist has diminished (Miller-Rushing et al. 2012).

Citizen science has typically been the term used to define a large number of environmental/ecological monitoring projects (e.g. GLOBE at Night, BudBurst, The Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s NestWatch, FeederWatch, and Backyard Bird Count) that are usually managed by a formal scientific group at a non-profit organization or university. PPSR or citizen science projects are primarily being organized as a means to increase a participant’s scientific literacy (Bonney et al. 2009), to collect field data to monitor a variety of environmental conditions (Yung 2007; Silbertown 2009), and as a framework to support and enhance decision-making in modern society (Evans et al. 2005; Brewer, 2002; Trumbull et al. 2000). For example, GLOBE at Night is an international citizen science program aimed at increasing the public’s awareness of light pollution and how light pollution is an indicator of our health and energy consumption, as well as our impact on wildlife. PPSR has grown out of ISE and the nature of PPSR projects has been evolving. They can be divided into three categories, each with an increased level of public participation: contributory, collaborative, and co-created (Bonney et al. 2009) (Table 1). Though other participatory approaches are described below, PPSR has served as a great motivator for the ERT and will be discussed again in section 3.4.

2.2 Popular Education – Philosophy

Popular or empowerment education is a term that captures the spirit of Paulo Freire, whose work served as inspiration for Action Research and Participatory Action Research (further described in section 2.6). To Freire (1970), the purpose of education is to empower and liberate individuals, recognizing that individuals are the subjects of their own learning and not just “empty vessels” to be filled with knowledge generated by experts. Popular education is a philosophy and methodology of teaching and community organizing (Wiggins 2011). The goals of this methodology are to create a true democratic society where all have equal access to resources and to liberate individuals on a personal level and as a collective (Wiggins and Rios 2007). Freire stressed that individuals should not only be involved in the efforts to identify their problems, using a listening-dialogue-action approach, but also be “…engaged in the conscientization to analyze the societal context for these problems” (Wallerstein and Duran 2008). Popular education makes use of the arts (e.g. photos, videos, role playing) to help participants visualize their reality from a new perspective and develop alternative ways of thinking and acting (Wallerstein and Duran 2008). In summary, popular education is designed to empower community members and communities by having them recognize their own experiences and expertise and then work collectively to change social conditions.

2.3 Participatory Action Research through Sociology, Social Psychology, Philosophy, and Anthropology - Practice

Paulo Freire, Orlando Fals-Borda and others developed and promoted an action research approach to challenge the poor treatment of research participants in developing countries (Brydon-Miller et al. 2003), thereby leading to participatory action research (PAR). PAR was originally conceived by social scientists and activists, who felt that researchers working in poor communities in some cases exploited local people by extracting data for their own purposes with little consideration of how the people might benefit (Krasny and Bonney 2005). This form of research introduces democratic values (justice, equity and truth), and emphasizes that the individuals and groups that will be impacted by an action must be part of the problem-solving process (Freire 1970). Feminist participatory research is another variation of the term, and stresses the role of gender, race, class and culture in data collection and analysis (Minkler and Wallerstein 2008). For example, Barbara Allen (1998–1999) observed the efforts of several woman scientists working in the industrial corridor of Louisiana, each of whom addressed environmental health issues from the perspective of the people affected by the toxic pollution. Harding (1991) describes the above as “Standpoint theory” and advocates for “Strong Objectivity” where one uses the experiences of the affected community as the beginning or foundation for investigation and combines local knowledge and community circumstances (social and political) with formal scientific practices.

2.4 Popular Epidemiology – Community-Driven Practice

Popular epidemiology was proposed after observing “…risk-detection and solution-seeking activities of Woburn [MA] and other contaminated communities” (Brown 1992), and ten stages have been documented (Brown, 1997, listed in Table 1). Reversing the order of the traditional contributory citizen science model and resembling more of a co-created citizen science project, popular epidemiology entails community initiation of investigations, gathering of scientific knowledge, and, if necessary, recruiting of scientific professionals. Popular epidemiology is a proposed structure, based on observations of the activities of several contaminated communities, that democratizes the inquiry and decision-making processes where lay people gather scientific data and other information and assemble the knowledge and resources of experts to understand the epidemiology of disease (Brown 1992). This process has become central to the practices of grassroots environmentalism (Murphy 2006). This methodology has been responsible for the identification of most incidents of community toxic exposure and workplace cancer clusters in the late twentieth century (Brown and Mikkelsen 1990).

2.5 Community-based Participatory Research, Community Capacity, and Street Science – Public Health and Urban Planning

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles ensure that knowledge generation is combined with taking action (Table 1). CBPR projects share many of the core principles and characteristics of participatory action research and popular education, are community driven, and foster co-learning experiences for researchers and community members (Wallerstein and Duran 2008). CBPR is an approach to community-academic partnerships that shares power with community partners in all aspects of the research process and benefits communities via interventions and policy change (Brown et al. 2012), although in practice, it might be challenging to include community partners in all stages of the research. Ideally, CBPR allows for all partners in the research process to be equally involved, and the unique strengths that each partner brings to the project are recognized and appreciated (Cohen et al. 2012; Ratnapradiapa et al. 2010; Horowitz et al. 2009; Minkler and Wallerstein 2008; O’Fallon and Dearry 2002; Israel et al. 1998; Kellogg Foundation 1998). To date, some CBPR project may be expert-driven, but more efforts are being placed on ensuring the effort is community-driven. In recent years, community-academic partnerships using a CBPR approach have played an increasingly important role in the area of environmental justice (e.g. Cohen et al. 2012; Brown et al. 2012; Minkler et al. 2008). CBPR has been used widely and NIEHS has been funding projects integrating CBPR practices since the late 1990s (though NIEHS did not start using the term CBPR until 2000), initially through its Environmental Justice and CBPR programs, and more recently through it Partnerships in Environmental Public Health program (Brown et al. 2012; Baron et al. 2009; O’Fallon and Dearry, 2002; O’Fallon and Dearry, 2002;). In spirit, CBPR shares much with popular epidemiology (Table 1).

Community capacity approaches were highlighted in a 1995 Centers for Disease Control symposium. Participants represented a wide range of disciplines including community health development, health education, community psychology, epidemiology, anthropology, political science, and sociology. As a result of this symposium, Goodman et al. (1998) proposed “two complementary definitions of community capacity: 1) the characteristics of communities that affect their ability to identify, mobilize and address social and public health problems and 2) the cultivation and use of transferable knowledge, skills, systems, and resources that affect community- and individual-level changes consistent with public health-related goals and objectives” (Goodman et al. 1998). Participants also created a list of dimensions and sub-dimensions of community capacity, and later, Freudenberg (2004) modified the dimensions to be relevant to environmental health actions (Table 1).

Street Science, a form of scientific inquiry using local knowledge as its foundation, shares commonalities with both popular epidemiology and CBPR. Street Science is the practice of knowledge production that embraces the co-production framework (Corburn 2005). Corburn offers an approach for environmental health justice that joins local knowledge with professional techniques, and emphasizes that the framework does not devalue science, but re-values forms of knowledge that professional science has excluded.

2.6 Community Science – Psychology

Community science is a multidisciplinary field that attempts to strengthen community functioning by investigating how to improve the quality and implementation of prevention, treatment, education, and health promotion (Wandersman 2003). This field is most concerned with strategies to bridge the gap between science and practice, particularly with respect with prevention programming (e.g., substance abuse prevention). Community science typically focuses on capacity at the local level as a starting point, attempting to better understand its relationships to prevention practices and health outcomes, and how to enhance it (Chinman et al. 2005). The goal of community science is to develop and research community-centered models that enable communities to use evidence-based interventions more effectively and efficiently (Wandersman 2003). Table 1 demonstrates the features of community science.

2.7 Health and Risk Communication – Communication Science

The technical model of risk communication is the traditional method used to communicate risk, and can be defined as a model that aims to inform, change behavior, and assure populations that the scientifically determined risk is acceptable through a one-way communication conduit (expert → laypeople) (Andrews 2006; Cox 2013). This one-way communication process has led to clashes between residents and public officials at a variety of community meetings pertaining to contaminated sites. Such models assume that any failure of technical risk communication is due to public fear, irrationality, and other emotional factors (Cox 2013). This model ignores what Covello (1983) and Sandman (1987) explains to be the factors that affect risk perception and analysis, i.e., risks are perceived to be higher if the activity is perceived to be involuntary, catastrophic, not personally controllable, inequitable in the distribution of its risk and benefits, unfamiliar, and highly complex. Thus, failure in public acceptability is often primarily due to the lack of genuine public participation in risk analysis (i.e. risk assessment, management, and communication).

In contrast to the technical model, a cultural model of risk communication introduces democratic values (i.e. justice, equity, and truth) into risk analysis by involving the affected public in assessing risk and designing risk communication methods (NRC 1996a; Cox 2013). This is similar to the four guidelines to protecting human research participants and deciding whether to report individual results outlined in Brody et al. (2007) and Fernandez et al. (2003): autonomy (right to know), beneficence (maximum good), nonmalfeasance (minimize harm), and justice (distribution of benefits and harm). A cultural model of risk communication makes use of local knowledge in risk studies and recognizes the relevant experience of the local community (Cox 2006; Corburn 2005; Dewey 1954).

2.8 Technoscience - Science and Technology Studies

It is important to mention here the field of science and technology studies (STS), which critically examines the ways in which knowledge is generated and used. Scholars STS investigate who generates knowledge, how knowledge is interpreted, and how knowledge is put into action. For example, Ottinger (2010) demonstrates STS in practice, where she conducted an ethnographic research study in three Louisiana communities where community members employed air monitoring instruments to measure hazards stemming from their proximity to one or more major petrochemical facilities (Ottinger, 2010). By observing the relationship between the environmental surveillance data collected and community empowerment, Ottinger (2010) concluded “that the empowering potential of surveillance data rests in large part on strategic interpretive choices”. Ottinger and Cohen (2011) edited a compilation of case studies, discussing how the environmental justice movement has begun to transform science and engineering practices. Murphy (2006) explores the politics of chemical exposures and environmental health, and investigates the historical ontology of exposures and how exposures were “granted or not granted existence”. More recently, the term civic technoscience has emerged, which expands upon the current notion of citizen science and challenges who can produce dependable data by enabling communities to develop their own low- cost research tools (Wylie et al., 2014).

3.0 Environmental Research Translation

The participatory approaches discussed above offer a significant amount of insight into how to collaborate with communities neighboring contamination and how to collaboratively develop holistic, sustainable solutions to environmental human health threats. Incorporating participatory methods into an environmental scientist’s toolkit will improve the effectiveness and the authenticity of their community engagement activities. As a means to promote interaction and communication among involved parties at contaminated sites, we developed the Environmental Research Translation (ERT) concept and framework, shown in Figure 1, by integrating and synthesizing the many approaches described above. To implement ERT, we must draw upon and bring together existing participatory approaches to improve interactions between the community, stakeholders, and academic institutions for effective communication of, and action towards reducing, environmental human health risks, as detailed in Table 2.

Figure 1.

The components of successful Environmental Research Translation programs at contaminated sites.

Table 2.

Motivation, rationale, and key implementation steps for Environmental Research Translation.

ERT Action	Transdisciplinary Team	Effective Collaboration	Information Transfer	Public Participation in Environmental Projects	Cultural Model of Risk Communication
Motivation and Roots	Community Science Community Capacity Transdisciplinary research	CBPR Community Capacity	Community Science CBPR	Popular Education Popular Epidemiology Citizen Science CBPR	Popular Education Street Science Popular Epidemiology Participatory Action Research
Rationale	Increase potential for innovation and creative solutions Facilitate the cross pollination of ideas Improve understanding of complex social and technical problems that arise at contaminated sites Team members and students will learn about disciplines outside their primary area Improve capacity to handle ethical issues	Trust and open communication leads to effective collaboration Emphasizes learning and power sharing Collaborations will lead to the identification of champions in community, academia and regulatory arenas	Bi-directional communication builds trust and informs efforts Place-specific information transfer strategies that are informed by an understanding of a community’ s ecology and social context will be most successful.	People have a greater motivation to engage and learn when the subject matter is directly related to their lives and if the learning process is interactive Community members are often the first to identify adverse ecological and health outcomes associated with contamination Community members may identify risks that are not being considered by a formal expert-only investigation Public participation will increase the application of study results and communication efforts	People have the right to know and be involved in the judgments of acceptable and unacceptable risks. Report results and risks with an understanding of what people want and need to know to guide action
Key Recommendations for Implementation	Work with individuals from academia, regulatory agencies, community organizations, and communities who are willing to: Work collaboratively Expand their boundaries Be Reflexive	Attend community and technical advisory meetings hosted by US EPA or state agencies to lean about research needs (technical and social) at designated contaminated areas Contact researchers at local universities Work with regulatory agencies to address local contamination issues	Recognize audience type and develop communication materials, presentations, and trainings Attend community advisory board, neighborhood association meetings as well as informal community gatherings to meet community members Present data via US EPA’s Clu-In webinar mechanism to inform site managers of remediation technologies.	Incorporate the community into as many steps in the investigation as possible, refer to PPSR column in Table 1. Co-design the study to address a research need identified by the community Incorporate multiple forms of knowledge Maintain bidirectional communication with community to gather new information on potential exposure routes and/or extent of contamination	Build and maintain trust by demonstrating care, empathy, honesty, commitment, and competence Address the issues/concerns raised by the community Incorporate the community in the dialogue regarding risk management options Explain the exposure assessment calculation and give the community the opportunity to modify the calculation to fit their site-specific parameters. Present specific steps the community can take to assert some level of control in their lives and reduce their exposure.

These concepts and approaches were intentionally selected to properly equip an environmental scientist to interact effectively with communities and other stakeholders. This proposed ERT framework: 1) provides a team with scientists and practitioners from various disciplines to help tackle the life-world problem (a transdisciplinary team); 2) ensures that a true collaboration is taking place (effective collaboration); 3) calls for a place–specific strategy to ensure effective bidirectional communication efforts (information transfer); 4) values the observations, interests, and knowledge generated by the affected community, encourages their participation in the investigatory process to increase the co-learning, co-production of data and the level of informed decision-making by all involved (public participation in environmental projects); and 5) involves the affected groups in risk communication and places the risk in context (cultural model of risk communication). These five concepts are described below along with examples that demonstrate ways in which to implement each of the environmental research translation steps at contaminated sites in order to enhance interactions with communities and other stakeholders. The intent of the following section is not to provide a detailed discussion of each component, but to provide brief examples of how ERT could be applied in the field. The actions below are based upon our informal observations and experiences working at contaminated sites and we hope the suggestions in this section will generate momentum and spark new ideas to further advance ERT efforts at contaminated sites. Lastly, it might not be possible to implement all five steps at each and every site. Regardless of this challenge, employing as much of the framework as possible is anticipated to increase project success.

3.1 A Transdisciplinary Team

3.1.1 Rationale for Developing a Transdisciplinary Team

Knowledge generation and the application of knowledge to contribute to solving societal problems can be achieved if scientists and practitioners from a wide range of disciplines work together with stakeholders (Jäger 2008, Rosenfield 1992). When combining these disciplines, innovative ideas and solutions may emerge – and this is the reason for having a transdisciplinary team (e.g. Ball et al. 2011). Transdisciplinary investigatory efforts transcends disciplinary boundaries and is driven by the need to solve problems of the life-world (Hadorn et al. 2008) and improve the human condition (Rosenfield 1992). The transdisciplinary investigatory process consists of three phases: (a) problem identification and structuring, (b) problem analysis and (c) bringing results to fruition, and implies that the precise nature of a problem to be addressed and solved is not predetermined, and needs to be defined cooperatively by participants from science and the life-world (Wiesmann et al. 2008), the latter of which in this case is represented by the impacted community.

The Superfund Research Program (SRP) is a strong example of a transdisciplinary investigatory effort. It is the only NIEHS grant program designated specifically for both biomedical and environmental science research, requiring a holistic approach to conduct collaborative research and transfer results to, for example, environmental managers, risk assessors and community members. Additionally, as described in the introduction, research translation and community engagement are core components of the SRP. These cores have allowed for the integration of various disciplines in environmental problem solving. For example, social scientists, specifically medical sociologists and environmental sociologists who have had a long tradition of successful collaboration with community organizations and/or activists, brought new solutions, partnerships and collaborations to mitigate the financial impacts of living in a contaminated community (Senier et al. 2008). Scammell (2010) investigated the use of qualitative data in environmental exposures and human health studies to determine whether collaborative efforts between environmental health and social scientists led to an increased understanding of exposures and environmental health outcomes. Scammell observed that 70 out of the 91 articles included multiple authors and from three or more institutions or disciplines within a university and concluded that qualitative data has the potential to improve our understanding of complex exposure pathways, including the influence of social factors on environmental health and health outcomes (Scammell 2010).

3.1.2 Building a Transdisciplinary Team

To build a transdisciplinary team, one needs to recruit members who are willing to work collaboratively and expand their boundaries. Team members can be from, but are not limited to: academia, regulatory agencies, the community, community-based organizations and non-profit science-based organizations, and should represent a variety of disciplines. For example, a site manager typically has an environmental science background, and it would be advantageous to have a community involvement coordinator who has a background in sociology, science and technology studies, or anthropology assigned to the site. Each member of the team needs to trust one another, be transparent, and respect the strengths and values that each member brings to the table. All members of the team need to be fully engaged and working towards a unified solution that meets the needs of all parties involved.

Universities can provide the education and development environment for transdisciplinary efforts, but to do so, academics must be able to look beyond their own boundaries, be capable of self-reflexivity, engage in knowledge, and be willing to take on new ideas (Godemann, 2008). More recently the concept of “reflexive research ethics” has been proposed for environmental health and justice, to improve academic research and community partnerships through constant reflection on various ethical moments that arise in academic-community partnerships (Cordner et al. 2012).

3.2 Effective Collaboration with Stakeholders at Contaminated Sites

3.2.1 Rationale for Effective Collaboration

Maintaining effective collaboration with government agencies, community members, and other members of the public sphere is paramount to translation efforts (Cox 2013; Jensen and Uddameri 2009; NRC 2008). There are many stakeholders involved at contaminated sites, and it is crucial to establish transparency and equity between all parties. To do this, a collaborative, approach to communication is essential. Collaboration can be defined as constructive, open, civil communication, with emphasis on learning, some degree of power sharing, and leveling of the playing field (Walker 2004). Collaboration invites all stakeholders to engage in problem-solving discussions rather than advocacy and debate, and community-based collaboration can arise in order to address a specific issue in the local community (Cox 2013). Effective collaboration can be complicated by the many various state and federal regulatory agencies involved at contaminated sites. Typically, this may include the state’s department of environmental quality and department of health services, the US EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and possibly city and or county environmental services. Furthermore, each agency will have their representatives from their different internal offices, i.e. superfund, toxicology, water quality division, public relations, community involvement, etc. This degree of multi-level government involvement can complicate information transfer and collaboration. It is key in the beginning to identify all potential participants at the site and bring all to the table to clarify role and goals and build partnerships.

Social science studies involving people living in contaminated environments has shown that a loss of trust and animosity frequently develops between residents and the staff of regulatory agencies (Senier et al. 2008; Brown and Mikkelsen 1990; Ozonoff and Boden 1987). All environmental scientists who want to work with communities must be sure to maintain trust with their community partners (Israel et al. 1998). Brown (2012) describes “access and trust” as a component of qualitative research methods for environmental health projects. Trust is defined as the faith that people affected directly by the research (in this case, with whom the collaborative research project is being conducted) have in the motivation of the project, and that their points of view will be considered and supported. Further, this type of trust is called interest promotion (Mechanic and Mayer 2000) and it is this type of trust that is most critical to the formation of functional partnerships and successful stakeholder involvement (Senier et al. 2008). Once trust is earned, access is gained, which leads to inclusion in gatherings and to community endorsement (Brown 2012). As one builds trust with the community members, certain individuals with whom trust has been engendered can be considered to be “champions”. “Champions”, originally coined by Gallagher (2009), that arise during the communication process can be defined as individuals that go above and beyond the assigned role as a community member, academic, or government official. Champions are important to mention because they may play a major role in the development of innovative public participation efforts due to their commitment and advocacy.

3.2.2 Effectively Collaborating with Stakeholders at Contaminated Sites

To establish collaborative endeavors it is important to begin a dialogue with the various stakeholders at a contaminated site. One means to accomplish this is to attend community meetings that are generally organized for each contaminated site, and are hosted by the US EPA (if a federal Superfund site) and/or the state environmental agency. By attending these meetings, one can learn about the issues and challenges specific to that site, engage each stakeholder, and begin building a relationship with the site managers and community involvement coordinators. One can also meet the site owner to possibly gain access to the site to observe or conduct a field study and learn more about the historical use of the site. Additionally, at these community meetings, one can become cognizant of the community’s concerns, and if the site has an established community advisory board, thus can engage and build a relationship with the community advisory board chairperson and members. Additionally, one can start to nurture new relationships that could lead to new research collaborations that are grounded in public need and direct applicability (e.g. test a remediation strategy or conduct a health assessment). Once a dialogue has been initiated, different techniques may be utilized to establish effective collaboration and to understand stakeholder’s views, but the methods described above are about building a presence to then build upon.

For environmental scientists employed by a federal or state agency, it is advantageous to reach out to local universities and other sources of expertise, such as professional organizations (e.g., state geological society). Scientists at these entities may be conducting research aligned with investigators’ research needs and could perhaps, if the time is right, assist with the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Remedial Design/Remedial Action, and Site Reuse/Redevelopment phases of the site clean-up. Social scientists can assist with community interactions, program evaluations and the communication of environmental health data. Additionally, research translation and community engagement personnel can provide educational outreach to the general public and affected community by generating communication tools to discuss the contaminants of concern at the site, giving presentations at community meetings, and attending community events and festivals.

3.3 Information Transfer

3.3.1 Rationale for Information Transfer

It is vital to recognize one’s audience, and select the appropriate information transfer mechanism based upon the audience type (e.g., stakeholder, directly affected public) (NRC, 2008). In general, a regulatory agency might appreciate an executive summary providing a concise introduction to an environmental issue currently confronting the state, or nation, and possible remediation options. Conversely, a member of the affected community may prefer information specific to the chemical of concern, the risks they pose, and possible methods to reduce exposure. To select which information-transfer mechanism to use for affected communities specifically, i.e., delineating the place-specific strategy, it is crucial to learn the community’s ecology and the social context in which the environmental contamination and human health risks are embedded (Green et al. 2002; Caron and Serrell, 2009). By understanding the community’s ecology, one is able to establish and ensure a two-way dialogue with affected communities. Altman et al. (2008) observed that personal and collective environmental history influenced how one interpreted and responded to their personal exposure results and highlighted that personal responses to exposure information will vary depending on social and eco-historical experiences of the population. Regardless of audience type, it is important that the information communication mechanism use visual aids and provides sound, unbiased scientific information to inform and empower each stakeholder to make the most informed decisions pertaining to the site. Lastly, information transfer from the affected community to the practitioner (e.g. academic, government agency, community-based organization) should also be occurring in order for the values, knowledge, and opinion of the community are heard and considered. Ensuring this two-way dialogue is a building block to the next step, public participation in environmental projects.

3.3.2 Delivering Information to Affected Communities and Stakeholders

Every community is different and there is no single best way to deliver information to the affected community. It is important to know the social and eco-historical experiences of the population, languages spoken, and what age groups are represented in the area, to generate appropriate educational and/or report-back materials. Some important communication strategies used in the past may take the form of: informational pamphlets regarding the contaminant of concern, face-to-face presentations at a community advisory board meeting or neighborhood association gathering, door-to-door communication, a radio show, or an informal training/workshop regarding the contaminants of concern, health risk, and mitigation. In addition, attending community events and festivals will allow academics and regulators to maintain a continuous presence in the community and learn more about the community and serve as a venue to provide information to community members who might not typically attend formal meetings. Informal events like community festivals and other community-initiated events allow for one-on-one, bi-directional interactions and co-learning with the affected community.

Since 1987, the US EPA has been working to deliver remediation information and technologies to the hazardous waste remediation community. What began as the Bulletin Board System, turned into the CLU-IN web site, a service of the US EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation designed to provide information about innovative treatment and site characterization technologies via web seminars (CLU-IN, 2011). All seminars are widely advertised and then archived, and this format is an excellent way to deliver information to project managers at the federal and state level, site owners, as well as environmental consulting companies. In addition, one can give the presentation “live” and in-person at the regional US EPA office and at community or technical advisory meetings. It is also useful to prepare semi-technical educational brochures and/or bulletins regarding clean-up studies that have been tested in the field (e.g. SciTransfer Bulletins, 2007). Field studies are essential to project managers since they are tasked with overseeing the clean-up of a site. If a researcher is going to highlight a laboratory study, they should make sure it directly relates to the site of concern, and that the laboratory work can transfer to the field.

3.4 Public Participation in Environmental Projects

3.4.1 Rationale for Public Participation in Environmental Projects

This ERT step truly integrates the strengths of informal science education, popular epidemiology, and CBPR, and concerns the public’s participation in decision-making and scientific investigation. Participatory approaches have been described in detail in section 2 and are the keystone to the ERT framework. Community members living in contaminated communities often are the first to identify adverse ecological and health outcomes associated with toxic exposures (Brown and Mikkelsen, 1990). Further, citizen-driven data collection pertaining to environmental contamination and disasters is often initiated due to unknown and unassessed risks that lay people see in their daily lives (McCormick, 2012), and this step involves the integration of community members in the project and the co-production of knowledge (Corburn, 2005). This ERT step incorporates participatory data collection processes and the community’s experiences, which allows for new information regarding environmental contaminants or exposure routes to be introduced that may be not be collected or addressed in a typical expert-only led environmental science or health investigation and/or risk assessment. Furthermore, having an expert-driven only project may, unfortunately, ignore the role of lay knowledge in research, overlook the applicability of the study findings to improve regulation, and may not prioritize the need to transparently communicate the results of the study to the community (Cohen et al. 2012).

3.4.2 Facilitating Public Participation in Environmental Projects

This ERT step is based on recognition that the community must play an integral role, not only in the decision-making process, but also in the formation and execution of the project planning and implementation. To facilitate public participation in environmental projects at a contaminated site, one must listen and be willing to co-design the project with the affected community to answer essential questions identified by the community (see steps in PPSR in Table 1). Furthermore, it is important to synchronize these efforts with the phases of the site clean-up (e.g. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Remedial Design/Remedial Action, and Site Reuse/Redevelopment) so that the information and data generated by the community can be integrated into the clean-up studies and actions. Public participation in environmental projects are encouraged to include, but not limited to: providing the affected community the opportunity to generate new investigatory questions, incorporating the community in the sample collection process, integrating non-traditional exposure monitoring tools and/or sample collection methodologies executed by community members into data collection, conducting semi-quantitative interviews and/or an ethnography (if time permits) to gather new information on exposure routes and/or extent of contamination (e.g. Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2013a; Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2013b).

3.5 A Cultural Model of Risk Communication

3.5.1 Rationale for A Cultural Model of Risk Communication

This ERT step describes how to successfully communicate results and risk, and uses the knowledge gained from past exposure studies where results were reported to study participants. Communicating the findings and the potential risks associated with the findings is a crucial and integral step in the ERT process. Community members need to learn the results of exposure studies and the potential associated risks regardless of their educational background (Brody et al. 2007; Morello-Frosch et al. 2009; Adams et al. 2011).. In order to successfully communicate risk one needs to build trust (Covello, 2001), and four factors have been identified as key determinants of trust in risk communication: care and empathy, honesty and openness, dedication and commitment, and competence and expertise (Peters et al. 1997). The method in which the results and risk are communicated should be tailored to the community’s need so they may make more informed decisions. Particularly, it is important to present specific steps the community can take to assert some level of control in their lives and reduce their exposure to potential environmental hazards (Galvez et al. 2007).

The objectives are to inform by recognizing the social context, change risky behavior when in the interest of the affected party, and involve affected groups in judgments of acceptable and unacceptable risks (Cox, 2013; NRC, 2013, Cal EPA, 2001), and to report individual results with an understanding of what people want and need to know to guide action (Brody et al. 2007). For example, by handling numerous questions from women, community leaders, the news media, and through discussion with public advisory committees, during Silent Spring Institute’s Household Exposure Study, Brody et al. (2007) were able to investigate and determine what study participants wanted to know and how to make the information meaningful for action. Furthermore, the “exposure experience”, which builds upon the medical sociology concept of illness experience” has been formulated to evaluate the personal, ambiguous experience of living with chronic pollutant exposures (Altman et al. 2008; Adams et al. 2011). This approach can be used to inform the development of methods for transmitting results to participants of exposure studies. Studies to date stress the importance of the “research right-to-know” for community-based reporting strategies, even when there is uncertainty surrounding the science (Altman et al. 2008; Brody et al. 2007).

3.5.2 Achieving a Cultural Model of Risk Communication

To successfully communicate risk, it is important to put the risk in context, make comparisons with other risks, and encourage a dialogue (e.g. US EPA, 2012, Holtzhauer et al., 1998). If all or most of the ERT steps above have been met, encouraging a dialogue should not be difficult. This step is about communicating and discussing risk assessment and management. For example, community members should be able to witness and perform the calculations used to complete the risk assessment (i.e. daily dose of the contaminant of concern and the excess cancer risk with the community) (Ramirez-Andreotta et al, 2014) and have a discussion regarding the uncertainties associated with the current risk analysis paradigm (NRC, 2013). More specifically, community members should be given the opportunity to contribute to the risk analysis, be part of the risk assessment process by learning the meaning and source of each variable, modifying the calculation to fit their site-specific parameters (e.g. exposure duration, exposure frequency, intake rate), and learning how their behavior or a remediation strategy can change their exposure (i.e. “If I drink less water from this source or if the concentration of the contaminant decreases then my daily dose decreases”).

It is also important to have the affected community help select the exposure routes that are of most concern, and then discuss and compare the associated risks posed by each. A cultural model of risk communication should in the end, incorporate the issues/concerns raised by the community into the risk assessment process, incorporate the community in the dialogue regarding the risk management options, and most importantly, the risk communication process should reveal how remediation strategies and maximum contaminant levels are set and provide a forum for the community to be part of the risk conversation. All the activities described above must be in sync with the social context of the community or aligned with the community’s ecology. This ERT step can use communication suggestions from the information transfer step.

4.0 Environmental Research Translation In Action: Selected Case Studies

The Environmental Research Translation framework has been described in brief in Section 3.0 and the rationale for including these components is supported by the wealth of knowledge cited in Section 2.0. Two case studies will be briefly discussed in this section that demonstrate how the ERT framework has been implemented at contaminated sites in order to enhance interactions with communities and other stakeholders. The case studies below exemplify the implementation of all or parts of the ERT framework before it was fully formalized. The efforts were conducted using a preliminary version of the framework previously described as the Research Translation/Community Outreach Pinwheel Model (Ramirez et al., 2009). The intent of this section is not to provide detailed case studies, but rather to provide illustrative examples that demonstrate how the framework has been applied at different sites, regardless of contaminant or site demographics. This section also demonstrates that although it is optimal to implement all five components of the ERT framework, it is likely that it will not be possible to implement all five at each and every site. In any event, employing as much of the framework as possible is anticipated to enhance the possibility of achieving a successful project.

4.1 Superfund Sites with Mining Waste

In October 2006, the University of Arizona Research Translation Coordinator (UA SRP RTC) and the US EPA Region 9 Substance Technical Liaison began discussing how to facilitate information transfer between the researchers at the UA and US EPA region 9 project managers. It was decided that a two-prong communication mechanism consisting of a webinar hosted by NIEHS and EPA to reach a broad audience and a “Live at R9” in-person seminar to foster regional partnerships via face-to-face interactions at the regional office would be a way to promote interaction (information transfer). During a “Live at R9” visit in June of 2007, an US EPA project manager mentioned that an abandoned mining site located in rural Arizona (predominately Caucasian population) would be added to the National Priorities List. EPA research needs and potential UA collaborative projects were discussed via teleconferences and email, and by August of 2008, EPA and UAZ had agreed upon three areas of research: phytostabilization of mine tailing waste, characterization of wind-blown dust tailings and other mining operations, and the potential of metal exposure in homes (effective collaboration). Once plans to set up the fieldwork were underway, this new group of investigators from the environmental, atmospheric, toxicology, and environmental health sciences began exchanging information and working together (transdisciplinary group). Also, by this time a relationship had been nurtured with US EPA and they began inviting the UA SRP to the their community meetings.

UA SRP RTC attended a variety of community meetings to begin a dialogue with the affected community (information transfer). During the first EPA hosted community meeting, members of the community raised a question regarding whether it is safe to grow and consume vegetables from their garden, and looked to UA SRP for assistance. UA SRP RTC maintained a constant presence in the community and a two-way dialogue by attending community and town council meetings, and community festivals. At these events, other community members expressed an interest in the question regarding metal uptake by homegrown vegetables. This ongoing communication and interest led to a community-academic partnership and within a year, the UA SRP RTC secured funding for a co-created citizen science project entitled Gardenroots (public participation in environmental projects). Gardenroots concluded with an extensive report back of the results employing a cultural appropriate framing and delivery of the potential risk associated with their homegrown vegetables, incidental soil ingestion and potable water from their private well or public water supply (cultural model of risk communication) (Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2013a; Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2013b; Ramirez-Andreotta et al. 2014). It should be noted here that the US EPA project manager was replaced three times between 2008 and 2013, and unfortunately the institutional knowledge regarding previous ERT efforts were not fully passed on to the new project managers or community involvement coordinators. This personnel change has weakened the information transfer and collaboration partnership, and UA SRP investigators and US EPA personnel have spent much effort to refresh the interactions. This “kink in the chain” led to a communication breach. At one point during the Gardenroots risk communication strategy, EPA did not agree with the communication methodology and was uncomfortable with a few community member’s responses and activism. First, community inquiry and activism should not be looked at as a negative; it can actually demonstrate involvement and consideration for the Superfund site in their community. Second, setting clear expectations at the beginning of the project and maintaining ongoing transparency between the project results and messaging generated by both the government agencies and academia is crucial. Currently, the UA SRP RTC is maintaining bidirectional communication between the EPA, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Arizona Department of Health Services, and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, via teleconferences and meetings to ensure transparency and unified messaging to the community. Another way to maintain transparency is by the establishment and participation in a Superfund site’s technical advisory board, as highlighted below.

4.2 Superfund Sites with Chlorinated Solvent Contamination

For more than 20 years, the UA SRP has been heavily involved in collaborative research projects at several Superfund sites in Arizona that are contaminated by chlorinated solvent compounds. By designing a research program to meet the specific questions mediating characterization and remediation at these sites, the UA SRP has provided substantial and impactful support in assisting responsible parties and regulatory agencies in characterizing contaminant distribution and transport behavior at the site as well as testing of remedial actions (technology transfer). The UA SRP has also consistently participated in Superfund Site technical advisory meetings (information transfer). This work has led to the development of long-term collaboration among the UA SRP, the site owners, US EPA, and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) (effective collaboration).

Starting in 2006, UA SRP RTC and/or Community Engagement Coordinator has attended almost every quarterly community meetings/advisory board meetings for three different federal Superfund sites to stay engaged with the US EPA, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, site owners and community advisory board members. General bilingual informational materials regarding chlorinated solvents are distributed at these community meetings, as well as research bulletins (e.g. SciTransfer Bulletins, 2007) specifically designed for regulatory agencies and site owners. As of 2010, the UA SRP has participated in over ten neighborhood association meetings (adjacent to the site) and other related community/educational events in order to reach the predominately Mexican/Mexican-American community neighboring the Tucson International Airport Area Superfund site (information transfer). Also, in response to a US EPA and community request, the UA SRP generated a bilingual educational brochure entitled “1,4 Dioxane and Our Health” (cultural model of risk communication). With the community now armed with information regarding this emerging contaminant, they requested more information from the US EPA, and in turn received support from the US EPA’s Technical Assistance Services for Communities. Through this support vehicle, an independent contractor was hired to translate the technical documents developed by the US EPA into a digestible format for the community to understand. UA SRP personnel provided English to Spanish translation to Spanish-speaking community members who attended. Although the community requested and received the additional information generated by the UA SRP, they did not contribute to the research or material generation. Due to the success of these ERT efforts, ADEQ have been distributing the bilingual educational materials generated by the UA SRP at community meetings and to communities’ neighboring contaminated sites across the state of Arizona since 2007.

5.0 Discussion

5.1 The Challenges and Promises Associated with Environmental Research Translation

There are challenges associated with applying ERT. First, these efforts take time, and do not conform to traditional deadlines. Being patient and allowing partnerships to grow at their own pace is essential. Second, creating a transdisciplinary team can be challenging, but is enhanced by working with individuals who are willing to take on new ideas, and expand their boundaries. In addition to environmental scientists and public-health specialists, the team should include social scientists whom can provide insight on the stressors within a community as well as improve community interaction, program evaluation, and the communication of environmental health information. It might be beneficial to also include work with an economist who can provide insight and assist communities neighboring contamination who are concerned about the current and future value of their property. Third, institutions and organizations must recognize the importance of ERT efforts, and acknowledge the “champions” (Gallagher 2009) that arise in their institutions as “scholars of outreach” (Bartel et al. 2003). This also extends to considering research translation and community engagement programs to be part of the mainstream effort. Fourth, developing and maintaining partnerships involving regulatory agencies can be challenging, especially when working at Superfund, Brownfields, or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act sites. US EPA managers and community group leaders may change with some frequency, and the institutional knowledge regarding the partnership or previous ERT efforts might not be fully passed on to new project managers or community involvement coordinators. This can also occur with an environmental scientist within an academic institution. A research grant might end and there will be no direct funds to continue the research and the scientist will have to redirect efforts. Both of these situations pose unique challenges and are reminders to always take the time to meet and discuss research efforts with all outgoing and incoming collaborators. Fifth, communicating results to the rest of the community beyond those that scientists might have worked closely with can be difficult and it is recommended to have ambassadors in the community to champion the work and translate the results to others. Sixth, is the lack of training in how to conduct environmental research translation and community engagement. Section 5.2 presents an illustrative academic curriculum developed to address this deficiency.

5.2 Next Step: Teaching Environmental Research Translation

The value and challenges of incorporating public participation methods into environmental health projects were discussed above. A critical question to address is how best to provide relevant education and training to environmental science students and other professionals? A specific curriculum was recently created at The University of Arizona to provide graduate students with training in ERT. This curriculum emphasizes an integrated approach to environmental science and will build the capacity of future environmental scientists to work collaboratively with communities and other stakeholders in solving environmental issues. In addition, this proposed training curriculum is aligned with the following themes outlined in NIEHS 2012–2017 Strategic Plan: Translational Science – Students will learn how to translate environmental research to inform public health and regulatory practice, and guide stakeholder decision-making at all levels; Training and Education – The type of curriculum will attract students from a wide range of disciplines and promote integrative and collaborative approaches to solving increasingly complex problems in environmental sciences; and Collaborative and Integrative Approaches – Students will learn how to work across a wide array of fields and how to develop innovative collaborations. For example, the core of the UA ERT program requires students to learn environmental health, community based research practices, environmental policy, and science translation practices as discussed herein. Then, students may chose from an array of classes stemming from the disciplines and themes described in section 2.0. Graduates from the UA ERT program will be prepared for the challenges associated with environmental issues, and be able to increase public participation in environmental decision-making, collaboration between all stakeholders and the affected communities, and communicating risk to the communities. More such programs need to be developed to prepare an adequate professional workforce of environmental researchers capable of conducting ERT.

6.0 Conclusion

In an effort to generate a toolkit for environmental scientists to use when working with a community neighboring contamination, we developed an ERT framework that integrates concepts and approaches from several disciplines (Figure 1). Scholars in sociology, science and technology studies, environmental communication, public health, and risk communication have revealed the barriers that prevent meaningful involvement of communities and community members in human health and environmental decision-making. The field of education has taught us that inquiry-based learning, combined with a subject matter that is directly related to an individual’s life, can lead to an increase in science learning. Increasing human capital via education is the keystone to community empowerment, and increasing environmental health literacy. There is overlap between the various approaches employed in these fields. For example, CBPR is arguably the same as a co-created PPSR project, and the mechanisms needed to generate a community-academic partnership (i.e. effective collaboration and information transfer) can be applied to both. This framework can be applied at any contaminated site, regardless of contaminant or demographics, is rooted in public participatory approaches to investigation, and stresses a foundation of trust.

The significance and relevance of incorporating public participation methods into ERT is reflected in the recent significant increase in associated grant opportunities. Public participatory methodologies have been incorporated into many federal funding programs and announcements from the USEPA (e.g. Brownfields Area-wide Planning grants) and the NIEHS (e.g. Superfund Research Program, Children's Environmental Health Center grants, Research to Action: Assessing and Addressing Community Exposures to Environmental Contaminants, and Understanding and Promoting Health Literacy). As a case in point, between 1994 and 2007, under the “Partnerships for Communication” program, NIEHS, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and USEPA funded a total of 54 projects and 27 were led by community-based organizations. These grants required the collaboration of multiple partners, and based upon program evaluations, these projects increased environmental health literacy by raising community awareness, building community capacity, improving community health behaviors, and reducing exposures (Baron et al. 2009).

In conclusion, this framework is a product of an extensive review and synthesis of participatory approaches to collaborative interactions and collective experiences at contaminated sites. With that said, the ERT method described herein is a living framework and is bound to expand and change due to it’s inherent holistic and reflexive nature. Because ERT activities will inform the framework over time, it can be anticipated that the ERT framework will evolve as more ERT efforts are completed and as public participation, communication, and interaction increases between the various stakeholders at contaminated sites. Although the challenges are daunting, it is an exciting, transformative time to be in the field of environmental science. We believe that the field is approaching a turning point that will redefine the role of an environmental scientist, and we anticipate that ERT efforts will be a part of that evolution.

• Review of participatory approaches focused on dynamics at contaminated sites

• Synthesis of selected disciplines to develop a toolkit for environmental scientists

• Proposed Environmental Research Translation framework

• Translational science to promote robust community participation at contaminated sites.