ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY A quarterly update increasing awareness and understanding of the interaction between human health and the environment A Quarterly Update Message from the Editor Welcome to the newest issue of the Environment, Health and Societj Bulletin Jocused on mixed methods Page 1 Issue 3 - Spring 2012 Featured Method- Mixed Method When used together, qualita- tive and quantitative research methods can make a powerful combination. Both methods reveal different but highly relevant information Page 2 Featured Science Article (Abstract) Factors Influencing Food Buying Tractices in Residents of a Low-Income Food Desert and a Low-Income Food Oasis Conferences & Opportunities Opportunities to learn more about mixed research methods and present research findings. Page 9 EHS Program Update: Open/New Announcements Updates on the EHS program and new announcements on fonding opportunitiesJrom NCER Page 10 A Conversation with Morgan Levy Mixed methods provide the means to research novel questions about water demands in the San Joaquin River Delta in California Page 11 Resources at your Fingertips Keep current with resource links, training opportunities, courses and mentoring tips Page 13 Messag^^^m^ the Editor Devon Payne-Sturges National Center for Environmental Research Welcome to the new Environment, Health and Society research methods bulletin. Every quarter, this bulletin will feature a method for evaluating the interaction of human health and the environment, explaining and providing information and news about the featured method. This bulletin seeks to bridge the gap across disciplines in an effort to transform human health and environmental protection. In this edition of the bulletin we feature an examination of the application of mixed methods within environmen- tal economics. EPA's Matt Weber and Paul Ringold harness both quali- tative and quantitative techniques in order to reveal information on environmental choices. EPA STAR Fellow, Morgan Levy, shares her plans to integrate qualitative and quantitative data in her analysis of water use in the San Joaquin River Delta in Central Valley, California. Her work aims to better understand both the amount of water used and the relevant social, economic and political factors. Each issue of the bulletin will also include information about conferences, resources and articles about research methods. EHS Bulletin listserv is sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and managed through the EPA's National Center for En- vironmental Research (NCER) in the Office of Research and Develop- ment (ORD). To SUBSCRIBE: Send a blank message to ehs-subscribe@lists. epa.gov To UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank message to chs-iinsubscribe@lists. epa.gov EHS Bulletin ------- ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY Ecosystems and People: Qualitative Matt Weber, EPA Post-Doc Economist Paul Rinaold, EPA Research Ecoloaist Environmental management issues are about choices. Society decides what aspects of the envi- ronment to protect. Implicitly or explicitly, our actions have envi- ronmental consequences, whether planned or accidental. Since we can't preserve or restore every- thing to be free of human impact, somehow our collective judgments are needed.These judgments are inherently human-based, and there- fore benefit from the application of social science methods and insights. We discuss how mixed methods in environmental economics - com- plementary qualitative and quan- titative studies - can shed light on environmental choices. Qualitative techniques can be used to establish what in the environment is impor- tant, while quantitative techniques can be used to establish how impor- tant it is. We introduce focus groups and interviews for qualitative study, and ecological valuation for quanti- tative study. We begin by describing the quantitative context. Qualitative Research can BE APPLIED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ECOLOGICAL UNITS ARE IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE. Such results are not MEANT FOR POPULATION INFERENCE BUT ARE USEFUL IN FORMULATING HYPOTHESES AND UNDERSTANDING THE WAYS PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THINGS. Techniques include focus GROUPS AND INTERVIEWS. How do we know if current environmental practices are too lax, or too strict? The costs of ecological improvements are usually relatively easy to characterize, the benefits are typically harder to quantify. How far should environmental protection go in pursuing ecological benefits? In addition to gauging overall benefits, distributional impacts are impor- tant; who bears the costs and who benefits? These are precisely the types of difficult questions EPA's Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) face (e.g. US EPA, 2010). An RIA is required by Executive Order 12866 for proposed major environmental regulations, and is also required at retrospective intervals for major environmental laws already in place. Work on RIAs at EPA is essentially continuous. A substantial portion of RIAs is dedicated to environmental impacts that directly affect human health. In contrast, our focus is on environmental impacts independent of their important impacts on hu- man health, which we term "eco- logical impacts". Quantitative Research can BE APPLIED TO ASSESS IMPACTS ON POPULATIONS OF PEOPLE FROM ECOLOGICAL CHANGES. Population inference is the GOAL OF QUANTITATIVE STUDY, BUT INSIGHT IS WEAKENED WITHOUT PAIRED QUALITATIVE WORK. EHS Bulletin ------- ENVIRONMENT Ecological benefits can be estimated in dollar terms1, allow- ing their inclusion in cost-benefit analyses, one component of RIAs. Monetized ecological values have two main compartments, "market", and "non-market". Non-market ecological values have no obvious unit or price. For example, people benefit from forests in a market sense due to timber sales, and in a non-market sense from beautified hiking trails. Non-market values also include "non-use" values, for exam- ple, appreciation that a wilderness area exists even if it is not directly experienced. Non-market values can be large and therefore should be considered in decisions. Non- market values have been supported by numerous distinguished reviews, e.g. Arrow et al. (1993) and the US National Research Council (2004). Non-market ecological values form a quantitative backdrop for this article.These values are frequently uncounted for three reasons: 1. The ecological units of non- market goods and services are unclear 2. Changes in these ecological units are not modeled 3. The values of changes in non-market ecological units are not modeled Rectifying these problems is necessary for successful non-market valuation. In order to develop origi- nal estimates for a given case study, natural science modeling is needed for step 2, and non-market valuation ]The reader should note there is a diversity of social our focus - establishing ecological units - is relevant HEALTH is needed for step 3. Non-use values can be a significant component of non-market values. To be inclusive of non-use values, the only known empirical valuation techniques are "stated preference" techniques, entailing human subjects surveys. These survey instruments require painstaking efforts to design and de- ploy. To illustrate a simplified exam- ple, willingness-to-pay responses for a specified ecological improvement would be collected from a repre- sentative sample of respondents, perhaps posed via a hypothetical tax increase. Given an adequate sample and design, quantitative mean and standard deviation valuation results for the target population can be SOCIETY of ecological change possible. Quantitative value statistics are all the more important when associat- ed with clearly understood ecologi- cal changes. Ensured relevancy is the first argument for paying atten- tion to step 1. Given the expense of original research, in both time and money, step 1 is also important for gen- eralizing original valuations re- sults to apply in other situations. Economists call this practice benefit transfer. Benefit transfer is common in RIAs and other valuation analy- ses due to the barriers of conduct- ing new, tailored studies. There is a compelling need to conduct benefit transfer, but hurdles are formidable. Ecosystem Goods and Services are the full suite of ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND PHENOMENA THAT COLLECTIVELY SUSTAIN HUMAN LIFE WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. obtained (e.g. Weber and Stewart, 2008). High-quality case studies are typically multi-year efforts. Non-market valuation survey tech- niques have been in use for decades, perhaps most famously in comput- ing public damages associated with the 1989 ExxonValdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska (Car- son et al., 1992). The importance of step 1 is sometimes swept aside in the march towards 2 and 3, flawing the study. Clearly we want the efforts in 2 and 3 to be worthwhile, directed towards the most meaningful zauges We know that numerous factors affect values, including sociode- mographics, relative scarcity, and methodological differences, how- ever we can't always predict the sign of the influence, and we know less about the degree. Perhaps the most important barrier for benefit transfer is the surprising diversity in the way similar ecological changes are defined. Water quality is a case in point, having definitions from "swimmable" (Carson and Mitchell, 1993), to supporting more than a small number of plants, fish, and other aquatic life (Viscusi et al., science perspectives on ecological valuation (e.g. US EPA Science Advisory Board, 2009). We also note that across many of those perspectives. EHS Bulletin 3 ------- ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY 2008).This diversity makes it dif- ficult to gather insight across case studies. If units were more consis- tent, meta-analysis, a primary direc- tion of benefit transfer research, could be more effectively applied (Brouwer and Spaninks, 1999, Loo- mis and Rosenberger, 2006, John- ston and Rosenberger, 2010). A third reason for step 1 is that identifying relevant non-market ecological units can form the basis for ecological impacts analysis even absent monetization. For example, the abundance of fish in different stream reaches with and without a regulation is a representation of eco- logical benefits purely in biophysical terms. Note that ecological units must still be relevant - a map of changes in something like dissolved oxygen levels may not convey the benefits as usefully. Efforts in step 2 should be turned to best advantage. Another important application of ecological units without monetized benefits is cost-effectiveness analy- sis, for example, investigating the cheapest way to achieve target fish abundance levels. The fourth reason for step 1 is to provide a basis for distributional analysis - who wins and who loses. Distributional analysis is comple- mentary to cost-benefit analysis; both are routinely included in RIAs. Distributional analysis includes examining environmental justice, such as impacts on low-income and minority populations, see Executive Order 12898. For both aggregate analyses and distributional analyses, ecological units are the basic ingre- dient for quantitatively weighing ecological decisions. Reviewing non-market valuation case studies is a helpful first step in establishing non-market ecologi- cal units. However the case study literature is inconsistent (Boyd and Krupnick, 2009).To addre ss this, scientists at the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Divi- sion, have been working towards identifying ecological units useful for monitoring, mapping and mod- eling (Ringold et al., 2009 & 2011). We are influenced especially by the cut-and-dry demands of environ- mental monitoring design, a histori- cal focus of our Division. The new challenge is to incorporate human preferences. We want the moni- toring wish-list to include things the public clearly cares about and understands. The concept of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS) has been an influential central concept for our current research. The con- cept includes "Final" to distinguish it from the much more general term "ecosystem services". Eco- system services can be thought of as ecological phenomena of direct or indirect relevance to people, a category so broad it loses meaning for monitoring or decision-making purposes. FEGS are those ecologi- cal features of direct importance to people's well-being.This is a crucial distinction since everything, every- where, cannot be tracked. The con- ceptual foundation and definition for FEGS can be found in Boyd and Banzhaf (2007), adapted by Ringold et al.(2009): "biophysical features, quantities and qualities requiring lit- tle further translation to make clear their relevance to beneficiaries". The FEGS definition is based in economic theory and is designed to support valuation.The more rel- evant the ecological unit, the better positioned a survey respondent will be to form a judgment and associ- ate a willingness-to-pay with a given marginal change. A broad class of cognition problems is introduced in valuation if respondents don't clearly understand the specific Final Ecosystem Goods and Services are the subset OF ALL ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES THAT ARE OF DIRECT RELEVANCE TO HUMAN WELL- BEING. They can be defined as the BIOPHYSICAL FEATURES, QUANTITIES AND QUALITIES REQUIRING LITTLE FURTHER TRANSLATION TO MAKE CLEAR THEIR RELEVANCE TO BENEFICIARIES (RlNGOLD ET AL., 2OO9). EHS Bulletin 4 ------- ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY Figure 1: Final Ecosystem Goods and Services are those relevant to the public by definition, selected for their importance from countless possibilities marginal change at issue. For ex- ample, consider a stated preference survey asking people whether they would be willing to contribute to a river restoration program. If the background information doesn't quantify what the ecological impacts would be, respondents will infer them, imagining any number of changes they may (or may not) wish to see.This can introduce inaccura- cies in valuation results (Boyd and Krupnick, 2009).This is related to content validity concerns within the stated preference literature (e.g. Brown, 2003). So, who decides what these "relevant" final ecological units actu- ally are? Ideally, people do. People are by definition the beneficiaries of ecosystem services, and are the best judge of the ecological features they care about.This demands rigorous techniques to gather public feed- back. Qualitative research, estab- lished in social science disciplines such as Marketing, Sociology, and Anthropology, has well-developed protocols for collecting and analyz- ing verbal data.These techniques are particularly effective when in-depth discussion is necessary, fitting the complexity environmental topics can have. An analogue to the ecolog- ical units problem exists in market- ing. Focus groups, structured ses- sions with small groups of people, are routinely used to help organiza- tions understand features of goods and services consumers prefer. The same techniques can help environ- mental scientists understand high- relevance features of ecosystems for the general public, conceptually shown in Figure 1. If the goal is to manage the environment for the public good, public input is prefera- ble to alternative means of prioritiz- ing ecosystem services study, which may include criteria such as simply utilizing information already avail- able, or following specific interests of individual scientists. We harness qualitative research to help define ecological units. Our primary "market segment" is the general public - the largest seg- ment - and also those for whom important ecological units are least predictable.This pilot research is proceeding with 3 goals: 1. Adapt and apply qualitative methodologies specifically for identifying ecological units 2. Identify ecological units for rivers and streams, for two separate case studies, one in the Southwest, and one in the Pacific Northwest 3. Explore case study results for similarities and differ- ences in FEGS for rivers and streams, and the potential role of geographic and socio- demographic factors Through the first goal we in- tend to apply the existing wisdom of qualitative methods to the eco- system services field, and adapt it to the problems of environmental management. Human subjects research in this arena is often mis- understood, with focus groups conflated with larger sample stud- ies, both referred to as 'surveys', with lost appreciation of the relative advantages of each. Also typical in real-world policy development is public input collected in open hear- ings which differ from qualitative techniques described below in many potentially important respects. A primary concern is that while open EHS Bulletin 5 ------- ENVIRONMENT hearings are valuable sources of feedback, numerous segments of society may not have the time or ability to attend, or may self-censor if competing interests will also be present. Consequently, results from these meetings may be more re- flective of special interests, rather than interests of the broader public. Qualitative research can be designed to reach out beyond the 'usual sus- pects' . The first goal listed above is also meant to test PEGS as a con- cept. Will members of the public be able to articulate measurable eco- system services important to them? What moderation strategies work and which don't? Through back and forth discussion, will ecological units of direct importance, FEGS, be successfully isolated from those of indirect importance? These will be interesting questions to empiri- cally test. The second goal has the more direct, practical aim of offering insights for two place-based eco- system services studies involving rivers and streams. Both studies are in the western U.S., the Santa Cruz watershed in Southern Arizona, and the Willamette watershed in Western Oregon. A cross-cutting issue is identifying ecosystem ser- vice metrics of rivers. These original qualitative studies offer perspective on choosing metrics for biophysi- cal models, the lynch pins of the efforts. Metrics derived from natu- ral science toolboxes may or may not be highly compatible with the interests of the local public. In some cases metrics may simply need ad- justment to become clearly mean- ingful to people, in other cases the recommendation may be for deeper retooling of natural science model- ing. The third goal is to understand the opportunities and limitations of scaling up. For Regulatory Impact Analyses, a persistent issue is the lack of valuation information at a national scale (e.g. Weber, 2010). This is partially owing to the diver- sity of ecological units for some- thing like water quality (Lovell et al., 2004).To facilitate making the environment Count, the starting point is defining a consistent set of units that are clearly meaningful to people without expert interpreta- tion. If units are relatively consis- tent across case studies, valuation tools such as meta-analysis become more promising. The third goal is also intended to address distribu- tional considerations. Results from m1mm. HHr Wetlands are an example of an ecosystem service that can be used to assimilate wastes. EHS Bulletin 6 ------- ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY focus groups and interviews can be compared to discover if different sociodemographic groups express interest in different types of eco- logical units. We have deployed two large qualitative research studies for goals 1,2, and 3. Both studies involve in-depth interactions from approxi- mately 100 human subjects each, with a mixture of interviews and focus groups. Interview and focus group methods are similar and com- plementary but not interchangeable. Controversial topics are more likely to come up in interviews (Kaplow- itz and Hoehn, 2001), whereas focus groups allow a more rapid coverage of topics across numerous people, and also allows the researcher to explore where individuals agree and disagree (Lindlof and Taylor, 2011). We have also found one-on-one interviews to be an effective way to gather input from established stake- holders, without the danger of them dominating a focus group. Recruits from the general pub- lic are given financial incentives for their time and trouble, and told as little as possible about the study during the recruiting process. Both of these measures are intended to limit self-selection, since the intent is to hear from a broad cross-section of persons, not just those with strong opinions on the topic. Inter- viewees are selected to represent a diversity of stakeholder views. Like- wise, focus groups are planned to explore differences across segments of the populations. For example, in each study region, recruits that express an interest in recreation are grouped together, and recruits of similar sociodemographics are grouped together. Focus groups are designed to contain persons of similar backgrounds so that they feel comfortable with each other, but not previously well-known to one another since this can lead to inhi- bitions (Morgan, 1998). For these studies, representing low-income and minority populations has been a focus of recruitment in order to ad- dress environmental justice consid- erations in defining ecological units. Some sessions are held in Spanish. For analysis, verbal data are tape recorded and transcribed, as verbatim quotations are the cur- rency of qualitative findings. Pas- sages are analyzed through an itera- tive process of coding in search of emergent themes. The number of interview and focus group sessions is designed to achieve a saturation of input (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). We follow a staged research design to allow evolution of the research as influenced by initial findings. In keeping with protocols of human subjects research, it is made clear that participation is voluntary, and that results will not be attributed to specific individuals. In summary, both qualitative and quantitative techniques are crucial in researching human impacts from ecological changes. This matches the importance of'mixed methods' approaches in other disciplines. Qualitative research helps explore the relevancy and transferability of the foundational ecological units. Quantitative assessment of eco- logical changes is then in a stronger position to assess the importance of ecological changes. We hope that our research will help to make data natural scientists collect more usable and useful to society, and therefore lead to improved environ- mental decisions. References Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Portney, E. E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Re- port of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What Are Ecosystem Services? The Need For Standardized Environmental Accounting Units. Ecological Eco- nomics 63:616-626. Boyd, J., and A. Krupnick. September 2009. The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation Resources For the Future Discussion Paper 09-35. 60p. Brouwer, R., and F.A. Spaninks. 1999. The validity ofenvironmental benefits transfer: further empirical testing. Environmental and Resource Economics 14:95—117. Brown, T.C. 2003. Introduction to Stated Choice Methods. Chapter 4 in "A Primer on Non- market Valuation", eds. Champ, PA., K.J. Boyle, and T.C. Brown. Kluwer, Dordrecht. 576p. Carson, R.T., R.C. Mitchell, WM. Hane- mann, R.J. Kopp, S. Presser, and P.A. Ruud. 1992. A Contingent Valuation Study of Lost Passive Use Values Resulting from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Report to the Attorney General of Alaska. Natural Resources Damage Assessment, Inc., La Jolla, CA. Carson, R.T., and R.C. Mitchell. 1993.The Value of Clean Water: The Public's Willingness to Pay for Boatable, Fishable, and Swimmable Quality Water. Water Resources Research 29(7): 2445- 2454. July. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for quali- tative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing. Johnston , R.J., and R.S. Rosenberger. 2010. Methods,Trends and Controversies in Contempo- rary Benefit Transfer. Journal of Economic Surveys 24(3):479-510. Kaplowitz, M.D., and J. P Hoehn. February, 2001. Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation? Ecological Economics 36(2): 237-247. Lindlof and Taylor. 2011. Qualitative Com- EHS Bulletin 7 ------- ENVIRONMENT munication Research Methods. 3rd Edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Loomis, J.B., and R.S. Rosenberger. 2006. Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting. Ecological Economics 60: 343-350. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Weil-Being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Lovell, S., S. Newbold, N. Owens, and T.J. Wyatt. 2004. How Academic Economists Can Improve Benefit Transfers at EPA. Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Newslet- ter 24(2). Morgan, D.L. Planning Focus Groups. Volume 2 in "The Focus Group Kit'', Morgan, D.L., and R.A. Krueger. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Ringold, P. L., J.W Boyd, D. H. Landers, and M. A.Weber. 2009. Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Streams. EPA/600/R-09/137. 56p. Corvallis, OR. Available at: http: / / www. epa. gov/ nheerl / arm/streameco/index, html Ringold, P. L., ]. W Boyd, A. Nahlik, and D. Bernard. 2011. Report from the Workshop on Indicators of Final Ecosystem Services for Wet- lands and Estuaries. EPA/600/X-11/014. 78p. Corvallis, OR. Available at: http://www.epa. gov/nheerl/arm/streameco/index. html US EPA Science Advisory Board. 2009. Committe for Valuing the Protection of Ecologi- cal Systems and Services. 138 p. Downloadable at: http: / / yosemite. epa. gov/ sab / sabproduct. nsf / F3 DB1F5C6EF90EE1852575C500589157/$File/ EPA-SAB-09-012-unsigned.pdf US EPA National Center for Environmental Economics. 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Eco- nomic Analyses. 272 p. Downloadable at: http:// yosemite. epa. gov/ ee / epa/ eed. nsf/ pages/ Guide- lines, html US National Research Council of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences. 2004. Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. Committee on Assessing and Valuing the Services of Aquatic and Related Terrestrial Ecosystems. The National Acad- emies Press: Washington, D.C. 290 p. Viscusi, WK., J. Huber, and J. Bell. 2008.The Economic Value of Water Quality. Environmental and Resource Economics 41:169-187. Weber, M., and S. Stewart. 2008. Public Val- ues for River Restoration Strategies on the Middle Rio Grande. Restoration Ecology 17(6):762-771. Weber, M., and S. Stewart. 2009. Public Valu- ation of River Restoration Options on the Middle Rio Grande. Restoration Ecology 17(6):762-771. Weber, M. EPA Use of Ecological Nonmarket Valuation. May, 2010. Association of Environmen- tal and Resource Economists Newsletter 30 (1): 26-35. Recommended Additional Reading Creswell, J. W, Vicki L. Piano Clark, V L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Definition of mixed methods research: Creswell, J.W (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ap- proaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V J., & Graham, W F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255—274. Rocco,T.S., Bliss, L.A., Gallagher, S., et al. (2003). Taking the next step: Mixed methods research in organizational systems. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 21(1): Spring. For a historical analjsis of mixed methods research: Tashakkori, A., &Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantita- tive approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage. Piano Clark, V. L. (2010). The Adoption and Practice of Mixed Methods: U.S. Trends in Feder- ally Funded Health-Related Research. Qualitative Inquiry 16 (6): 428-440. Steps in the process of conducting a mixed methods study: Creswell, J.W (1999). Mixed-method re- search: Introduction and application. In G. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Creswell, J.W, Goodchild, L., & Turner, P. (1996). Integrated qualitative and quantitative research: Epistemology, history, and designs. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11, pp. 90—136). New York: Agathon Press. Bazeley, P. (2004) Issues in Issues in Mix- ing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research, http: //www.researchsupport.com.au/ MMIssues.pdf. Published in: R. Buber, J. Gadner, & L. Richards (eds) (2004). Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 141-156. SOCIETY EHS Bulletin 8 ------- ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY Featured Science Article: Factors Influencing Food Buying Practices in Residents of a Low-Income Food ^1% Desert and a Low-Income Food Oasis Abstract Studies suggest that proximity to a supermarket influences access to healthy foods. However, little is known about factors that influence food buying practices within areas with limited supermarket access. This study identified these factors and explored how they are related and influence healthy eating. Twen- ty-five men and women engaged in the concept mapping process, a mixed methods approach allowing participants to identify, sort, and rate ideas. Participants generated 121 unique (non-duplicate) state- ments of factors that influence food buying practices and sorted them into 12 clusters that represented their perceptions. Average cluster ratings for residents with poor su- permarket access were higher than residents with supermarket access. Awareness of these factors is im- portant for increasing access to and consumption of healthy foods. Kenee E.Walker, Craig S. Fryer, James Butler, Christopher K. Keane, Andrea Kriska and Jessica G. Burke. (2011). Factors influencing jood buying practices in residents of a low-income food desert and a low-income food oasis. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 5(3):247-267. Conferences & Opportunities 1. National Health Impact Assessment Meeting April 3-4, 2012 Washington, D. C. http: / / wivw.healthimpactpmject. org / news / events / inaugural-national- he alth-i mpa ct- assessm ent-meeting 2. Campus-Community Partnershipsfor Health April 18-21, 2012 Houston, Texas http: / /dents. Washington. edu /ccph / confl 2-overview, html 3. Society of Interdisciplinary Business Research. SIBK-Thammasat 2012 Con- ference on Interdisciplinary Business <§_ Economic Research June 7-9, 2012 Bangkok, Thailand Deadlinefor full paper/abstract sub- mission : March 22, 2012 http: / /sihresearch.org /sibr-conference- call-for-paper.html http: / /sibresearch. org / sibr-conference-call-jor-paper.html 4. 8th Mixed Methods International Conference June 18-21,2012 University of Leeds http: / /www.healthcare.conferences. leeds. ac. uk / conferences/ 5. European Association for Research and Learning Institute. SIG 17 "Qualitative and quantitative approaches to learn- ing and instruction" Theme: Mixed methods for analyzing education al interactions September 6-7, 2012 Saxon University of Applied Sciences, Deventer, The Netherelands http: / /www.earli.org/conferences/ Sig Conferences in 2012 EHS Bulletin 9 ------- ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY Environment, Health and Society Program Updates EPA Workshop on Social Stressors and Environmental Hazards. May, 14 — May 15, 2012 in Washington, DC. (Please check for updates and announcements) The purpose of the 1 1/i day workshop on Stress and Environmental Hazards is to enhance awareness and stimulate discussion about the emerging field of environmental health research on how multiple social stressors can modify the relationship between exposure to pollution and the resultant risk of adverse health effects and to stimulate interest in research to advance the field. Specific objectives of this meeting are to: 1. Share knowledge on biological pathways through which psychosocial stress and social context may adversely influence health; 2. Highlight and discuss emerging toxicological and epidemiological data on the interactions between social context, psychosocial stress and exposures to environmental hazards, and 3. Stimulate discussion on research and methods to advance the practical application of this type of information in health assessments at EPA. Confirmed presentations for the workshop are currently organized around the following themes: Theme I: Science of the Impacts of Stress on Health Theme II: Interactions between Chronic Stress, Social Context, Health and Environmental Hazards Theme III: Measuring Chronic Stress and Social Context in Research Children's Environmental Health Webinar Series (ongoing) The webinar series kicked off in February of 2012, and will be held the second Wednesday of each month, 1:00 — 2:30 p.m. EST. The purpose of the webinars is to highlight and discuss the research findings from the various EPA/ NIEHS Children's Centers and to give the Centers an opportunity to share their work with a wider audience. For more information and to register for future webinars, please visit epa.gov/ncer/events/index.html#marcehc-webinar The 8th Annual National Sustainable Design Expo (P3) The 8th Annual National Sustainable Design Expo will take place on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on April 21 - 23, 2011. The Expo brings together students, scientists, engineers, and business leaders whose innovative technologies are designed to advance economic growth while reducing environmental impact. A highlight of the Expo will be the technologies developed by P 3 student teams to address alternative energy, purification and distribution of drinking water, reducing pesticide run-off, green buildings, and more. The Expo also provides a forum for government, nonprofits, and the business community to demonstrate their diverse approaches to sustainability epa.gov/ncer/events/#apr2112 Coolcstoves RFA The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD), National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), in cooperation with the Air, Climate, and Energy research program announces an extramural funding competition supporting research on the impacts on air quality and climate from residential cooking, heating, or lighting, with a focus on the developing world and on Indian tribes and Alaska Native groups. This research will quantify the extent to which interventions for cleaner cooking, heating, or lighting can impact air quality and climate, which in turn affect human health and welfare. More information about ongoing EPA efforts regarding cookstoves can be found at Science Matters newsletter, epa.gov/research/sciencematters/august2010/cook-stoves.htm EHS Bulletin 10 ------- SOCIETY A Conversation with Scientific research can be a messy, complex venture, especially outside a controlled laboratory. It can be difficult to account for all the factors present in the real world even when it comes to straightfor- ward quantitative measurements. In researching the interactions between people and the environ- ment, qualitative matters can come into play. These can include politi- cal policies, local social factors and other aspects of life, but for a com- plete picture they must be taken into account . Combining the two methods of quantitative and quali- tative research is difficult but can also be very important in striving for meaningful understanding of an environmental situation and consid- ering future plans. When it comes to important environmental concerns, water use and efficiency in agriculture is near the top of the list. STAR fellow Morgan Levy is well aware of this, and her research aims to provide critical and real-time estimates of water demands in the San Joaquin River Delta of California. The San Joaquin River Delta is characterized by intense agriculture, is estimated to be the most productive agricul- tural region in the United States — providing tomatoes, strawber- ries, garlic, carrots, corn and other produce1. Those measurements include far more than identifying 'University of California Cooperative Extension Vegetable Research and Information Center. (2012). "San vric. ucdavis. edu/ virtual_tour/ sanj oq. htm the amount of water taken by iarm- ers for irrigation. In order to really grasp how much and in what ways agricultural water is being used, she plans to combine information on how much actual water has been drawn from the river every year with more qualitative data such as geographical and political factors and even individual decisions by farmers over the years. "I'm inter- ested in how farmers manage water from the ground up," Levy said. A graduate student at UC Berke- ley, Levy has been involved in water management research for several years, both in California and the Netherlands. Her current work comes from that previous research Joaquin Valley AgricultureAvailable from: http:// EHS Bulletin 11 ------- ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY but on a larger, more ambitious scale. "Qualitative information makes measuring harder," she said, but added that it's also necessary in order to create a useful picture of water use. Unfortunately, even ac- curate quantitative measurements of water use are difficult to determine. Levy explained that in some places, including the Netherlands, there is regular measurement of water in the canals as opposed to the area she is studying now. "There's no record of water efficiency in California," she said. Currently, Levy is working to generate those numbers herself using historical records. Along with that data, Levy plans to add information gathered by her own surveys and interviews of peo- ple involved in water management in the region, and then breaking that information down into numbers and quantifying it. "It's important to see how water use is impacted by social data. It gives context," she said. Both types of data together make a far stronger argument than just one or the other, Levy said. Combined, they back each other up. Levy said she sees the work at San Joaquin as a case study that could someday be used to improve other water managements sys- tems all over the world, an issue of every-growing importance. "It's vital for sustainable agriculture," she said. Using all of her collected data in tandem, Levy plans to cre- ate a process model that could be used in researching water resource usage and finding ways to improve efficiency in a way that hasn't been done before. "It will be a quantita- tive analysis based on a qualitative understanding," she said. EHS Bulletin ------- ENVIRONMENT HEALTH SOCIETY Resources at your Fingertips Journal of Mixed Methods Re- search ,Jrttpi//mmr;^a5epubicom/. Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, http: / / qix. sapcpub. com / National Institutes of Health. Best Practices for Mixed Methods Research in the Health Sciences http: //obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific areas/ methodology/mixed methods research/ index.aspx. Report also available, http:// obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific areas/meth- odology/mixed methods research/pdf/ Best Practices for Mixed Methods Re- search.pdf National Institutes of Health, Upcoming events, funding, and com- munication . http://obssr.od.nih.gov/ news and events/index.aspx The International Institute for Qualitative Inquiry is a multidis- ciplinary institute at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champai^n. Website has information on meetings, lectures, and research training programs. See http: / / www.iiqi.org/ US Agency for International De- velopment. Performance Monitoring & EvaluationTips: Conducting Mixed- Method Evaluations, http://www.usaid. gov/policy/evalweb/documents/TIPS- ConductingMixedMethodEvaluations. pdf University of Nebraska-Lincoln, De- partment of Educational Psychol- ogy, Office of Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research, http://cehs.ml. edu/edpsvch/research/oqmmr/ index, shtml Courses and Training University of South Alabama, http: / / www.southalabama.edu/coe/ b set / j ohnson/lect nres / lec 14. htm Commonwealth of Learning, http: / / www.col.org/SiteCollectionDoc- uments/A5. pdf Academy Health, An Introduction to Mixed Methods, http: / /www, acad- emyhealth.org/Training/ResoiirceDetail. cfmPitemnumber=7916 Academy Health, Using Mixed Methods Appropriately and Rig- orously, http: //academyhealth. org/Training/ResourceDetail. cfm Pitemnumb er=8046 — The EHS Bulletin staff includes Kenny McFarlane, Cynthia McOliver, Myles Morse, Devon Payne-Sturges, Eric Schwartz, Kelly Widener, andTinaYuen. MattWeber and Paul Ringold wrote thejeatured methods article. Special thanks to Morgan Levy. Editorial United States Views and opinions expressed are not necessarily those ofNCER, the Office of Research and Development and EPA. To contact the Environmental Protection EHS Bulletin staff: Devon Pavne-Stxages at (703) 347-805$ oi pajne-sturges.devon@epQ.gov, Agency EHS Bulletin 13 ------- |